7.2.
CC Regular Session
- Meeting Date:
- 03/10/2015
- Submitted For:
- Patrick Brama
- By:
- Patrick Brama, Administrative Services
Information
Title:
Authorize Professional Services, Cost-Share Agreement, and Review Updates Related to the Future Ramsey Business Park
Purpose/Background:
PURPOSE:
BACKGROUND:
Attached to this case is background information on the (A) the future business park, (B) EDA direction related to the Future Business Park, (C) the RFQ for professional services, (D) map of previous City of Ramsey business parks, and (E) process taken thus far/next steps. This case was reviewed by the EDA on March 05. EDA comments are included in the "recommendation" section of this case.
- Consider authorizing work outlined in the attached RFQ (also see Bolton & Menk proposal)
- Consider authorizing cost-share model agreement for professional services outlined in RFQ
- Review updates: (ACG Consulting analysis, staff update, etc.).
BACKGROUND:
Attached to this case is background information on the (A) the future business park, (B) EDA direction related to the Future Business Park, (C) the RFQ for professional services, (D) map of previous City of Ramsey business parks, and (E) process taken thus far/next steps. This case was reviewed by the EDA on March 05. EDA comments are included in the "recommendation" section of this case.
Scope of RFQ Services:
Completion of a traffic impact study, feasibility report, and preliminary design layout of infrastructure improvements associated with the City’s future business park. Improvements would be limited to (1) Bunker Lake Boulevard, between Armstrong Boulevard and Puma Street; and, (2) Puma Street, between Bunker Lake Boulevard and Alpine Drive; see Appendix of the attached RFQ for details.
Outcome of RFQ Services?
Why should the City participate in the professional services outlined in the attached proposal from Bolton & Menk?
Why should the City participate in the professional services outlined in the attached proposal from Bolton & Menk?
(1) In order for the City to determine the feasibility of a new business park, and what the "cost-benefit" a new business park provides for the community, an analysis of the "input costs" needs to be conducted. The study Bolton & Menk has proposed will provide a base line estimation of "input costs" for the future business park. This study will provide a foundation of information for future policy discussions amongst the EDA and City Council (i.e. feasibility, layouts, staging of improvements, next steps, etc.).
(2) Prospect end-users need to understand the costs associated developing property in the future business park area. This study will provide a baseline estimation of costs that will provide clarity to existing property owners and prospect end-users (for arterial infrastructure). This information will aid marketing/negotiating efforts by Staff/CBRE. Not having this information in hand makes marketing/negotiating efforts very challenging.
(2) Prospect end-users need to understand the costs associated developing property in the future business park area. This study will provide a baseline estimation of costs that will provide clarity to existing property owners and prospect end-users (for arterial infrastructure). This information will aid marketing/negotiating efforts by Staff/CBRE. Not having this information in hand makes marketing/negotiating efforts very challenging.
NOTE: the City is NOT proposing to own the identified future business park.
Notification:
NA
Observations/Alternatives:
OUTSTANDING ITEMS:
Listed below are two items the EDA wished to review/resolve before moving forward with the professional services outlined in the attached RFQ (and Bolton & Menk response).
(1) Analyze effect of nearby train tracks on potential business park users. Identify who the "target market" is for the City's future business park. Will our target market conflict with the nearby train tracks? Will our target market have a demand for the proposed new future business park (i.e. confirm this location is market relevant)?
(2) Are the two major benefiting property owners willing to share in the cost of the traffic impact study, feasibility report, and preliminary design layout of infrastructure improvements?
Listed below are two items the EDA wished to review/resolve before moving forward with the professional services outlined in the attached RFQ (and Bolton & Menk response).
(1) Analyze effect of nearby train tracks on potential business park users. Identify who the "target market" is for the City's future business park. Will our target market conflict with the nearby train tracks? Will our target market have a demand for the proposed new future business park (i.e. confirm this location is market relevant)?
This work has been completed and is attached to this case. Mike Mulrooney presented this information to the EDA on March 05. In summary, the "target business type" for the new Ramsey business parks will likely be manufacturing (#1), assembly and warehouse users coming from Anoka County. Generally speaking, the new Ramsey business park can accommodate all identified target users. However, it should be noted, the nearby BNSF train tracks will effect precision manufactures up to a distance of 100 yards. With that in mind, sufficient space exists for precision manufacturers outside of the 100 yard setback area; and precision manufacturers' concerns RE vibrations from trains can be mitigated via certain building construction techniques.
(2) Are the two major benefiting property owners willing to share in the cost of the traffic impact study, feasibility report, and preliminary design layout of infrastructure improvements?
Attached to this case is a cost-share agreement developed by the City Attorney and reviewed by the EDA. Both major property owners have verbally committed to this agreement.
Funding Source:
The City/EDA sold a piece of property to Diamond Graphics in 2013. Land proceeds from that sale were deposited into a "TIF Account" (specifically, TIF Account #1). Land proceeds were $407,876. Since 2013, the City spent $91,300 of TIF Account #1 dollars on burying Connexus electrical services in the future business park area. As a result, the City/EDA has a balance of $316,576 to work with. Staff recommends TIF Account #1 dollars be utilized for this work (and potentially future work on the business park). This strategy will allow the EDA's other (less restricted) funding sources to remain in play for future projects. Attached is the EDA budget dashboard.
Recommendation:
EDA Recommendation:
(1) Authorize Bolton and Menk to complete the work outlined in the attached proposal ($38,860 proposal price, TIF Account #1 Funding Source).
(2) Authorize the attached cost-share agreement with Hageman Holdings and Pearson Properties for work outlined in the attached proposal.
General EDA Comments:
(1) Authorize Bolton and Menk to complete the work outlined in the attached proposal ($38,860 proposal price, TIF Account #1 Funding Source).
(2) Authorize the attached cost-share agreement with Hageman Holdings and Pearson Properties for work outlined in the attached proposal.
General EDA Comments:
- The completion of this study is an important step in developing a cost-benefit analysis for the future business park. In other words, it will help the EDA answer the following question: is the proposed future business park worth the investment of City resources?
- The EDA generally accepts the attached report completed by ACG Consulting.
- At the February EDA meeting, the EDA reviewed RFQ responses from four different firms. The EDA decided to move forward with the Bolton & Menk proposal; and eliminate other candidates.
Action:
MOTION TO:
(1) Authorize Bolton & Menk to complete the work outlined in the attached traffic analysis and feasibility study proposal.
-and-
(2) Authorize staff to execute the attached cost-share agreement with Hageman Holdings and Pearson Properties for work outlined in the attached feasibility study proposal; subject to amendments from the City Attorney.
(1) Authorize Bolton & Menk to complete the work outlined in the attached traffic analysis and feasibility study proposal.
-and-
(2) Authorize staff to execute the attached cost-share agreement with Hageman Holdings and Pearson Properties for work outlined in the attached feasibility study proposal; subject to amendments from the City Attorney.
Attachments
- RFQ Response (Bolton and Menk)
- RFQ
- Preliminary Analysis (ACG)
- Cost Share Agreement
- Background (Future Business Park)
- Background (EDA Direction)
- Background (RFQ)
- Background (Process)
- Background (Other Industrial Parks in Ramsey)
- EDA Dashboard
Form Review
| Inbox | Reviewed By | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Kurt Ulrich | Kathy Schmitz | 03/05/2015 01:36 PM |
| Brian Hagen | Tim Gladhill | 03/05/2015 01:43 PM |
- Form Started By:
- Patrick Brama
- Started On:
- 03/04/2015 03:50 PM
- Final Approval Date:
- 03/05/2015