EDA Minutes 01-30-2001
.
.
.
EDA Minutes - 1/30/01
MINUTES
MONTICELLO ECONOMIC DEVF:LOPMENT AUTHORITY
Tuesday, .January 30, 2001 - 7:00 p.m.
City Hall - Academy Room
Members Present:
Chair Bill Demeules, Roger Carlson, and Ron IIogIund
Absent:
Staff:
Guests:
Barb Schwientek, Ken Maus, Clint 1-1erbst and Darrin I,ahr
I':xecutive Director Ollie Koropchak and Recorder Lori Kraemer.
Kevin Heaton. property owner of 113 West Broadvvay.
PaIn CalnpbclL OAT Chair
I. ('all to Order.
4.
Chair Bill Demeules called the meeting to order at 7:20 pm and declared no quorum. It
was decided to discuss item 4 on the agenda as both Kevin llcaton and Pam Campbell
were present and the f()llowing is a summary of the discussion.
Consideration to review /'(lr approval/disapproval the second DMRF application for 113
West Broadway.
Ollie Koropchak. Executive Director, reminded the members that at the August 29. :::2000
L.DA meeting. the comlnissioners approved DMRF No, 110 for the property located at
] ] 3 West Broadway after much discussion relative to the three plans approved by the
DA T and the three bids presented by Kevin Heaton. Approved DMRF No. 110 was /'()l'
up to 50% of the rehabilitation costs, not to exceed $ I 1.000. /'()r the front facade and
signage, The one timc exception to the DMRF Guidelines was due to unusual
circumstances: length of linear front footage. prominent location (heart of town). and
extre1l1e per square footage rehabilitation costs. Koropchak also provided the DAT
minutes l'()r review.
Alter the approvals by DAl and EDA, Ileaton elected not to move forward with the brick
/~lcade options and proceeded with a front facade treatment of stucco. retaining the
cornice and installing a canvas awning. Prior to applying the stucco. Mr. Heaton
informed the I1uilding Ot'ncial and 1:1)A Ortice of his change in plans and the DAT Chair
was notifIed. Mr. Ilcaton inquired if the awning would qualify /'()r funding, he was
advised to re-apply with the knowledge of no promises, The mvning was included with
the three (brick l~lCade) plans and bids approved by the DA T and EDA.
LDA Minutes - 1/30/0 I
.
On January 2. 2001 Dk!' was requested to review the design of the awning associated
with the second funding application. DAT did not accept the application as the request
came after the installation of the awning. The DAT minutes and review were provided.
It was thc OrJice of the EDA that suggested Mr. Heaton submit a new application for
funding. It appears that the first approved Okr plans include mvnings with either of the
brick tilcade options. In review of the approval I'tJr the design and funding of DMRF No.
107, it appears a previous application sublnitted by Mr. Steve Johnson rcceived approval
for design and funding for the awning on the MCP office at the time the stucco vvas
applied. Thc DAT review noted stucco would not be reeollllllended if this were a
restoration. but 1'01' rehabilitation purposes it wasjust fine. However. Mr. Johnson vvas
never reilllbursed because he did not complete the cornice treatment as approved.
Two points of consistency: First. OMRF No. 110 or 107 did not reeeivc reimbursement
because they did not complete the projects as approved for design. Secondly. application
NO.1 07 and 112 both request funding Itlr an mvning only with a new stucco bcade.
.
Again. January 2 OAT motion .. application not accepted as request aftcr completion or
the installation of the awning'" Mr. Heaton stopped by the OrJice of the EDA on Octobcr
17 or November I. 2000 relative to his change in plans. DAT and Bob Claybaugh were
hClth notilied It)!" input and to encourage the brick facade as well as city stafr. The
building permit f(lr the stucco was issued October 23.2000. and the permit ttlr the awning
vvas mailed December 21.2000. Thc DMRF application is dated December 27.2000. It
is unclear as to the commencement or completion date of the installation of the avvning.
Certainly every eftt)rt was made by the city staff and OAT to encourage a brick facade
treatment. Mr. Ilcaton addressed his reasons Itlr the change in hlCade treatlnent. Skip
Sorenson, a new member of OA T and local architect. is researching other conHnunity
design guidelines. It is his view if the design guidelines are only enlt)reeable by those
wanting EDA funding. the design guidelines have no teeth and the objectives of the
downtown revitalization Jilcade program will not be met.
Mr. Ileaton inquired if the reason DAT did not accept his application was becausc he had
stuccoed or ifit was the lilct that the application was submitted after he had installed the
avvnings. Pam stated that DAT was under the impression that Mr. Heaton was not going
to come back to them Itlr funding since he was not putting brick on the building as he had
first intcnded and what DAT had approved. Pam noted that stucco was not
recommended.
Ileaton asked if DA T would have turned them down for funding of thc avvnings had he
cOllle back to DAT with plans tl)r stucco and awnings. Pam explained again that DAT'
.
')
.
.
.
LDA M illutcs ~ 1/30/0 I
would not have approved the stucco of the building and could not state f(Jr sure whether
D^T would have approved or not.
Chair Demeules advised that the ED^ needs to be consistent as in the case of Steve
Johnson's application. l!c also felt that DAUL~D^ would not have approved a plan
involving stucco and feels that we need to remain consistent.
fleaton advised the reason he went with stucco eXplaining that the building had
previously been ravaged by fire and alter he contacted someone who does masonry. they
f(Jund that the bricks did not match up, the upper right hand corner of building was in
poor condition and would have to be replaeecL and it was also discovered thM whoever
did the original brick work put the windows in after bricking which meant that if Heaton
vvould be redoing the brick, he would have to replace the windows as \vell as he was
advised that the original glass would break i I' removed. Mr. Heaton also advised that this
company would not take on this project. I !caton advised that the brick work was
approxirnately $20,000 to $25,000 and $10,000 for new glass. He stated that he could not
justify putting that kind of money into this building. He also stated that the steel beam
across the li'ont of the building was severely bowed and would have to be replaced if
brick vvork was going to be done.
There was no action taken.
5.
Consideration to review CiMEF No. 0]4 relative to late payments for action to call loan.
The melnbers discussed this item and stated they would like to look at modifying the
guidelines to either add a percentage or a /lat rate fl.)!' late payments. They did discuss
that perhaps that would not include this itern but that it would be for future loans.
^s you recall, GMEF Loan No. 0]4 with T..I. Martin (Lake Tool, Inc.) has been a topic
of discussion at previous ED^ meetings. The loan payments consistently appear to be
late. Lelters dating November 2000 and August 2. ] 999 and nllll1eroUS telephone calls
relative to late payments have been rnade. T'he company eventually pays but not on a
timely basis. EDA loans have no penalty for late payments. Koropchak provided copies
of the payment status for flO 14 noting their late payments.
The ClMEF Ciuidelines read: LAIE PA YMI.:NT POLICY: Failure to pay principal and
interest when due nHly result in the loan being immediately called. Events of del~llIlt
under the Loan Agree111enl: (a) bilure to pay when due any principal or interest on the
Loan.
Koropehak stated that this information appears on the agenda Ill!" two reasons: Notice to
"
-)
.
.
.
EDA M inutcs - 1/30/0 I
LDA lnemher and consideration 01' action. She also advised of sonle options the LDA
could consider.
6.
Lxecutive Director's Report. Koropchak provided the FDA with updates regarding
GML.:F No. 010 (Vector Tool). modifications to the Loan Agreement and other
documents \vhich were dralted and executed by appropriate individuals at the closings on
November 29.2000. Appropriate filings at the Secretary of State and Wright County
have been recorded and originals returned:
GMEF No. 017 (Twin City Die Castings). UCC not filed as all equiplnent has not
arrived or been paid for:
!-:DA Annual Meeting is scheduled for April 24. 2001, Koropchak attached a copy of
minutes li'om a budget workshop of the city council on November 16.2000 noting some
discussion relative to the EDA funds. Alter the year-end report. the LDA may give some
consideration to begin payhack for Liquor Funds. Secondly. relative to the DMRF - I
will research a few parcels which received DMRFs for a comparison of increased market
value over the years to see if the FDA investment is paying 01T:
Integrated Recycling Technologies. Inc. - The Prospect Team visited this Rogers
company. They arc an auto catalyst rdiner with 3 FT and 2 PT ell1ployees. The ovvner,
Steve Budd. purchased Kermit Benson's home. IIe's looking to perhaps build a 10.000
sq It metal building on a 2~acre parcel along Fallon A venue. lie would add 3-4 FT
workers \\ithin 2 years. Wages between $35.000 to $50.000 annually \v/o benctits:
Barger/llarwood - Looking to construct another 15.000 sq ft: metal building behind
Vector Tool. This resulted alter C. II. Ilolt Company called my onice for the need for
another 5.000 sq nand 13&13 Metal Stamping's need for additional space. Space may
also accommodate a St. Cloud and Big Lake company:
Red Wing Foods - Met with Charlie Pfeffer. COlnpany, stafr. and huilder relative to
construction of a 50.000 sq ft: precast building on 6 acres orland to the west of Twin City
Die Castings. Red Wing Foods would take 20.000 sq n and the remaining for lease. Red
Wing Foods is a packager and distributor of gourmet fl)ods with contacts to Byerly's.
Lund's. Target. etc:
North Anchor - Still \vorking on acquisition of parcels along Front Strcet and working on
concepts for Amoco I1l0ck. Slow going. There arc concepts and lIRA is working with
Barry Fluth and Brad Johnson:
!-:conomic Development Goals for 200 I - There has been some suggestion to think about
the City of Monticello combining the powers oCthe liRA or FDA. Simplicity and
consistency. Give some thought to this fl.)!' discussion at the annuallneeting. Secondly.
looking to host a Lenders Breakfast with I-IRA/EDA again this year. Thirdly. looking at
the MTED cornmunity assessment f(Jr level of readiness for E-commerce. Ron Iloglund
added getting more industries into town as another goal. Delneules also discussed that at
one time LDA had talked about putting up a building that would be ready fl.)!" a business
to move into and was that still a goal. and they believed it was something they would like
4
.
.
.
LLM Minutes - 1/30/0 I
to look at again:
DMRF No. 111 1 lamond - Following the ED^ motion ot'Novemher 8. I mailed Mr.
I lalnond Attachment [) for signature and confirmation. It was never returned and the
lender, Mr. Doty. has heard nothing from him.
x.
Adjournment.
The meeting was adjourned at ~L25 p.m.
5