05-09-2005 EDA MIN - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Economic Development Authority Minutes May 9, 2005 Page 3 possible Ms. Mehelich stated that the price of the Elk River Business Park property is very competitive at $1.80/square fool, compared io $2-$2.25/square foot in Rogers and Otsego. She noted the City will need to market the EDA property at a higher rate due to increased costs of infrastructure and the property will likely be in the $2-$2.25/square foot range, as well. Ms. Mehelich stated that Amcon was hoping to attract more 30,000 - 50,000 square foot users, but that staff is seeing more users looking in the 25,000 square foot range. She stated that the Master developer concept would be a different situation than Elk River Business Park, since in this situation the EDA would continue to maintain control of the property. She stated there would be a 12-18 month time frame for a developer to identify users, and the City would not lose as much time. President Gongoll stated that he felt it was important that they are able to work with a prospect, negotiating through the process, and giving some concessions, if necessary. He stated that he has been through the process with Amcon, Brookstone, and Fischer Investments and that they had to meet some tough market conditions. He felt that the EDA needs to have a good plan that is marketable and competitive. City Engineer Terry Maurer presented the feasibility report for the 80-acre business park site at this time. He stated that although the gas line could be relocated, it maybe very expensive to do so, and the problem would be where to relocate it to. He stated that this issue could be explored further. Mr. Maurer reviewed the conceptual layout of the streets/access points, sanitary sewer and water, storm sewer, ponds and wetlands, and a possible phasing plan. President Gongoll asked if a 10-ton road was sufficient to handle large truck traffic. Mr. Maurer stated yes. Mr. Maurer reviewed five options for the EDA to consider as follows: 1. Platting, staking, constructing all improvements $1.3 million 2. Platting, staking, constructing 1~ phase of business park $720,000 3. Platting, staking, constructing ~k of In phase $250,000 4. Prelutinary platting of property $100,000 5. Doing nothing, continue to wait for developer -0- Mr. Maurer noted that in his discussions with Lori Johnson and Cathy Mehelich, they were leaning more toward Opuon 4 or 5. President Gongoll asked for clarification on Opuon N3. Mr. Maurer explained, noting that Options 1, 2 and 3 commit the City to the layout, and that Option 4 (preliminary platting of the property), only commits them to a concept. He stated that if the property were platted and later the lots were reconfigured, some of the infrastructure could possibly be saved. Ms. Mehelich stated that the logical source for payment of the improvement bond/special assessments would be through tax increment finance (TIF) revenues derived from new developments within the park. Initiating the improvement project prior to pending developments puts the city at risk for not having a source to make bond payments, except through properly tax levy, until TIF revenues are generated.