Thank you. Roll call, please. President Monkey, here. Vice President Matthews here. Treasurer Bramshire is absent today. Member Nath. I didn't hear what you said. Yes. Oh, member Nath.
Member Galardi here. Member Gogra is absent today. and council representative McKenzie here. For staff and exopicio members present today are executive director Frannle, community development director Roberts,
EDA secretary attorney, and finance director Winnick. Thank you very much. A motion to adopt the agenda, please. I'll make that motion. So move member Nath. I'll second. Second. Member McKenzie. All those in favor say I. I.
Thank you. Approval of minutes. Can I get a motion to approve the minutes from our last meeting, please? I will make that motion. Representative, I'll second. Seconded by Matthews. All those in favor say I. I. I. Thank you.
Nobody's here, so nothing open to the public. So, off we go. It's all yours. All right. Thank you. Uh, first up, uh, we have two items on our agendas today. First up is the EDA 2026 preliminary budget and we have uh our finance
director Dan Winnick here to discuss. President Mongi and uh members of the economic development authority. Uh thank you very much for giving me a moment to kind of uh talk to you about what we're proposing for the 2026 budget and the 2026 levy. Um this upcoming city council
meeting on the 16th uh the city council will be certifying their maximum tax levy and one component part of that tax levy is the economic development and authority um levy. So kind of want to get your input uh make sure that you're supportive of what we're going to do for
the budget and for the levy for the economic development authority. Um and so kind of walk you through kind of where we ended up u from a financial standpoint at the end of uh 2024. Kind of take a look at what we've um
from a budgetary both revenue and expenditure side um this year. Um and then kind of what we have uh for the proposed budget um and the levy. So the current um financial information
um as of December 31st, 2024 um you can see um that you have assets um and liabilities and fund balance equaling $610,000. Um you have cash and investments of $558,000.
So as you've seen in last year's uh when we prepared the budget, you're sitting in a pretty good position. Um we've got pretty good cash um in the um economic development authority fund. And if we look at what we're doing this year um
you can see from a revenue standpoint um we um have you know collected 114. So you have a total current budget of $267,000 is what we estimated. Um you've already um collected um you know half of your
property taxes. The other half doesn't come in till end of December and then there's a little bit that comes in in in January um that we collect and you can see that you're sitting pretty good um you're over the 50% uh mark for revenues
which you know is in very good position but then if you look at your expenditures you had a budget of $267,000 you've only spent 74 just under $74,000 to date. till at at the end of August.
So again, um sitting very well um from your revenue expenditures for this year. We can take a little bit deeper dive into the revenue side to it. And you can see that uh you've collected half of your property tax, a little bit more than half of the property taxes. Um, I
do a very conservative estimate as far as I do not estimate anything for market value adjustments because it's predict it's oh um it's unpredictable. Um it really goes on how the interest rates of our investments are are going if they if
things go up and down. Um and so so does the market value adjustment. Truthfully, the market value adjustment equalizes itself out over um the term of any type of investment. So it can go up, you know, at some point in time, but we hold
everything to maturity. So then it ends up offsetting itself by the time that uh our investments are matured. Uh the investment income uh very conservative $2,000 that we estimate. You can see we're we've collected already $8700
um in interest. So again, on the revenue side, everything's looking very good. you're going to end up uh going above what um was the total revenue that was uh budgeted for the for the current year of 2025.
Um on the expenditure side, really the the only thing that really has been um spent has been personnel um services on the personnel side to it. there hasn't been u there's a little bit um on insuranceances um and then there's
transfers of $10,000 that u occur um and half of it's been transferred to date and you'll have the other half of that $10,000 will be transferred um in in the next two quarters. So again, everything's looking very very
good um from this standpoint. And so unless there's something that um the city manager and myself is unaware of of of some huge needs coming up into the future of the economic development authority. Um we're kind of looking at
that the preliminary budget that we're looking at um that we would recommend that we stay with the same levy. Uh we're currently in 2025 levied two just under $21,000 and and we're proposing to keep it there
at that $21,000. We're still increasing our cash. We're still increasing our fund balance. Um again, from a historical perspective, um haven't seen that there's been any um big draw that's coming out of it um on the expenditure
side that would start to draw down that cash um and our fund balance. Um, not to say that in the future things can't change. Um, so we're kind of recommending and again for your input, we're recommending keeping it the same. Um, the budget is pretty much um kind of
pretty much in in line with what we had for the 2025. Um, you'll see that the personnel services decrease about just under $18,000. And that's part of an agreement that we made with the economic development authority last year that we
started implementing it last year where the um community development director when the position was created probably now it's been about 3 four years three and a half years um that at that point in time to have city council approve the
addition of the economic development uh or the community development position 50% of the funding came from um the economic development authority. um this group decided that was way too high and we all agreed. So we've been
ratcheting that down was the approach that we took. Um and it was agreed to last year. So last year it was dropped down to 40%. This year in 2026 it's dropped down to 30%. And then next year we'll drop it down to 20%. And that's where we agreed to have
that level of the e um of the community developments director's time um being allocated to the EDA. Um and so you can see how we've at 50% um was the first year in 2023. It was the same in 24. 25
again dropped it down and so forth. Um so we're right on on on path to what we agreed to. Um and so again, it's just kind of another indication that there really isn't a huge need again unless there's something that you're planning
bigger in the future um that to really change uh what we're living. Um statute allows the economic development authority a certain percentage, it's like 0.00184 000184 or something like that of the total
taxable market value which when it gets calculated would amount to about $280,000. That's the maximum that you could ever levy at this point in time. And of course as market values increase um that dollar amount will incrementally
increase because the the statute and the percentage hasn't changed for many years. So that's kind of the full disclosure of everything. but we're kind of comfortable at just about a $21,000 levy. The combination of that levy um
staying the same for the EDA um HRA um is being proposed at just 11,000 because again they have a lot of fund balance. Um the needs that the HRA has is really been primarily focused on the student build housing which is pretty close to
been a break even point. We've made a little bit of money off of that, but there again not that need on the HR. Um, and then you combine that with what the city has, and the city has a number of different components as far as their levy is concerned. Traditionally, it's
always the city operations for the base structures of of the departments, public safety, administration, finance, community development, and so forth. In addition, debt. Um and we have in the last couple of years um we'll be moving
on to I think about our third year we've been levying um additional amounts for infrastructure. And so we've broken it into three different components. One for our streets, one for our facilities, and one for our parks. um combining all of
those what will be presented next Tuesday to city council and city council at their last um meeting um were was an agreement. So I've drafted up um the budgets accordingly um the levy budgets and the resolutions. Um we will be
proposing an 8% total levy increase including all of those components in the HR and the EDA. Um that's kind of where we're looking at. um with the caveat that in 2027 budget that'll be our
target again at 8%. For those who um aren't as familiar with our levying component, those three components of the facilities, streets, and parks to fund our capital improvement plan um over the
next 10 years is going to require approximate just under a 6% levy on an annual basis. So when you look at that, there's not a lot of room for other types of growth um
which our um department heads underneath um the leadership of our city manager has really tried to tighten the belt um and trying to make sure that we can achieve those. And so that's where we've come up with um we did have a our preliminary
um levy was uh combined all all of the components was at about 5.84%. We added a little money for the parks. Um, and then we've added a little room that going into 2027, we won't have to
levy as much um to try to build a little bit of that room so we can cover um our cost of living that's already agreed to in our contracts and and any step increases for our personnel, but pretty much holding all of our expenses the
same. That is a real big high-level snapshot of kind of the city's budget process. I'm going to leave you right there and ask if there's any questions, discussion, any anything that you would like to know and then kind of want to get your sense and feel that you support
where we're looking at for this levy for the economic development authority. I have a question on when I'm looking at the budget for 2025. There were contractual services of 125,783
and that was a significant jump from 23 and 24. What is that for? [Applause] Uh let's uh I which page are you? Um, it is page seven.
It's not. The pages aren't numbered. I think it's a If you go to the next page after the one you're on. Yeah. I think you're looking This is the page. This is what it looks like. Oh. Oh, the actual budget itself. Oh, sure. Um,
yeah. So, in in 2022, what you're really seeing, the big component of that that made up that $191,000 that in contractual services that was spent um was a loan um that was given to Max
Diner. Um I think the dollar amount was $125,000. It has a 5-year component to it that they need to maintain the equipment. It was a kind of an equipment loan that was forgivable. Um that after five years the
loan is totally forgiven. If they were to terminate it anytime before that they would pay you know a prorated share on an annual basis. So that drove up that um what you're seeing for the actuals for 2022. If you see after that 23 24 there's been
very very little that has been spent. You can already um see in 25 budget there's very and that's where the page I was on. Um you can see there's only been um in contractual services just under
$2,200 spent. Um the intent of the 125,000 for this year and for next year is that there was conversations last year um that you wanted to part of the
um the decision to pull down the percentage of the community development director was that you were going to hire a consultant um to help out with some of the economic development needs of the city. And so that's where the decision was to, you know, increase that dollar
amount to allow you to do that. In addition, I think there was discussion on uh if it was a downtown manual um city manager, that part to it, and that the economic development authority would
fund that too. Right now, we haven't done anything with that. So, it shouldn't go anywhere near the 125 then for this year. Absolutely. That's that's why I'm saying where you're sitting 2200. Yeah. You're going to end up increasing your cash, your fund balance um
significantly because you haven't used it. Correct. Kind of the way the market was sitting with new builds and different things. We kind of put brakes on that until better light. Correct. Thank you. Good question. Thank you. Any other questions, discussions, thoughts
on ours? Um and I can't remember how maybe we went over it. And I apologize if we did already, but uh right now the for development we have the um across the street Margaret Commons they call it and then the one in between.
What is that property in? Is it in the EDA or is it in the general or do we know as far as uh there's what things in the EDA? I know we redid it one time. I thought we did but uh there's only one parcel that's in the EDA right now. I do believe it's a old
that gas station. It's neither one of those sites. Yeah, it's neither one of the those sites are included in there. They're included in the the county overall or the city overall. So, the city bought them. Yeah. Is there a way that Well, I'm not necessarily even going to
say that because from prior to my arrival here, going back and looking at it, somebody had made a decision to transfer some of those properties into I think so I think the EDA actually originally purchased it and it was it was always the fixed asset was booked
into the economic development authority, but there was a decision to transfer it out. That's correct. My understanding there's no properties under the EDA anymore. Just one. Just that one. Which one is it? I think it's a gas station that's on. Yeah. 7th of Mcnite.
That little triangle. That little thing there. Who owns the property up there on the corner of 17th and Century? That old Lord gas station up there. That corner, the little spot. We do the city. Okay. Yep. And that's where in the on the balance sheet itself, you'll see assets held
held for resell. that parcels valued at the point49,00 have the $600,000 in there and the land is not purchased. I think it would be purchased from the EDA funds to be able to do that kind of stuff and have it in the name of it.
But have to go back and look at that where it originally came from. If it was EDA or was it Yeah, I mean we're trying to do better at keeping our account straight and breaking them up and like on everything we've been doing. So yeah, I don't I I I don't know if the
necessarily I mean because you can you can have it both you can have it both ways. I mean you can register it underneath the EDA can register it underneath the city. Um you know you're um you know the city is the city council is making that final decision piece to
it. Um you know kind of more of a um because actually the EDA does have the authorities. Um but um the city council is making that kind of a ratification um decision on any economic development authority changes or moves. So I mean we
can I mean we definitely can look at what was a rationale back at that point in time to why it was transferred away from there. I I can't answer that at this point in time but definitely we'll take the fund is for the 200 a year is for us to purchase. It says right in there purchase and things like that. So,
you know, you don't have this build up while we got other things being bought by other funds. So, I was just curious to see if there's any kind of transfer we have to do to make things right if it wasn't that way as far as how the land was purchased. Sure. We'll take the book straight. We'll we'll take a look to see.
Anybody else? Indeed. Just kind of keep it, you know, if that's where it was supposed to be and it wasn't underneath that. It's under the EDA funds. I believe too there can be um legal aspects of it that uh being under the EDA I think it might be available for
certain grants that maybe it's not under a city. I think there's there's different caveats with that to depending on where people put it. I've heard like uh was it Oakdale that bought Tanner's Lake and then immediately turned around and put it into their EDA. I knew there was some benefit for it when they did
that. So yeah, we'll have to go ahead just to keep it balanced. I mean, as far as taking all the right buckets and making sure we're not getting all this money in but not spending it because it's coming in another where if we want to buy any more land or anything like that does come up.
Sure. All right. Thank you. Any other questions? And um kind of want to sense we're in agreement or supportive of uh the budget uh being proposed. Again, it doesn't get
final approval until December, but um and then for the levy at just under $21,000. Do you need a motion? I would like to have a motion. Absolutely. Because you do have your you do have uh by your authority. Second. Second.
Second by member Matthews. All those in favor say I. I. I. Thank you. Thanks, Dan. Appreciate the hard work. Thanks, sir. Yeah, why don't you just in case if you don't mind. All right. So, next item up is the
community center land future discussions. We just went wanted to give you a status update of where we're at with that and uh maybe thoughts and ideas of what you thought on directions moving forward. So, just a little background. Um,
you know, we got the funding or grants from state and federal to uh kind of update the community center into a multicultural center. Um, after doing a uh a feasibility study when it came to we hired an engineering and architectural firm to look at that. um
just looking at all the numbers and what it took to get where we're at and and future because one of the aspects of those grants is you have to run it as whatever you had asked for the money for for the next, you know, probably 25 years. Um and if that's not the case, they can come back and say, "Well, it's
really not uh part of the program. Uh we'd like our money back." So clearly we couldn't do that. It was um it was a longgo uh you know gathering all that information and presenting it to the council and it's been determined that uh we're going to be turning that
money back. Um but in the same breath we're going to be asking for uh a redirect of the money towards potentially um it looks like the option that was picked on was a new water tower which that was part of their RCIP for
probably was it 28 2 28 29 something in that it's already got moved over. So, um that would be the plan. If we can redirect that, then we could bump that up. As far as funding goes, um there are different ideas there. It's still pretty
open for what options are available. Um we have had an interest of potentially somebody buying it and if that was the case, it would have to go back to council say, uh are you guys willing to separate with the land and sell it outright? Um or do we move forward and
say because our concern is the library is still in there. Library um there is a kind of a big want from the public from people who have been outspoken that they'd like to see it stay here. Um so trying to figure out what we need to do with them. They are still five years
left of a contract uh left. So do we find another place for them to be that we can set them up here? Um, that was actually one of the things with the potential sale of it that they would agree to subleasase that to the city and leave the library there for the duration
as long as they were there. Um, if that works out, I was hoping to have heard back from that person by today, but I haven't heard back from him to give you guys an update on that. So, that's still up in the air. Or, you know, if we do decide that um, just having them there though, there there's
a lot of money that needs to be put into that building. that things have been kind of pushed to the wayside. Um, and including RTUs that are in that building. So, when it comes to the heating over the winter, I mean, I don't even know that it will last the winter. We've kind of patched things together to get them to where we are now. Um, they
were supposed to get a new roof two years ago if we had moved forward with the grant program. Um, so there's a lot of needs there. If we could find another place for them to move to, that I think that would be ideal if we were to continue on with the library. So, there's just a lot of things to figure
out yet. Then there's some there's going to be extra costs for that as well. We got to move a generator that's over there. Um there is a IT um room that's over there that has some of the fiber fiber backup for our main fiber system that is kind of in our room downstairs.
Um so there's still some cost available with that that um is going to have to be taken care of, but just kind of want to bounce it off you guys and see what you thought. um you know any ideas that would make more sense uh if you agree with because one idea as well is is let's just say the uh they tear down the
building. Um and with the idea of taking some of the funds being that the water department wouldn't have to pay the cost of a $4.5 million water tower. do we pay for that uh with the grant funds and then with what the money would have been spent out of the water department take
some money maybe half of that cost and redirect it for some kind of a development at the community center um you know which there's been ideas of a concept of a kind of an open type building I mean being closed but have the ability of having garage doors on
each end to where you could have like an arts fair uh farmers market um just different ideas that a building could be used for. Um, nothing's set in stone yet, but there are just some ideas that were floating around and uh thought we bounce it off you guys and
see what you guys thought of that and if you had any ideas of your own. And also the grant difference between the money they gave us and what it would cost was three more $3 million that we would had to come up with to actually complete the the community center with um nothing done on the inside. pretty
much basic and then whoever moved in there would have to remodel after that. So, and that's just the building, correct? That's just the outside labor cost. Yeah. And the other part was the library. I went down and spoke to the to the head librarian afterwards. I didn't want her to hear about it afterward. So, I had a
good conversation with her. She was watching it on YouTube and she understood that financially it really didn't make sense. So, it was nice to hear that instead of saying, "Get out of my library." You went down to see her. Yeah. So went and mentioned and we talked about
different things and we also um brought up and we tried to reach out but they u they don't have any time until the end of September to talk to the library to see what their you know there's been some talk of cuts coming up and different things like that. What is the future of the North St. Paul Library?
You know where we would be at with them. So I think that's at the end of September last Friday of the month. last Friday of the month is when uh we'll be able to just sit down with them and just explain him explain to them where we are with the building and what are their plans as far as you know right now they provide
the books in the in the um librarians. So that type of thing and is that something that could be moved to a different spot if we could do something like that or so we're just going to just bounce off and just understand their needs and and what where we're sitting
with the building. And there's one other one I wanted to bring up that um think who mentioned at the council meeting and I'd like to get um Andrew's opinion on it is somebody talked about 20 years of um not selling the land but they can use
the have the build do the building for 20 years but the land stays with us. I don't know much about that and I don't know how popular that is. Do you want to explain that a little bit more Dan? Yeah I mean you can structure an agreement a sale agreement any which way you want. So, we could actually sell the building. Um, and your terms and
conditions could be whatever you want for, you know, and say 20 25 years, they do a land lease for $1. So, in other words, the city never loses ownership of the of the land itself. uh that seems to be where I think a lot of the council members had thought that there's that's
where the value is especially when you're sitting in a city that you know is is fully develop pretty pretty much fully developed and you really just don't have the the land piece to it. Um and so that was a kind of a concept or a thought. I I think you know the decision
that city council had made to um to not continue to pursue the grants at least for um the community center in its how it was written to legislation and approved um because of what we've seen
from the last consultant on EAPC. um that decision um is kind of pushed um this dialogue um with city council. I I I will just kind of share with this this group kind of real quickly because Brian
did an excellent job of kind of giving that high level um synopsis to it. Um, no. I was just going to, so what we had asked city council to do last time, so you know, was on the August 19th that city council approved
um doing away with the EAPC study uh the feasibility and then to kind of look at um cancelling those those grants and maybe reallocating it. But what we did was we we had city council kind of do brains brainstorming activities looking at three different components options
for the reallocation of the grant funds. That's where what came out of the discussion and and it's really kind of want to get your thoughts and your feedback on to it was, you know, um you would have to turn down and Brian knows this better than I do. Um you turn down
the funds and then you try to basically put in another submission to legislation um in hopes that they would reallocate those funds. Um and so the water tower was kind of the thought um from uh the consensus from the city council that
that would be the opportunity. Um and then that would potentially free up some money that could be utilized for something else in in the city and developing and that really didn't get totally flushed out. But that's again kind of a discussion item if if you have
some thoughts or ideas on to that. And then it clearly came out. Um so on that first part I I kind of labeled it that uh at the end of the day of however that reallocation of the the grant funds turns out is that if there can be something that
could come out of it that could be a community um benefit um would be um kind of a the overall um theme that would come out of that. Uh number two, when we were looking for options for the Ramsey County Library, it became crystal clear
that the city wants to retain the library. Um and so that's where, you know, kind of giving, you know, some of your thoughts or, you know, what you think about it, but um and again, that discussion won't take place um with Ramsey County toward towards the end of
this month, but to find out can we relocate them somewhere else that would be able to provide the services that they're doing. again how that would be, you know, that makeup of that, you know, we don't know. Or would we we would we be required um to continue to pay some
sort of lease for them. Um we have to re um u for your information, Ramsey County does a two-year budget cycle. Um they just um their county manager just proposed early in in September um their two-year budget cycle uh for 26 and for
27. Um they were looking at I think 9 and 3/4 and 7 1/2% levy increases um anticipating some of the cuts that they've received from the federal level and then we don't know what the state bianium in 2829 is going to look like
but there were some definitely some and city council you've heard that information definitely some shifts in there that um that the the state was looking at you know billions of dollars of a of a deficit um so there would end up being potentially some other cuts
So that conversation with Ramsey County needs to place needs to take place how that financial component would look. Don't know how that would look, but it was clear that city council wanted to keep that library. I mean that was paramount. Um and then the other part
was looking at that community center and that's where um the president I'm gonna keep calling you mayor. Um the president um uh Moni had talked about is that I threw out there that um there is always that possibility that you could lease
the land for a buck uh for 20 25 years. You can structure the cell any which way you want. I I tied it at 20 25 years just because you have a a roof and as Brian said you have the HVAC in the building it needs to be replaced. Normally that has a useful life of
somewhere in that 20 25 year range. So, you know, if you had somebody take over that facility, and at this point in time, there is really only one one that has come forward or had shown interest in the past that Brian
has um made contact with. Not to say that there's maybe somebody else out there who would be interested in that, but that's kind of where we're at. And it's really kind of opening it up to other thoughts, other ideas, maybe other structures. um you know, from a a sale
perspective, uh a leasing perspective, whatever you think, um could possibly be viable, even to the point of demoing everything down and and um turning the land over for some sort of future development. So, just a real quick thing, the as far as
the grant, it's for the water tower and moving it, it's a it's a cash grant, so it's not like it's a bond where they have to that. So, that that's going to help our cause to try to be able to repurpose it. and we talked to Leon Lily and he's willing to go to bat and likes
is okay with what we're talking about doing. So those are the two other things. Thank you. Anybody have any ideas? I like the water tower idea. I mean that is just that adds value to a city. It's
it's a good thing for future development. I like that. And then you talked about repurposing or reallocating monies that would go to that water department into into the community center. I I do see a lot of land leases and a lot of companies like a Walgreens
or CVS, they do a land lease because they don't want that asset. They don't want the liability on their books. Um the one negative I see with a land lease is that now you're committed to this thing for 25 years. you're you're you're you're in partnership with whoever is there for 25 years, good or
bad. Um, you know, I I I see a lot of organizations and um that sold their real estate over the years because they went into some ch financial challenges and they had to go back out of there and
repurchase those things and they paid up for it. So, I think we need to be thoughtful about what we're going to do with this thing. And if we, in my mind, if we could patch it and lease it to someone for the next few years until
the economy shakes out, how it's going to shake out because I think there's a lot of concern in Wall Street about uh a pending recession. We know just from my world, I know that there aren't a lot of buyers out there
for commercial space and if you if you sell it, you're going to lose a lot. I'm not sure what the bids are coming in at, but I I got to think we could patch this thing cheaply and lease it. I mean, I I just don't know. I'm I'm shooting
from the Who is the one company uh or business that has has thought about going in there? Can you share that or volleyball team that was in there before that was the volleyball team and just to elaborate on the uh cost
there's nothing insignificant about some of these costs. I mean one of them is like the roof I mean which is probably $700,000. So it's big numbers. The the RTU units are hundreds of thousands of dollars. What is what is that rooftop? Yeah, rooftop rooftop.
I think we had like a bit of three million just to get it limp. I mean to get it just the basic shell stuff to keep it from leaking. So one of the problems like a you know going down like a triple net lease or something like that and having the tenant responsible like you're
I would find it hard to believe to get a business in there in the shape of it being at 3 million. It's just so far gone. I totally agree like patching it together, but I think the liability and asset of where it sits now is still going to be uh very coming soon on the
on the city. I just don't I just don't I just don't see it because it's just it's just too far gone. The condition of that the condition I haven't been in that building. No, I know. I know. It's just just every survey, every thing that the city's done
and council. I mean, it's just the building's so far gone now. I mean, we have so many customers, you know, in MySpace that that do triple net leases. Uh, but not in this scenario. Yeah. It's just not going to happen, right? And the only the only way to make it,
you know, feasible for any business that would go in there is that would have to be a very long-term Exactly. component, you know, to offset that 3 million. And that's where that 202 Yeah. Somebody's going to have to pay the 3 million to get that that thing back up and going. or they put that was back in
the 90s where they used to just put uh like not even the siding of the Exactly. of the you know it was like a stuckle and then so the birds would peck at it then the squirrels would chew through it then they go run through the attic of the library. So we have all these stop signs
and different signs patching holes across the building would paint it and things like that. So yeah, unfortunately since the day it was built it never really got any loving. So it's it's really it's really out there. I think it's a great I think it's a great idea though, you know,
trying to patch something together. I just don't I think we could sit here for months and trying to come up with stuff and I just I don't I don't know how you do it. It's about 250 to tear down they said and then the move we don't even got a price on the moving of the gener Chris
if it's our land the generator stick right there. How much is the maintenance per year? We've talked about 80 some thousand almost 90 right now without doing repairs. It's just electricity that's just the the bare bones and it's 250 just to tear it down. 250,000 to tear it down. Correct.
So we have another meeting though going back to you know Brian started you know asking us for our opinion. We have another meeting before the end of the year right December. Yeah. Yeah. So I I think that we should challenge ourselves and come back to the meeting in December. Each of us should
have one or two ideas of what we would see like to see possibly go in there because I don't think we can come up like oh no, you know what I mean? Like now like let's take a step back here. Let's let's think about it and we can put our two cents in and then
and get a map of it. I mean it's very weird shaped. I mean it's the build the land is as big as the community center. the parking lot, you know, comes across and it looks like it's part of the the um Frank Franklin built, you know, apartments and then you got the VFW. So,
every it's really a a strange spot. I mean, anything in there is going to be very difficult just because of the parking restrictions in the building. Yes, Mr. President, it's about 1.3 acres. 1.3. Is there a spec sheet on this thing that
have you taken it out to potential businesses to say, "Hey, do you want to rent this thing, lease this thing?" No, because that the the former the other council voted not to sell it and to go for grants and and try to fix it up. So, now we're we're going back because of the $3 million. And it's
nothing against what the other council the other council had no idea how much the bids were. thought I know when they were talking about it originally they thought maybe like $4 million it you know probably would cover it but it's so expensive nowadays that by the time it was done we got seven then by the time we're done was 8.2 million I think to do
it. Yeah, there there wasn't necessarily a a true and I was gonna say, you know, RFP for proposals on the facility, but um we did throw out there looking more of somebody who would be a partner or end
up leasing in the facilities. Um and there was a number of respondents. They never completely filled out the information that and provided all the information that we needed. But correct me if I'm wrong, there there wasn't a lot of interest. There was no official one. It was just a
request for interest. I think we did like three tours and soon as we got to the building and there was no outdoor space. There was a um a group that wanted to be able to do pow-wows outside. Well, that's Franklin Gard. That's not this one. And the parking and the outside space were the two things
that people just couldn't get over. the um uh the Vietnam that fought with Americans. They had their group, they wanted it, but it just everybody wanted outside and more parking theater group. Yep. So, there was a bunch of groups, but it just couldn't get a partner out
of it because of the the limitations of that space. So, so here's So, come back in December with some some thoughts on it here. Here's the the thought. If the city were to sell that building and it has a
unique configuration, it's predominantly a gymnasium um because it was a community center. You've heard some of the costs and and we definitely can supply you with um you know information that W Architects um had done. We can
give you the information that EAPC it's all public information. what would it be worth to sell knowing that somebody buying it would have to invest pretty much immediately um just like Brian had said approximately a $3 million for you
definitely going to do would want to do the roof because there's been leaks in that roof for a number of years and then the HVAC so when you take all that in consideration what would be the purchase price knowing that somebody would have to have a significant capital layout
right off the beginning they one heck of a deal or or is it better to if the city's not going to keep it to tear down, have a vacant development site ready to go? It is a public parking lot right now
with the building to it. So half of it is really a parking lot that's a city parking lot. It has, you know, North St. Paul signs on it. So it's just the building part of it now that, you know, is I don't know how big. That's a huge spot. I would think it's worth more tearing it
down and selling the land and selling the building. And I mean, okay, if they were to tear it down, would they regrade it down to the first street level? Because, you know, there's steps going up on the f well, the old first street
or whether it's North St. Paul Road now, there's steps up into it. So, it's built up higher on the west side of the building than it is on the east side. They will they will grade it. It would have to be graded all the way down flat and level. That's the plan. I that's what I would think that. So
we'd have a fresh uh slate for when they're rebuilding. Almost has to be like something else being developed like if you know if the VFW or some other group wanted to expand or something because right now it's just the way it's wedged. It's really tough to get something else in there. were off
the comment um or off the cuff comments of the neighboring owner of the property that Webster um that they might be interested in, but it was never official or gotten into depth with conversations. So, that's an option too since they already own the property right next to it.
Webster, Franklin apartment. Franklin. Okay. They Webster. Yeah. Webers. Okay. Or Weber, excuse me. Yeah. Okay. Well, that'd be Yeah, they they own all that property up to it then, don't they? Correct. So, they could actually add on to their
whole building and the building across the street that runs along 7th Avenue. Yeah. Right. The old bowling alley. So, it's just something we wanted to get out. You know, things have changed. EDA is the is the proper group to be able to we want to make sure that we're, you
know, planning would be something if we decide to put some in there, we go to them and say, "Does this fit the planning?" But as far as the EDA, it's in our downtown. It's, you know, is it something that's valuable to us to hold on to? Is it more valuable to So that's where we're just at just to get ideas
and see what people's thoughts are. We can send out. Do you have the map on there? So Ken will show you a map. A question when we're going through the just for again for that future thought piece to it. When you're starting to go down the path of demoing it and and grading it and so forth, then the question comes
how much is the the land worth? Um, and so, um, Mr. Nath may may have more information on this, but excuse me, Booth, can we have the map on our front screen, too, please? Thank you very much.
This is the city. Okay. 2,300. Yeah. And the two small parcels here are part of it, too. Right here. 2290. Would it include the parking lot next to it or not? Yes. So that goes all the way up to that street, our parking lot narrow. It
splits theirs in half almost, doesn't it? Or their their roundabout is the start of our parking lot to go through their front. No, we own the roundabout, but they have a perpetual lease. We don't own Well, at the very top of that roundabout, there's a kind of a
U-shape. They own They own the Ushape. Correct. So on the top there. Got it. Goes all the way through. But the other all this is Yeah. Got it. Thank you. Cool.
But if I may, you can see how it's wallto- wall, property, line of property. Sure. Virtually the whole thing it was maxed out. One challenge I may come up for any redevelopment is
uh with current watershed regulations, what are they going to do for storm water management? Nowadays, it's always ponding or underground systems and that will be an additional expense andor take some of the land away
that would be available unless the neighbor to the north buys it and then they can incorporate it somehow. Weber That's something that definitely that's a good thought to to remember. Just because you take it down doesn't mean you're going to get all that space back. That's happened to the 17th Delaware
development. They had to have that wet space, you know, wet land behind it, which went from 2.4 acres to 0.80 acres, I think, because of the wet land. How would something like that even work with the development? because it's all more or less it's either hard surface or
building the entire lot. Um so you're not taking away any green space with that. Mhm. I don't know how that works when they're determining. I notic in the parking lot they do have a couple spaces that are trees and greens in between. You can see there's a
few green spots in there for some little bit of whatever it would be. What a developer might make the case that if let's say the current site is 95% impervious.
If they got it down to 85 or 80% made it better, would that be good enough for the watershed district? Don't know because it would be an improvement over the existing conditions. But if the Weber group were to purchase
it, the wershed, it wouldn't be as big of a deal if the owner next door would purchase it. Would that be a different scenario? Yeah, because he has green land over Right. That's what I'm saying. It definitely more flexibility, but it
is the the pat answer is it depends. Sure. Sure. And what what would they do with it? Would they want more housing or add that make the community center say for more parking and then put an addition on the existing building?
So they buy the property and they could add onto the prop their own building itself. Correct. Up in here potentially. Well, that was good to bring up because I didn't even think of the wershed kind of rules the roost on everything. So,
all right. Nothing else. All right. I think we'll move on to just uh give you guys quick updates we have. Yeah. Thanks for the conversation. Um uh just a for your information talked to
article 7 earlier today and they are completely filled up at capacity as of last Thursday. That's really awesome. Article seven. Article seven. Yeah. Yeah. Um in in the front on the first level, they had nine uh work live units. The idea concept is, you know, you might
have an artist or something out front and they got living quarters behind. They actually only have one business that's in there. Um it's a photography photography place. Um but they don't live there. It's strictly a business place for them. But uh thought that was
pretty nice for them. Um, one thing I wanted to throw by you guys and see what you thought about it was with our current facade improvement program. You know, the concept idea was to improve our downtown. Um, so we're going from First Street down to Highway
120 and then from Margaret uh from 7th Avenue to the bridge. Um, you know, we've had two uh successful applications for the uh facade improvement program. Um, I actually talked to two people today
from the business association, but uh, they are not the owners of the building. They are just occupants. So, they didn't know if that would work. But, do we want to expand this? This is one thing that we talked about originally. Um, but, you know, you have some of these,
you know, the strip malls to where, you know, anybody in the building isn't going to be the owner more than likely. Um would it be even feasible to be looking at other places for um facade improvement as what the program is? Does it even make sense? Um of course we'd
love to see it more downtown. That's the whole idea of it, but uh just want to get your idea about that and um see if we expand that. I was driving through North St. Paul today and the folks at the Shell building are getting their new windows in today. Nice. Good deal. So I imagine Swedes would be coming
pretty quick then. Again, they don't own the building, but the next door people. Yeah. Yeah. So, but hopefully. Yeah. Could we go back to the VFW and ask them to amend their uh request so that it
conforms to the facade improvement rules? We can have a conversation. Absolutely. I mean, I like the VFW. I like what they bring to the table. I like what they do. Yep. And you know, it's one of the
original things that we talked about when we were trying to pull um the requirements of the program. Um one of them was signage. Um at first we just said no. Um later we talked about well maybe it depends on the situation or only if you're improving the facade where you're doing tuck pointing or
something like that and you have to remove the sign does it make sense to go back. Um because one of the businesses that inquired about it at the business association um they weren't the owner of the building but they were looking at their sign. So, just want to throw that out there for you guys too on what your thoughts are for people who do that and
they're not necessarily owner, but you know, when they're done and do they take their sign with them and because it won't do any good to leave it there anymore. Uh, if somebody else rents the place, chances are. So, just want to get you guys' input on that. I think that was kind of the first
reason why we didn't because the signage could be gone when they move type of thing. So, I think that was the part of that first time we're talking about it. I can't remember if we changed our minds on it. Well, that and that and we wanted to keep it more infrastructure. Y
um I mean I I have no problem I don't know how you guys feel, you know, looking at it by a case by case basis, you know, and making making a decision. I think, you know, if if it's a a business that wants a new sign, but the
infrastructure on the outside needs to be updated to put a sign on, you know, I don't want to just put a sign on the outside of a building, uh, where the infrastructure needs to, you know, needs to be new tuck pointed or whatever. That just that doesn't make a whole lot of
sense. Let's do both. Um, but we can look at it case by case basis. Um, I'm open that makes sense to me. I'm I'm But I think in the VFW back in like, hey, relationship,
you know, how can we how can we help you guys, you know, no, we're not willing to do this, but we're willing to listen to this. Like, let's we can work together here. We're not and we're bound by what the rules and regulations say. I mean, it's just we don't have flexibility yet. So, but how could you
change? Correct. you're asking for to help us make that decision. I know part of it too with us when it came to the planning commission and stuff like that with signage, you know, what it says and things like that. You know, how you deny one without denying another when you go through with that type of thing, too. So, I know that
became something where all of a sudden it's maybe offensive to some people, but they like it, you know, then it becomes that becomes part of it, too. Is there any is there are we doing something? I know I've talked to a lot
of the businesses downtown. Uh, you know, I've told them about this. Is there anything that we can do better to get this out there or excite people more about it to have them use it? I I think the city's done a good job. I've seen it posted. I I've
it's out there. I just not enough. Yeah. Question I have is because this is, you know, downtown are ma shops. You want your own building, right? So, I'm assuming that most of them, you know, Luther has a few buildings here. So he's not. But I'm assuming a lot of people that have their business own their building in downtown North St. Paul,
correct? So you're not going to, you know, that'd be great to them. They turn around, well, I don't own the building, you know, that type of thing. So I don't know what our percentage is, you know, are we talking to the right people? You know, is it is it the you know, how does it get to that level if they don't own
it? That's certainly part of the issue. I mean, any kind of communication the city has. I mean, we can put it on our website. I don't know how many people are going to our website. you know, we can put it in a utility billing um as an insert. Um there's so many people that just take out what they owe, fill out
the check, and send it back or just do automatic deposit. Some people don't even open them up. So, yeah, it's how do you get that information to them so they can know it and see it? I mean, again, we talked earlier about potentially even doortodoor um walking in um which is certainly a possibility. There's not that many. This is downtown.
Is there an St. Paul business association? No. That was empathetic. No, there's a new name. Widened it now. What's the new name? It's um Help me out here. It's not the
business association anymore. It's the It's like chamber chamber of commerce something. Yeah. So, could we get that messaging out to them? And we did that today. Okay. Oh, y but if they do have a mailing or something we can attach to like an email that would go specifically to them,
that'd be wonderful. last. Yeah. Yeah. And the two that today didn't own their buildings that were interested. Correct. Correct. All right. Well, yeah, that's a slippery slope. Mhm. I once you open that door, it it it you
can't control it. All right. The only other thing I don't know if you want to touch on it real quick is do you have any updates on the pine tree? Can you talk about anything that uh was said? and we can call her a day. Got him an email or got an email from them last week that uh they do have an interested party. Um but they the
interested party has a couple ideas in mind. Um initially we had said that they might want to do um like town homes in the area. So that's still one option. They've actually talked about a gas station again and potentially with a gas station with apartments above it. Um and they just wanted to know that is
that acceptable to the city. So you know we want to bring it up at the EDA. You know eventually we would be something you'd get in front of the planning commission um at council of course, but uh what your guys's thoughts were on these ideas, a gas station with apartments above.
I thought the same thing, but I thought, you know what, they've got apartments above bars, too. So, yeah, there be two buildings then. That was different, too. When you got the lights of a gas station be part of the building. Yeah. I think of pollution issues. Yeah.
bar is one thing. Yeah, I just want to let you know what they reached out to on us. We don't know, you know, it's their stage. At least they're, you know, getting some information and there's people are interested and the interest part is is the key. Yeah. Yes.
That's good. Uh, one last thing is this and this more or less talks through the grape vine, but it sounds like uh somebody who's in the know a little bit of the Mueller funeral home for that spot down there on Mcnite that uh sounds like they may have heard
something about them getting some of their uh finances together. So, more to come if we find anything out about official, but uh we'll see. Um just this is more FYI. It's more of an HR thing, but um student build house is complete. Uh is now on the market.
They've had a couple showings, but uh that's great. Yes. I did go through I went through it last week was cool and they're very nice. They did a great job. And their program, they had a guy that was just great. Uh really hard shoes to
fill. Um which they found out because now they don't even have the program anymore. So we're actually shifting to St. Paul College who will be picking up the program um for the next project which will be up there at five corners on the corner of South Avenue and 7th Avenue. Um and talking about putting a a
duplex in there or town dup nice piece we already own. So the last one too they put across from Webster was a weird shaped little of a triangle. So it just sat there. Nobody did anything for years. We used it and did a great uh job designing it. It looks great. So, it
was something that we got off the books, we got off of us onto a nice nice spot to be able to uh do that. And now this other one, too, is a site we've had for quite a while. Yeah. Yeah. All right. Nothing else. I want to thank
everybody. I know you guys are busy and I appreciate your time and thanks for your interest. Anybody else have any comments? I mean, even in general or to bring to the group? No, it's great. Thank you. Thank you guys. Thank you. Thank you. All right. I'll uh call for adjournment. So move.
So move. Council member member Matthews. Second McKenzie. All those in favor say I. I. Thank you very much. That's kind of distract. Look at this.