12:00, let's call the Economic Development Authority regular meeting
to order, please, for August 26, 2026. Please call roll.
» Here. Here.
» Here. >> Yes.
» Here. >> Here.
» Here.
» All right, approve minutes from regular meeting 5 27 26.
» I'll move. >> Second.
» All in favor? >> Aye.
» All opposed, same sign. All right, bills and communication.
Any questions? You have to wait till we see Carla.
» She's out today.
» Any questions, comments, concerns? Nope, moving on.
Delinquencies. She loves this part.
» There's none.
» Director's report.
» So, in the past couple months that we've been in doing summer, it's been very
busy here. People have been building houses and starting businesses and
taking out permits to do construction and rehab on their commercial buildings.
There's been a lot of business visits. We've been taking advantage of the good
weather to go out and walk to visit different businesses and tell them about
our microloan program and ask how things are going. And it's been very positive
sentiments, which is awesome. I'm hearing that people are remaining stable
in their operations and staffing and some slight increases in terms of
staffing levels. And people are adding different product lines. At the same
point, too, we're also working on kind of fielding those requests and questions
that are coming from the Simplot redevelopment project. So, as you can
see, there's been a lot going on. And then also the preparation for the fall
North End Valley Career Expo is well underway, so
all the good stuff. >> I like the highlight of like the fire
chief that retired and things like that. You've done a number of articles on
individual people. Actually really like seeing those as well. They're They're
good. They're good community members. >> Yes, that was Brenda's idea. I was going
to mention it later, but we've had like some low participation
during the summer from businesses. So, she's gone ahead and like filled in
relevant people from the city and like real estate and they've performed very
well. So, it's also valuable for our communities
appearance to like external entities and our spending for consumers and just
quality of life. So, yeah. >> Yes.
» I agree. >> All right.
I'm going to skip over here. Financial reports are
» Unless there's anything we need to like make a note of.
» anything. >> Me neither.
» Okay. Social media report.
» Okay, well timed. So, this
report covers the last three months of combined metrics. So, you get to see the
top posts from the last three months and they do actually include some of the
city staff. Um let's see here.
And this has taken up a good portion of Brenda's time to go out and you know,
schedule the appointments to talk with the businesses, get the right person, do
the interviews and then the photos and the write-ups, but it's very valuable.
The newspaper still pulls it and posts it in there. They've had a little bit of
staffing change, so it's I think they're going to be on a different page than
what it usually is, but it's still a valuable content piece that
we add. Any questions on that?
» Any questions? All right. Unfinished business. Residential tax
abatement program renewal update. >> Okay. We talked about this back in
I think May and there was an interest in moving
forward with renewing the program. Luckily, the school district has theirs
already in place until 2031. So, this was a matter of just seeing if the
county wanted to renew it, and they agreed to
renew the program until 2029. So, at that point, houses that are newly
built no later than January 31st, 2029 would
be eligible for the program. And sometimes it takes 2 to 4 years for them
to get up to full value. So, it's possible that they could request the
rebate as late as 2031, 2033, somewhere in between there.
So, that is the installment on that. And
then the next step for this process, if this was a recommended to continue, I
would take it to city council, the work session. They would mull over the
request, and then it would go to um a regular council meeting with a
public hearing since it involves city dollars from the general fund.
» I'll move to make recommendation to continue.
» I'll second. >> All in favor.
» Aye. >> Aye.
» Aye. >> All opposed, same sign.
Excellent. Simplot request for proposal updates.
» So, our last day for the RP process is Monday next week. So, we're getting
really excited about what could be potentially coming into our offices in
terms of designs and proposals for that 10 acres of land that we have sitting
over there that's been vacant. And I've had a ton of great
conversations and phone calls and emails. I've reached out to 34 different
business and construction companies directly with requests of, "Hey, please
consider community." And one of them led to somebody saying, "Hey, while we can't
do it this time, we'll consider your community for other options in the
future." Which is good cuz they've worked with us in the past. It's listed
on the commercial real estate index that Crexi
RFP database.com. Deed was very helpful in helping us get
it onto GovDelivery, so it's on there. League of Minnesota Cities social media,
and then we are able to post it on our billboards. So,
I'm not sure what to anticipate. There's been a lot of good excitement and
interest. We did a webinar, and we had some attendees for that, and
we had an on-site tour, and we had some We had a person attend as well, so
Hard to know, but exciting times. >> Yeah.
Next slide. All right, new business.
Infill lease renewal. >> Mhm.
» Okay. This one is for the Golfsted Law Firm,
which is coming to the close of their lease term at the end of this year.
And so, we met with the loan committee, and
Ron, the attorney there, mentioned he's not sure how long he wanted to do the
term, so we discussed what would be the best option.
So, the recommendation was to keep it flat at the 11.25 a square foot that it
currently is for the next 5 years with an opt-out clause for retirement or
sale of the business. Since, I believe, his business is currently in the renewal
decline phase, he may be seeking a buyer, or he may look to transition it
somehow. So, >> Sure.
» If that sounds good, we can decide on that, or if there's other ideas, we
could listen to those, too. >> I I'm just curious on the opt-out
clause, is it one-sided, or is it two-sided? So, like, if if he sale
sells, are we doing a new lease with a new
business, or how do how does that Are they taking over that lease? Like, how
is that working with that opt-out clause?
» actually. I think we If it's the same company,
and I may need help from Reed on this. If it's the same company, then the
lease, I would assume, would hold place. It would just be cuz the lease is with
Golfsted Law, and not with Ron. >> Right. I'd assume it would continue on,
but when that ends, we would have to renew
it with them. If it is a totally different company that say like comes in
and it's like Ferguson Law or something else totally different, think it'd have
to be a new lease. >> Mhm.
» Correct. >> I was just wondering, too, cuz I mean it
it's Golseth, Jensen, and McCann. So, if one of them retires, like I'm just
curious >> Well, one isn't even with us anymore.
He's been gone for >> Right.
» ever. >> I I I'm just It was just a question. I
just didn't know if it was a two-way opt-out clause or
we're we're we're just locking this in for a business for the next 5 years.
» Whatever business shows up. >> Yep.
» Very good. >> any business No, not for any business,
for Ron's business. If the If the name changes or if Ron retires or Ron decides
to move to Grand Forks, he would be in breach of this contract. That's he he
It's upon retirement that it's on his terms is what I think we kind of
proposed, right? >> Yeah, that's the the proposal at the
loan committee that I recall, too, is it's a little bit one-sided to your
point, Daniel, but it was um so that if Ron chooses to retire in
the middle of the term of the agreement um or opts to sell the business as part
of a succession plan, it would allow him to opt out at that time.
Um the benefit on the city side is we lock in a 5-year agreement, where
otherwise it may be a shorter term with more uncertainty on that end for the
city. >> And then the reason we left it flat is
because we did it with Mike's and we felt that that was the right thing to
do. >> So, and that I didn't have a I just
wanted to clarification on that. So, thank you.
» Any other questions? Looking for a motion.
» I'll make a motion. >> I'll second it.
» No, you go ahead. Please call roll.
» Yes. >> Black?
» Yes. >> State?
» Yes. >> Brenda?
» Yes. >> Pat?
» Yes. >> Morgan?
» Yes. >> Al?
» Yes.
Perfect. All right. Fiscal year 27 budget.
» So on the last page of your packet is the budget summary.
We met with city council and gave them kind of a very early proposal of what
our departmental budgets could look like.
There is one change to note on this. Since Brenda has been helping a lot with
the different duties with the EDA, especially with those spotlights, we're
kind of consuming more of time that she normally is spending with planning and
there was kind of an emptiness in the need for time with planning. So we are
looking to shift her over to 50/50 EDA planning split. And that would probably
take um place January 1st of 2027.
So yay, we get more support. But that will change the wages,
insurance benefits part at the top. Um just due to that change. However, from
if I understand correctly, planning has already budgeted in for her normal 75%
we've already budgeted in for her quarter percent. So it comes from the
general fund, so it's not it wouldn't be a drastic change, it would just be like
a a ratio. >> Yeah, essentially.
So that would be something to note and then the other thing is our expenses.
We've kept them flat. We're able to offer really great programming and
support. And I've had a ton of people ask me from different towns, like how do
you do your business spotlights? You know, what are you using for tracking
your contacts and your deals through convergence, so
it's nice to be a trailblazer in that regard with our um effective operating
budget we have. And then we're getting close to the end
of our Waters Edge lot sales. There was some interest in reducing the the that
we have budgeted for that 30% or 30,000 for 2027. Um we did have a conversation
which kind of foreshadows the next agenda item with North Star neighbors
and they expressed some interest in potentially acquiring some more of our
lots and we are working with someone else who
is um looking to do that $100,000 builder
loan program. So we have five lots left in the PUD. So
that's all we have remaining. >> I I just don't think it'd be wise to
reduce them now. I mean
there's no way >> No, we weren't going to reduce them.
» No, not the lots, just the amount budgeted that she's going to make up for
sales. >> So
» Sorry for blowing up. >> And out of those five we need to
recognize that two of them are going to be very hard to sell.
» Hard to sell. >> Yeah.
» I think two or three, right? >> Two for sure.
» The PUD, the duplex, and that one on 23rd.
» Yep. >> Those are toughest.
So we may have to like look at different creative ways on those.
Um So that's what I have for this budget.
If anyone feels like something could be changed or edited, we can absolutely
make changes cuz we're still in the editorial part before council gets to
lock in the the amounts.
» Any changes, questions? >> How's our real estate agent doing?
» Really well. He's sold four houses already. Or not houses, but four lots.
» That's a good change. >> Yes. Yeah.
» From May, I think he came on in May? May to now.
» That that was a good a good investment. >> Yes. And he said that he'll be starting
his second phase of advertising. Um unfortunately I don't recall the
specifics of it, but he said he was doing like different phases of outreach
to get people engaged in it. I was going to reshare one of his videos too that
talks about like don't miss out on this opportunity of building here. There's
also been a good number of people taking out housing building permits, so
we might be just capitalizing on a really good time, too, to list.
» just pretty much stop now, though, and until spring? Is anybody
usually buying in the fall? >> Hey, you never know.
» You never know? Okay. >> You see a lot of people potentially
still buy lots in the fall to be ready to break ground
» spring. Okay. And two of our Northstar neighbor houses
are supposed to start breaking ground in the fall, tentatively. So,
people might use the same contractor. >> Right.
How many lots do we have left? >> Five. We have five and one PUD.
» But it's I mean, there's action over there. There's two of them getting built
in the Tribune Circle right now, and >> It's a lot less than when I started on
this board, so. A lot less.
» That's good.
» So, we're looking for a motion. >> On the budget?
» No, budget's already done. We're discussing housing and lots.
» Okay, housing and lots. Oh, we haven't gotten there yet. Okay.
» Do you need a motion for the budget? >> Yes.
Yes. >> I'll move to approve budget
» Thank you. >> has it.
» I'll second. >> Call roll, please.
» Yes. >> Black.
» Yes. >> Say.
» Yes. >> Andi.
» Yes. >> Katz.
» Yes. >> O'Brien.
» Yes. >> Andi.
» Yes.
» All right. A housing and lots discussion.
» Okay, this is the juicy nugget one for conversation.
I'm excited about this one. And it leads in well, cuz Dana said we
just finished selling most of those lots. Well,
we're at a predicament here. We've sold most of our city-owned
residential lots, and we are anticipating a large influx of hopefully
permanent residents into the greater MSA.
Um whether it be from Agristo, the Air Force Base is doing some different
projects in Grand Sky. We're hoping to be a little proactive in getting
affordable and available housing. We're at a pretty low available housing rate
currently. Um, back in like Q1 it was around 1.99% for rental vacancy, which
is really low. Ideally it's somewhere between like 5 to 10% so it gives people
options and flexibility. So, we're looking at
what is our next step? The council in the past had signaled that they don't
want to be a residential developer, that we want to be out of it, hands-off, let
someone else come in and do it. Um, unfortunately those outlays have sat
there just kind of not having any action and it begs the question then of like
should we engage in, you know, preparing those lots that go north of Waters Edge
and get them ready? Should we put out an RFP and ask a developer to do that? Are
there incentives that we should try to position so we can get more housing? And
then I included some really fun facts that I pulled
um so theoretically
Gen Z, I've heard some conflicting information
from other sources but consistently the research I'm finding is saying Gen Z
wants to own a house, which I feel like is normal for any up-and-coming
generation. They want to own a house, it's an easy investment, they're wanting
to start families, they're motivated to grow and start families and we have a
huge population of those coming through, you know, the university and through the
college and apartments are good but they're they're not a permanent
necessarily housing option that everybody wants.
So, a lot of Gen Z is looking for home
ownership programs to help them typically government ones. So, I don't
know if that's a a consideration we want to look at if we did that $5,000 down
payment program and we're at pretty much the end of those. There's just a couple
where people are moving out before the full term. So, we're getting some of
that back as that miscellaneous revenue but
is that something we want to do in the future?
Do we want to consider you know
other programs that are helpful. And another unique trend is that we're
seeing retirees are not downsizing. I've experienced this personally. I've seen
it happen. Um there's that aging in place concept of I'm comfortable in this
house. It's paid off. It's got a great interest rate. I know where everything
is. I can walk it in the middle of the night.
So we're not seeing necessarily people who are wanting to, you know, when they
hit retirement age move into a smaller house or downsize. Uh largely people are
either staying in their house or they're buying a house of the same square
footage or even 100 square feet larger. And then there is a little typo here,
but 18% of those who are 80 years old to 100 year old um want to plan to
basically downsize. So we're not seeing that shift until people are getting kind
of up in their ages where they're, you know, there's a lot of upkeep with a
house when you're that age and mowing and things.
So then that's kind of some food for how we want to do this.
» I think one of the problems that you'll that you I see it from
people that I work with in my industry that are looking to downsize at a
certain age. Problem is right now is downsizing costs
you more. So in in that instance, you know, yeah,
they'd probably love to get into a town home or something where maybe they don't
have to mow, they don't have to do the snow removal or something or maybe
they're snowbirds so they don't have to worry about, you know, snow still
getting moved it looks like somebody's there in the winter. But everyone that I
talked to that wants to downsize said it's going to cost them more. So it's
difficult to do it. >> That was actually Gen X's biggest
complaint. They would like to downsize, but they're also dealing with the cost
of like doing a whole new house, new
mortgage. >> They said there's nothing in their price
range that two 300,000 dollars. I mean there's
just nothing. And and the >> How can there be when you buy a new
pickup? They're 100 grand. >> Right.
» You know. >> Right. Because they're like, oh, they
want 20% down or whatever it whatever it is now. They So they look at it like,
"Oh, I need like $50,000 cash before I can even buy a house."
» Mhm. Mhm. >> And so it's it's been really hard and
there's nothing in their price range. So it goes more like four or five 600,000.
They're like, "We just can't afford it. We can't don't have the down payment for
it." So I've heard that a lot cuz I work a lot with that that age group and
stuff. But >> And which at that time we
we're in the same boat. >> Mhm.
Yeah. So
» Still are. So if we're going to go forward and we were looking at this, I
guess my question would be is is what would we be looking to develop those
houses into? What's the income range that we're
targeting for that? Because I mean if we're going to target and have these as
like half million 400 or above $1,000 houses,
you're not attracting people who are going to be coming for the jobs that are
that are coming into town. Well, that's the question.
» are with with Agri school and with Grand Sky, you are.
» Yeah, people in their 40s, 50s? >> Yeah.
» I mean, those are going to be those are going to be very well-paying jobs that
are coming. And we talked about this at the loan committee of
we have no inventory of lots. And with some of the jobs that are coming,
um we're going to put ourselves at a disadvantage if we don't even have the
ability to capture some of those people that are going to be looking to move
into town to fill those jobs. So that's where the discussion comes up
of do we look to develop it? Do we put an
RFP out to find a developer that wants to develop it? Um Ben knows a little
more about some of them that they they did it and there's some that are almost
pretty close to ready to >> There's some that's
I would say and Reed can speak to this, but there's
some lots out there that there isn't a whole lot of infrastructure to put in.
There's also a big portion of it that there's a lot of infrastructure to put
in out there. So I mean trying to partner with a developer
to get some things done. I I know we've always
said no way, we're not doing this again, but
there's lots out there where if we had them ready, they'd sell tomorrow. That's
just the way that it's looking. >> That's the shift.
» That's that's the way it's looking right now. And I know I can speak that, you
know, it's difficult. I I know from a city perspective,
there's uh value to that land. From a developer
perspective, there's a lot less value to that land just because of the inputs
that you'd have to put into it. So, um
yeah, I guess it probably goes back to council.
You guys to decide if you want to pursue an RFP type situation. We
talked about it at the loan committee of I think that's probably the right step.
» Yes. >> Because,
you know, otherwise it's the city unless you guys decide as a city, we
want to develop that and do lots again. >> I think the discussion was uh in the
loan committee is that if we put out an RFP, there's not going to be a whole lot
of interest just because of the type of capital that it's going to take.
» We don't think so. >> Probably not.
» We don't think so. >> But I think that's the first step.
» Yeah. >> I mean, I I think there's probably an
agreement with not only across this board, but city council that we we don't
want to be in a position of owning lots and having to sell lots
again, but um there's no other lots in town anywhere.
» Right. I think we >> There's nothing on the south south end
left. I mean, we probably have There's two lots
» on the south end that we talked about that came up and
» Yep. Besides those two, there might be one or two more, and then
R5, like there's probably less than 10 lots available in town.
» And there's develop I mean, with the lagoons gone now,
it's a it's a de- you know, the around that
golf course is >> Nice.
» That's nice. That's why people are building out there right now.
» I I I'm still skeptical on on the housing and in the market that
targeting, but how can we make it something that somebody wants to come in
and develop so that we're not in that business.
What what what can we do? >> Give away the land.
I mean, honestly. You know, or partner with partner with
somebody so it makes financial sense. >> But it's got to make financial sense.
That's why I'm curious to like is it if it's giving away land and it's something
that we need, then that is that what we're considering here?
» Yeah, I don't know. >> Is that that's the only That's the only
way I see >> So
I think I know what I'm talking about. RFP for
the land and if not, then we consider developing the land ourselves.
» Yeah. I think that's >> Say that again, Ben.
» We do an RFP to see if there's a developer that is interested in
purchasing the land and developing it themselves
and if they can't, then as a council and as a city, we change
change course and say, "Okay, we're going to
develop these lots that we said we were never going to do
again and >> Right, cuz there is some infrastructure
already in that we almost have to recap. We're looking probably to recapture some
of that, I'm guessing. >> I think some of it has to be redone,
right? >> Uh no, I'm not aware of any of that
needs to be redone. Uh there's sanitary sewer already there. Um
about 29 lots could be serviced by the existing sanitary north on St. Andrews
Drive to that lift station. If you build houses on both sides of that street, the
sanitary line that's already there would serve those.
» Yep. >> So you still need to bring in
electricity, drinking water, storm sewer, and roads, right?
» Yep. >> But the sanitary is that's a big expense
that's already there. >> Yep.
» To your point, Justin, there's there could potentially be special assessments
» Mhm. >> for that sanitary line that was
installed 20 years ago. Still that may need to be spread across those lots.
» Right. >> Um I have a not spent enough time to
look at a calculation of what that cost would look like or if it's something the
city wants to eat just to help push up development along. Um but that's there.
» Yep. >> I think there's other scenarios to
consider too and look at is that, um, you know, is is Bob going to develop any
more on the south end? And if we have those talks and if he has plans on it,
we obviously don't want to compete with private developers either and let them
develop. Um, so if he does and how many lots is
he going to input and then maybe that makes a decision easier for the city
that says, "Hey, nobody's interested in it, but let's do
some and not all of it." And then that gives us a little bit more inventory so
we've got inventory on both ends of town in case somebody chooses one end or the
over the other. If
if we don't have anything that's going to be developed on the south end, we
need to hardly consider how do we get lots available and not miss out on
potential tax base to build for the city.
» We had also considered too, there's housing TIF. I don't know if there's an
appetite for that, but that would allow the ability to wrap all the expenses
into like a as the increment increases, ability to get reimbursed to help kind
of build a lot of housing at one time. >> Does that constrain you on the building
end? Once you, like if you put them in a district like that, is that a
is that constrain the buyer or is that just a
» Okay. >> a financing part.
» Just a financing part. Okay. >> And that can go up to 26 years and then
there is excess increment that's generated between like the taxable value
and the new value. That could be used in like in the surrounding area to kind of
help with like sidewalks or other value added at
value added access things. >> Well, like Ben already mentioned, I
think what we we talked about at the loan committee is, our consensus anyways
is like let's put it out there, see if anybody wants it first and get it and
then if not, then council's got to make a decision on where do we go from there.
» Cuz there's really been no action or
RFP ever put out on this, right? >> I don't think so.
» Okay. >> I don't believe there has been. The The
city like Widseth has done some site plans that has laid out potential lot
sizes and utility locations. Um but I think even those are probably
10 years old at this point. >> Yep.
» So, we're looking for a motion to
Ben's going to head it up at the console and
» Stump's going to say good idea. >> Ben, please. Not Ben.
» Yeah, there you go. >> You can certainly make a motion if you
want, but I think we could just take this direction to staff direction and
maybe you know, I can start working on RFP and then, you know, at next month's
meeting have an RFP ready for your review
um to bring to council for their approval.
» Yep. I think everybody's in consensus that
we'd like someone else to do it if possible, but we'll see what happens.
» But like you said, what hand are we going to be forced? I mean
» If the the other lot's more attractive, they're going to go there.
» Well, it it it it back to it.
» So, the lots that are left are the less desirable lots.
» Yeah. >> There's three that are probably
» probably not going to sell. >> Yeah.
» Yep. >> So, if we open up additional land that
can be developed >> Better chance of people moving.
» desirable lots. >> Yeah.
» Um which will then facilitate further building in that
area. And once they start building, you know, like
hopefully it's like on the south end of Grand Forks where once they start
» It'll just keep going. >> Yeah. These these would be lots that
line the golf course again, so your backyard would be up to the next to the
holes and not >> They were the first ones that They were
the first ones that sold the first time. >> Yeah, so and they'd be the first
» I like that. I'd like to see more people move in.
» I >> mean, you
I think there's probably 12 on that side left. I think they'd go pretty quick.
» Yeah. Yeah, a local contractor has said that
he could have four or five of them sold today if
» I agree with him. It's the rest of it that Right.
There's there's no sewer on the north side. So, there there's more work it the
29's easy. It's the rest of it is challenging.
» Um I just if there's still time for more conversation, Ben made a point I think
it's worth bringing up of the existing four or five lots we
have left. And a lot of you have said it, there are a few that are probably
less than desirable. There's I think there's one in
particular that probably merits some conversation. It's
um I don't remember what the lot number is.
It's on the corner of 23rd Street and >> Saint Andrews.
» Saint Andrews Drive. Yep. It has a lot of a big chunk of the property is
um interfered with by the underground
» natural gas line. >> And it's also in that section of the the
subdivision that has recorded governance on it. So, the combination of those two
things, the size of the home and the size of the garage that are required,
and the amount of property that's affected by the underground utility,
you can fit a house in there, but it's going to be a really funky house and not
much yard. It'd be front or side yard depending upon how you lay the house
out. >> Well, there's personal property
» and we're our asking price, yeah. Our asking price on it is 39,950. And of
course, that's driven by the cost of the special assessments on the property.
You know, I didn't bring any paperwork with, but that's one to me if the board
has any idea for how to be creative to allow a
home to be built there. Otherwise, I fear as we bring more new lots on, it's
going to sit and we're going to end up just making it a park someday.
» Right. >> Planting trees.
Maybe that's what it is. Is that Is that where the conversation should go?
» That's and that's of what I'm wondering. >> There is not any playground equipment on
the on the north side of 23rd Street. >> There is Danny. I mean that certainly
could be an option. >> I I wouldn't I wouldn't mind seeing if
we can package that in somehow if that Northstar wants to
have a few more lots if if we can agree to them like
» We did pitch that to them yesterday. >> If you take a couple more lots, we'll
kind of basically almost give you this lot if you take three more lots or
something. >> Um that's the the unique uniqueness of
that lot is troublesome for Northstar even
because the price is high. It's 5,000 more than we're asking for other lots
cuz it's a bigger lot and with those
um square footage requirements, it makes
the home build a lot more expensive. So Northstar prefers some of the smaller
lots and the the I think it's Waters Edge third that don't have the covenants
that have square footage requirements on them.
So if we could find a work around to the covenants and come up with a price, I
think they'd be willing to play ball, but as it stands today with what they
know about it, it's they wouldn't be able to make it work
for the grant funding they get on their homes.
» And whether it's council that makes the decision or whatnot, I I think I'd be
interested to see if can we package that somehow with them and
» Yeah, if you're going to take three more lots, we'll give you that one for half
the price or something just to get rid of it and have a wholesale on it.
Yeah. >> The interesting part is I don't think
I don't think we can change the covenants on the rest of the
development. >> That would be my question is is because
of the covenants there is is it feasible?
I like I I mean is it actually feasible because if they're having trouble with
it, I mean just not based on price but with the layout of how the house has to
be, would it be a >> They're
It's not feasible for them cost wise not for
» why don't we say hey, we're okay with that cost wise and they say it's 5 grand
more. Why don't we Okay.
Say it's 15 grand. That's the difference and it's the same
money for them to build. To be flush with that square foot.
Would we be money ahead?
You know, instead of 40 grand, it's 20 or 15.
» Well, that's what I was saying. Like if they if we if we come to an agreement
that they buy two or three more that we give them that lot for like half the
price and include it in with a whole bundle, you know?
I don't know. And but I mean you look at it as a park and then well, that's going
to cost more money, too, because then you've got to put the put a park in
Well, and that's not cheap to put all that playground equipment.
» That one's actually really close to Nash Park. Yeah, Reed and I were just looking
at a map. Um it's right across Like two blocks two blocks away.
» Yeah, wouldn't make any sense. >> Yeah.
» So so the house building the house there is feasible. It's just not feasible at
the price at which the lot is at. >> it's price wise from what I understand,
right? >> Cost prohibitive.
» Yeah, because of the square footage requirements, right? Yeah, I think it's
1,800 square feet minimum two stall attached garage is what the covenants
call for for it the square footage. When you get to that size,
the way that North Country Neighbors builds their homes, they're getting
Minnesota housing grant funding for it, which requires that it be built with
full accessibility and full energy star certification. So it's already more
expensive home build as it is. >> True.
» And then you have to if you have to meet those square footage requirements, it
just it all kicks what they can get in grant funding.
Um >> Let's see what
I'm thinking about it that way. >> Yeah, I'm thinking about
» mean like where they say it's no, and we say no, okay, well, we're back to the
same boat. >> Right.
» Yeah. >> You know, and I I don't I wouldn't push,
you know, if you got if you buy these two, we'll do this.
You know, like Jenner's Jerry fireworks or something. Yeah, I would
» A bug going in. >> Let's just concentrate on one and
» Yeah. >> Cuz if they if they're going to build
more, they're going to buy more anyway. >> That's good.
» How does this work to partner with you to
get this done? >> Before there's nothing to partner with.
» Correct. >> What do we have to do in order to get
you to get take this off? >> we do to help you help ourselves? You
» Is that something that we can ask him then is is what do we need to do?
» That's the direction That's the direction we're going to go.
» Okay.
I'm good with that. Do you need a motion or something?
» Sure, cuz nothing's happening. Yeah, it's just
» All right. >> Okay.
» Wow. >> Look at us.
» Motion to adjourn. >> I'll move.
» Second.
» It's always quick. >> Benny.
» Are you sure we should go? >> I'm sure.
» By the way, I got
easy a poop yesterday. On my back seller.
» Oh, yeah?