HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-06-07 BEDC Packet
AGENDA
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
Monday, June 7, 2010
7:00 P.M.
Council Chambers - Maplewood City Hall
1830 County Road BEast
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Agenda
4. Approval of Minutes:
a. May 3,2010
5. New Business:
a. Capital Improvement Plan
b. Fish Creek Estates, Review and Discuss Proposed Concept Plan and Related Costs
and Recovery of Costs - Phase I
6. Unfinished Business:
a. Business Retention Tour
b. Business Baseline Survey
7. Visitor Presentations:
8. Commission Presentations:
9. Staff Presentations:
a. Rescheduling of next meeting to July 7,2010 (no report)
10. Adjourn - 9 p.m.
AGENDA
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
Monday, May 3,2010
7:00 P.M.
Council Chambers - Maplewood City Hall
1830 County Road BEast
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
Commissioners
Commissioner David Hesley, present
Commissioner Mark Jenkins, absent
Commissioner Marvin Koppen, present
Commissioner David Sherrill, absent
Commissioner Shelly Strauss, present
Commissioner Beth Ulrich, present
Commissioner Laurie Van Dalen, present
Staff
Michael Martin, City Planner
Alan Kantrud, City Attorney
3. Approval of
Commissioner
motion.
Strauss seconded the
The motion passed.
4. Approval of Minutes
Commissioner Hesley noted that his
be added to the "Ayes" on item 5F.
Commissioner Koppenmotionedto approve the amended minutes from April 5, 2010.
Commissioner Van Dalen seconded the motion.
Ayes: All
The motion passed.
5. New Business:
a. Upcoming Public Works Projects
Mr. Thompson, City Engineer/Deputy Director of Public Works presented the upcoming public
works projects and answered questions regarding these items.
6. Unfinished Business:
a. Sign Code Amendments - Temporary Banners and Window Signage
The commission discussed the sign code amendments and whether or not the current code
suffices, or if the regulations should be strengthened or relaxed in order to make a
recommendation to the City Council.
Commissioner Ulrich motioned that the Business and Economic Development Commission take
no action on this item. Commissioner Hesley seconded the motion.
Ayes: Ulrich, Hesley, Koppen, Van Dalen.
Nays: Strauss
The motion passed
7. Visitor Presentations
Diana Longrie, Attorney at Law, 1321 Frost
addressed the commission. Ms. Longrie spoke
Cities Event in Washington D. C. and shared
event.
MN 55109,
the National League of
in regards to the
with the
8. Commission Presentations
Commissioner Van Dalen wanted
honor
sacrifice for Maplewood.
9. Staff Presentations
a. Rescheduling of July 5, 2010
Mr. Martin, Planner, notified the commission
and requests to reschedule the meeting. The
rescheduled on July 7, 2010.
July 0 meeting falls on a holiday
voted for the meeting to be
The vote passed.
b.<Recognition of The Seasons at Maplewood
Mr. Martin,Planner, briefly ihformed the commission of the recognition of The Seasons at
Maplewood in the MinneapolisSt. Paul Business Journal. He also noted the recognition of 3M.
In addition, the Maplewood Mall Was chosen as a building contestant in the EPA National
Building Competitioh,competingto reduce energy.
10. Adjourn - 9 p.m.
Commissioner Strauss motioned to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Van Dalen seconded
the motion.
Ayes: All
The meeting adjourned at 8:15 pm.
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Business and Economic Development Commission
Charles Ahl, Assistant City Manager
Review of Drafl2011 - 2015 Capital Improvement Plan
June 2, 2010
INTRODUCTION
As part of the budget process, the City annually prepares a Capital Improvement Plan to help estimate
the major capital expenses and projects that will have an impact on the debt levels and levy
expenditures in the next 5-year period. The Capital Improvement Plan, or CIP, is a planning tool and
does not authorize projects or purchases, but allows the City Council to review these expenditures and
provide direction on the overall capital goals for the City. The staff has been working on various
requests and plans since March 2010. After establishment of goals by the City Council, the plan is
prepared and projects recommended, along with a list of the projects that, based upon the staff
recommendations, are deferred or listed as declined, which is also called unfunded needs.
The BEDC should review the information provided on the redevelopment sections of the CI P for 2011
to 2015. The BEDC recommendation will be provided to the Planning Commission, who conduct the
Public Hearing on the conformity of the proposed CIP to the Comprehensive Plan, and then all
recommendations are forwarded to the City Council for final adoption.
SUMMARY
Attached are two summary charts from the draft 2011 - 2015 CIP. The full version of the draft Capital
Improvement Plan is being assembled and will be available to view on the City's webpage beginning
on June 7th The proposed expenditures are grouped by category of project. For example, equipment,
parks, redevelopment, etc. As shown on the attached chart, the total proposed CIP for 2011 - 2015 is
$62,845,385. The second chart lists the projects that were proposed by the staff, but due to funding
limitations are recommended to be deferred/declined. A total of $42,567,210 of projects deemed
necessary by the staff are recommended to be declined in the next 5 years.
Reviews of the proposed projects that are development or economic development related are:
. Fish Creek Open Space Purchase - $4,250,000 proposed in 2011 and 2013
. TH 36 - English Interchange - $14,800,000 proposed in 2011 to 2014
. Gladstone Redevelopment Initiative - $12,550,000 in 2011 to 2015 [3 projects]
The following projects were proposed but are recommended to be declined due to funding issues:
. Housing Replacement Program - $825,000 over 2011 to 2015
. Hillcrest Area Redevelopment - $4,300,000 in 2014-15
. Commercial Property Development - $1 ,000,000 over 2011 to 2015
In summary, the recommendations are to proceed with $31,600,000 and to defer $6,125,000 of the
proposed projects. The biggest staff reason related to the deferrals is the need to concentrate the
limited funding toward redevelopment into a single area, and that priority is Gladstone. Until that
area is complete, outside programs in either Hillcrest or scattered areas should be considered for
deferral, or additional funding will need to be identified.
2011 - 2015 Capital Improvement Plan
Page Two
Action ReCluired
The BEDC should review the proposed CIP area items related to economic development and
redevelopment and make a recommendation for approval, approval with revisions or denial to the City
Council.
Attachments:
1. 2011 - 2015 Capital Improvement Plan Projects Grouped by Project Category
2. 2011 - 2015 Capital Improvement Plan Declined Projects by Department
3. 2011- 2015 Capital Improvement Plan [available on Citywebsite on June 7, 2010]
FIVE- YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN PROJECTS
GROUPED BY PROJECT CA TEGORY
P,,,?OJECT
NUMBEF?
Status: Accepted
FD09.030
MT10,030
MT08.Q40
FD03.020
FD06.020
FOOS.DiD
FD09,020
IT09.010
:T09-020
PWl1,OlO
PW11 ,020
PW11 ,030
PW11.D40
PW06,010
PW06,060
PW06,070
PW07,030
PW09,010
PW09,020
PW09,030
PM10,010
PM'11 ,010
PM11 ,020
PM03,01O
PM03060
PMO-(,01O
PM08040
PM08,050
Fire Training Faciiity
MCC Exercise Equipment
MCC Exterior Metal Painting
Replacement of Fire Truck
Replw;ement of Fire Truck
Ambulance Replacement
J\mbulanceReplacertlent
PhoneSyslerT'
Fiber Optics
C<\bforJ<\cobsenMo\'I{er
Jetter Tnick
ParallelogrmnUfl
Single Axle Plcy,r,TnJck
TwoToro U\wn Mowersamj Tv,nTrailers
One Tractor Loader and Ttiree Wheel Trucksler
One Sncy,r, Plow Truck
i-Ton TnJck
Je1/VacTnick
Two Toro Mowers and One 4-Wheel Truckster
One '1 ton One 1'1/2ton and One 1/2 ton Trucks
Wetlmld EntliJ.ncement PrograrT'
Fish Creek Open Space
Goodrich Parl< improvements
Lions Park Improvements
Joy Park improvements
Community Field Upgrades
Park Equipment, Fence and Court Replacement
Gladstone Savanna Improvements
PFiOJECT
CATEGORY
Building Malntena
Building Maintena
Building Maintena
Equipment
Equipment
Equipment
Equipment
Equipment
Equipment
Equipmer:[
Equipment
Equipment
Equipment
Equipment
Equipment
Equipment
Equipment
Equipmer:[
Equipment
Equipment
Parks
Parks
Parks
Parks
Parks
Parl<s
Parks
Parks
TOTAL
COST
3,100000
59,000
120,000
PRiOR
Attachment 1
3,100000
ALLOGATION OF COSTS BY YEAR
,
30,000
o
5iO,000
o
o
o
o
o
50,000
o
59,000
o
o
o
o
3.879.000
30.000
570.000
3.100.000
60.000
50,000
119.000
449.730
481,280
117,500
12U25
120,000
300,800
18,000
185,000
114,320
185,730
85,200
82,500
171,000
71,200
325,000
98,300
15'1,500
o
449,130
o
o
o
o
o
18,000
o
o
o
o
l!
o
l!
o
o
o
l!
o
o
o
120,000
85,200
82,500
71,200
60,800
o
o
o
o
121,025
o
o
o
o
117,500
o
185,000
o
300,800
o
481,280
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
325,000
o
o
o
o
,
100,800
o
o
o
114,320
o
o
o
o
o
o
171,000
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
185,730
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
98,300
o
o
785.310
o
892.230
125,000
4,250,000
500,000
350,000
300,000
150,000
125,000
1,'100,000
50,000
300,000
200,000
35,000
25,000
25,000
o
2,250,000
25,000
20,000
o
r;
2,000,000
400,000
25,000
20,000
250,000
o
50,000
o
o
o
o
'00,000
o
o
o
o
o
o
25,000
20,000
o
o
50,000
100,000
25,000
20,000
o
1,200,000
o
o
o
o
25,000
20,000
o
250,000
295.000
7.510.000
610.000
3.7'10.000
45.000
2.695.000
95.000
Attachment 1
FIVE- YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN PROJECTS
GROUPED BY PROJECT CA TEGORY
Status: Accepted
P,r.;:OJECT P,r.;:OJECT TOTAL PRiOR ALLOC.ATION OF COSTS BY YEAR
NUMBE.r.;: CATEGORY COST
PW1'1,OSO Signal System at Soutl1lawnilVlall Entrance PlIbllcWorks 250,000 0 0 250000 , 0 0
PW03,210 Lift Station Upgrade Program PubiicWorks 200,000 0 0 25000 25,000 150,000 0
PWQ4,11O COllntyRd D Court, EastofTH 61 to Hazelwood PlIbllcWorks 1,00/,500 0 0 0 0 0 ',00-f,500
PW05,OSO Pond.Avenue/Dorland Road PubiicWorks S/O.OOO 30,000 0 0 0 840,000 0
PW07,060 Western Hill~;fLarpenteuri\r1;a Streets PlIblicWorks 5,9S0,OOO 200,000 5,7S0,000 0 0 0 0
PW07,100 TH 36 English lr:tHrsedion improvements Public Works 14,SOO,000 0 SOO,OOO 1,000,000 500,000 12,500,000 0
PWOS,050 LakewooejiSterllng Ama Streets Public Works 2,430,000 200,000 0 2,230,000 0 0 0
PWOS,060 CreslvimviHigh'u'/Ooe) Area Streets Public Works 4,779,700 0 0 200,000 4,579,700 0 0
PWOS,070 Bartelmy Meyer f\rea Streets Public Works 1,440,000 0 0 0 100,000 1,340,000 0
PWOS,OSO BartelmyStrwt MinnehatlaAve toStillwaterRej Public Works 1,170,000 0 0 0 150,000 1,020,000 0
PWOS,100 Sterling Stmet,Lofl(jin Lane to Crestview Forest Dr Public Works 770,000 0 100,000 670,000 0 0 0
PW09,070 Ferne)nleiivyAreaSlreet Improvements Public Works 2,120,000 0 0 l! 0 0 1,94S,400
CD04,010 Gladstonef\rea Streetscape- Phase Rmjevelopment 5,300,000 0 5,300,000 0 0 0 0
CD09,020 Glae)stone Phnse Redeveloprm;nt 3,500,000 0 0 0 400,000 3,100,000 0
CD09,030 Gladstone Ptiase !Ii Rmjevelopment 5,750,000 0 0 0 0 0 3,750,000
14.550.000 0 5.300.000 0 400.000 3.100.000 3.750.000
64.845.385 1.070.000 17.212.230 7.823.800 8.930.400 19.871.145 7.766.210
Attachment 2
FIVE- YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN PROJECTS
GROUPED BY DEPARTMENT
Status: Declined
Pf?OJECT
NUMBEF?
C002,0:0
C004,030
C004,Q40
C004,050
C009,0:0
m:o,o:o
F009,OW
MT:0,020
MT08,O:O
MT08,090
MT08,"0
MT08,120
MT08,:40
MT08,:50
MT08,:60
MT09,0:0
PM:0040
PMOI,100
PM08,060
PM09,010
PW::,OIO
PW02,:20
PW03,':30
PW03,:60
PW03,:80
PW03,:90
PW06,WO
PW06,:30
PW08,030
PW09,060
PW09,080
PW09,:00
1-1Dusing Repl"cementPrograrT'
Hillcrest.Are" RD"dw"y Improvements
HillcrestJ\re" Redevelopment
HillcrestAreaStreetscape
CDmmercinl Property Redevelopment
ALLOCATiON OF COSTS BY YE.AR
TOTAL PRiOR
COST
825,000 0 15,OOO :50,000 200,000 200,000 200,000
:,500,000 0 0 0 1,500,000 0
UOO,OOO 0 0 100,000 0 :,000,000 0
UOO,OOO 0 0 0 0 1J00,000 0
:,000,000 0 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000
6.125.000 (; 275.000 450.000 400.000 4.600.000 400.000
3,300,000 0 0 0 l! 0 3,300,000
124,660 0 0 0 0 0 :24,660
3.424.660 0 0 0 0 0 3.424.660
42,600 0 0 0 0 0 42,600
:80,000 60,000 0 0 40,000 40,000 40,000
2':5,350 0 0 0 0 0 2:5,350
:95,000 0 :08,000 0 0 l! 81,000
73,400 0 0 0 0 0 '13,400
:63,400 0 0 0 63,000 40,000 60,400
:0,400,000 0 0 0 0 r; 10,400,000
53,100 0 0 0 l! 53 ,TOO 0
:4:,:00 0 0 0 0 82,400 58,100
11.464.550 60.000 108.000 0 IOJ.OOO 216.100 10.977.450
:,260,000 0 0 :,260,000 0 0 0
4:0,000 :60,000 35,000 35,000 60,000 60000 60,000
350,000 50,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000
350,000 :00,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000
2.370.000 310.000 145.000 1.405.000 170.000 170.000 170.000
4,000,000 0 0 0 0 200,000 3,800,000
325,000 0 325,000 0 0 l! 0
850,000 0 0 0 0 100,000 741,000
210,000 0 42,000 42,000 42,000 42,000 42,000
500,000 0 100,000 :00,000 :00,000 100000 100,000
300,000 0 :00,000 :00,000 :00,000 0 0
2,f300,000 0 0 2,f300,000 0 0 0
:,240,000 0 0 0 0 0 1,240,000
58,000 0 0 0 r; 0 58,000
800,000 0 0 :00,000 100,000 l! 0
3,860,000 0 0 0 0 0 3,744,200
4,440,000 0 0 0 0 200,000 4,106,800
19.183.000 0 561.000 2.942.000 942.000 642.000 13.832.000
42.567.210 3!O.OOO 1.095.000 4.797.000 1.615.000 5.628.100 28.804.110
ReplacementDf Fire Station
.AmbulanceReplacement
Mnplewood Community Center Aquatic Lighting
City Facilities Security Systems Enh,mcerrent
MCC Gym Roof
MCC Lnp!Leisum Pool Finist'
MCC Boilers (3)
MCC Cm-pet
Police Department Expnnsion
City Hall Carpet
MCC Pool Snn:j Filter
GethsemanePnrl<
Parks-Trail Development
OpenSpw;e Improvements
NeighbortlOod Parks
Enst StlOre Drive f\rea Stmets
City Landfill Closure
Beebe Road, HolloVilEY- Larpenteur
City.wide Si:jew"lk Improvements
Sanitarj Sewer Pipe Lining!Sealing ProgralT
Sanitary Sewer Sump Pump Removnl PrograrT'
Carver Crossings Area improvements
E:jgmton!Roselawn Drain"ge Improvements
rwo ':!2Ton Pickup Trucks
GerlHl Pon:j Dminage Improvements
Farrell!Ferndale Area Street Improvements
Denr:is!McClelland J\re" Street improvements
Attachment 2
PROJECTS DEFERRED/DECLINED
In the course of preparation of this Capital Improvement Plan, several noteworthy
projects were proposed but deemed by staff to not be appropriate for inclusion at this
time. These projects are discussed below and included for your review.
. Hillcrest Area Redevelopment - Staff recommends that this proj ect be deferred
until the Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment is further along so as to avoid
competing with each other.
. Housing Replacement Program - This is a worthwhile project and the current
economic conditions would call for some investment in this project. City
finances are not currently available to provide sufficient benefit.
. Commercial Property Redevelopment - While this is a worthy project, staff
does not believe that the costs are a priority use of tax levies. Staff will continue
to look for opportunities in this area.
. Various Requests for Trucks, Lawn Mowers, etc. - This equipment will
continue to need periodic replacement and other similar requests are included in
the CIP. These projects are indicative of a need to keep replacements down to an
only-as-needed basis.
. Police Department Expansion - This is an expensive proposition and its need
has not been adequately demonstrated. Space needs at City Hall continue to be
evaluated. This project may require a referendum to identify a source of funds.
. Replacement/repair of Fire Station - This item will need to be addressed in the
coming years, as a couple of stations need to be brought up to code and major
repairs to roof areas and internal areas need attention. This item was deferred
due to the high cost and a lack offunding identified. The Fire Chief will be
conducting a station feasibility study to determine if replacements are warranted.
. Police Department and Public Works Carpeting - The carpet in these areas
are showing wear. Staff believes this need needs to be deferred for a few more
years due to the lack of funding.
. Community Center Gym Roof, Pool Area Sand Filter, Aquatic Lighting,
Lap/Leisure Pool, Boilers, Carpet and Ultra-voilet Treatment System-
Numerous maintenance initiatives are recommended for the Community Center.
Staff believes the financing for replacement items at MCC need to be discussed
as a new method of funds are identified, as the current M CC operational revenue
does not sustain these larger maintenance costs.
. Ambulance Replacement - the replacement rates for the ambulance fleet has
been delayed by one year at the recommendation ofthe Fire Chief based upon
current department needs.
. City Landfill Closure - Staff continues to monitor the landfill and work with
authorities. When closure is mandated, this will be added to the next CIP.
. Signal System at County Rd. D and Hazelwood - 3 way stop signs are
installed and are effective. Signal lights are not yet warranted.
Attachment 2
. Park Projects - The source of funding for expansion ofthe parks system has
been diminishing and with the economic slow-down, has become minimal. A
new source of funding for parks and park amenities needs to be identified. The
following projects were deferred due to funding limitations:
o Gethsemane Park - this proposal for improvements will not proceed until
a development proposal is brought forward. An alternative plan for
purchasing the property may be explored.
o Trail Development - this program is being deferred due to lack of
funding. The trail plan will be implemented with street improvement
projects.
o Neighborhood Parks - this program is being deferred due to lack of
funding and funding priorities directed to major park improvements.
o Goodrich Park - the proposed expansion and improvements to Goodrich
Park needed to be reduced by approximately 50% due to limited available
funding and priorities in existing projects.
o Joy Park - the proposed continuation of improvements to Joy Park were
reduced by 50% due to limited funding and priorities in existing projects.
. Various Street Improvements - The following street improvement projects are
deferred to 2016 or beyond and will be considered in the normal street
improvement plan due to limited funding and a desire to reduce the level of City
debt:
o East Shore Drive Area Streets
o Montana/Nebraska Area Streets
o Carver Crossings Area Improvements
o County Rd C Area Streets, TH 61 to White Bear Avenue
o Beebe Road, Holloway to Larpenteur
o City-wide sidewalk improvements
o Ferndale/Ivy Area Street Improvements
o Dennis/McClelland Area Street Improvements
. Edgerton - Roselawn Stonn Sewer - Due to funding limitations for this large
and expensive project, along with the controversial nature ofthe improvements,
this project has been deferred out of the next 5-year period.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
James Antonen, City Manager
DuWayne Konewko, Community Development and Parks Director
Charles Ahl, Assistant City Manager
Michael Martin, AICP, Planner
Fish Creek Estates, Review and Discuss Proposed Concept Plan
and Related Costs and Recovery of Costs - Phase I
June 1,2010
SUBJECT:
INTRODUCTION/SUMMARY
The former CoPar property has recently been placed on the market for sale at a price of
$2,750,000. This item was placed on the March 1,2010 city council agenda for discussion of a
concept for acquisition of the property in order to protect the pristine portions of the site. At the
April 26, 2010 city council meeting, staff included various options for council review and
consideration. Council directed staff to discuss this item with the business and economic
development commission (BEDC) and solicit its input regarding the concept proposals.
The protection of this site was a priority goal of the city council at the February 5,2010 retreat,
although discussions at that time were focused along the lines of a referendum approach. The
council indicated an interest in exploring various options. In addition, the Fish Creek Natural
Area Greenway Ad-Hoc Commission strongly recommended protection of the Fish Creek
Corridor (approximately 12 acres) along with the two parcels (approximately 38 acres) directly
south of Fish Creek.
The following attachments are included in this staff report:
1. Staff memo to council dated April 21, 2010- Fish Creek Area: Consider Purchase of
Property and Options for Recovery of Costs;
2. Preliminary Concept Plan and Estimated Infrastructure Costs;
3. Fish Creek Open space, Proposed Capital Improvement Plan - Project Number
PM11.010
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the BEDC review and discuss the Fish Creek Proposed Concept Plan
and provide recommendations to the city council.
Attachments:
1. Staff memo to council dated April 21,2010 - Fish Creek Area: Consider Purchase of Property and Options for Recovery
of Costs;
2. Preliminary Concept Plan and Estimated Infrastructure Costs;
3. Fish Creek Open space, Proposed Capital Improvement Plan - Project Number PM11.01 0
Attachment 1
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
James Antonen, City Manager
DuWayne Konekwo, Director of Community Development/Parks
Charles Ahl, Assistant City Manager
Fish Creek Area: Consider Purchase of Property and Options for
Recovery of Costs
April 21, 2010
SUBJECT:
INTRODUCTION/SUMMARY
The former CoPar property has recently been placed on the market for sale at a price of $2,750,000.
This item was placed on the March 1 ,t agenda for discussion of a concept for acquisition of the
property in order to protect the pristine portions of the site. The protection of this site was a priority
goal of the City Council at the February 5, 2010 retreat, although discussions at that time were focused
along the lines of a referendum approach. The Council indicated an interest in exploring various
options.
Various members of the Management Team have reviewed and further developed options for
consideration. Each option has various risks and financial implications that will require further analysis
and staff evaluation.
OPTIONS FOR DISCUSSION
#1 - Concept for sale of a small portion of Fish Creek to buy time for consideration:
1. City holds Public Hearing on Infrastructure Improvements for Phase 1, which includes
development of 9-15 lots.
a. Cost of infrastructure is $500,000 - $750,000.
b. Additional, consideration should be given to include a $700,000 extension of Sanitary
Sewer for future connections east of 1-494.
2. Various City Commissions identify 20 acres of permanent Open Space for protection on the
Fish Creek site. These 20 acres are the most crucial for protection of this site.
a. Estimated value of $500,000 - $800,000.
3. City sells non-taxable bonds of up to $2,250,000
a. Infrastructure = $ 750,000
b. Sewer = $ 700,000 [to be repaid with future connect charge]
c. Open Space = $ 800,000 [allowed under 429 as park land]
4. City adds sale of taxable bond by EDA of $1 ,950,000.
a. TOTAL Bonding:
i. Non-taxable Infrastructure Bonds - $2,250,000
ii. Taxable EDA Bonds - $1.950.000
iii. Maximum Bond Issuance - $4,200,000
5. EDA purchases the entire 73-acre former CoPar site for up to $2,750,000 in fall 2010 by using
$1,950,000 taxable bond plus $800,000 non-taxable open space bond.
6. EDA dedicates 20 acres of 73 acres site to City as permanent Open Space.
FISH CREEK PURCHASE CONSIDERATION
PAGE TWO
7. Financial Recovery Plan:
a. $750,000 assessments
i. Split 50-50 between 15 lots and EDA 53 acres at 375K each.
ii. Each lot has a $25,000 assessment to be paid at sale.
1. 15 lots @ $25,000 each = $375,000
2. 15 lots impact about 15-25 acres of northern property.
iii. EDA incurs cost of $375,000 against remaining 38 acres [53 - 25].
b. $700,000 Sewer Installation
i. Initially paid by Sewer Utility Bond
ii. Connection charges for future residents re-pay utility over 10-30 years.
1. Connection charge per ordinance is consistent with payments that other
residents in City have paid.
2. As land east of 1-494 develops, developers are charged for service.
c. Phase 1: 9 - 15 Lot Plan
i. 1 ,t payment on Bond would be set for February 2012;
1. $70,000 is needed for this payment.
ii. Sale plan of lots by EDA to various builders:
1. Sell 3 lots in 2011 at $60K each = $180,000
2. Sell 6 lots in 2012 at $60K each = $360,000
3. Sell 6 lots in 2013 at $70K each = $420,000
4. Total recovered cost = $960,000
iii. $375,000 must go to debt service for infrastructure
iv. Remaining $585K [$960K - $375K] goes to EDA to offset Land purchase.
d. Open Space Purchase of 20 acres for $800,000
i. Option #1 :
1. Set a 50-50 match for donations.
2. Assume $150K from RWMWD and $250K from Ramsey County.
3. Maplewood share is $400,000.
a. New PAC charges are 15 lots at $3,300-$3,500 = $50,000;
remaining amount from current PAC. This requires a re-
prioritization of PAC plans for 2011- 2015.
ii. Option 2:
1. Assume 50-50 match with RWMWD and Ramsey County.
2. Then, City's $400K of debt is $35,000 per year of levy. This could be
deducted from the planned increase in park funding of $120,000 that
was being planned for future Capital expenses in 2012 - 2015.
3. This plan also requires a re-prioritization of park expenditures for 2012-
2015 and beyond.
FISH CREEK PURCHASE CONSIDERATION
PAGE THREE
e. EDA ownership of 53 acres after donating 20 acres to City for Open Space.
i. Expenses:
1. Taxable Bonds =
2. Infrastructure Assessment =
3. 2011 Interest Payment =
4. 2012 Debt Payment =
5. TOTAL Expenses =
ii. Revenue from sale of 15 lots on northern 25 acres:
1. $960,000 - $375,000 = ($ 585,000)
iii. Net Funds needed by EDA = $2,037,500
iv. Options for EDA Fund Recovery on remaining 38 acres.
1. Grants / referendum raises $2,037,500 by December 2012.
2. Sell land to a private developer for at least $2,100,000 in Spring 2013.
3. EDA, in 2013, decides to develop land:
a. Assume that 50 lots to be developed on 38 acres.
b. Begin sales in 2013-2014.
c. Install $1,500,000 in infrastructure.
d. Expenses:
i. Land - $2,037,500
ii. Infrastructure -$1,500,000
iii. TOTAL = $3,537,500
e. Recovery plan in 2013- 2018:
i. 50 lots at $75,000 each = $3,750,000
Approach 4: Sale of Existing Carver Neighborhood Preserve:
$1,950,000
$ 375,000
$ 97,500
$ 200,000
$2,622,500
4.
1. The City could, at anytime, beginning in 2010 or, based on above
concept, wait until December 2012, could place the existing Carver
Neighborhood Preserve available for sale. The Carver Neighborhood
Preserve is located immediately north of the existing site and was
purchased with the Open Space Referendum funds from the 1990's
Open Space Bonds. This site is 23 acres in size.
2. The Carver Neighborhood Preserve could be platted through a process
developed by our Community Development Planning staff. It is likely
that staff would need to provide a 150-foot protection barrier around the
perimeter to protect adjacent properties from future development. Staff
has estimated that approximately 50 single family residential lots that
would average about 12,500 - 15,000 square feet in size would be
created through the platting process. No construction would be
implemented by the City or through the EDA.
3. Once the platting was completed, the City marketing of the site would
continue and a developer would be found who agreed to develop as
platted by the City. The developer would be expected to install the
necessary infrastructure and site grading for the 50-lot plan.
FISH CREEK PURCHASE CONSIDERATION
PAGE FOUR
4. The sale of the platted property would likely generate approximately
$1,800,000 to $2,000,000 for the City's use in purchase the Fish Creek
property.
5. The remaining costs for the purchase of the site would need to be
generated from PAC fees from these 50 lots [about $150,000],
dedications from Ramsey County and Ramsey Washington Metro
Watershed District [$350,000] and outside donations and/or grants
[$750,000].
6. This proposal has the minimal risk to the City but has a number of
drawbacks in that it involves property that the existing neighborhood has
planned as Open Space. This plan also provides assumptions of sales,
which may be difficult to find a developer interested in the current
economy. The plan does have the benefit that it can be fairly quickly
implemented.
7. Finally, the financials are very tight on this option. If the City purchases
the existing property, it may be a number of years before this sale can be
made and all funds received.
Discussion of Option #1 :
1. This option provides for a development of 9 - 15 lots on the northern Y. of the site in order to
buy two - three years of time to make a determination on how to proceed. It provides for the
immediate protection of the most valuable 20 acres of the site, while also developing the least
desirable property. It involves using City funds and has a risk that lot sales will not occur
[although only 3 lots would need to be sold in 2011 and another 6 in 2012 to make this work
financially.
2. This option pushes a decision date on the overall purchase of the property to December of
2012. At that point, if funds have been raised or options explored, including Approach #4
above, [the consideration of sale of the Carver Neighborhood Preserve] the remainder of the
site could be dedicated as open space.
3. There is risk in that the City will be issuing bonds and if the entire housing market remains
depressed, the option could involve expenses to the City. Those expenses would begin in
2013 under this scenario.
#2: Concept for purchase of a portion of the Site:
1. Under this concept, the City would attempt to partner with outside agencies, likely Ramsey
County and Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District to raise funds to purchase the most
valuable 20 acres of the site and allow the remainder of the property to go to development.
2. This concept has a much lower outlay of funds, probably in the $500,000 to $800,000 range. It
is likely that 50% of the cost could be raised from outside agencies. The remainder would
need to be raised from PAC fees, as no bonding scenario would be allowed. Are-prioritization
of PAC fees would be necessary as the planned expenditure of $250,000 - $400,000 of
existing PAC has not been planned for 2011 - 2015.
3. This concept has a minimal risk to future City expenses and minimal involvement of City staff
time. The remainder parcel is available for development according to existing standards that
are in place with zoning and land use controls.
4. It is not known if the land owner would sell only the 20 acres deemed most desirable by the
various City Commissions and at what value.
FISH CREEK PURCHASE CONSIDERATION
PAGE FIVE
#4: Concept to do nothing and let the parcel go to development:
1. Under this concept, the City would walk away from any purchase, bonding and protection.
Obviously there is no outlay of funds or efforts on behalf of the City. The property would be
developed in the coming years and protection would remain with a developer. Consideration of
protection of the 20 critical acres would remain with attempts to use the zoning and land use
protection measures within City code.
2. This concept does not pursue the goals of the recent task force recommendations.
Discussion
There are a number of assumptions within each concept that involve risk for the City. First, the
Council has indicated that City debt should be decreased. The first concept will not help with that goal
and consideration of other funding needs at Gladstone, Gethsemane and the Street Reconstruction
Program will need to be reviewed to reduce bonding levels. The first concept has a various level of
risk and will pledge the support of the tax base if the concept fails or takes longer than the various
planning periods. The dedication of staff efforts to this concept will limit the other initiatives that the
Council may deem appropriate. Finally, these concepts put the City into the private development
world.
There are certainly positives for each concept. The protection of the property is a primary goal and the
staff is confident that Option #1 is a solid financial concept, instead of pursuing a referendum during
these difficult economic times. With the City maintaining control of the development site plan, this
approach allows the City to balance the protection needs as the primary development approach.
Protection of the natural resources will not be compromised by the financial incentives.
Next Steps
As noted above, the next steps are for the Council to debate the concepts. At some point, depending
on the option, the Council should direct staff to initiate the various tasks with existing planning staff,
along with discussions with our bonding/financial consultant and bond counsel. The Community
Development Department will be taking the lead on the project. Most of the options have had limited
or no public involvement or discussion. Direction from the Council on one of the concepts is
requested.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council direct the City Manager to proceed with one of the Fish Creek
purchase concepts.
Attachments:
1. Map showing property sale information
Attachment 2
~=~
Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
To: DuVVayneKonewko
Community Development and Parks Director
City of Maple wood
1830 East County Road B
Maplewood, MN 55109
II
Suite 345N
2550 University Avenul;
West
SL Paul, Minnesota
55114
Memorandum
From: Jon Horn, P.E.
Date: June 1, 2010
Re: Fish Creek Development, Phase I
Preliminary Concept Plan and Estimated Infrastructure Costs
Attached is a preliminary concept plan for Phase I ofthe proposed Fish
Creek development. As discussed, the plan has been prepared based on
the following design parameters:
o The Phase I development should include between 9 to 13 lots,
preferably 13.
o The lots should range in size between 10,000 square feet (SF) and
15,000 SF, and preferably be 15,000 SF.
o The proposed lot dimensions should consider the City minimum
requirements for lot frontages, depths, and setbacks.
o The location for the new roadway intersection on Carver Avenue has
been designed considering the traffic analysis completed as a part of
the past EA VV for the area.
o The plan considers the City's wetland buffer and setback requirements
(75 foot average buffer and 50 foot minimum buffer).
o The existing pipeline easement that runs north/south through the
eastern portion of the site creates some limitations on the possible
development ofthis area.
The preliminary concept plan includes II lots. All lots meet the 10,000
SF minimum lot size requirement.
l1li
TEL 6516454197
FAX 651645 5116
Attachment 2
Mr. DuWayne Konewko
June 1, 2010
Page 2 of2
We have developed preliminary cost estimates for the public infrastructure
that would be required to serve the proposed II lot subdivision illustrated
on the concept plan. The preliminary costs are summarized below.
T ota! Estimated
Site Grading
Street
Storm Drainage
Sanitary Sewer
Water Main
Total Estimated Cost
$ 200,000
$ 256,000
$ 121,000
$ 120,000
$ 125.000
$ 822,000
The preliminary cost estimates have been determined based on the
following assumptions:
. The estimated costs include a 10% construction cost contingency and a
31.5% allowance for engineering and administrative costs.
o The costs include mass grading for the II Jot area based on a
conceptnal grading plan for the area.
o The roadway costs include a 2 foot subcut and sand section consistent
with the City's design standards. It is possible that this work could be
eliminated based on the results of future soil borings.
o No costs have been included for any turn lane improvements on
Carver Avenue.
We understand the City will be considering the proposed concept plan and
the associated infrastructnre costs in determining whether to further
proceed with the proposed development. Please let me know if you have
questions or we can provide any additional information to assist in your
evaluatiolL
cc: File
I
I
"<' '---- I
'~ """" ""<' '---- I
'~""" ""'<' '---- I
", '~ "~, '--- I
", '---" ", <,' ---,
"~, ---, """" ""'<:t:---"
"'~ ~,---;"'~ I "'"'----,,
"" "" '~"" 1 """ _____
'~, ", """"",,: ~l':::"'-", ""'-,
"'" -', ---, --- ""
", I "~"" ---, -::::::'"
-,,~-- ~" -
'or'"~"~"~ " """
",
/
/
=-.::::::::-
",
",
,,~
II
4~~
~<i5 1
\,
I
\
\~\/ \ .:..
"
\--
--\~-- ----
\ ~_"nn_
--Y""
ii'i/i
Ln_!~
t ~
,
z,
~,
t:l
,
,
,
,
I
,
,
i (\
,
O'O{ 'w"onr
7 ~
~~----+~
'=rl! (I I
'-r '
, ,
o ~ ~"Mooo"",o' ,,~''''" ",,'"
d Jj\SU9IHU\Oav~\~JJ~J
~P.0 ]115d ~IlJ~
q--,~,
,
f1'd~ f1f\l'd")..l~fl
,
,"090:'
Z
lachm~12
"-
f-
"-
W
o
Z
o
o
o
w
<f)
o
"-
o
Ct:
"-
0
4
0 0
4 ~
~ 8
~ 0 m
z 0
9 ~
0
~ ~
rn ~
!I~ D
81 '
~:i:
~ ~ 'f~
o ,
t~
i'::Jiq
'=::::_'0
~ :2:~
.--0
"':l.:::;~
~ '<3.s
~t~H
, , .
~.,.. t::
't ~ r..;>
~ 2'
(,"C1
f-
Z
W
:;;
"-
o
~
w
[jJ
o
'"
w
w
Ct:
o
I
<f)
w:
f-
iii
I
x
w
ci
.E
gf
e1il
~-~
~~
e"g
12.,
Attachment 3
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
2011 - 2015
PROJECT TITLE: Fish Creek Open Space TOTAL COST: $4,250,000
PROJECT NUMBER: PM11.010 r PROJECT CA TiGORY: Parks
DESCRIPTION: Fish Creek Open Space
JUSTIFICATION:
The City Council, acting through the Economic Development Authority, is considering purchasing the 73 acre
Fish Creek Open Space Area and developing 12-15 lots; and then considering grants and a possible Open
Space Referendum for repayment for the remaining portions of the property.
PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES BY YEARS:
...... Funding Source : Prior-Years -: 2011 2012. ! ... 2013~2014! 2015 lFundingTofai
Ramsey County 0 250,000 0 0 0 0 250,000
Bonds-G.O. fmprovement 0 350,000 0 0 0 0 350,000
Grants 0 0 0 2,000,000 0 0 2,OOO,OOU
SanUary Sewer Fund 0 100,000 0 0 0 0 700,000
Park Development Fund 0 50,000 0 0 0 0 00.000
Grants 0 150,000 0 0 0 0 150,000
B~~~~:_~al Assessment ... 0 750,000 0 0,. o .. 0 750,000
PROJECT COSTS
PROJECT STARTING DATE: July 2010 Preliminaries: $300,000
land Acquisition: $2,750,000
PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: July 2013 Construction: $1,200,000
Equipment and Other: $0
---~- -----..
NEIGHBORHOOD: 12 - Highwood Project Costs: $4,250,000
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
James Antonen, City Manager
Michael Martin, AICP, Planner
DuWayne Konewko, Community Development and Parks Director
Business Retention Tour
June 2, 2010
SUBJECT:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION
At the March 1, 2010 business and economic development commission (BEDC) meeting, the
idea of holding a business retention tour was discussed. The BEDC expressed a need to
establish a mission and vision statement before moving forward. Those statements have been
drafted and approved by the BEDC. An article introducing the BEDC and its mission and vision
statements was printed in a recent city newsletter. Staff is now looking to begin the process of
meeting with businesses in the Maplewood community.
DISCUSSION
Staff is planning to schedule times throughout the summer for BEDC members, council
members and staff to meet with Maplewood businesses. These meetings will be largely
informal and last anywhere between 15 and 30 minutes. Staff is going to block off times on
Tuesday mornings and Thursday afternoons for BEDC members to sign up. Once a time block
has been taken staff will then work to schedule meetings with one to three businesses and see
if a councilmember is able to attend.
At the June 7, 2010 meeting, staff will have a signup sheet so that BEDC members can start to
consider possible times for meetings. Staff intends for these meetings to start by the end of
June with meetings on Tuesdays starting at 8 a.m. and on Thursdays starting at 5 p.m. Staff
will coordinate with business owners and council members to establish meeting times. If no
council member is able to meet, staff and BEDC members will still meet with business owners.
The original intent was to have each BEDC member attend an equal amount of meetings, but
staff realizes that work and personal schedules will allow some individuals to meet more than
others. Therefore the signup sheet will be completely voluntary.
The intent is that by the end of August, the BEDC will have met with about 25 businesses. Staff
will select the 25 businesses randomly from the city's registry of businesses compiled from the
city clerk's office and the fire department. This tour will serve as an outreach to inform business
owners about the Maplewood economic development authority (EDA) and BEDC and to receive
any feedback. This feedback will afford BEDC members to obtain a small sample of concerns
for business owners in Maplewood. This is in no way meant to be a comprehensive study of
attitudes or positions of business owners in Maplewood but will rather give BEDC members and
staff an opportunity to meet business owners and get an idea of what types of issues are of
concern.
RECOMMENDATION
Review this memo and come to the June 7, 2010 BEDC meeting prepared to discuss your
thoughts on the business retention tour and sign up for potential meeting dates.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
James Antonen, City Manager
Soham Banerji, BEDC, Intern
Michael Martin, AICP, Planner
DuWayne Konewko, Community Development and Parks Director
Baseline Business Survey
June 2, 2010
SUBJECT:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION
City staff would like to establish an annual baseline business survey to garner an understanding
of the current business environment to help guide staff's and the BE DC's efforts. The BEDC
discussed the survey at its meeting on March 1, 2010. The comments from this meeting were
utilized to draft the attached survey.
Staff will conduct this survey using a database of more than 800 businesses in the city of
Maplewood. This database was compiled by using registries from the city clerk and fire
departments. Staff will scientifically select a random sample of businesses from this database.
It is staff's intent to send this survey out annually to the same businesses to generate a picture
over time of how feelings towards city efforts and the business climate have changed. After the
survey is completed, staff will provide the results at a future BEDC meeting.
DISCUSSION
Staff plans to finalize the survey and select the businesses by the end of June. The survey will
ask businesses to return the survey within two weeks and will include a self-addressed
envelope with return postage. Staff will follow up with businesses yet to return surveys to
promote a high response rate.
While formulating these questions staff has stayed consistent with the overall goal of engaging
the business community and encouraging business leaders to participate in these surveys,
while being consistent with the BE DC's mission and vision statements.
RECOMMENDATION
Review this memo and attached survey before the June 7, 2010 BEDC meeting and be
prepared to offer any final thoughts or recommendations before staff sends out the survey later
this summer.
Attachments:
1. Baseline Business Survey
Section 1: General Information (Optional)
Name:
Address
Attachment 1
Swvey Number
Email
Phone
Company Name
Do you Own or lease property?
Position
Section 2: Business Environment
Number of years/months your business has been in operation in Maplewood
Is your business planning to stay in Maplewood?
Is your business planning to expand in the next 3 years?
Does the City of Maplewood serve your expansion needs?
Rate the following questions on scale of 1 to 5, corresponding to the following scale:
1: Does not meet my needs; 2: Below Average; 3: Average; 4: Above Average; 5: Excellent
How would you rate the current location for your business?
How would you rate the business regulatory environment in Maplewood?
How would you rate the proximity of Maplewood to major markets?
How would you rate the proximity of Maplewood to service suppliers?
Section 3: Employment
Number of full-time employees Number of part-time/seasonal employees
Approximately what percentage of your employees are Maplewood residents?
Approximately what percentage of your business employs high school graduates?
Approximately what percentage of your business employs college graduates?
Does the City of Maplewood provide adequate resources for continuing education opportunities?
Section 4: Expenses
Rate the following questions on scale of 1 to 5, corresponding to the following scale:
1: Does not meet my needs; 2: Below Average; 3: Average; 4: Above Average; 5: Excellent
How would you rate the City of Maplewood on the availability of rental space?
How would you rate the City of Maplewood on the cost of rental space?
How would you rate the City of Maplewood on the availability of land for your business?
How would you rate the City of Maplewood on the cost of land?
Attachment 1
Section 5: Sustainable Development and the Environment
Does your business currently recycle?
Does your business plan to recycle/expand recycling in the next 1 year?
How would you rate the City of Maplewood on its environmental quality?
Do you think the City of Maplewood is doing enough to encourage sustainable development?
If you answered 'No' to the previous question, what would you say the City of Maplewood needs to do to encourage businesses to
apply sustainable development practices?
Section 6: Opinions
List 3 Strengths of the City of Maplewood as a place to do business
List 3 Weaknesses of the City of Maplewood as a place to do business
List 3 factors that affect your businesses ability to attract and/or retain customers
What are your suggestions on improving the City of Maplewood as a business environment?
Thank you for taking the time to help the City of Maplewood serve your businesses needs.