HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014.04.08 EDA Agenda PacketAGENDA
CITY OF HUGO
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 2014
5:00 PM
5:00 pm 1.
5:01 pm 2.
5:02 pm 3.
5:03 pm 4.
5:20 pm 5.
5:35 pm
5:45 pm
6:15 pm
6.
7.
8.
Call to Order
Roll Call
Approval of Minutes
EDA Meetings of March 11, 2014
Discussion on Metropolitan Council SAC Deferral
Program
Update on Washington County Economic Development
Strategic Plan
Update on CDBG Funding for 2014
Update on Realtor Contract
Update on Downtown Redevelopment
Thursday, May 8, 2014 Joint City Council,
Planning Commission, and EDA Workshop
o Updated Downtown Market Study
o Downtown Plan and Design Guidelines
6:30 pm 9. Adjournment
BACKGROUND MEMO FOR THE EDA MEETING OF
TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 2014
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Staff recommends approval of the minutes from the March 11, 2014, EDA meetings as
presented.
4. DISCUSSION ON METROPOLITAN COUNCIL SAC DEFERRAL PROGRAM
The Met Council has a new program to allow deferral of the Met Council SAC (sewer
area connection) fees for eligible businesses. Cities can participate by completing an
application and entering into an agreement. The program allows deferral of up to 80% of
the SAC due for the wastewater demand created by the business, up to a 10 year period.
Staff will present the details and examples of the program to the EDA at the meeting.
5. UPDATE ON WASHINGTON COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
STATEGIC PLAN
At its March 18, 2014, meeting the Washington County Board of Commissioners
reviewed and considered the strategic plan. The Board made a few minor revisions at the
meeting. Prior to the Board formally approving the plan, they are asking for comments
from communities on the plan. Staff recommends the EDA provide staff with comments
on the plan to forward to Washington County.
6. UPDATE ON CDBG FUNDING FOR 2014
The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) are federal funds that are
administered through the Washington County HRA. Staff will provide an update to the
EDA on the projects in Hugo that were recommended to be funded in 2014.
7. UPDATE ON REALTOR CONTRACT
At its July 15, 2013 meeting, the City Council authorized the EDA to send out RFQ's for
commercial realtors to market the City owned properties on Highway 61. In late August
the RFQ's were sent out for proposals. The EDA received four proposals and, after
evaluation, chose to interview two commercial realtor teams. After conducting the
interviews at its February 11, 2014 meeting, the EDA recommended High Pointe Realty
and Wakota Commercial Advisors as the realtors to market the City owned property in
downtown. The contract with the realtors is on the April 7, 2014, City Council agenda
for approval. Staff will provide an update to the EDA at the meeting.
8. UPDATE ON DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT
Staff will update the EDA on the progress of downtown redevelopment.
MINUTES FOR THE EDA MEETING OF MARCH 11, 2014
Weidt called the meeting to order at 5:00 pm.
PRESENT: Arcand, Klein, Gallivan, and Puleo
ABSENT: Bever, Denaway, and Weidt
STAFF: Rachel Juba, Planner
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE EDA MEETING OF FEBRUARY 11 2014
Arcand made motion, Gallivan seconded, to approve minutes for the EDA meeting of
February 11, 2014.
All ayes. Motion carried.
UPDATE ON WASHINGTON COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
STRATEGIC PLAN
Over the past several months Washington County has been working with Springsted Inc.,
to develop an Economic Development Strategic Plan for the County. Staff was been
involved in a workgroup at the County to provide direction and feedback on the plan. The
plan is now complete and will be considered at the Washington County Board meeting on
March 18, 2014. Staff has included the draft that will be presented to the County for the
EDA's review.
The EDA agreed that all the goals and objectives were a good start for the County in
regards to their role in economic development.
KIDZ N' BIZ SPONSORSHIP REQUEST
On April 26, 2013, the 10th Annual Kidz n' Biz Fest will be take place at Oneka
Elementary School. This annual event is an opportunity for the HBA and Hugo EDA to
directly connect with the Hugo families and children in a PTA Carnival atmosphere. This
event is expected to attract more than 500 Hugo children and their families and will
feature an assortment of games presented by the Hugo businesses with assistance from
the White Bear School District. Last year the EDA sponsored the event in the amount of
$750. The HBA is asked the EDA to sponsor in that same amount again this year.
Gallivan made a motion, seconded by Arcand, to sponsor the event in the amount of
$750.
UPDATE ON DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT
Staff will update the EDA on downtown redevelopment.
Staff stated that the City Council will be scheduling a Joint City Council, Planning
Commission, and EDA Workshop in April or May to discuss the Updated Downtown
Market Study and Downtown Plan and Design Guidelines.
ADJOURNMENT
Puleo made a motion, seconded by Gallivan, to adjourn at 5:45 P.M.
All ayes. Motion carried.
N
SAC Deferral Program
Description and Application
To promote business development, Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) provides
communities the option to participate in the SAC Deferral Program to defer some SAC payment obligations.
This option allows deferral of up to 80% of SAC due for the wastewater demand created by businesses
(communities are required to pass on the benefits of deferred SAC payments to the participating
businesses). Businesses allowed to participate are those within an eligible city and where a new SAC
determination of 25 or fewer SAC units occurs (total charge before credits). To obtain these deferments,
communities must first complete and submit to MCES a signed master SAC Deferral Agreement
(Agreement). This Agreement will be sent to interested communities for signature after the information in
the following is completed and returned to MCES.
1. Community:
2. Community Address:
3. Contact (Finance Director or CFO):
4. Community -Wide Maximum Percent of SAC that can be Deferred (80% maximum):
5. Community -Wide SAC Deferment Period (years):
6. Payment Month(s):
For 4, 5 and 6 above, each participating community has additional implementation options that will apply
to all its deferrals:
4. For qualifying SAC liabilities (businesses with total determinations of 25 units or fewer), MCES
allows the community to defer up to 80% of SAC due; however, a community can set a maximum
that is lower than this (fill in the percentage on line 4 above). Once this community maximum is
set, the percentage deferred for each individual site deferral can be lower than this maximum but
cannot be higher (e.g., a community chooses a 75% maximum, but a business chooses to pay 50%
up front). For each individual deferment, this site-specific percentage must be noted on the MCES
SAC -E Form, available at: http://www.metrocouncii.org/Wastewater-Water/Funding-
Fi n a n ce/Rates-Cha roes/Sewe r-Ava i la bi l ity-Ch ar&e/SAC- Form s. as Px#Activity
5. Deferment period (term): Choose any whole number up to a maximum of 10 years. This term will
apply to all individual deferments from the community. However, note that the Agreement allows
any individual deferment to prepay the remaining principal (and interest up to the payoff date) at
any time.
6. Timing of payments: MCES prefers annual payments due each year on the anniversary the
Agreement was signed, but Communities may request a different payment schedule, as long as it
applies to all deferments in the community. Semi-annual payments are also allowed, on any
month-end during the year - such a schedule may be preferred that corresponds with local SAC
collections, assessments, or other payments from businesses.
Communities are strongly encouraged to:
Consider which staff will be responsible for authorizing SAC deferrals and what the process will be
to implement site specific deferral arrangements as are allowed under the Agreement with MCES;
Consider the need for policies or ordinances around your agreements or arrangements with
business and property owners (in some cases those parties may have different interests);
Consider in advance how to react if a business fails to pay, which will not relieve the community of
its deferral payment obligation to MCES, unless the business closes and as described below; and
Review the Agreement with involved community staff and legal advisors before signing. Please
note that this program is offered only as described in the Agreement; MCES does not anticipate
changing it.
Once the Agreement is executed, SAC reporting staff in your community must also attach the MCES SAC -E
form with monthly SAC reporting for each qualified business for which the community is allowing the
deferred SAC payment. Each deferment liability will be effective the first day of the subsequent month
(e.g., for an April building permit that is due and typically reported in May, interest will begin accruing June
1).
Principal on the deferred amount will be amortized monthly at a fixed interest rate based on MCES' average
cost of debt (per statute). MCES' average cost of debt, computed on December 31 each year, will be used
as the interest rate for all new deferrals entered into the following calendar year. For example, the average
rate was 2.28% on 12/31/12, so all deferrals originating in 2013 uses that rate, and the rate was fixed for
the duration of each individual deferral started in 2013. For 2014 the rate for new deferrals is 2.26%. Near
the end of January each year, MCES will provide the new interest rate (for deferrals started in the new
calendar year) to participating communities.
If a participating business completely closes, the community has an option to discontinue making deferral
payments to MCES. If this option is chosen, it requires a notification to MCES with a certification of the
business closing. In this situation, the site will not be credited with the unpaid wastewater capacity (for
future SAC determinations), but will get credit for each SAC unit paid. No payments will be refunded and
no net credits will be transferrable off the site (unless and until a redevelopment requires less wastewater
capacity, as on any site). Alternatively, for each such business closure, the community has the option of
simply finishing the payments to MCES, which will result in full SAC credit for the next use of the site.
Late payments on deferrals will incur an additional administrative charge of 2% per month plus the
maximum interest allowed by law.
SAC Deferral Example #1:
1. Community signs SAC Deferral Agreement in October 2013, establishing basic deferral terms
including maximum amount deferred (e.g., 80%), standard community deferral length (e.g., 5
years), and the payment timing requested (e.g., billing only on anniversary of Agreement).
2. An 8 -SAC unit business is permitted February 2014. On the SAC Activity Report for February, the
community chooses a deferral and:
a) Pays 20% of the SAC for the site = 8 X 20% =1.60 X $2485/unit [2014 SAC rate] =$3976
2
b) Attaches SAC -E form that details the information for this individual deferral:
i. Property Address =123 45th Street, City of XYZ
ii. Business Name = Acme Genetics, Ltd.
iii. Permit Issued Date = 2/15/14
iv. Start of Loan Date = 4/1/14 (1St day of month after SAC report is due)
v. Deferred amount= 8 SAC units X 80% = 6.40 X $2485/unit = $15,904
3. MCES sends an invoice detailing the amount due on the SAC deferral(s) in October 2014. In this
single deferral example:
a) $15,904 was spread over 5 years with monthly amortization at 2.26% interest (the 2014 interest
rate) = $280.57/month.
b) Payment on this loan in year 1= $280.57 X 7 months [April through October) = $1,963.99
c) Invoice is sent out annually (aggregating all community deferrals).
d) Payment is due in 30 days.
In this example, unless the deferral is prepaid, the community will pay for 12 months in 2015, 2016, 2017
and 2018, and only 5 months on the last year's invoice (2019). At that point the full 8 SAC is paid and
creditable to future use.
SAC Deferral Example #2:
Same circumstances as above but the business closes in 2016 after community made 2 payments (for 7
months in 2014 and 12 months in 2015).
In June 2016, community notifies MCES that the business closed. Community has an option:
1. Continue remitting the remainder of the SAC deferral payments as scheduled. The full 8 SAC units
will be credited to future use on the site as all units are paid for. Of course, if the new use is
different, a new SAC determination must be made, and the community will owe SAC for any
incremental capacity demand. —OR -
2. Discontinue accruing liability. The community still needs to pay for the 5 months that wastewater
demand was needed in 2016, but has no obligation for the rest of the scheduled payments. Only
what was paid is creditable for future use (24 months of 60 is paid = 40% X 6.4 SAC units = 2.56
credits available for the site, in addition to 1.60 units from the original down payment).
If you wish to participate in the deferral program and are ready for the master SAC Deferral Agreement, fill
out the boxes at the top of this application and return it to Dan Schueller, MCES, 390 North Robert Street,
St. Paul, MN 55101 or dan.schueller@metc.state.mn.us. If you have additional question you can call him at
651.602.1624. For questions about the SAC program in general, please call Jessica Nye at 651.602.1378.
For SAC determinations, please call Karon Cappaert at 651.602.1118.
Last Updated: 1/23/14
3
��
§
�
x
ca
§
■
a
a2
@
0CA
§
0
J LL
gco c
02
�7k
2
ok
k 16 <
U)
CD 2
cc
: E
V
O
�
■
CL
-Z
0
§
J0
@
222
$�
2a
rC�
a9
2§
e
#
a R
��
o
$
q
E
V.
■
0
0.—
k § /
e
�
2 �
z
Z
c
CL
L-
e-2
n
k$
/ d
2
RQ
2
§
9
k
0
9
k
@
9
k
f �z
2�
ƒ$ L
Y
k
k
k
wO
�
�o
i
a)
am m a)
ma ° E ° cr !R M °
c � ° E a I ° a
C=
._ ._ w, .a E
QmN U a�� q--
0ya� oa, a�MUE° (D CD N
cn Q C2 � Q� N D O 0-
46
D
a` Q3 i�ao �' c 0a '� Eu°�i
c _
°=c CEoc c� Em aim E UD�uvi� c
CSG 0 ~' N ° O NtM 3: � �; � C (n �? � II g � :? .� ° N D t N
r Es ~
CL
= 0) ctM o c> °N6'�
° t`° .- M D a) ON�
N "gN a1 as 9 CS L C + M O W N G3 CU a 0 '0
D O C1 N r+ CU C c 7-
c 90� Q V 1p a1 r O M N 3 O E V N cn c M 7+ N
P C1 O O` CLQ ++ D a 3 CU = )= rr N N—� N 0 D D O O N
0 E U � r E� N ' co � 0 M D� a a: -Oa Q a' V m � ° O -a '(/1
���° c EcN v c E°� as E CLNcoNa?c aNic a°
o.x `o c acs 0 E4.
c aNi �� c E M c� c N D
VN° ■„ �+cNV cSE0 Lu M a)U o4) -aha �°} UC1
Q cNv.N c Q M c� c Q 0-0CD -1 0� HD ELL m �o =� (¢ o
C6 a)
N 0 0 Q 0 N
V U V t M a M 0 N
CD2! MC). g° 3 0� r a.Ne °
E mW-° a? N X as U °-a a
° as as
oE� °e. us a ° °� c a corn coca CD
NQa 0c o N c a Q°-� �� M
m �,.o
0 c N 60 a� Q 3� �, mss N c N =
of W 0 w E a 'O a) N 0 +' N N •- N
t 'C V .c 3 C o .0 _ A H N N
cia CL
>% OD �'C O 7 °1 lNCQ vN,c_D OC6x O
'�E ' 4) ,�°. M taxi .9M * 0Wm c
C N p 0 0 0 t C M N D w N c _M N
Q E # Ll 0` N ` O
• .Q D N N V rN+ V 0 3 N D rL-• 3 .O V
CL', Q N� N N N 0N NL C0i D O
a} CNS 49 E W ` N E C d a) N C ca C N N O
.2= c C1 E N L- 4— 0 O 0 CU N N Ol O 7+
0> 0. 0) D N N N E O C1 -0 c= N 0
` .0 ^ p N A� 0 d N ! U N N E W N 0 ay
D1Wm ��� t 0-M °E COa aL�� a) CL Y
O
V c`oU2Na? LLlascc
m(L.��w Jv� U) a(n y LL � F-4 �mv3 �2EEc (.)
Rachel Juba
From:
Jane Harper <Jane.Harper@co.washington.mn.us>
Sent:
Wednesday, March 19, 2014 10:38 AM
To:
(dparr@cottage-grove.org); Uschmitz@ci.woodbury.mn.us); Rachel Juba; Aaron Parrish;
Barbara Dacy; Bill Turnblad(bturnblad@ci.stillwater.mn.us); Bryan Bear; Craig Waldron;
Dave Schaps; Deb Hill; Doug Borglund; Dwight Picha (dpicha@ci.woodbury.mn.us); Jane
Harper, Kevin Corbid; Kristina Handt; Kyle Klatt; Logan Martin; Mace Wescott; Molly
O'Rourke; Randy Kopesky; Renee Heim; Ryan Schroeder (rsc hroeder@ cottage-
grove.org); Scott Neilson
Subject:
Ec Dev Strategic Plan - Final
Attachments:
2014-3-18 Final Washington County ED Strategic Plan.pdf
Hello All,
Yesterday we presented the final plan to the County Board. The Board was very pleased with the product and extended
their thanks and appreciation to the Work Group for its work on the plan. This final version of the plan incorporates
three changes they requested. Those changes are:
#3 on page 1: Incorporate economic development impacts and considerations into county decision making.
Third bullet on page 5: Support efforts to ensure a highly skilled workforce and adequate workforce housing
Work Plan item 8.4 on page 9: Work with area chambers of commerce to determine how the county can help to
grow tourism as an economic driver.
The County Board asked staff to send the plan to communities and others who participated in the Community
Engagement process for review and comment before they formally adopt it.
I want to personally thank you for your contributions to this planning process and to your involvement with the
Economic Development Work Group over the past 2 years. I feel very confident that the County has a good road map
for moving forward and a great work group to make things happen.
I will miss working with you to move this plan to action. I leave the work in Kevin's very capable hands. He will be
assisted in the short run by Amanda Hollis, another planner in the Office of Administration.
Best Wishes,
JcuLe"
Jane Harper
Office of Administration
14949 62nd Street North
Stillwater, MN 55082-0006
651-430-6011
Washington
Washington County Board of Commissioners
Economic Development Strategic Plan
March 18, 2014
Economic Development: A Washington County Strategic Initiative
�. Introduction
What is Economic Development?
Economic development has different meanings to different people. The County Board believes
the International Economic Development Council (IEDC) definition is appropriate for
Washington County's unique mix of social, geographic, political and economic qualities:
No single definition incorporates all of the different strands of economic development.
Typically economic development can be described in terms of objectives. These are most
commonly described as the creation of jobs and wealth, and the improvement of the quality
of life. Economic development can also be described as a process that influences growth and
restructuring of an economy to enhance the economic well-being of a community.
The main goal of economic development is to improve the economic well-being of a community
through efforts that entail job creation, job retention, tax base enhancements and quality of life.
As there is no single definition for economic development, there is no single strategy, policy or
program for achieving successful economic development in Washington County. Thus the plan
laid out in this document is developed from a comprehensive and broad-based perspective.
Through implementation of this strategic plan the County anticipates achieving the following
short-term goals over the next 1-2 years:
1. Establish a single point of contact for economic development within the County
government.
2. Update County tax -increment financing and tax abatement policies.
3. Incorporate economic development impacts and considerations into county decision
snaking.
4. Expand County role in marketing the County.
5. Establish working relationships with state, regional, and local entities working on
business retention and growth within the County.
b. Convene practitioners and other stakeholders to address barriers and opportunities and to
encourage free flowing communication.
7. Assert a stronger voice at the legislature in advocating for sound economic policies and
authorities.
This document presents the draft of an Economic Development Strategic Plan for Washington
County, Minnesota. The Strategic Plan consists of the following nine sections.
Section I
Introduction
Section II
Planning Process
Section III
Washington County's Economy
Section IV
County Mission, Vision and Goals
Section V
Policy and Principles
Section VI
Strategies, Outcomes, and Structure
Section VII
Implementation
Section VIII
Appendices
The Washington County Board engaged Springsted, Incorporated to prepare a Washington
County Economic Development Strategic Plan. The plan focused on the following two elements:
1) Recommend an appropriate expanded role for Washington County including recommending a
viable structure for carrying out that role; and 2) Develop high-level strategies for encouraging
economic development within Washington County. The County spent considerable time this past
year engaged in discussing its role in economic development. The County Board conducted three
formal work sessions to discuss ideas, options and opportunities. Feedback was provided to the
staff and consulting team to move forward with developing a plan based on the direction from the
County Board.
Economic Development Work Group
An Economic Development Work Group supported the planning process by bringing a wealth of
knowledge and experience to the process and providing important local perspectives to the
discussion. The Work Group is comprised of economic development practitioners in Washington
County from municipal governments and public agency partners such as the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority. Members of the Work Group represented a cross section of roles and
responsibilities including a mayor, city administrators, assistant city administrators, planners, and
community development directors.
The economic development study pursued two simultaneous tracks: a community engagement
process and data analysis initiative. A brief summary of each follows:
Data Collection
Springsted retained the services of the University of Minnesota Extension Office to collect,
organize and analyze Washington County economic data to develop an understanding of the
current status of the economy in Washington County. Two formal presentations were held on the
2
data: Washington County -- Economic Overview (September 2013) and Washington County's
Economy and Selecting Industries for Further Analysis (November 2013). Copies of both
presentations are on file in the County's Office of Administration. Five of the most essential
findings that might have an immediate policy implication are identified in Section Ill.
Community Engagement
The County Board directed that a broad reaching community engagement process be undertaken,
including: 1) Interviews and listening sessions with elected officials and other key stakeholders
within the community of interest; 2) Gather input from every city; 3) Presentations/discussions to
organized- groups such as Economic Development Authorities, Chambers, Business Development
Commission's; and 4) Facilitated sessions with key stakeholders within a community of interest
to identify issues and create the strategic plan. A summary of the stakeholder input is included in
the Appendix.
The data presented by the Minnesota Extension Office offered a clear picture of the Washington
County economic conditions. A summary review of economic data for Washington County finds
that the County's economy is healthy.
• Washington County is a competitive, job creating economy. The county has experienced
steady and strong growth in the number of jobs and weathered the recession well.
Washington County had 80% employment growth from 1990-2012 adding 32,000 new
jobs. The number of jobs in 2012 nearly rebounded to pre -recession levels of 74,000
total jobs.
• Washington County competes very well within the region and the Twin Cities economy.
Businesses in Washington County added 24,000 more jobs than would have been
expected given national and industry trends.
• Washington County is especially competitive and has significantly more jobs in
comparison to neighboring counties in Wisconsin. Washington County's employment
growth rate exceeded or was on par with neighboring counties in Wisconsin. Washington
County maintains a competitive share of employment growth compared to St. Croix
County except for manufacturing where St. Croix County has a modest growth
advantage.
• Washington County is a service -based economy. Washington County's top five largest
sectors of employment are Trade (16%): Professional and Business Services (16%);
Education and Health Services (14%); Leisure and Hospitality (12%); and Government
(13%).
Wages at jobs in Washington County are low, incomes primarily from jobs outside the
County are high, and housing is expensive; these trends make affordable work force
housing an issue for county leaders.
3
M$t: Missi and Goal:
The economic development philosophy, policies and plan are derived from the County's overall
Mission, Vision and Goals.
Mission
Providing quality services through responsible leadership, innovation, and the cooperation of
dedicated people.
Vision
A great place to live, work and play ... today and tomorrow.
Goals
Washington County has four principle goals:
• To promote the health, safety, and quality of life of citizens
• To provide accessible, high-quality services in a timely and respectful manner
• To address today's needs while proactively planning for the future
• To maintain public trust through responsible use of public resources, accountability, and
openness of government
The economic development strategic plan is but one supporting activity which allows the County
Board and staff, cities and public agencies, and the business community to pursue the mission,
achieve the vision and accomplish the goals.
Economic Development Role
The following statement from Washington County's 2030 Comprehensive Plan defines the
county's current role in economic development:
Washington County's core functions foster an environment where commerce can
develop and thrive. The County contributes to a robust business climate by
providing well-planned, essential infrastructure; maintaining a low tax rate; and
assisting in creating an ample pool of skilled employees. The county strives to
maintain the right blend of county services to support a vibrant business sector,
be it transportation and transit services, public safety, health and human services,
corrections services, workforce housing, or other public sen -ices. The county is
committed to stewardship of cultural and natural amenities such as land and
water resources, parks and open spaces, and libraries which contribute to a high
quality of life for business owners and their employees and families. The
county's efforts in workforce development provide skilled employees that enable
companies to be competitive and successful in the local, regional and global
economies.
4
The foundation of this Strategic Plan is the policy and guiding principles that drive the strategies
and goals of the County. The following policy statement and six guiding principles define the
County's economic development planning efforts. These guiding principles are relevant for the
present economic environment and are subject to review and change on a periodic basis.
Economic Development Policy Statement
It is the policy of the Washington County Board of Commissioners to strengthen the County's
role and increase its support of economic development in the County. The County will invest staff
time and financial resources in a planned, coordinated and strategic manner and will engage in a
collaborative and holistic approach to economic development. The County's policies and actions
will be guided by six principles.
Economic Development Guiding Principles
The following principles are not in rank order of importance.
• The private sector is the lead that drives the economy
o The County will work in partnership with the private sector
The County will not duplicate or replace the work of cities and other public agencies
o The County will work in collaboration with cities and public agencies and will
provide leadership where the County can make the most difference
* The County supports a strong collaborative approach to economic development
o No matter the location, economic development is a benefit to the entire county
o Support efforts to ensure a highly skilled workforce and adequate workforce
housing
Business attraction and business retention are essential policy objectives
o A balanced approach to pursue each of the two policy areas is required
• The diversity of the County requires an adaptable and open-minded approach
o The distinctive qualities of the County require flexibility
• A deliberate, purposeful and strategic plan is required
o The County will take careful and prudent risks to pursue its objectives guided by
clear outcomes, and consensus -based policies
VL StraWoes,utcr m6s a nd Structil
Economic Development Outcomes
The County Board has seven outcomes for this Strategic Plan:
1. Retain a premier quality of life for all of residents
2. Create and sustain living wage jobs across all employment sectors
3. Expand the County's property tax base
4. Be a value-added partner to other public and private agencies
5. Allocate appropriate staff time and resources
6. Affect public policy issues that impact the County's economy
7. Expand the County's knowledge and experience in economic development
5
i
4
The Strategic Plan provides a realistic and pia d&i ' road map for the County. It guides the
county leaders and allows them to focus on the most important economic development priorities.
Furthermore it directs staff time and financial commitments to those activities that support the
County's mission, vision, and goals. Ultimately when the plan is underway and the County has a
solid foundation, it will improve accountability and the capacity to measure performance and
outcomes.
Economic Development Strategies
Strategies are essential public policy priorities that precede goals and action steps. Typically they
are long-term in nature and are fairly constant in their intent and pursuit. The optimal way to
introduce strategies is through the eight functional economic development categories that
emerged from the stakeholder input process. The eight categories reflect the marketplace of
opportunity for the County and general consensus is to use these designations as the foundation
for the strategies. The strategies are not ranked in order of importance.
Each strategy is followed by one to four goals. Goals are a measurable and desired activity,
project or purpose that requires resources (time and/or money). Action steps are individual steps
and activities necessary to implement a goal, accomplish a strategy, operationalize the mission
and fulfill the vision. Specific action steps are continuously evolving and changing as they are
completed. The role of local government in economic development must be viewed in both a
short and long term perspective. In this, Washington County's first economic development
strategic plan, the focus is on short-term actions that support and sustain a long-term investment.
As the County's role becomes more secure and established the goals and actions steps will evolve
and change. The goals are focused on a one -three year timeframe. This does not prohibit or
discourage the County from making changes and adjustments throughout the year.
1. Washington County is responsible for many core functions that contribute to a premier
quality of life that is important to business growth; economic development resources and
investments will advance and support the high standard of living in the County.
2. Washington County recognizes that economic development requires a strong
infrastructure foundation built on multi -modal transportation networks and access to
high-speed broad band networks.
3. Washington County uses economic development financial incentives in a fiscally prudent
manner.
4. Washington County realizes that success in economic development is only achieved
through a collaborative and inclusive process.
5. Washington County understands that other county -based services impact economic
development goals and economic growth.
6. Washington County provides leadership and initiative to shape regional and state-wide
policies to support county -wide economic development goals.
I For additional information and details on each strategy please read the December 12, 2013 and January 28, 2014 County
Board documents.
6
7. Washington County supports the value and importance of economic development
marketing and branding for existing business retention and growth and new business
development.
8. Washington County partners with other public and private agencies to pursue economic
development goals.
There are 21 identifiable goals. The Goals are not listed in any priority order or ranking.
Priorities are established by the letter assigned to each. The ranking is as follows;
Letter A One to Six Months
Letter B Six to Eighteen Months
Letter C Eighteen Months and Longer
1. Washington County is responsible for many core functions that contribute to a premier quality of life
that is important to business growth; economic development resources and investments will advance
and support the high standard of living in the County.
Work plan...
I -
1. Explore public-private partnerships to ensure access to high-speed broad
,
1. Designate a county staff member to be the point of contact for economic
acquisition (e.g. right-of-way) needs for economic development projects.
development and implementation of the strategic plan.
3. Continue to pursue multi -modal transportation and transit opportunities
A
2. Evaluate how economic development factors into the County's 2040
A
Comprehensive Plan update.
C
3. Establish and monitor key economic indicators and benchmarks for the
county and the quality -of -life indicators that are most important from a
A
business perspective. Include in the county's annual performance
measurement report.
2. Washington County recognizes that economic development requires a strong infrastructure foundation
built on multi -modal transportation networks and access to high-speed broad band networks.
Work plan...
7
1. Explore public-private partnerships to ensure access to high-speed broad
band fiber networks throughout the county. C
2. Consider creating a pool of financial resources for unanticipated land
acquisition (e.g. right-of-way) needs for economic development projects.
C
3. Continue to pursue multi -modal transportation and transit opportunities
that will stimulate economic growth in the county.
A
7
3. Washington County uses erdnomic development financial incentives in a fiscally prudent manner.
Work plan...
1. Review and update the existing financial incentive policies: tax
increment financing and tax abatement. �
2. Explore the creation of a revolving loan program to support business
development. A
3. Explore using federal Community Development
4. Washington County realizes that success in economic development is only achieved through a
collaborative and inclusive environment.
Work plan...
C
support the County's economic development philosophy and principles.
2. Identify present economic development activities of the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority (HRA) and determine what other activities
B
Block Grant monies for
economic development activities.
g
issues of mutual concern and to foster a unified county -wide economic
�,
development approach.
4. Develop a concept paper on the formation of a Community Development
Agency (CDA) and present to the County Board.
5. Washington County understands that other county -based services impact economic development goals
and economic growth.
Work plan...
1. Review transportation related policies and standards for compatibility and
flexibility with economic development goals.
A
2. Where applicable, consider economic development impacts in other
county -based plans, programs, and services.
B
6. Washington County provides leadership and initiative to shape regional and state-wide policies to
support county -wide economic development goals.
Work plan...
7.17neludeconomic development positions in the County's legislative
B
1. Explore the value and purpose of a public/private partnership such as an
Economic Development Corporation and how it may complement and
C
support the County's economic development philosophy and principles.
2. Identify present economic development activities of the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority (HRA) and determine what other activities
B
Block Grant monies for
economic development activities.
g
1. Explore the value and purpose of a public/private partnership such as an
Economic Development Corporation and how it may complement and
C
support the County's economic development philosophy and principles.
2. Identify present economic development activities of the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority (HRA) and determine what other activities
B
could be directed to the HRA consistent with their mission.
3. Continue to convene the Economic Development Work Group to address
issues of mutual concern and to foster a unified county -wide economic
�,
development approach.
4. Develop a concept paper on the formation of a Community Development
Agency (CDA) and present to the County Board.
B
7. Washington County supports the value and importance of economic development marketing and
branding for existing business retention and growth and new business development.
Work plan...
M1
1Ummw
1, Partner with the Workforce Development Board and stathto identify and
1. Assess how the County can participate in marketing and branding to
address workforce training and workforce housing needs.
C
support the existing efforts underway in other public and private
C
agencies.
C
2. Build relationships with existing organizations that focus on job retention
and identify how the County can support those efforts.
C
8. Washington County partners with other public/private agencies to pursue economic development goals.
Work plan...
Economic Development Structure
One of the primary goals of this Strategic Plan is to answer the question of what structure best
suits the role Washington County should to take. The Work Group and county staff conclude that
this will be a process that takes time to mature. Throughout the process two concepts were
identified that are important components of the planning process: less formal structure and
formai structure. Information on each follows.
Less Formal Structure (Public Private Partnership)
These models are essentially Economic Development Commissions (EDC) supported by
membership dues from private companies and local units of government. They are typically
convened and staffed by the interested municipal entity and play primarily an advisory role and
advocate for development in the community. Some communities, such as Wright County, assign
the entity to evaluate and underwrite their loan programs, but the County Board retains the
ultimate authority to approve the allocation of those financial resources.
In addition to the private sector business representation, these boards can be comprised of
representatives of smaller communities. This allows for these public private entities to pool
resources and provide economic development technical assistance to those communities that
don't otherwise have the individual capacity. Large communities with more staff and financial
�7
1, Partner with the Workforce Development Board and stathto identify and
address workforce training and workforce housing needs.
C
2. Identify specific economic development training and assistance needs of
Washington County communities and determine how best to meet those
C
needs.
3. Continue the county's policy and funding role in regional economic
development activities such as Greater MSP and East Metro Strong,
A
4. Work with area chambers of commerce to determine how the county can
B
help to grow tourism as an economic driver.
Economic Development Structure
One of the primary goals of this Strategic Plan is to answer the question of what structure best
suits the role Washington County should to take. The Work Group and county staff conclude that
this will be a process that takes time to mature. Throughout the process two concepts were
identified that are important components of the planning process: less formal structure and
formai structure. Information on each follows.
Less Formal Structure (Public Private Partnership)
These models are essentially Economic Development Commissions (EDC) supported by
membership dues from private companies and local units of government. They are typically
convened and staffed by the interested municipal entity and play primarily an advisory role and
advocate for development in the community. Some communities, such as Wright County, assign
the entity to evaluate and underwrite their loan programs, but the County Board retains the
ultimate authority to approve the allocation of those financial resources.
In addition to the private sector business representation, these boards can be comprised of
representatives of smaller communities. This allows for these public private entities to pool
resources and provide economic development technical assistance to those communities that
don't otherwise have the individual capacity. Large communities with more staff and financial
�7
capacity use these types of structures more as an advisory board representing private sector
business interests. In the case of Washington County, Woodbury and Oakdale use this structure
to help develop Economic Development Strategic Plans.
Since the primary benefit of this structure is to encourage private sector involvement through
board participation and possibly financial support, the question is how could this type of structure
benefit Washington County and what are the downsides. Research shows that often counties in
Minnesota start to play a role in economic development with this type of EDC structure as a first
step. Counties can provide financial resources based on tasks assigned to that entity while
retaining final approval authority for specific projects and programs. These structures work well
as marketing champions for county wide growth and should not be considered mutually exclusive
of a more formal structured approach. The possible downside risk of this approach in
Washington County is the current private business community participants, particularly the
Oakdale and Woodbury EDC's, could perceive that this is duplicative. In addition, the more this
public private model is tasked with direct economic development activities, such as loan
programs and technical assistance, the more there would need to be careful consideration given to
avoiding duplicating those same efforts currently undertaken by the Iarger communities and
potentially the County HRA.
Formal Structure (County Community Development Authority)
If the County Board chooses a more formal and active role in economic development, one logical
path is to seek any necessary special legislation to enhance the capabilities of the Washington
County HRA by essentially adding economic development authority powers. Other jurisdictions
have successfully completed similar legislative action and established themselves as "community
development agencies" (Dakota, Scott, and Carver), that were originally constituted as housing
authorities. Any programming would require careful consideration to avoid duplicating efforts
currently undertaken by cities, but obtaining legal authority provides the county access to
significant authority and financial resources to encourage economic development. Many of the
technical skill sets required for implementing economic development strategies exist within the
County HRA. (They also exist in many of the larger communities, but are currently limited to
those municipal boundaries.) To be responsive to city needs and county board direction, the
HRA could certainly undertake and implement programs (i.e. partner with MCCD for example)
as soon as possible as long as those efforts are consistent m ith current authority, while pursuing
the necessary legislative amendment process.
A possible downside of the CDA model is the risk of diluting private business sector interests on
the board. However, the CDA model can have a board comprised entirely of county elected
officials or a blended combination of elected and appointed members. As resource commitments
increase with a more active and formal participation in economic development activities, county
elected officials may choose to have a more direct involvement on the board. They establish
advisory committees organized according to the issues they intend to address. If the Washington
County Board chooses to pursue a more formal CDA model and wishes to have more direct
involvement with county wide housing and economic development initiatives, the structure could
accommodate that desire. One of the principles promoted during this process is for the County to
be purposeful and deliberate. If the formal CDA model becomes the objective, it will take time
and careful collaboration to complete.
10
11
pfisdbleEconomic
03 1
Descriplion
Private
, A corporation formed to develop and sell industrial land
Low County control
Partnership or
and/or provide financing for business development in the
mostly all private
Non-Profit
community. Shares are sold or funds may be raised in other
ways. Or could be a 501(c) (4) or (b) organization whose
purpose is to promote community economic development.
The membership is usually made up of business. Can have
paid or volunteer staff.
Economic
An advisory board, appointed by the Washington County
County appoints
Development
Board. It has limited or no decision-making authority and
Commissioners
Commission
usually serves as a sounding board or as a first point-of-
(EDC)
contact for the County for development projects. It is often
responsible for drafting strategies and policies for
ratification and implementation by the County. The
commission may be active in implementation of local plans
on a volunteer basis. Work can be coordinated by county
staff.
Economic
EDAs were created to facilitate a well-rounded development
County appoints
Development
program by taking advantage of some of the Port Authority
Commissioners — if a
Authority
powers and all of the HRA powers. By combining and
5 member board, at
(EDA)
utilizing HRA, EDA and County powers, community
least 2 County
leaders are able to create flexible business assistance and
Commissioners must
development programs. EDAs for example, are allowed, to
serve
buy and sell property; make loans and grants to businesses;
provide guarantees or other credit enhancements; and to sell
bonds.
Although Economic Development Authorities were
originally designed to meet the needs of cities, special
legislation has been granted to several counties to establish
economic development organizations, in addition to housing
authority powers, or Community Development Authority's.
The EDA may employ an executive director and other staff.
Housing
An HRA is a legal entity created by a City Council, County
County appoints
Redevelopment
or Area to provide a sufficient supply of adequate housing
Commissioners; HUD
Authority
for low-to-moderate income families and individuals. They
requires a
(HRA) /
are also charged with clearing and redeveloping blighted
Commissioner to be a
Community
areas throughout the community. The board may be a
participant in the
Development
citizen's panel, the County Board or a combination thereof.
Housing Choice
Agency
HRAs also have limited powers that may be used for
Voucher Program or
business development. Special legislation has been used to
Public Housing
add economic development powers to become a community
Program where the
development agency (CDA). May require additional staff at
HRA acts as Public
the HRA.
Housing Authority.
11
Strategic plans are only as effe� as the commitment made by all parties to follow-through.
Washington County has invested a large amount of time and effort in the assessment,
development and adoption of the Economic Development Strategic Plan, The Plan is
comprehensive yet realistic. The plan provides the County with four distinct benefits:
• A decision-making tool to assist in making policy decisions
• A leadership tool to assist in identifying and establishing goals
• A management tool to assist in operationalizing plans and deterinining accountabilities
• A communication tool to inform partners and stakeholders about the plans
To move the plan into action the County Board will:
• Be the champion ,
• Identify expectations
• Allocate resources and time
• Commit to implementation
• Determine levels of accountability
• Periodically review the Plan
In applying the guiding principle of working in partnership with others the County will seek the
input and perspectives of a broad group of stakeholders. The diverse group of stakeholders that
contribute to economic development within the County includes large and small businesses,
economic development organizations, educational institutions, chambers of commerce, state and
regional agencies, and local communities.
The County will engage these stakeholders in two primary ways.
1. The County will continue to convene the Economic Development Work Group, a group of
public sector stakeholders. The Work Group has successfully established an identity and
good working relationships through the strategic planning process. Continuing to engage the
Work Group during plan implementation will be critical to the County achieving its economic
development goals, avoid duplication of effort, and to understanding how the County can add
value to the work of others.
2. The County will periodically convene a group of private sector stakeholders to inform the
work of the County and its public sector partners. This group will help County staff and the
Work Group to understand the interests and needs of the business community and to identify
critical issues affecting businesses and the economy of the County.
12
La
Vill, Appendices
of
The following information is designed to summarize for the County Board the five most
important themes and information learned from the community engagement process. This
information is meant to inform, update and educate the Board on the insights of key stakeholders
in Washington County. This summary does not attempt nor is it designed to provide every
particular insight or opinion shared during the community engagement process.
The information is organized into five overall themes.
Expand the County's Involvement in Economic Development
Washington County's expanded involvement in economic development is encouraged and highly
anticipated. The stakeholders believe that Washington County should expand its role in
supporting the economic development efforts of the cities. There are some lingering doubts about
the County's historical role and past actions, but this perception can be overcome.
The County's Diverse Qualities Requires Thoughtful Planning
Washington County's stakeholders recognize that the county is very diverse geographically,
politically and organizationally. It is well noted that the County Board is challenged to find an
equitable and/or a simple economic development plan that can address everyone's interests.
Although optimistic and certainly excited about an expanded role for Washington County, the
stakeholders are realistic and do not anticipate or expect miracles. This is best stated by Craig
Waldron, City Administrator in Oakdale who is on the record noting that, he advises the County
to be deliberate and methodical in its approach, or as he states, "walk before you run".
Stakeholders Have Distinctive Opinions
Washington County's specific role in economic development — and ultimately its strategic plan -
requires more deliberate discussion. Testimony at the community engagement meetings was
generally more philosophical and strategic. Although opinions exist on matters of policy, priority
and structure, we do not offer any trend, indicator or community reflection that leads or points the
County Board to any easy answers. Even at the municipal level the testimony of cities differs
largely along the lines of cities with experienced personnel and cities that do not have a strong
economic development support base within the staff. Business interests also varied in their
testimony and input.
No Consensus Exists on a Clear Organizational Model
Washington County has already identified five different organizational models to deliver
economic development programs and services. Throughout our testimony we heard various
opinions about what is the best way for the County to organize. We offer to you that no clear
consensus -based organizational model came forward from our community engagement process.
We discuss structure and roles in greater depth in Section V.
13
�1 Summary of CRY Feedback: Econoniic Development Su -v �,
A survey was sent to each City and the HRA at the beginning of the study. The questions were
designed to obtain preliminary input into the economic development study. This information was
summarized and shared with the County Board in September of 2013.
I. Specific Priorities
Please identify the three most significant economic development priorities of your City or
organization over the next five years.
• Programs administered by HRA at an economy of scale that helps cities and townships
• Housing construction
• Promotion — marketing for new and existing businesses
• Redevelopment -- reinvestment in existing properties
• Investment in infrastructure
• Development (new)
• Jobs and diversity of employment
Linkage between living and working within the county
• Coordination of efforts
• Business attraction — financial incentives
H. County -wide Factors
Please identify the top three factors that are impacting in any way (driving or impeding)
economic growth and development within Washington County.
Driving
■ Available land
• Schools
New bridge in Stillwater
• Natural amenities
• Strength of existing economy
• County changing to a "pro ED" place
Impeding
• Lack of affordable housing
• Lack of transit alternatives
• Lack of coordinated strategy
Lack of coordinated infrastructure strategy
• County's historical TIF policy (differing perspectives)
d Infrastructure flexibility (regulatory restraint)
• Shortage of niche financing programs (grants)
• Still a slow recovery
■ Digital divide in parts of county
• No policy on tax abatement
• No economic development staff
• The County is diverse — how can we effectively promote the county as a whole when
areas are distinct and different (rural -- low taxes)
14
III. Stakeholder Input
Please identify who you want in,Uin the stakeholder input steps of the planning process.
Your list could be a specific name(s) or a reference to a group or association.
• Conunercial real estate community
• Greater MSP
• All levels of local government (schools and watershed districts too)
* Variety of market rate and affordable housing developers
• Sample of individuals that work in the county but do not live in the county
• Communities of color, disabled, and low income population
• Two members of city staff and the Mayor
• Sample of elected officials
• County Board and staff
• City staff
• Economic Development Authorities
• Local business associations
• Chamber of Commerce
IV. Tools
Please identify up to three current tools you are using to support or augment your economic
development efforts?
• Greater MSP (leads and promotion)
• HRA levy
• Local income housing tax credit program and Minnesota Housing programs
Met Council LCDA program for land acquisition and pollution clean-up resources
• TIF (redevelopment and housing)
• Tax abatement
Woodbury Growth fund (revolving low interest loan)
• SEED fund
• Fast track process and one stop shop
• Shovel ready business park
• Acquisition of property
V. Distinctiveness
Please identify one or two considerations that you believe are unique or distinct to Washington
County that can be a positive asset to economic development within the county.
• Accessibility and location with easy access to MSP, airport and Wisconsin
• Land costs (may be higher), but tax environment is competitive
Human capital and workforce
• Positive relationship with the county — trust level is in place to accomplish projects
• Significant natural areas for recreation and tourism
Significant land supply within distinct communities
• Rural and urban character
Fast growing cities
VI. Best Practices
Please identify one or two economic development best practices that our process should identify
and possibly explore.
• Level of investment and involvement with Greater MSP
15
Open for business and gardening programs
• Evaluate need for a countywide EDA (role, relationship; with cities?)
• Incentives, funding, gap financing program
■ County infrastructure assistance (or policy modification)
• Tax abatement policy and strategy
a Explore programs and practices that make the County a better option than Wisconsin
• County wide marketing campaign
V11. Outcomes
Please identify two outcomes you want to achieve as a result of this economic development
initiative.
Clarity on roles and responsibilities
• Consensus on the best program/place to start
• Supportive of local economic development — or not disruptive or work against
• Recognize and capitalize on the diversity of the cities
• Develop one or two useful tools
• Greater county role in bringing resources and attention to broadband gaps
• Sustained or expanded commitment to infrastructure
• Actual project goals (roadways, countywide fiber optics, incentives)
• Marketing plan for business attraction
16
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) &
HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP (HOME) PROGRAMS
Introduction and Summary
The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Home Investment Partnership Program (HOME) are federal
funds available through the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) which are granted to units of
local government to implement programs that assist people of low to moderate income.
What are the HOME & CDBG Programs?
HOME was created by the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990 and is the largest federal block grant available to
communities to create affordable housing. The intent of the program is to:
• Increase the supply of decent affordable housing to low and very low income households
• Expand the capacity of nonprofit housing providers
• Strengthen the ability of state and local governments to provide housing
• Leverage non-federal sources of funds for affordable housing
CDBG, authorized under the Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, is an annual grant to
localities used to assist the development of viable communities. To reach this goal, the program supports low to
moderate income persons and households by providing:
• Decent housing
• A suitable living environment
• Expanded economic opportunities
All CDBG activities must meet one of three national objectives 1) benefit low or moderate income persons, 2)
eliminate slum and blight, and 3) meet an urgent need (such as those caused by natural disasters). To date,
Washington County's CDBG funds have focused on the first objective, benefit to low or moderate income persons.
What are some examples of HOME and CDBG activities?
HOME CDBG
Homeowner Rehabilitation Homeownership Assistance Public Facilities
Homebuyer Activities Rental Rehabilitation Property acquisition Rental
Housing Lead-based Paint Testing & Abatement Public Service
Tenant -based Rental Assistance (TBRA)
Who are the partners in the CDBG and HOME programs?
Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDO's) Developers
Community Based Development Organizations (CBDO's) Local Governments
Private Lenders Contractors
Non-profit Organizations Faith -based Organizations
How are funds awarded?
Washington County grants funds through a competitive request for proposal process on an annual basis. Interested
parties submit applications which are reviewed by staff and the CDBG/HOME Citizen Advisory Committee. The
Washington County Board of Commissioners reviews the Citizen Advisory Committee's funding recommendations,
makes final funding decisions and approves inclusion of these decisions in the Annual Action Plan. A public
comment period follows whereby citizens may provide comments or feedback to the county regarding the plan. The
plan is for viewing on the county website, in public libraries and in the lobby of the Department of Community
Services. After the public comment period, the plan is sent to the Department of Housing & Urban Development
(HUD). HUD must review and approves the county's Annual Action Plan before funds are awarded to the county and
then to the applicants.
Washington County's program year for the CDBG and HOME programs runs from July 1 through June 30th. CDBG
and HOME funds are available upon the release of funds by Congress, sometime after July 1st of each year.
Accepting grant funds commits the county to help meet the housing and community development needs in areas
serving low -and moderate -income residents.
As the chart below illustrates, Washington County's CDBG entitlement has decreased steadily from $1,041,000 in its
initial year (2001), as a result of annual congressional appropriations to entitlement communities and program
funding reductions. The City of Woodbury became an entitlement community in July 2010, which further reduced the
County's annual allocation.
CDBG
HOME
2008
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
CDBG
$1,041,000
1,018,000
$972,000
$960,000
$912,951
$822,949
$827,999
HOME
$293,499
$294,625
$308,805
$319,456
$306,098
$287,770
$271,974
CDBG
HOME
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
$803,376
$811,811
$697,819
$581,856
$604,783
$669,694
$602,725
$262,402
$291,573
$230,927
$204,910
$210,844
$215,095
$193,586
CDBG & HOME FUNDING
ALLOCATIONS
$1,200,000 - - -.-
$1,000,000
$800,000
$600,000 �- ----_ -- -
---CDBG---�-
W. $400,000 - -
$200,000 -.r�r_ _._ "'NOME
7-7
��.�- -
$0 - ---
r-I
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 e -I ei a --I
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W
N N N N N N N N N N N N N
r -I
O
N
CDBG/HOME 2014
PROGRAM YEAR
PROPOSAL SUMMARY
AND
FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS
FUNDS AVAILABLE
Community Services staff and the CDBG/HOME Citizen Advisory Committee considered five
proposals totaling $950,075.00. Two of the proposed projects were reallocated 2013 funds
(board approved on March 11, 2014). The estimated amount of funding that is projected to be
available for the remaining competitive projects in the 2014 program year is:
2014 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Estimated $392,707.04
2014 HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) Estimated $176,728.48
2012 CDBG & HOME Funds that need to be reallocated to a project $ 3,436.87
TOTAL $572,872.39
PROCESS
Funding recommendations are a result of a five-step process:
Step 1: Staff evaluates projects using 17 criteria approved by the Citizen Advisory Committee and
16 additional decision factor bonus points.
Step 2: Citizen Advisory Committee evaluates projects, conducts applicant interviews and makes a
funding recommendation to the County Board.
Step 3: County Board approves a preliminary funding recommendation.
Step 4: County solicits public comment on preliminary funding recommendation.
Step 5: County Board approves final funding recommendation.
GENERAL EVALUATION AND RANKING CRITERIA
Threshold Criteria
4 total points
Project Impact
45 total points
National Objective
10 points
Consolidated Plan Priority
15 points
Demonstrated Benefit
5 points
Project Duration
15 points
Project Management
30 total points
Project Readiness
10 points
Funding Commitment
3 points
Acceptance of Funds as Loan
3 points
Documentation of Costs
4 points
Organizational Track Record
5 points
Other Federal Requirements
5 points
Local Commitment and Support
17 total points
Community Support
5 points
Leveraging of Resources
8 points
Other Public Financing
4 points
Other Considerations'*
16 total points
TOTAL POSSIBLE POINTS
112 points
(if an organization had unspent prior funds for 2090, 2019, and 2012 1-3 points were subtracted for unspent funds)
"Other considerations includes items such as `close to transit," "health and safety issue," and "serves persons with
physical disabilities."
2014 PROJECT SUMMARIES AND FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS
2014 CDBG & HOME Funding Allocation Discussion
The 2014 fiscal year budget for the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
has not been approved as of the date of this draft, due to the Sequestration and federal budget
issues that were postponement to January 2014. Similar to the last three years, without a
budget approval Washington County does know the final amount of funds that will be available
for the Community Development Block Grant and Home Investment Partnerships Programs for
the 2014 program year.
The 2014 fiscal year budget for the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
has not been approved as of the date of this draft and the extent of any cuts and where they
will be made, remain unknown. Without a budget approval Washington County does not know
the final amount of funds that will be available for the Community Development Block Grant
and Home Investment Partnerships Programs for the 2014 program year.
The fact that funding for the 2014 fiscal year has not been approved poses a dilemma with the
HUD requirement that Annual Action Plans shall be submitted 45 days before the start of the
current program year. To ensure that Washington County meets the 45 day deadline set by
HUD, the county has proceeded with its 2014 Program Year funding allocation process using a
conservative estimate of how much Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Home
Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) funds will be available to allocate.
We have therefore analyzed a two tiered 2014 budget forecast and have projected funding
based on the more conservative 10% estimated reduction. A discussion of how any subsequent
increases or decreases to the 2014 budget and projects is included at the end of this report.
Tiered 2014 Projected Budget
0% Reduction based on 2013 Allocations
2013 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) base $669,694.00
2013 Reallocated CDBG Admin $935.79
2013 HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) base $215,095.00
2011 Reallocated HOME funds $ 2,501.08
TOTAL $888,225.87
10% Reduction based on 2013 Allocations
$669,694 x 10% cut = $66,969 reduction
$602,725.00
2012 Reallocated CDBG Admin to Projects
$935.79
$215,095 x 10% cut = $21,509 reduction
$193,586.00
2011 HOME Reallocated HOME funds
2,501-08
TOTAL
$799,747.87
For the purpose of our Annual Action Plan draft, Washington County will allocate funding to the
following 2014 projects/activities, based on the 2013 allocation of $602,725 in CDBG and
$193,586 in HOME funds which includes an estimated 10% program cuts. The funding
recommendations are based on the combined staff and Citizen Advisory Committee project
score ranking and form the basis for our 2014 Annual Action Plan and recommendations to the
County Board. Revisions to the budget and plan will be finalized once the federal budget is
determined according to Increase/Decrease Discussion below.
The total estimated allocation and reallocated funds are shown below.
2014 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Estimate $602,725.00
2012 Reallocated CDBG Admin to Projects (CDBG) $ 935.79
2014 HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) Estimate $193,586.00
2011 Reallocated HOME funds (HOME) $ 2,501.08
TOTAL $799,747.87
Recommended Projects & Funding
PROJECTS
CDBG
HOME
OBJECTIVE
OUTCOME
Twin Cities Habitat for
$90,408.75
(15%)
$116,986.92
Decent
Housing
Availability
Humanity, Hugo Townhome
(includes 2011
HOME $2,501.08)
Decent
Housing
Affordability
Development
$13,551.02 (790)
Dakota Cty. CDA—Administration
HRA —Park Place Improvement
$180,075.00
Decent
Sustainability
Project
$19,358.60
Housing
Hugo Good Neighbor Food Shelf
$ 70,000.00
NeighborhoodFacility
Availability
Pipeline Project - Plymouth
Housing Partners — Piccadilly
$142,632.04
$59,741.56
Decent
Affordability
Square Senior Rental
Housing
Development
Total
$392,707.04
$176,728.48
PROJECTS
CDBG
HOME
OBJECTIVE
OUTCOME
Washington Cty Community
Services — Eligibility Specialist
$90,408.75
(15%)
Decent
Housing
Availability
Washington Cty Community
Services — Crisis Fund
Decent
Housing
Availability
Washington Cty Community
Services—Administration
$120,545.00
(20%)
$13,551.02 (790)
Dakota Cty. CDA—Administration
$ 5,807.58 (3%)
Total
$210,953.75
$19,358.60
The CDBG Droaram allows 20% of the current allocation to hP used fnr nrnnram adminicirntinn Tha HnMF nrnnram
allows 10% for program administration. A portion of the HOME administration funds (3.5%) is allocated to Dakota
County who acts as the HOME Consortium fiscal agent. The CDBG program also allows up to 15% of funds to be
used for public services, which includes the eligibility specialist and crisis assistance funds.
All of the 2014 funds allocated will be used to benefit low to moderate income populations.
None of the 2014 funds will be used for slum/blight or urgent need activities.
The following application summaries are from the four applications received as part of the
completive RFP process and the 2013 Piccadilly Square project that has shifted to pipeline
status with preliminary contingent awards of both CDBG and HOME due to final funding from
Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. The summaries have been edited by staff for this
purpose.
Applicant: Washington County HRA
Title: Park Place Apartment Improvement Project
Location: City of St. Paul Park
Amount Requested: $180,075.00 CDBG
Recommended Funding: $180,075.00 CDBG
Pack
IWAm
At
The Washington County Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) proposed to use CDBG
funds for rehabilitation/improvement projects at Park Place Apartments in St. Paul Park, Park
Place Apartments consists of a 7 building apartment complex with 42 units. The majority of the
residents having very low or low incomes 81% of the residents have incomes below 80% area
median income (AMI). This property was constructed in 1963.
_sate
`Trai
Ma WUP rlxt
�Pmk
nw,w:
rn,rr+Are
7
Pack
IWAm
At
The Washington County Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) proposed to use CDBG
funds for rehabilitation/improvement projects at Park Place Apartments in St. Paul Park, Park
Place Apartments consists of a 7 building apartment complex with 42 units. The majority of the
residents having very low or low incomes 81% of the residents have incomes below 80% area
median income (AMI). This property was constructed in 1963.
The proposed scope of work at Park Place includes the replacement of the original boilers and
water heaters (49 years old) with energy efficient models, replacement of the windows, kitchen
cabinets, bathroom vanities, sinks, faucets, and fans. The work is scheduled to take place in
early 2014 and has a 6 month completion timeframe. This project will assist in the preservation
of the existing affordable housing units. The requested CDBG funds represent approximately
33% of the total project cost.
This project was identified as a pipeline project for 2014 due to the important preservation
component and because Washington County HRA chose to defer their funding award to 2014 in
order to allow the Mahtomedi project to be fully funded. The Park Place project timeline also
aligned with 2014 cycle and thus it was recommended to be a pipeline project for 2014 CDBG
funds.
CDBG funds in the amount of $180,075. 00 are recommended to assist with this project.. This project meets a high
priority of the 2011-2014 Consolidated Plan by serving the households at 0-80% of area median income and
maintains existing affordable housing units and is identified as a pipeline project for 2014.
Applicant: Hugo Good Neighbor Food Shelf
Title: Hugo Good Neighbor Food Shelf Project
Location: 152"d Street & Francesca, City of Hugo
Amount Requested: $70,000.00 CDBG
Recommended Funding: $70,000.00 CDBG
Ito" I
k Qi l.y- a
a
y4.
� Mmf?mM
d
a
l�
X
y1;
The Hugo Good Neighbor Food Shelf currently operates out of a donated building located at the
City of Hugo; however they have outgrown the existing space and ability to serve the number of
people who visit the food shelf. They propose to use CDBG funds to assist with acquisition of
vacant land for construction of a new food shelf facility in the City of Hugo in summer of 2014.
The food shelf served 123 households in 2013 and expects to serve 185 households in 2014
The majority of the clients who use the food shelf (87%) have incomes below 80% area median
income (AMI).
Three non -housing infrastructure projects goals were identified in the 5 -year Consolidated Plan
and one of those goals were met in 2013. This project serves a Medium Consolidated Plan
priority and would help the county satisfy another identified infrastructure goal.
This project meets a medium priority of the 2011-2014 Consolidated Plan as a non -housing infrastructure
project. CDBG funds in the amount of $70,000.00 are recommended for this project,
Applicant: Plymouth Housing Partners, LLC
Title: Piccadilly Square — New Senior Apartment Development
Location: City of Mahtomedi
Amount Requested: $352,709.87 2013 CDBG Award
$198,013.08 2013 HOME Reservation
Recommended Funding -Swap: $142,632.04 CDBG 2014 Swap
$210,077.83 CDBG 2015 Swap & Future Reservation
$352,709.87 Total
$ 59,741.56 HOME 2014 Swap
$138,271.52 HOME 2015 Swap & Future Reservation
$198,013.08 Total
Y�2 Bin3ryvabd
11r�epe
6,:,i" Rd Co"V F t 2
f'.:77A'
631C119a'%4:
[isms
K
rn
x
R.
7'-M si n� p
Plymouth Housing Partners, LLC proposes to use $352,709.87 of CDBG funds for site
acquisition from the WC HRA for development of a 78 -unit Senior Housing facility with
underground parking located in downtown Mahtomedi. This project involves the redevelopment
of the former Piccadilly Restaurant site located at the intersection of Stillwater Road (CR 12)
and Wildwood Road (State Hwy 244). This site was closed in 2006 and has remained vacant.
The project will serve 78 low/mod income senior citizen households (31 % to 80% of AMI), which
meet High Priorities in the 2011-2014 Consolidated Plan. The project will also have five
handicapped accessible units.
The scope of the project includes: acquisition of land for development of a 78 -unit independent
senior (62 years of age and older) housing project consisting of 39 one bedroom and 39 two
bedroom units. Five units will be handicapped accessible. The site was acquired by the
Washington County Housing and Redevelopment Authority who will complete clearance and
site remediation that are scheduled for Spring 2014. The property would be sold to this
developer and construction would follow in Fall 2013. During our meetings with the developer,
Sands Companies, the construction period is approximately 10 months and the proposed
construction completion is projected to occur by August 2014. The requested federal funds
represent approximately 2% of the total project cost.
2013 HOME funds were also reserved to this project to fill some of the remaining funding gap.
The total amount of funds Washington County awarded to the project in 2013 totaled
$352,709.87, or CDBG funds and $198,013.08 in HOME funds.
Based on HUD regulations, the county is not able to commit HOME funds to a project until all
other sources of funding are committed. This project did not receive final funds from Minnesota
Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) in November 2013 and will need to reapply with the state in
the June 2014 competitive process. The outcome of the state's future funding round will not
allow the County to meet its HUD deadlines. Thus the 2013 CDBG & HOME funds already
approved have been swapped or reallocated to two other shovel ready projects.
In the place of 2013 CDBG & HOME funds already awarded to Piccadilly Square, 2014 and
2015 are reserved for this project for both federal programs. This project is now identified as a
pipeline project for 2015 with a partial reservation of 2014 CDBG funds totaling $142,632.04
and a partial reservation of HOME funds totaling $59,741.56. Additional 2015 CDBG & HOME
funds are pledged/reserved to add up to the original CDBG award amount of $352,709.87.
The 2013/2015 program year funding swap will be completed following the Fall 2014 MHFA
funding announcements and the County's 2015 Annual Action Plan process and a competitive
RFP for 2015 may or may not be necessary given the pipeline project.
2014 and 2015 CDBG and HOME funds are recommended for this project application to complete the funding year
swap with 2013 fund in order to allow the project more time and for the county to meet HUD requirements. This
project would meet high priorities of the 2011-2014 Consolidated Plan by serving the elderly and households at 0-
80% of area median income.
Applicant: Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity (CHDO) Inc
Title: Generation Acres —Single Family home development
Location: City of Hugo
Amount Requested: $350,000.00 2013 HOME
Recommended Funding: $116,986.92 2014 HOME
$198,013.08 2013 HOME
;.V
ai
•r 9s-:»:1 : 1, A C R
}::.)YEA: YY_i•:. .M1 -
Y
-S
Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity (CHDO) Inc. is requesting additional HOME funds in the
amount of $116,986.00 for use in construction of nine townhome units at Generation Acres
Subdivision. This area is comprised of single family homes, townhomes, and patio homes. The
subdivision was partially developed before the developer went bankrupt and the property was
foreclosed on. Only two townhome buildings were constructed at Generation Acres prior to
foreclosure. The site was approved for 10 buildings, each with four units, which have sat
vacation for several years.
Habitat was able to get the six foreclosed vacant acres as a land donation by local Hugo
residents and the land donation will help meet the required HUD matching funds. 2013 HOME
funds in the amount of $198,013.08 were awarded and swapped to this shovel ready project
when another project stalled; however, additional HOME funds are needed to make the project
feasible and fund the requested amount. Allocation of HOME funds to this project may satisfy
our CHDO set aside requirement for 2013 & 2014 for HUD.
This project meets high and medium priorities of the 2011-2014 Consolidated Plan by serving households at 0-80
of area median income. Additional HOME funds in the amount of $196,986.92 +/- are recommended for this
project. In order to meet HUD expenditure timeframes, funding years may be swapped if another project
cannot move forward and meet project milestones.
2014 Budget Changes: Handling of Increases or Decreases in Fundina
Should the Department of Housing and urban Development allocate CDBG and HOME funds
above or below the estimates provided above, Washington County will allocate any increases or
decreases in the following manner;
Community Development Block Grant
• Increase the pipeline project reserved funding to the Plymouth Housing Partners LLC —
Piccadilly Square Senior Rental Development project.
Increase program administration and public services funding in accordance with the
allowable program percentage (20%/15%).
Home Investment Partnership Program
• Increase funding to the pipeline project reserved funding to the Plymouth Housing
Partners LLC — Piccadilly Square Senior Rental Development project
• Increase program administration funding in accordance with the allowable program
percentage (10%).
Should the Department of Housing and Urban Development allocate CDBG and HOME funds
below the estimates provided above, Washington County will allocate funds in the following
manner:
Community Development Block Grant
• An equal percentage decrease in funding to all projects allocated funds in the 2014
program year.
• Decrease to program administration and public services funding in accordance with the
allowable program percentages (209/0/159'0).
Home Investment Partnership Program
• An equal percentage decrease in funding to all projects allocated funds in the 2014
program year.
• Decrease to program administration and public services funding in accordance with the
allowable program percentage (10%)
Should a CDBG or HOME funded project not be able to move forward as anticipated and in
order to meet timely spending tests and the new HOME Rules regarding commitment,
expenditure and completion dates, program year funds may need to be swapped with another
shovel ready project in order to meet the HUD requirements. Any program year swap will be
identified in a Plan Amendment, submitted by the County and approved by the Dakota County
CDA and the HOME Consortium Lead and HUD.
I
6A M TwinClltles.com St. Paul Pioneer Press
Washington County
St. Paul
$800,00 in' federal City read
housing cash divyie up
'
County board approves spending. plan 80% cut in res.identi
By Frederick Vela
By . Bob Shaw, Humanity project in Hugo, fmelo@pioneerpre-,m.com
bshinv@pioneerpress.com $117,000 in HOME funds, 15
percent of the project cost. St. Paul will _-tplore how to
Federal funding of $800,000 k. The Park Place Improve- boost- participation in exist -
for : several Washington meat Project in St. Paul Park, ing recycling programs,get I
County housing projects $180,000 in block grant funds, residents to reuse or recycle
advanced this week, with 22 percent of the project bulky items such W. Wn.
county board approval of a cost antes, Increase recycling in
draft spending plan. .. --s - - -The Hugo Good Neighbor parks, athletic center and
The expenditures are for Food Shelf, $i0,000 in block construction sites and mm
the fiscal year beginning in, grant funds, 22 percent of the toward municipal collection
July. The itioney will come project cost , I of organics — food and paper
from the Community Devel- *Washington County Pub- waste — by 2017.
opment Block Grant program lic Services, $90,000 in block vCity officials have said
and the HO.. Investment grant funds, 100 percent of they're under pressure from
program, both of which are that program's cost, Farmer- the state to boost recycling,
administered by the. federal Kubler said this would be which has effectlively peaked
Department of Housing and "crisis funding" for people and even shov, signs of
Urban Development living in poverty. decline in neighborhoods i
The federal money usually In addition. $140.000 of the occupied by new residents, I
pays for only part of a nous- funds — I7 percent of the such as renters and recant i
ing project said Mary Fmm- total — would go to local inunigirants less familiar with J
er-Kubler, economic support administration of the two recycling options_
supervisorfor the county. federal programs . With an eye to the environ -
Recommended for federal The release of the plan ment and greenhouse gas
funding are: kicks off a 31 -day public com-
,_, The 79 -unit Piccadilly ment period, which will end
Square Senior Rental project April 25. Farmer-Kubler said
in Malitomedi, being built by public comments will be
Plymouth Housing Partners, added to the plan. which is Faith notes
which would got $143.000 in fxpeded to be approved by
block grant funds and $60,000 the board in May,
in HOME funds, for a total of I :11 WARC!i �7
roughly 1 percent of the proj- Bob Shaw can bermichedat 113111 Gaither & Gaither Vocal
ect cost'. 0-228-54.33. Follow hhand! Grace United Church,im at 9301 Eden. Prairie Road, Eden
t A Twin Cities Habitat for rw1ttercom/BShawPP . P
i ra;rie, will host tnis group that
will,share gospel classics,
;nsp;iing new favorites, for all
aqe�q. oups. The concert begins
DONATE YOUR CAR at 7 p.m. Tickets, $35-;2Z are
available by calling 800-965-
9324 at go to -
JFC14Wimierproductions.com.
shsre , e, p
Woe- dAlanalLutheran CORE
Open .11fieting: Calvary Lutheran
Beneft1mg .1; chunth, 7SZ0 Golden Valley.
A, Road, Golden Valley, 7 p.m. The
Ktopic will be "Another Heresy
hallenges Christ's Chuich.7 Is
E 11
4 Aj
your cengregation being afaffectedA
by these- fal§e. teachings? Come
Minnesota' and lain the discussion.
*Free Vehicle Pickup ANYWHERE 1114411011 2C
we *,Afe Accepi All Vehicles Running or Not Organ Concert-Wahael Hey will
perform at Augusta Lutheran
Also Boats, Motorcycles & RVs Church, 1400 S. Robert 5t., We
h
"Fully —1"x Deductible St. Paul, at 700 p.m. No
W admission charge; nursery is
CC.L11: (651) 155-9474. available
106 W. Water Street, Ste 301
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55107
651.330.4286
COMMERCIAL — LAND
EXCLUSIVE LISTING AGREEMENT
Date:
IN CONSIDERATION OF THE AGREEMENT between WAKOTA COMMERCIAL ADVISORS, LLC, hereinafter
referred to as (`BROKER") and THE CITY OF HUGO (hereinafter referred to as SELLER) SELLER grants to
BROKER the exclusive right to sell or contract to sell the property comprising of approximately 4.62 acres and
described as: (SEE EXHIBIT A) in the amount of $ i _ for the period from the date hereof through
midnight
NOTICE: THE COMMISSION RATE FOR THE SALE, LEASE, RENTAL OR MANAGEMENT OF REAL
PROPERTY SHALL BE DETERMINED BETWEEN EACH INDIVIDUAL BROKER AND ITS CLIENT.
It is further agreed that SELLER shall pay BROKER a Brokerage Fee of Seven (7%) percent of the Purchase Price
(Eight (8%) in the event of a co -broker transaction) if the Property is sold, exchanged, or conveyed, upon occurrence of
any of the following conditions:
1) The sale, installment sale, exchange, or conveyance of the Property during the period of this Agreement by BROKER
or any other person, including but not limited to SELLER, or any other agent or broker not a party to this Agreement,
in accordance with the price, terms or exchanges as set forth herein or as otherwise consented to by SELLER; or
a) Except if the sale, installment sale, exchange, or conveyance of the Property is with such entity that
is listed in Exhibit B.
2) The sale, installment sale, exchange, or conveyance of the Property within one hundred eighty (180) days after the
expiration or termination of this Agreement to any prospect with whom BROKER has negotiated or to whom BROKER
has exhibited said Property during the period of this Agreement, and whose name was disclosed to SELLER in writing
by BROKER not later than ninety-six (96) hours after the expiration or termination of this Agreement; or
3) SELLER, at its sole and absolute discretion, may reduce the Purchase Price upon approval by the Hugo City Council,
Seller at its sole and absolute discretion, may offer tax increment financing or other incentives to defray development
costs.
*The above timeframes may be extended provided there are ongoing negotiations between Seller and Buyer
beyond the expiration date.
It is acknowledged that the Brokerage Fee is and shall be deemed to be a share of the purchase money received by
SELLER, and BROKER shall be secured by, and shall have a security interest in, such funds until the brokerage Fee is
paid.
BROKER and its partners shall effectively market the property in terms of a sign on the property, brochures, property
visits, real estate websites, cold calls, and mailings, as well as other means deemed necessary by the BROKER.
BROKER shall provide bi-monthly reports on who has been contacted and findings to the SELLER, with quarterly
presentations to the Hugo Economic Development Authority.
SELLER and BROKER shall both have the right to terminate this Agreement by giving to the other a thirty (30) day
written notice. Should SELLER elect to terminate this agreement, however, all remaining provisions hereunder shall
remain in full force and effect.
SELLER hereby agrees to provide Purchaser Abstract of Title, or Registered Property Abstract Or Title Insurance
Certificate, certified to date, to include proper searches covering bankruptcies and state and federal judgments and liens,
and to execute or cause to be executed a deed conveying a marketable title to the Property to the Purchaser and further
documents as may be required to consummate the sale to Purchaser in accordance with the terms above designated or
with the terms to which SELLER may hereafter consent.
SELLER further agrees to promptly notify BROKER of any such notices or information regarding hazardous waste or
substances pertaining to the Property, which are hereafter received or learned during the term of this Agreement.
SELLER authorizes BROKER to allow subagents or agents representing a Buyer to market the property and to share
the Brokerage Fee with a Purchaser's Broker.
CITY OF HUGO
By: Date:
Bryan Bear, City Administrator
Address: 14669 Fitzgerald Ave N, Hugo, MN 55038
Telephone: 651-762-6300
E-mail: Bbear(a�ci.hugo.mn.us
WAKOTA COMMERCIAL ADVISORS LLC
By: Date:
Jeff J. Houge, Managing Director
Address: 106 West Water Street, Saint Paul, IUN 55107.
Telephone: 651.330.4286
E-mail: 'effwwakota.com
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
1. Kozlaks' Royal Oak Resturant
2, Green Mill
3. LHR, Hospitality Management
4. Forest Lake Floral
5. Roberts Family Funeral Home
6. Big Apple Bagel's
7. Lakeshore Players Theatre
�A N
1 inch = 100 feet Site Map w+F
_ s
wr
.
t
,-
y .I
Legend
Right of Way
Parcel Boundary
City Owned Property