The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12.19.06 EDA Packet - with notes The Farmington EDA 's mission is to improve the economic vitality of the city of Farmington and to enhance the overall quality of life by creating partnerships, fostering employment opportunities, promoting workforce housing and by expanding the tax base through development and redevelopment. . AGENDA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY December 19,2006 -7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers, City Hall Members 1. Call Meeting to Order I p'YI 2. Pledge of Allegiance \<f,.-l- 3. Approve Agenda 2-~ct . Todd Arey (Chair) Paul Hardt (Vice Chair) Erik Starkman 4. Citizens Comments 5. Consent Agenda {S-f ?~ a. Bills b. November 13,2006 Minutes c. November 27,2006 Minutes of the City CouncilJEDA Joint Meeting Z- r~~ ')J l/On~ Yvonne Flaherty Chad Collignon Christy Jo Fogarty City Council . David McKnight City Council 6. Public Hearings (None) 7. Unfinished Business ---- Sv \'L I ? ~ a. Potential allocation ofCDBG funds to [Former] Duebers Property (see attached memo from the CDA) City Staff Representatives Peter Herlofsky City Administrator 8. New Business a. Agriculture Preserve - Devney (see attached staff memo) b. EDABudgetInformation ~ Pa:vLU) YVDVLh:e.... c. CDBG Allocation for Next FiS'Cal Year (see attached staffmemo) d. Strategic Planning Effort Update (see attached) e. ICMA Public Management Magazine article - Manufacturing Site Seekers Demand Well-Prepared Communities (see attached) f. January 22.2006 @ 5:00 PM (tentatively scheduled for the second Strategy Session Meeting with the ICMA Peer Team) Tina Hansmeier Economic Development Specialist 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 Phone: 651.463.7111 Internet: www.ci.farmimrton.mn.us 9. City Staff Reports I e;. of ~ Ie- .L!"- ~ t> U-{.,Ll ~'Z:>: ~Oy~~ 10. Adjourn . +-vv\.v. ~V\JrnQV) \-n 0--l{tndr;t tiC{J K:\HRA-EDA\Board Agendas (2006)\121906 EDA Agenda.doc The Farmington EDA 's mission is to improve the economic vitality of the city of Farmington and to enhance the overall ~ . quality of life by creating partnerships, fostering employment opportunities, promoting workforce housing and by expanding the tax base through development and redevelopment. . ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SUMMARY December 19, 2006 -7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers, City Hall Members Todd Arey (Chair) Paul Hardt (Vice Chair) Yvonne Flaherty Erik Starkman Chad Collignon Christy Jo Fogarty City Council . David McKnight City Council Citv Staff Representatives Peter Herlofsky City Administrator Tina Hansmeier Economic Development Specialist 325 Oak Street Fannington, MN 55024 Phone: 651.463.7111 Internet: www.ci.farmington.mn.us . 1. Call Meeting to Order 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Approve Agenda 4. Citizens Comments 5. Consent Agenda a. Bills b. November 13, 2006 Minutes c. November 27,2006 Minutes ofthe City CouncillEDA Joint Meeting 6. Public Hearings (None) 7. Unfinished Business a. Potential allocation ofCDBG funds to [Former] Duebers Property The EDA authorized allocating up to $31,500 in existing CDBG Downtown Improvement funds to the owner of the building formerly occupied by Duebers Department Store. The funds will be used to help assist in the implementation of handicap accessible bathrooms and a fire sprinkler system. 8. New Business a. Agriculture Preserve - Devney The EDA provided comments to the City Planner regarding the Devney Family's request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezone on the properties located at the northwest intersection of CSAH 50 and Pilot Knob Road currently zoned Light Industrial (1-1). b. EDA Budget Information More information regarding the EDA's budget will be brought to the EDA meeting in January. c. CDBG Allocation for Next Fiscal Year (see attached staff memo) The EDA motioned to approve staffs recommendation to allocate 50% next years CDBG funds to the Dakota County CDA's housing rehab fund and 50% of said funds to the Riste Redevelopment fund. A resolution needs to be brought to the City Council on January 2, 2006 for approval. C:\Documents and Settings\1dargis\Local Settings\Temporary lntemet Files\OLKD3\121906 EDA summary. doc J . d. Strategic Planning Effort Update (see attached) A summary of the facilitated process (SWOT analysis) that took place on November 27tb with the City Council, EDA, staff and the Peer Assistance group was provided. e. leMA Public Management Magazine article - Manufacturing Site Seekers Demand Well-Prepared Communities f. January 22.2006 @ 5:00 PM (tentatively scheduled for the second Strategy Session Meeting with the ICMA Peer Team) 9. City Staff Reports 10. Adjourn . . C:\Documents and Settings\ldargis\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKD3\121906 EDA summary. doc . . . 1 INVOICE LIST FOR EDA MEETING DECEMBER 19, 2006 AT 7:00 p.m. DATE I I DESCRIPTION 11/30/2006 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 11/30/2006 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 11/30/2006 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 11/30/2006 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 11/03/2006 XCEL ENERGY - 142 ELM ST l f $ $ $ $ $ Page 1 $ AMOUNT l 189.00 18.00 391.50 648.00 7.86 $ 1,254.36 I APPROVAq ... CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association Attorneys at Law Federal Tax 1.0. #41-1562130 317 Eagandale Office Center 1380 Corporate Center Curve Eagan, Minnesota 55121 (651) 452-5000 City of Farmington Attention: Ms. Robin Roland Finance Director 325 Oak Street Farmington MN 55024 ~~~ 0' SUMMARY STATEMENT PREVIOUS BALANCE FEES EXPENSES CREDITS PAYMENTS 1852-000 RE: GENERAL LEGAL SERVICES (RETAINER) SERVICES RENDERED TO DATE: 5,602.50 5,287.50 39.06 0.00 1852-001 RE: GENERAL LEGAL SERVICES (NON-RETAINER) SERVICES RENDERED TO DATE: 598.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1852-002 RE: PASS THROUGH LEGAL SERVICES SERVICES RENDERED TO DATE: 4,117.50 2,704.50 0.00 0.00 1852-003 RE: FORFEITURES (NON-RETAINER) SERVICES RENDERED TO DATE: 112.50 62.50 0.00 0.00 185~,.013 RE: '.EDA.GENERAL MAITE:BS(NON-RETAINER), SERVICES RENDERED TO DATE: 27.00 189.00 0.00 0.00 1852-018 RE: WAUSAU POND EXPANSION Li'V1~~) SERVICES RENDERED TO DATE: 0.00 27.00 0.00 0.00 1852-019 RE: ASH STREET POND PROJECT SERVICES RENDERED TO DATE: 231.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 I GOd;) 3 Obo !"/ '.' . ... Page: 1 November 30, 2006 Account # 1852G tOOS llo4D3 IOlO.<plf0.3 lot L eoyQ3 f 030, ~'-/Ti3 107D .0'103 2300 (~CD -5,602.50 -598.00 -4,117.50 -112.50 -27.00 0.00 -231.13 I (p2.0,OO I c:05<6.5O 337/50 5€::f).5O 795 / Ole;' I ?>5, 00 532cP,f?o BALANCE . $5,326.56 L $0.00 fl\~.().1()! - 226,00 L\~OY . ~ J3 - .).::L5 . G"D $2,704.50 ,-,t::?1 CT\ 4&00,10"-103 .-2~"...V 2100. ",~o3 $62.50 LOOO.ls?Y~ $189.00 y \ \ 0, (J-{lf-=) $27.00 $0.00 ~ . CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association Attorneys at Law Federal Tax 1.0. #41-1562130 317 Eagandale Office Center 1380 Corporate Center Curve Eagan, Minnesota 55121 (651) 452-5000 City of Farmington Attention: Ms. Robin Roland Finance Director 325 Oak Street Farmington MN 55024 Page: 1 November 30, 2006 Account # 1852-013G 74 RE: EDA GENERAL MATTERS (NON-RETAINER) SERVICES RENDERED TO DATE: HOURS 11/08/2006 AMP E-mail from Kevin re: agreement. 0.20 27.00 .1/20/2006 AMP Telephone call from Kevin re: letter of credit; conference call with Kevin and Tina H. 0.50 67.50 11/22/2006 AMP E-mails from Kevin re: Regan contract; review information. 0.50 67.50 11/27/2006 AMP Email from and to Tina re: title work. 0.20 27.00 - AMOUNT DUE 1.40 189.00 TOTAL CURRENT WORK 189.00 PREVIOUS BALANCE $27.00 11/21/2006 Payment - thank you -27.00 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $189.00 . <1,:..;; Amounts due over 30 days will be subject to a finance charge of .5% per month (or an annual rate of 6%). Minimum charge - 50 cents. Page: 2 November 30, 2006 Account # 1852G FEES EXPENSES CREDITS PAYMENTS 1852-023 RE:. EDAlPATRICKANDERSON PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT~ SERVICES RENDERED TO DATE:' 0.00 18.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1852-024 RE: ASH STREET EASEMENTS SERVICES RENDERED TO DATE: 27.00 67.50 0.00 0.00 -27.00 1852-030 RE: EDAlJOSEPH M. HEINEN (CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT) SERVICES RENDERED TO DATE? 104.20 391.50 0.00 0.00 -104.20 1852-032 RE: 210TH STREET EXTENSION - REGAN PROPERTY SERVICES RENDERED TO DATE: 11.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 -11.90 1852-033 RE: ISO #192 (NEW SCHOOL) - PASS-THROUGH SERVICES RENDERED TO DATE: 112.50 1,530.00 0.00 0.00 -112.50 1852-035 RE: EDAlPOR-MKR REAL ESTATE, LLC - CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES RENDERED.TO DATE: 0.00 648.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1852-999 RE: PROSECUTION MATTERS SERVICES RENDERED TO DATE: 5,923.02 3,740.50 34.99 0.00 -5,923.02 16,867.25 14,666.00 74.05 0.00 -16,867.25 Amounts due over 30 days will be subject to a finance charge of .5% per month (or an annual rate of 6%). Minimum charge - 50 cents. BALANCE .'%.DCO,....{d.-(. c.3. $18.00 If/OS.&L/03 $67.50 "20cD.WD3 $391.50 v ~I . $O.OO/' 4WO.Vljr0 · $1,530.00 200010-103 $648.00. JOB) ,t+1D3 $3,775.49 $14,740.05 . CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association Attorneys at Law Federal Tax 1.0. #41-1562130 317 Eagandale Office Center 1380 Corporate Center Curve Eagan, Minnesota 55121 (651) 452-5000 City of Farmington Attention: Ms. Robin Roland Finance Director 325 Oak Street Farmington MN 55024 Page: 1 November 30, 2006 Account # 1852~023G 12 RE: EDAlPATRICK ANDERSON PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT SERVICES RENDERED TO DATE: HOURS 11/20/2006 CJH . . Telephone message from Kevin Carroll; scan and email Anderson Letter of Credit to Kevin Carroll. AMOUNT DUE 18.00 18.00 0.20 0.20 18.00 TOTAL CURRENT WORK $18.00 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE Amounts due over 30 days w\ll be subject to a finance charge of .5% per month (or an annual rate of 6%). Minimum charge - 50 cents. t' CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association Attorneys at Law Federal Tax 1.0. #41-1562130 317 Eagandale Office Center 1380 Corporate Center Curve Eagan, Minnesota 55121 (651) 452-5000 i . City of Farmington Attention: Ms. Robin Roland Finance Director 325 Oak Street Farmington MN 55024 Page: 1 November 30,2006 Account # 1852-030G 8 RE: EDNJOSEPH M. HEINEN (CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT) SERVICES RENDERED TO DATE: HOURS 11/07/2006 AMP Telephone call from Kevin C. re: amendment; e-mails from Kevin re: amendment to Heinen Agreement; draft . amendment. 1.00 135.00 11/08/2006 AMP E-mails from Kevin; review letter from developer; draft amendment to contract; telephone call from and to Kevin. 1.40 189.00 11/09/2006 AMP Telephone call from Tina H. re: amendment; revise amendment; e-mail to Tina. 0.50 67.50 - AMOUNT DUE 2.90 391.50 TOTAL CURRENT WORK 391.50 . PREVIOUS BALANCE $104.20 11/21/2006 Payment - thank you -104.20 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $391.50 Amounts due over 30 days will be subject to a finance charge of .5% per month (or an annual rate of 6%). Minimum charge - 50 cents. . CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association Attorneys at Law Federal Tax I.D. #41-1562130 317 Eagandale Office Center 1380 Corporate Center Curve Eagan, Minnesota 55121 (651) 452-5000 City of Farmington Attention: Ms. Robin Roland Finance Director 325 Oak Street Farmington MN 55024 Page: 1 November 30, 2006 Account # 1852-035G 1 RE: EDAlPOR-MKR REAL ESTATE, LLC - CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES RENDERED TO DATE: HOURS 11/28/2006 AMP Review informationfrom staff; email to Tina; draft contract for private development; em ails from and to Tina re: contract issues. TOTAL CURRENT WORK 2.80 630.00 0.20 18.00 - 3.00 648.00 648.00 $648.00 . 11/29/2006 CJH Open file and Secretary of State website search. AMOUNT DUE TOTAL AMOUNT DUE Amounts due over 30 days will be subject to a finance charge of .5% per month (or an annual rate of 6%). Minimum charge - 50 cents. - - /~ ?,eel Energy@ '" .Nurthern States Power Company Please Return This Portion With Your Payment i:::::::Iij!fl!~!M!i8.OOlllt{ :::::]f:@,::I!~.r.m:I!:: ;::::@::I!I~M:I@if.MmiI!:I!:: !:!i:ii:!::::II_~!!~m!HI:!:::!!!::::! 51-4874009-4 12/04/2006 $15.91 Auto Pay Do Not Thank You ! Return . . P.O. BOX 9477 MPLS, MN 55484-9477 AT 01 058964 725998318 A**3DGT J .1.1111.1.11.....1.1.1..1'1111..11.111.1.1..1..1.1.1.1...1.11 FARMINGTON CITY OF ATTN: ACCTS PAYABLE 325 OAK ST FARMINGTON, MN 55024-1374 . 51120406"48740094"0000000159100000001591 Detach and Retain This Portion For Your Records ;;;; .= - !!!Ii! ;;;;; = - - - ;;;;; - - !i!!! ......... ..'...<."....).,.'... :.... "";..':.,,:. ":,."i"- ,';....:;::'..:.'.\...:....: '. .....::..-:..~.,::......:'.':. .:'........' :'.' ..~../Jf!-?t .~ . ,NArJIf.E . .::. - ~ . ~ ~-~ J/-I tf-tJb ATE $ - $ ~~~-- (l Xcel Energy. FARMINGTON CITY OF ATTN: ACCTS PAYABLE 325 OAK ST FARMINGTON, MN 55024-1374 $15.91 Page 1 of3 Statement Date: 111U3106 Your bill is paid tli On your due date, the amount IS wIthdrawn from your fmanclal institution and immediately credited. Statement # 89141815 'Qti!! ~):'>"\~~i'J iH\:\~{~ \1. ~ ~~~~. ~ ;~ ^.~;r'I.(!~,{~Hn See back of bill for more information. Account #: 51-4874009-4 . . . MINUTES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REGULAR MEETING November 13, 2006 1. Call Meeting to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Arey at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Arey, Collignon, Fogarty, Hardt, McKnight, Flaherty, Starkman Members Absent: None Also Present: Economic Development Specialist Tina Hansmeier, City Administrator Peter Herlofsky, Mr. Paul Otten 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Approve Agenda Item 8e was moved ahead to accommodate the audience. MOTION by Hardt, second by McKnight, to approve the agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 4. Citizen's Comments None 5. Consent Agenda MOTION by Hardt, second by Flaherty, to approve the Consent Agenda as follows: a.) Bills b.) October 23, 2006 Minutes APIF, MOTION CARRIED 6. Public Hearings None 7. Unfinished Business a.) Highway 50 Commercial/Industrial Corridor Revised maps were presented to the EDA Members. The maps were revised to reflect the preferences indicated by the Members at the October 23rd meeting. The information will be forwarded to the Planning Division for inclusion in the upcoming visioning sessions to be held in January and February of2007. b.) McVicker Lot - Heinen The Contract for Private Development was amended to extend the completion dates for the project per Mr. Heinen's request. MOTION by Starkman, second by Hardt to approve the Addendum. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. c.) Summary of Businesses - Closed or relocated, 2003-2006 Information was provided to the Members. There was discussion regarding the former MasterTech Plastics building and potential redevelopment of the site. EDA Minutes November 13, 2006 Page 2 d.) R & L Trucking Update The building permit was issued for this project on November 6, 2006. . e.) Proposed Sale of Industrial Park Lot (Regan) As was initially discussed at the August 8, 2006 EDA Meeting, Mr. Patrick Regan is interested in buying the last remaining EDA-owned lot in the Farmington Industrial Park. Staff is requesting that the ED A's attorney begin preparation of a Contract for Private Development with Mr. Regan. The Members were in favor of proceeding with the preparation of the Contract. 8. New Business a.) Elm Street Reconstruction Project (ESRP) Update The Feasibility Report for the Elm Street Reconstruction Project was provided to the Members. Member Flaherty requested that there be signage on Spruce Street to indicate how to access to the downtown businesses. Member Hardt indicated that he felt the aesthetic design of the streetscape is consistent with the overall plans for the Downtown Area. Member Collignon requested that staff investigate Northfield's Highway 3 reconstruction project with regard to financial assistance offered to affected businesses. Staff will look into this. City Administrator Herlofsky indicated that there would be frequent meetings to keep downtown business owners up to date on what will be occurring during the . reconstruction project. b.) 2006 Commercial Permit Chart Information was provided to the Members. Staffwill provide the EDA Members with the current zoning map at the next meeting. c.) Commercial/Industrial Square Footage by Year; Commercial Base Fees by Year Updated charts were given to the Members. There was discussion regarding the new tenant in the Vinge Tile building, Streamliners, Inc. d.) Dakota County CDA Redevelopment Grant Program The Dakota County Community Development Agency has created a Redevelopment Grant Incentive Program. Upon EDA approval, staffwill apply for grant funds that will be used to finance the removal of hazardous materials from the Riste Building and for the building's subsequent demolition. Member Collignon asked if this and other incentive programs are available for developers. He feels that the City of Farmington could make this information available on their website. Member Flaherty asked if the required matching of the funds received from the . Grant (at a ratio of 2: I) would come from EDA funds or City funds. . . . EDA Minutes November 13, 2006 Page 3 The Members approved of Staff proceeding with the application process. e.) Potential Code Improvements to Former Dueber's Property Mr. Paul Otten is requesting that the EDA authorize the use of$31,500 ofCDBG funds to perform code improvements to the building space that was previously occupied by Dueber's. Member McKnight inquired as to what types of businesses are being considered as potential tenants for the space. Mr. Otten replied that he was considering all types of businesses for the space. The improvements would include updating the bathrooms and sprinkler system. Mr. Otten indicated that there would be significant cost to installation ofthe sprinkler system due to lack of adequate water supply to the building. He stated that because ofthe bidding requirements for projects implemented with CDBG funds, it may take him up to two months to begin construction. The space currently meets the code requirements for retail use only. Mr. Otten stated that there has been significant interest in the space and he feels that it will be leased in the near future. Staffindicated that there are specific requirements for use of CDBG funds and this project meets those requirements. The funds available were previously allocated to the Downtown Code Improvement Fund. Member Flaherty asked if the funds available have to be used before a specific date. Staff indicated that there was not an expiration date by which the funds must be used. Staff also indicated that the funds for this project would not draw from residential redevelopment funds. Member Flaherty also stated she would like to consider whether or not there could be any coordination with the City Hall project regarding the water supply extension to this site. The Members requested that further information is obtained pertaining to the specific requirements for use of these funds and the timeline for the project. Staff will provide further information and a copy of the CDBG application form at the November 2ih EDA Meeting. 9. City Staff Reports/Discussion The November 27th Special Meeting will be held in the Round Bank Community Room at 5:30 p.m. 10. Adjourn MOTION by Hardt, second by McKnight to adjourn at 8: 13 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. EDA Minutes November 13, 2006 Page 4 . ~RLe~D~t~yS:: Isa argIs cJ Administrative Support Technician . . . . . MINUTES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Farmington City Council / EDA Joint Meeting Strategic Planning Session November 27,2006 1. Call Meeting to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Arey at 5:30 p.m. EDA Members Present: Arey, Collignon, Fogarty, Hardt, McKnight, Flaherty, Starkman City Council Members Present: Pritzlaff, Wilson, Mayor Soderberg, McKnight, Fogarty Members Absent: None Also Present: Economic Development Specialist Tina Hansmeier, City Administrator Peter Herlofsky, City Planner Lee Smick, Ruthe Batulis, Craig Rapp, Craig Waldron, Mark Nagel, Richard Fursman 2. Evening Overview The goal of the Strategic Planning Session is to acknowledge the EDA and City Council's common purpose and to identify strategic challenges that will need to be addressed. The process that will be used is to access the current competitive environment and perform a S.W.O.T. analysis. There will also be discussion ofthe bus tour for feedback and questions. See attached SWOT Summary prepared by Crag Rapp. a. Farmington's Economic Development Mission, Vision, Value Proposition S.W.O.T. Analysis b. Examine Farmington's Competitive environment c. Strategic Issues 3. Adjourn MOTION by Fogarty, second by McKnight to adjourn the City Council at 8:38 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRED. MOTION by Starkman, second by Hardt to adjourn the EDA at 8:38 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectful~submitted, . '.. / '-.. (..;.)\;./ -... ..... .7/ /:;:::;;;;::::~~~:~:'J/. c>)-~_ " Lisa D~grs-"-' ~ Administrative Support Technician " . To: Peter Herlofsky From: Craig R. Rapp RE: SWOT summary Date: December 12, 2006 Peter, the following is a summary of the facilitated process that took place on November 27th with the City Council, EDA, staff and the Peer Assistance group at Round Banle In addition to recounting the information generated during the SWOT process, I have identified some preliminary connections between various strengths and opportunities, as well as weaknesses and threats. These connections are meant to be "first cut" look at ways of focusing our future action. There will be more analysis provided, and we will supplement this information with the comments gathered in the interview process. The combination of SWOT information and interview comments will be forwarded to you in the near future. . The purpose of providing you this information now is to enable everyone to clearly see the current economic development environment that exists in Farmington, and to give folks time to absorb new ideas and concepts. During December, the consultant team will be conducting additional research on best practices, analyzing data and preparing for a final meeting with the City Council and EDA in January. The goal of January's meeting will be to create a plan for success and focused action steps to carry the City forward. We will be providing interim reading materials and background information so that the meeting in January and the final report will result in a successful program launch. . . Strengths 1. Professional Staff 2. Traditional downtown 3. Involved City Council 4. In-place functioning and involved EDA 5. Land available for development and redevelopment 6. Vermillion River - quality trout stream in middle of city 7. City supports growth 8. Active business community 9. Located in the 'path' of metropolitan development 10. Educated population 11. Quality school district 12. Low crime 13. Quality public services Opportunities . 1. Good fiber optic cable availability- potential for fiber-to-the-premises 2. Because Farmington is largely unknown- chance to create or define an image 3. Learn and leverage the knowledge of other cities 4. City has time to get organized and focused - with 10ts of people currently engaged 5. Economy is getting better 6. Opportunity to compete globally 7. Recruitment - going from zero to something focused 8. Marketing the city's "small town" feel 9. Ability to coordinate the Comprehensive Plan with an Economic Development Plan a. Comprehensive Plan first, Economic Development PIan second 10. Rail service - marketing opportunity to users that need rail 11. Trout stream - market the image and potential to draw people 12. Improve relationships with the townships 13. Opportunities to "network" - develop and improve relationships with County, State and developers 14. Location - market the fact that Farmington is close, but a little offthe beaten path 15. Pull three groups together - City Council, EDA, Economic Growth Committee 16. Engagement ofthe business community 17. High School- infrastructure extensions 18. Follow models of other successful cities - Naperville example - riverwalk . Strengths/Opportunities - Possible connections . 1. Strengths - Involved City Council; in-place functioning EDA Opportunities: . Learn and leverage knowledge from other cities . Ability to coordinate Comprehensive Plan with Economic Development Plan . Improve relationships with townships . Opportunities to "network" - develop and improve relationships with County, State and developers . Pull three groups together - City Council, EDA, Economic Growth Committee . Engagement of the business community 2. Strengths - Traditional downtown; land available for development and redevelopment Opportunities: . Marketing the city's "small town" feel . Location - the fact that Farmington is close, but a little off the beaten path 3. Strengths - City supports growth; active business community; located in the "path" of metropolitan development Opportunities: . City has time to get organized and focused- with lots of people currently engaged . Because Farmington is unknown- chance to create or define and image . Recruitment - going from zero to something focused . Rail service - marketing opportunity to users that need rail . 4. Strengths - Vermillion River - quality trout stream in the middle of the city Opportunity: . Trout stream - market the image and potential to draw people . . VVeaknesses 1. Location - not on 1-35 2. City has image of bedroom community 3. Population currently too small for 'big box' retail interest 4. Limited land available for industrial development 5. "Fragmented" downtown business community -lack of direction 6. Lack of common vision 7. Transportation a. Railroad b. Intra-city options are poor c. Lack of good access to 1-35 8. Lack of expertise making development deals 9. Three separate groups working on economic development 10. The community at large is disengaged 11. Poor image or lack of image with business community 12. Poor relationship with townships 13. School District fragmentation . Threats 1. Developable land closer to the Twin Cities a. Retail b. Other 2. Lakeville annexation encroachment a. Possibility of surrounding Farmington 3. Gravel mines blocking economic development 4. Long-term holding of agricultural land - limiting land for development 5. Opening up ofElko-New Market due to sewer extension 6. Future push back against development 7. Slow down in the housing market 8. High gasoline prices 9. State of Minnesota actions are unpredictable a. LGA cuts b. TIP limitations 10. Desrrable development is close to Farmington, but outside our city a. Example: Flagstaff Ave. 11. Highway 3 congestion 12. Acting alone on economic development resulting in being land-locked . Weaknesses/Threats - Possible Connections 1. Weaknesses - "Fragmented" downtown business community - lack of direction; lack of common vision; three separate groups working on economic development; the community at large is disengaged Threats: . Developable land closer to the Twin Cities . Opening up of Elko-New Market due to sewer extension . Desirable development is close to Farmington, but outside our city 2. Weaknesses -limited land available for industrial development Threats: . Long-term holding of agricultural land - limiting land for development . Lakeville annexation encroachment- possible surrounding ofFannington . Acting alone on economic development resulting in being land-locked Other Issues I Connections 1. Transportation- enhancing connections to serve new development 2. Deal making capabilities - staff development 3. Interesting and unique city - creative and unique approaches - fiber optics, etc. . . . . . . . . November 13, 2006 Kevin Carroll City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 RE: CDBG COMMERCIAL REHABILITATION 400 3RD STREET, FARMINGTON, MN Dear Kevin: We met last week to discuss the rehabilitation ofthe building at 400 3rd Street, formerly occupied by Duebers. In FY2002, the city of Farmington set aside $31,500 of CDBG funding for downtown code improvements and could be made available to this building. It is our understanding that the sprinkler system and the bathrooms of this building need to be upgraded in order to meet local building codes and accommodate future tenants. The sprinkler upgrade would also require enlarging the pipe connecting to the water main located across the street. The sprinkler system and bathroom upgrades would be eligible under the existing Downtown Code Improvement activity. The water main connection pipe upgrade would not be an eligible use of funds under this activity as it would be defined as a public improvement activity. In working with other commercial rehabilitation projects, the CDA has typically entered into a grant agreement with the building owner. The building owner has then entered into written agreements with a general contractor or subcontractors, after obtaining a minimum ofthree bids, to perform the rehabilitation work. I would strongly suggest Mr. Otten hire an architect or engineer to design and specify the work in this case. The building owner would be reimbursed by the CDA after work is completed, payment to all contractors is verified, and other program requirements are met as noted below. In order for the funds to be used at 400 3rd Street, the CDA would need to complete an environmental review and publish a request for release of funds. This process will take approximately 30 to 45 days. A Lead-Based Paint assessment would be required prior to the start of work as the building was built in 1977, according the Dakota County Assessor. The city can choose to use CDBG to pay the cost of an assessment and clearance test from the $31,500 account. The estimated cost is $1,000. Mr. Carroll November 13, 2006 Page 2 of2 . CDBG Standard Provisions, Federal wage standards, and Lead-Based Paint requirements would need to be included in all bidding and contract documents. The CDA would review the bidding documents and contracts prior to being sent out. During the work period, the CDA would require certified payrolls from all contractors and laborers, even if self-employed, and would conduct on-site interviews with the rehabilitation workers to verify labor and wage information. If the total project cost for the sprinkler system and bathroom exceeds the grant amount, the owner must pay the difference but all CDBG program requirements (i.e. Davis Bacon) would be in effect for that portion ofthe work as well. If you have any further questions, please call me at (651) 675-4467. Sincerely, Melissa Carnicelli Project Manager . . . . . '. City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: EDA Members Lee Smick, AICP ;:;) City Planner W FROM: SUBJECT: Devney - Ag Preserve Designation DATE: December 19, 2006 Mr. John Devney is intending on re-enrolling his 8 existing properties into the County's Ag Preserve program (see attached map). He also intends on including an additional property (I) in the program for the next 8 years. However, the two properties shown as A & B on the map are currently Comp Planned Industrial and zoned I-I. The properties were part of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan that was approved in February of2000. The properties need to be comp planned and zoned agricultural in order to be eligible for Ag Preserve status. Mr. Devney wants to apply for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning of the two properties back to agricultural so he can re-enroll them in the ag preserve program by March 1, 2007. The Planning Commission discussed this issue at its December 12, 2006 meeting. The Commissioners acknowledged that Mr. Devney has the right to request his property be designated as agricultural. However, some of the members were concerned about the loss of approximately 115 acres of industrial land (A & B) for future development. The Commissioners also instructed staff to review the difference between ag preserve and the green acres program to determine if the properties could remain as industrial while Mr. Devney received the tax benefits of green acres. After discussions with the County, it was determined that proposed land for ag preserve and green acres requires that the property is agricultural. The following is a list of the acreages for the properties proposed to be re-enrolled in the ag preserve program by Mr. Devney: A - 39.61 acres B - 76.2 acres C - 1.11 acres D - 0.75 acres E - 153.11 acres F - 79.68 acres G - 33.71 acres H -73.49 acres 1- 50.12 acres Property I is currently not enrolled in the ag preserve property, however, Mr. Devney has mentioned that he would like to include it within this round of enrollment. The EDA should review the request from Mr. Devney concerning the redesignation properties A & B from industrial to agricultural. Staff intends to include Mr. Devney's request for comp plan amendment and rezoning on the January 9,2006 Planning Commission agenda. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Provide comments for the Planning Commission's information concerning the Devney request to redesignate properties A & B from industrial to agricultural. Respectfully submitted, ~~ Lee Smick, AICP City Planner 2 ,/ . . . DEVNEY - AGRICULTURE PRESERVE PROPERTIES .LJ- - .-. , , [~I , ~~-- ,- i . i : 0=- . II! ,! i i ~-i- l--j ~~i--- --<I =fCSAR50=----- !_J --- i --I ~ ! , i . i i , i --------t----'-----r---r-------j I j --I i IT ~. '. -L_ UJ :l ,Z UJ :>. I~ u. u.. ':< t;; -L_p Its u. --I :=T F (14- 3500-011 55) 9.68 Acr o (14-03500-010-10) .75 Acres E (14-03500-014-75) 153.11 Acres - ----I. ~ J f 111"-----iJT---j-F------'-"---"--ij] IMiles FARMINGTON AREA . AGRICULTURE PRESERVE PROPERTIES ~ U II ~~ I t\ I ~ I ~~ r I ~, .. ~ [!ili;J!~ -.- . ,F.IGURA P 1/ I .--- I L-- ~ - DONNE[L'r\R.~ \: "" (9-15-20~!~~ f--- ~ T DONNELL~~ ~ (3-15-201'2:r;1= - l~ .J "THOMA ~ DONNELLY, V , -, ~ DONNELLY P PLEASANJi (3-15-201' j bm KNAUillZf Z I"FARMS'~^\], (.;'..~ r z W (8-21-20~1) ~ - (3,,1~1~I'~ ~, L.u \ r~ :J ~, I ~..:J...J 0 NAU:rrZ .:t ~ ~LL1 Vl r-: ...JO c_______ ~ (C:OUNmL ~ -.J(z ~ ll'I VlN ;.:( .~ r'--- ILl VI ~Z .... ~,;, 1~ MEiTi) ~.~ u0 <C M ~ ~ I \\ \\ o.~"o L1. ~OUN(m~ ~ ~61 '~ ~J~~ .. I .-r [J - I !?2!iliI~ljJ:J D0NNEI!~Y a rF.ISC:HER ~ ~ - ~ ~ F.~RMSII!MT n ~ I - ~ za:: v' D.. ::r 0< DDNNEllYr! f--- 0_11. .... 1Ol!ffiE I"!'f.: ::.i- -~ I~ b ".,.,. U-DEY.NE~l 0 FARMS LMT !-r~ ~ ~ F.A'MI~'i"l:liD 1~ (3-15-2012 f--CHRiSTENSE~l lD~Y --r-- ~ &li!_~ A lP B!ill?-W_QJ ~ (8!21-2~~2J-~ FAMI~Y~l..!TD / Jl ---< , ---- oJ ~ DONNEllY 'IDE\lNEY' I I ~f1 ~ '-- FARMS LTD F.AMm'i"I!DJ Ti ~ lBE'liZOI!D] J (3-15-2012) f--- IT r'lliJ UW n t \WOZNAK~ ~II DE\lNEiY..DE\lNEY' ."^" AKOJA'F.~~ =:.;;:. >,]or .J= j I I- ~ u If '1:: II ~<C ;.:(LL: I - w aD ~~ Z IDE~NElfI ~ ::> 00 L - l: w III I L ~r~r 0 n ..IDE\lNEIi" LJ- ~ r: 11 =:J - ~ ~ ":f-- n r h " -I ))-- ~ u l V ~ I ~ J EMPEYi DE'l.EI!OP.MEN po ---- 1P.F.I!A.:l!JM] J EMPEIt: DEY.El!OP.MEN V --- .,.c;:> "'" ,~ W~.MJ ~ r , . -c:::== Legend b [e:0NR0& D Ag Preserve Expired Properties HAl!l!C:OC:K -, - . N - c::::J Ag Preserve Properties + - City Boundary - - Miles 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 It) ~ _____ ;6 [--1 ,. G \~: \ ~~~~'~~~ .~ d.~~~I~~ i W o ~~...~ ~g :~~&. ;:)-< :::s &:J .) aO~dO A'1aJ^EISSV .- . I !Ii I ;:) I ~ '" f-o Q) I w tl ;:)-< ffis:l 0.... w ~ ~ W 1:0 u ~ Ul;:) -< ~~3 :r: ~ 5: ~ ~ tl ;:)~ ~~~~ i ! ~~~ ~-- i ~~!,. U ,u ~~ ~, ~ ~~ ~~ . I ~X[U __ -- -- / r.Al~ (' "-; 0:~ ~ 1\ ~ .....-r-rr I-v\'V/'rt' -1111- Y ~.'M,JIJ~~ / // I~ ~.&f W 'If( ~ E ~ ~~ /' ,fY ~ L..x Ir if - 'r #f~-LLJ~~'~ \~ ~ )] ~''> IV ~ // llFfTTl OJ; ~ ~ ~~ ~ W~ o '/. U ~ < ~ ~ ~ CIJ ~ o z S < ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ o , u o In ~ < ~ == C-' ~ = n I 1F=F1 I r II I ,\ I ~. I =r L-J II ... '~h-r)U I ." ~ \l J '> ~ ...._, ~ih, ~( S · 13 ~ -f ~I~ C ~ ~~~ ~ ~~. ~ ~"-~ ~S'~~, n ~ ~~~ L......:" ~,~ ~ - ~ Z Z <I:: ~ ..J W a.. ~ - ::I: en 7 3: o l- e:( ~ ~ ~ W J: 0::: :J W - .I.J Y :;; f- ~ [ I-- , u: c.: e-i I ~ W ~ jjj ~ ~ W ~ jjj ~ L 'v':JSONVl >lClOV\l 31ClClO 'v':JSONVl >lClOV\l 31ClClO WlaMlDS >- ,...J '" '" ~ ~ ,...J Q) 2 :: w .. - .. 2~ -< u -< u >--< ,...J-< 20 ~o 1:00 gN N "" >- (f) ~ I II :r: Q) ""' ti s: >- '" ~-< ~ :r: Q) ;:)0 ~; ~ tl :::s~ ;:)~ :::s~ '''"'.rv-ur ;,,:: Jg1\ONV1\Z U 2 ~ '" 2 '" .... ~ b -< 1:: saDV' Ot .t: :r:-< :::s u ,...J-< ;:)~ wit) AHclliDW :r: 0.... ~ -< Z Z <I:: ~ ...J W o -< 0:: ~ 1:0 Z -< I~ >l:JCl3MHnH:JS .... ~ saDV' Ot NgS~I3:agd 2 '7 ~ g ~ g w-< w-< o It) ON w~ '.r-l W"" ""' f- I ""' I - 1111, ..1. ~~ D. . _II - ~'< :;:: ~ :tI!,' ..... ....::::..:: " :::~:: I. _ en O~ :;;;<;;::;;;;:;;":;:;~>1 .~-,.,lllllll". ~ ~~ . . . . .. . .. .. . . . .. . .. . . . . . III e ~ ... / ,~,. ~'T",.~ [L e:( l~ c ... ..t~ I ~~ r- i:fi ~ ~-1):J ,':. ~.~II!"" .~ gs 0::: ~ ,?r~ -.-~~.I,' II.I~ ~ m _ ~Y.4\Ill-:l=lf h ~~ ., iIi1, ~ I ,'. .'IlC\' . /:'~\ '.: ..~ -,' T ,i"".' .: ;;:l 'f . ":? ~ t~ ......1........ ..~ ---;;--~"'...: . . . . . . . .. ....... .... --.--r.. ~ :-:. '~B' . . . . . . ...... . . . . . . . . .. ",r., ;: . . . . . . ' . . . .. . ... . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . .. .. ...................... .:t1l"':' . . . . . . L-.,~ .. . ::.::::::::.:: r ;; ::::- ~ Ql ,!!! :;::; :g c.-ai "0 ~ ro ~ Q) ::::- ,- .- en x ro ::::- ~ C Q) ::::- ~ ~ '0 = ~ 0:: ~ 0:: ~ - ::::- ~ ~ = 0 c >- ';jj >- c: ~ ,!!! ~ Q) E x o Q):!::Q);'='Q)oc en C:EQ) ~ ~ ~ ~ en 0:: en ~ ,- Q) ~ en ~ ~ Q) bO ';jj c: c: en :.: ~ en Q) ::l 0 c.> ro Q) Q) Z' ~ Q) ~ ';jj en s: til CD 0 ro ~ ~ = U 0:: 0 ';jj 0::: ro Q) :g ~ ~ ~ a; .0 (f) >- .S.... ~ >- E C:Q) ~ :?;o ~ 0:: ';jj CD c: 0 Q) ~ ? c: ~ .,..... -::J .-.- ::J'- 0 ~ E ~ Q) > 00 ~ .- 0 J: en c: ~ CD c: en ~ ~ ro ~' c:~ _c:;::> ;:::l~ E a..~ '5 ~~Q)~EE~.E.E~.ECD,g~o ro]jQ";'Q) '" 0 E ,:! ,:! c: c: ;: c: >- ~ ::l 0 Q) 'L: .;:: ~ ~ > ~ ........U ;: ;: ~ ~ ~ ;: ;: ~ ;: ~ ,21 c. en en 1ii en ro ,21 Q:; ..... 0 0 Q) Q) ,_ 0 0 OJ 0 Q) Q) (f) en ::::l ::l ::l a.. 0:: Ul ..J ..J ~ ~ J: 0 0 ,- 0 J: Z - Q) , ~ ~ - - Q) o - - - - - - - ~ - - - 0 E i c: E (f) ~ ~ ~ = '7 C';l "? "1 u;> f-;" 9 '7 C';l "? "1 (f) ~ ,~ ::::- ::- 0 0 OJ ~'..... 0:: 0:: 0:: 0:: 0:: 0:: 0:: CD CD CD CD (f) CD ~ ~ ..;. ~ 0::: -< " Q~QlDDIDDDIII~IIIDDD~ ').,,; r- 0:: o a.. 0:: <( o 0:: r- W ~ r- l<::Z OW -~ O::r- r-C/) !;;;:w J:~ J - ~ .g Cii i5 -'" Co t5 ~ .~ 00 QJ Cii = E - i5 ~ O ~~jge ro Cii Q,) ',c U -0 QJ e.e -5 _ ? mrorocij~~ ~~ Q) .sc .... ro ._ ._ ,_ ,_ _ QJ ernE QJ :>U ccccuc:: QJe E ~E a;tt:::<1> ~~~~-5~ ~~ 8m ~g- ~ ..... C: .iii.iii.iii.iii e.E gj ~ - .u - <:: Qi cO CF:J ~ ~ & & & & ~ co >- a:: ~ .~ 2 03 ~ .~ ~ 5i ~ ., rJj~:e >.>.>.>.>.~:~~a5 Qj a5 E~Cii ~o ~ ....... ro c. ::J :: :: :: :: :: :: e E -0 E 'i:: E ::J ::J .- "" CIl ............. U ~ .g E E E E E ~ c3 CIl 'iii E 0 8 -0 -g ~ :5 e o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E ~ ~ 8 ~ ro E ~ ~ -0 ~ bO~:::=:J!:?~~~~~ ::Jo..-:= S:.....-g..... ~ OJO ~ .g ~ en en cn en en rn :.c ;E ~ ro .I::. ~ ~ ~ c 2 ~ ~. ~ }f & .~ .~ .~ .~ .;: .5 ~ ~ ~ ID .Q) Q) E Q) Q) co Co Q~IDDDDDii~miDiiDiDDrn \0 o ---- ao ,-< ---- o ,... "0 Q) ... ro 0.. Q) ... 0.. 0.. ro ~ ~ .' . . Z C/.l . . ~ en Q) ~ T""" = .&.~ ~ ro 00 U =~ ~ 'en o 00 ~JS Q) U 2 ro :; ~ bO .g Q,) = OJ 3 '8 0-< ~ 0 N r a . . . City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: EDA Members Tina Hansmeier, Economic Development Specialist W SUBJECT: 2007 Community Development Block Grant Application FROM: DATE: December 19,2006 INTRODUCTION The City has the opportunity to apply for approximately $60,800 in Community Development Block Grant [CDBG] funds for the CDBG Program Year 2007 [July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2008]. The completed application must be submitted to the Dakota County Community Development Agency [CDA] accompanied by an approved City Council Resolution. DISCUSSION In order to obtain the available CDBG funds, the City must complete and submit an application, as it has done in past years. The application must identify the project(s) for which the CDBG funds will be used, and the specific project activities to which the funds will be applied. CDBG funds can only be used for "eligible" projects or activities that satisfy certain "National Objectives." Typically, such objectives include redeveloping slums or blighted areas, creating or improving housing that benefits individuals who fall within "low to moderate income" guidelines, or creating jobs that pay wages that fall within certain ranges. Last year 500/0 of the eligible funds were put towards hazmat abatement costs and/or demolition costs associated with the redevelopment of the Riste building site. The other 500/0 of funds were allocated towards the Dakota County CDA's housing rehabilitation loan program, with the understanding that said funds will be used exclusively for the benefit of Farmington homeowners. For CDBG Program Year 2007 staff recommends to allocate 500/0 of funds to the Dakota County CDA's housing rehabilitation loan program. Staff is recommending that the other 500/0 of funds could be allocated to one of the following activities; "Riste Redevelopment' or "Downtown Code Improvements." Attached is a proposed Resolution that has been prepared in the format required by the Dakota County CDA. If the Resolution is approved by the Council, an application that is consistent with the terms of the Resolution will be completed, attached to the Resolution and submitted to the Dakota County CDA. ~ . ACTION REQUESTED . Motion to approve the attached resolution regarding the City's application for Program Year 2007 Community Development Block Grant funding and approving the allocation of --500/0 of said funds to the Dakota County CDA's housing rehabilitation loan program. with the understanding that said funds will be used exclusively for the benefit of Farmington homeowners. --500/0 of said funds to the Riste Redevelopment CDBG activity fund. Respectfully submitted, ~ 0/ t ~U'l,O(YUAQJ~ ~ Hansmeier Economic Development Specialist . . t . RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE APPLICATION OF THE CITY OF FARMINGTON FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007 DAKOTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FUNDING WHEREAS, the City of Farmington is a participating jurisdiction with the Dakota County CDBG Entitlement Program for Fiscal Year 2007 (ending June 30, 2008); and WHEREAS, the Dakota County CDA is a Subgrantee of Dakota County for the administration of the CDBG Program; and WHEREAS, the Dakota County CDA has requested FY07 CDBG applications to be submitted based on a district formula allocation of funds approved in the 1984 Community Development Implementation Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Farmington hereby approves the following: . 1. City staff are authorized to prepare, execute and file with the Dakota County CDA a FY07 CDBG application that is consistent with the direction provided by the City Council at its meeting on January 2, 2007. 2. The Dakota County CDA is designated as the administrative entity to carry out the CDBG program on behalf of the City of Farmington, subject to future Subrecipient Agreements that may be required for specific CDBG- funded activities. This resolution was adopted by vote of the City of Farmington on the 2nd day of January, 2007. Kevan Soderberg, Mayor Attested this 2nd day of January, 2007. Peter Herlofsky, Jr., City Administrator . . . . To: Peter Herlofsky From: Craig R. Rapp RE: SWOT summary Date: December 12,2006 Peter, the following is a summary of the facilitated process that took place on November 27th with the City Council, EDA, staff and the Peer Assistance group at Round Bank. In addition to recounting the information generated during the SWOT process, I have identified some preliminary connections between various strengths and opportunities, as well as weaknesses and threats. These connections are meant to be "first cut" look at ways of focusing our future action. There will be more analysis provided, and we will supplement this information with the comments gathered in the interview process. The combination of SWOT information and interview comments will be forwarded to you in the near future. The purpose of providing you this information now is to enable everyone to clearly see the current economic development environment that exists in Farmington, and to give folks time to absorb new ideas and concepts. During December, the consultant team will be conducting additional research on best practices, analyzing data and preparing for a final meeting with the City Council and EDA in January. The goal of January's meeting will be to create a plan for success and focused action steps to carry the City forward. We will be providing interim reading materials and background information so that the meeting in January and the final report will result in a successful program launch. Strengths . 1. Professional Staff 2. Traditional downtown 3. Involved City Council 4. In-place functioning and involved EDA 5. Land available for development and redevelopment 6. Vermillion River - quality trout stream in middle of city 7. City supports growth 8. Active business community 9. Located in the 'path' of metropolitan development 10. Educated population 11. Quality school district 12. Low crime 13. Quality public services Opportunities 1. Good fiber optic cable availability- potential for fiber-to-the-premises . 2. Because Farmington is largely unknown- chance to create or define an image 3. Learn and leverage the knowledge of other cities 4. City has time to get organized and focused - with lots of people currently engaged 5. Economy is getting better 6. Opportunity to compete globally 7. Recruitment - going from zero to something focused 8. Marketing the city's "small town" feel 9. Ability to coordinate the Comprehensive Plan with an Economic Development Plan a. Comprehensive Plan first, Economic Development Plan second 10. Rail service - marketing opportunity to users that need rail 11. Trout stream - market the image and potential to draw people 12. Improve relationships with the townships 13. Opportunities to "network" - develop and improve relationships with County, State and developers 14. Location - market the fact that Farmington is close, but a little off the beaten path 15. Pull three groups together - City Council, EDA, Economic Growth Committee 16. Engagement of the business community 17. High School- infrastructure extensions 18. Follow models of other successful cities - Naperville example - riverwalk . . Strengths/Opportunities - Possible connections 1. Strengths - Involved City Council; in-place functioning EDA Opportunities: . Learn and leverage knowledge from other cities . Ability to coordinate Comprehensive Plan with Economic Development Plan . Improve relationships with townships . Opportunities to "network" - develop and improve relationships with County, State and developers . Pull three groups together - City Council, EDA, Economic Growth Committee . Engagement of the business community 2. Strengths - Traditional downtown; land available for development and redevelopment Opportunities: . Marketing the city's "small town" feel . Location - the fact that Farmington is close, but a little off the beaten path . 3. Strengths - City supports growth; active business community; located in the "path" of metropolitan development Opportunities: . City has time to get organized and focused- with lots of people currently engaged . Because Farmington is unknown- chance to create or define and image . Recruitment - going from zero to something focused . Rail service - marketing opportunity to users that need rail 4. Strengths - Vermillion River - quality trout stream in the middle of the city Opportunity: . Trout stream - market the image and potential to draw people . . Weaknesses 1. Location - not on 1-35 2. City has image of bedroom community 3. Population currently too small for 'big box' retail interest 4. Limited land available for industrial development 5. "Fragmented" downtown business community -lack of direction 6. Lack of common vision 7. Transportation a. Railroad b. Intra-city options are poor c. Lack of good access to 1-35 8. Lack of expertise making development deals 9. Three separate groups working on economic development 10. The community at large is disengaged 11. Poor image or lack of image with business community 12. Poor relationship with townships 13. School District fragmentation Threats . 1. Developable land closer to the Twin Cities a. Retail b. Other 2. Lakeville annexation encroachment a. Possibility of surrounding Farmington 3. Gravel mines blocking economic development 4. Long-term holding of agricultural land - limiting land for development 5. Opening up of Elko-New Market due to sewer extension 6. Future push back against development 7. Slow down in the housing market 8. High gasoline prices 9. State of Minnesota actions are unpredictable a. LGA cuts b. TIP limitations 10. Desirable development is close to Farmington, but outside our city a. Example: Flagstaff Ave. 11. Highway 3 congestion 12. Acting alone on economic development resulting in being land-locked . . Weaknesses/Threats - Possible Connections 1. Weaknesses - "Fragmented" downtown business community - lack of direction; lack of common vision; three separate groups working on economic development; the community at large is disengaged Threats: . Developable land closer to the Twin Cities . Opening up of Elko-New Market due to sewer extension . Desirable development is close to Farmington, but outside our city 2. Weaknesses -limited land available for industrial development Threats: . Long-term holding of agricultural land - limiting land for development . Lakeville annexation encroachment- possible surrounding of Farmington . Acting alone on economic development resulting in being land-locked . Other Issues / Connections 1. Transportation- enhancing connections to serve new development 2. Deal making capabilities - staff development 3. Interesting and unique city - creative and unique approaches - fiber optics, etc. . . . . Manufacturing Site Seekers Demand Well- Prepared Communities PMICMA PUBL.IC .. MANAGEMENT MAGAZINE by Adam Prager Business investment is a lifeline for local governments drowning in rising operating costs and grasping for well-paying jobs for their residents and tax revenue for the government. For localities seeking the combination of substantial capital investment, property tax revenue, robust spending in the community, and jobs with attractive pay and benefits, investment in manufacturing is still the best answer. With all the talk of its untimely demise and lost luster, the manufacturing sector remains the holy grail, especially for cities and counties that are economically challenged and seeking a substantial boost. But any community that has found itself on the losing end of a manufacturing site decision knows that attracting this investment is highly competitive and rife with obstacles. Even the most alluring and sophisticated locales will, at one point or another, feel the sting of manufacturing rejection. Those with fewer inherent advantages and a trail of failed attempts to entice investment become numb to the sting. Ironically, rather than address the root cause of this steady rejection-the local business climate itself-most potential locations simply tweak their marketing tactics or vary the target audience slightly. The result remains the same. Successfully wooing manufacturing is one part art but at least two parts science. Most elected officials and managers can articulate the virtues of a robust industrial economy and new investment. They can rally support for high-octane marketing and spell out community attributes they hold dear and wish to promote. But no product sells without a willing buyer, and scant few manufacturers buy into a community that cannot meet their needs, regardless of community packaging. WHAT CONTROL DO COMMUNITIES HAVE? What do manufacturers need? Or, more important, what do they need that is within government's control? Knowing the manufacturing investor and preparing the product accordingly is the science in site selection that all too often is ignored. Although government can influence many factors, none is more important than the availability and suitability of property. Countless communities every year lose out on new manufacturing investment because they lack available, suitable property. The importance of desirable property in investment decision making cannot be overstated. But how many community leaders truly understand what makes a property desirable and what can separate their property from the sea of competition? How many know how their location stacks up? In this author's experience, the answer is a surprising few. Each year, local governments spend millions upon millions acquiring and preparing industrial properties with minimal potential for occupancy and marketing unappealing real estate to the prospective manufacturing investor. Decisions guided by local convenience or guesswork (that is, decisions that lack an understanding of market realities) often end badly. Multiple forces converge as companies determine which locations warrant their coveted investment. Company objectives may include better market penetration, cost control or reduction, quality improvement, and enhanced product delivery. A correct location decision greatly enhances a company's revenue generation and efficiency. A wrong location can be extremely costly and place a firm at a competitive disadvantage. H:\EDA\Manufacturing Site Seekers Demand Well.doc pjh 1 Manufacturing site selection long has been a systematic and discerning process. But on the heels of protracted economic turmoil and slimming profit margins caused by escalating health care costs and energy costs, these decisions today are made with even more scrutiny and trepidation. . The site selection process is often one of elimination. With so many worthy locations and abundant properties from which to choose, the less competitive locations and properties are eliminated quickly from investment contention. It often takes but one shortcoming to eliminate an entire community, let alone a specific property. Following is a compendium of property site selection factors and characteristics sought by discerning investors. PHYSICAL PROPERTY Ownership status. Clear title and single ownership, even with multiple parcels, are the goals of most manufacturers. Absent single ownership, manufacturers may prefer that the community coordinate property owners and assemble multiple parcels into one site. Total acreage. For greenfield development, preference often is for larger parcels to allow for sufficient future expansion, turning radii for trucks, and buffering from adjacent uses. Often small properties are accepted if they are brownfields or older industrial areas where expectations may be lower. General terrain and configuration. Flat or gently sloping terrain with no floodplain issues is most acceptable. Rectangular site configuration is preferred, especially with ample roadway frontage. Zoning. Properties must be industrially zoned or pending rezoning to industrial. Flexible industrial zoning allows for a variety of uses, which is advantageous for marketing. Light manufacturers, however, may prefer more restrictive zoning closely aligned with their specific operations. . Existing uses or recent uses. Often preference is for no previous uses more onerous than light industrial. Uses are assumed (sometimes incorrectly) to lend insight into potential below-ground contaminants. They also can connote a local government's degree of familiarity and comfort with a particular type of operation. Environmental conditions. Manufacturers seek visibly clean properties with no contaminants above or below ground. Alternatively, they seek letters of no further remediation and full indemnification of any past environmental issues. Contiguous and adjacent uses. Properties where adjacent uses (or zoning) are also manufacturing are preferred. Nonconforming or incompatible uses, especially residential, could produce opposition to certain manufacturing processes on site or hamper efforts to procure discretionary government incentives. Availability of contiguous acreage. Absent appropriately sized properties, manufacturers seek potential to acquire and expand into contiguous properties. This may require a right of first refusal to procure adjacent properties. Undeveloped, contiguous acreage also can serve as a desirable buffer. TRANSPORTATION CONNECTIVITY Local roadways. Well-surfaced roads with sufficient capacity to handle truck traffic during peak travel times are the ideal. . H:\EDA\Manufacturing Site Seekers Demand Well.doc pjh 2 . . . Ingress and egress. Direct access to and from major collector roads and arterials or, at least, minimal jogs and side streets to the site and dedicated driveways are what manufacturers look for. Preferred property entrances are those that allow for sufficient truck movement, safe exiting, and ease of parking on site. Proximity to interstate highways. Quick access to interstate interchanges during typical driving conditions is beneficial. Ideally, this includes access to north-south and east-west interstates. Truck route. Having direct routes from site to interstate along commercial streets is important. Designated truck routes are better. Traversing residential neighborhoods, even if allowed, is a distinct liability. Low viaducts, excessive railway stops (especially commuter lines), and numerous stoplights and stop signs also often are avoided. Nearest rail spur. A rail spur (especially with multimodal connectivity) at the site or to the immediate industrial area is the ideal. This is essential for rail-dependent companies but is increasingly sought by those seeking transport flexibility to counter escalating fuel costs. Proximate yet poorly accessible rail is not an asset. Pending roadway improvements. Near-term completion of improvements is a positive indicator of soon-to- be-reduced congestion and faster drive times. But long-term roadway construction often is deemed a liability because it implies years of future disruption. UTILITIES AND OTHER SERVICES Utilities. Fully served sites-with electric, gas, water, and sewer infrastructure to the property line-are sought. Often acceptable alternatives are undeveloped properties where utility extension costs will be borne or shared by the locality. Utility delivery costs (especially cost per electric kilowatt-hour) and the history of outages (again electric) are also considerations. The latter includes frequency and duration of outages, which are sometimes worse in urban areas. Crime. Emphasis is placed on both the absolute number of crimes and the crime rate per 1,000 population. Crimes are examined in terms of employee safety (measured by violent crimes) especially where third shifts are required and for potential pilferage of products and equipment (measured by property crimes). In high-crime areas, site lighting also may be a consideration. Fire service. Fire protection is evaluated in terms of municipal fire insurance ratings, the presence of a paid (versus volunteer) fire department, and known response rates. All factors influence insurance costs likely to be incurred by the company. COSTS AND INCENTIVES Property costs. Companies seek below-market pricing. Investors prefer clear, unambiguous costs over those that are unduly negotiable. Absence of firm costs can be a factor for early elimination. Property taxes. Although a relatively small cost in the scheme of typical manufacturing expenses, property taxes are among the most heavily scrutinized. High property taxes often must be negotiated downward, a contentious process in communities struggling to fund public education, infrastructure, and the like. Incentives. Inherent real and perceived operating liabilities (antiquated infrastructure, congested roadways, high redevelopment costs, unsightly appearance, and high crime) prompt the request for incentives. Many manufacturers seek incentives to counterbalance an otherwise uncompetitive cost structure or operating conditions. Others may do so irrespective of fmancial need or appropriateness. Incentives include: H:\EDA\Manufacturing Site Seekers Demand Well.doc pjh 3 . Enterprise zones. Their lucrative tax savings and material purchase discounts are among the most sought. . Tax increment financing. Use of TIF to support property development is desired but is less understood than enterprise zones. Some communities also use TIF as a direct fmancial incentive (beyond defraying development costs). Here, the presence ofTIF is an asset, but the absence is not a liability. . Designated brown fields. Manufacturers may at the same time seek brownfields redevelopment dollars but be leery oftheir environmental implications. Typically, Environmental Protection Agency-designated brownfields are more attractive to risk-oriented industrial developers than to the eventual property occupant. . MANUFACTURING ORIENTATION General appearance. Clean, maintained, and appropriately used (for manufacturing) sites are preferred. Overgrown vegetation is not problematic, but fly dumping is. Appearance of the surrounding area is scrutinized as well because it influences employee recruitment and the impressions taken away by visiting customers. Manufacturing worliforce. As the single most costly operating factor, manufacturing workforce is carefully scrutinized. Employers seek sufficient numbers of manufacturing workers within a reasonable commute radius, and they prefer workers with skills appropriate for specific operations. Worker supply can be documented by a municipality in myriad ways. Industry presence. Communities with a documented history of manufacturing, ideally with several viable manufacturers of notable size, are in demand. This may convey to a manufacturer an understanding of manufacturing and a measure of comfort that the company is not the first of its kind entering the community. Manufacturing-oriented communities also often house essential business services. . In a post-September 11 environment, with today's unstable economic conditions, manufacturers are exceedingly cautious about facility investment. During the past half decade, new facility investment slowed appreciably as manufacturers maximized the capacity of existing facilities, pushing these properties to their operating limits. During this same period, however, community and regional efforts to attract investment became more aggressive, better funded, and laden with incentives. Furthermore, the most recent downturn in the national economy dumped considerable property into the market, ballooning the inventory of available real estate. In short, sophisticated and aggressive competition grew while investment opportunities shrunk. Signs are that this may be changing for the better. Manufacturing investment levels are still lagging, but many companies no longer can wait to develop new facilities; neither can they afford to further burden existing ones. Communities that have adequately prepared themselves and their properties for this day will have a leg up on the competition. Elected officials and managers should take heed when pursuing manufacturing investment. Understanding and addressing the often rigid preferences of the site seeker will go a long way toward successful business attraction. Adam Prager is president of the economic development consulting firm Prager Company (aorager(aIDragercompanv.com), Evanston, Illinois. The Prager Company Web site is www.pragercompany.com . H:\EDA\Manufacturing Site Seekers Demand Well.doc pjh 4