EDA Minutes 07-22-1997
.
.
.
MINUTES
MONTICELLO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Tuesday, July 22, 1997 - 7:30 a.m.
City Hall
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chair Ron Hoglund, Vice Chair Barb Schwientek, Roger Carlson,
Bill Demeules, and Darrin Lahr.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Assist Treasurer Ken Maus and Clint Herbst.
STAFF PRESENT: Ollie Koropchak.
STAFF ABSENT: EDA Treasurer Rick Wolfsteller
GUESTS:
Mayor Bill Fair; Tom Lindquist and Carol Vogel, First National Bank of
Monticello; and Pam Campbell, MCP Design Committee.
1. Call to order.
Chair Hoglund called the EDA meeting to order at 7:30 a.m.
2.
Consideration to approve the June 19. 1997 EDA minutes.
Barb Schwientek made a motion to approve the June 19, 1997 EDA minutes. Bill
Demeules seconded the motion and with no corrections or additions, the minutes were
approved as written.
3. Consideration to discuss the proposed DMRF Guidelines and motion to approve the
guidelines.
Commissioner Schwientek requested clarification as to the reason the DMRF dollars must
come from the Liquor Fund payback. Koropchak explained because State and Federal
Grants are awarded to cities for the purpose of industrial job creation therefore the
payback dollars are restricted for use of industrial job creation and become known as
restrictive funds. Unlike the local dollars which is a non-restrictive fund, the payback need
not be restricted to only industrial job creation. As reported the accumulative payback
from the EDA-Liquor Fund (non-restrictive fund) over the years is slightly over $200,000,
the amount suggested and eannarked for downtown revitalization. The $25,000 maximum
funding allowed per property is to avoid the need for job creation reporting to the State.
Members wanted the DMRF Guidelines to be perceived by the property owners as an
encouragement for revitalization rather than a discouragement. In response to Michael
1
.
.
.
EDA MINUTES
JULY 22, 1997
Schroeder comments of July 21, 1997, the EDA members felt perhaps utilizing DMRF
monies for architectural fees may send the wrong message "revitalization is too
expensive". Members felt the role ofthe Design Advisory Team should be educational
and if dollars are necessary for architectural fees, the Advisory Team should come back to
the EDA for approval of such funding.
Lahr reported the HRA in preliminary discussions had a concern that public dollars be
utilized in a consistent manner. Although the design guidelines will be adopted into the
Comprehensive Plan, will the sign ordinance be amended at the discretion of city staff or
through the establishment of a historic district? Some discrepancy remains as whether the
guidelines are voluntary unless public dollars are requested.
It was suggested to allow the opportunity for exposure to architectural expertise, the EDA
request further research as to the cost to invite two or three architects to conduct a one-
day educational seminar for the property owners, Design Committee, and EDA.
Tom Lindquist, First National Bank: of Monticello, stated historical architectural fees do
not add value to a building. The value of a building determines the rent which is the cash
flow necessary for a mortgage. Lindquist questioned "whether this is a quick-fix" and
''what about environmental issues?" SBA and lending institution look at loan to value
ratios and the ability to cash flow (rents). Mayor Fair and EDA members agreed the
DMRF must be viewed as an incentive and as an investment into the community, they also
recognized and accepted the risk and agreed to a subordinated position behind the lending
institutions.
Pam Campbell, MCP Design Committee Chair, informed members that according to the
Main Street Design Program, every community which supported the historical
preservation program saw the rents increase after a number of years perhaps five years.
Commissioner Barb Schwientek made a motion to approve the Downtown Monticello
Revitalization Fund Guidelines as written with the following changes: Clarification of the
five-year balloon payment for the rehabilitation loan and adding the DMRF is in a
subordinated position to bank: financing. The DMRF Guidelines are subject to final
approval of the Design Guidelines. Darrin Lahr seconded the motion and with no further
discussion, the motion passed unanimously. The DMRF Guidelines will be presented to
the City Council for approval on July 28, 1997. Chair Hoglund left the EDA meeting.
Mr. Lindquist informed commissioners First National would consider a program other
than conventional loans, perhaps a specific program with low interest rates for downtown
revitalization. Example: the bank could block-out a dollar amount of$500,000.
2
.
.
.
EDA MINUTES
JULY 22, 1997
Commissioner Schwientek made a motion requesting the Design Committee obtain
proposals from architectural firms for a one-day educational or training seminar for
property owners, Design Committee/Advisory Team, EDA, and lenders and to develop a
list of architects including consulting fees for the EDA to review for possible funding. Bill
Demeules seconded the motion and with no further discussion, the motion passed
unanimously.
In order to receive State funding for preservation, a community must be certified by the
CIG as a historical preservation district. Lindquist inquired ofthe potential of grants
through the Initiative Fund or the League of Minnesota.
4. Consideration to discuss the application and approval/disapproval forms.
The commissioners did not discuss the forms but agreed to their use.
5.
Consideration to appoint an EDA representative to the Design Advisory Team.
With Commissioner Ron Hoglund a member of the MCP Design Committee, EDA
members felt it appropriate to appoint Hoglund as the EDA representative to the Design
Advisory Team. Roger Carlson made a motion to appoint Ron Hoglund as the EDA
representative to the Design Advisory Team. Bill Demeules seconded the motion and
with no other nominations, the motion passed unanimously.
6.
Adjournment.
Vice Chair Schwientek adjourned the EDA meeting at 8:45 a.m.
a~ \~O\~
Ollie Koropchak, Executive Director
3