EDA Agenda 06-23-1998
I
I
,
AGENDA
MONTICELLO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Tuesday, June 23,1998 - 7:00 p.m.
City Hall
MEMBERS: Chair Ron Hoglund, Vice Chair Barb Schwientek, Assistant Treasurer Ken Maus,
Clint Herbst, Roger Carlson, Bill Demeules, and Damn Lahr.
STAFF:
Treasurer Rick Wolfsteller and Executive Director Ollie Koropchak.
GUESTS:
Bruce and/or Cindy Hamond.
1. CALL TO ORDER.
2. CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE THE JANUARY 20, FEBRUARY 17, AND MAY
20,1998 EDAMINUTES.
3. CONSIDERATION OF ADDING AGENDA ITEMS.
4.
CONSIDERATION TO REVIEW FOR APPROV ALIDISAPPROV AL THE DMRF
APPLICATION FOR 232 WEST BROADWAY.
5.
CONSIDERATION OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT.
6. OTHER BUSINESS.
7. ADJOURNMENT.
.
,
,
MINUTES
MONTICELLO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Tuesday, January 20, 1998 - 5:00 p.m.
City Hall
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chair Ron Hoglund, Vice Chair Barb Schwientek, Assistant
Treasurer Ken Maus, and Clint Herbst.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Roger Carlson, Bill Demeules, and Darrin Lahr.
STAFF:
Ollie Koropchak
GUESTS:
Eric and Carl Bondhus, Lake Tool, Inc.
Chad Vitzthum, Marquette Bank
Rita Ulrich, MCP
1. Call to order.
Chair Hoglund called the EDA meeting to order at 5:05 p.m.
2.
Consideration to approve the October 21. 1997 EDA minutes.
Barb Schwientek made a motion to approve the October 21, 1998 EDA minutes. Clint
Herbst seconded the motion and with no corrections or additions, the minutes were
approved as written.
3.
Consideration to review for approval the preliminary GMEF loan application for Lake
Tool, Inc.
Eric Bondhus informed EDA members that they received appraisals on all the used
equipment and with the exception of the super-max, all the equipment is one-year old.
T.J. Martin, Inc. will purchase the equipment and lease to Lake Tool as an insurance
against product liability. The new injection molds are larger in size to accommodate the
customer's need which represents 25% of their customers. Their sales force consist of
themselves by industry word-of-mouth and some trade shows. Marketing strengths are
price and on-time delivery. Purchase of the new equipment will double Lake Tool's
capabilities. Of their eleven moldmakers some lived in Monticello and worked in the cities
or lived and worked in the Delano area. Additional to the listed equipment the company
has received quotes on a new Fandel.
Chad Vitzthum, Marquette Bank, requested the EDA structure the 7-year GMEF loan
with interest payback only for the first two years and principal and interest payback
1
,
,
,
EDA MINUTES
JANUARY 20,1998
over the last five years. The preserved dollars would be used as the equity position for
SBA approval. This would be equity not debt.
Koropchak reviewed the GMEF application against the GMEF Guidelines and noted the
recommendations. Commissioners received a list of the equipment for funding and letter
from Marquette Bank verirying "gap financing" criteria and noting the credit riskofthe
company is considered reasonable based on information received to date. The EDA aslo
received copies of the financial statements.
4.
Consideration to approve or deny approval ofGMEF Loan No. 014 for Lake Tool, Inc.
EDA members determined the application encouraged economic development and the
proposed purchase of machinery and equipment and the application complied with the
GMEF public purpose criteria and policies. Barb Schwientek made a motion to approve
GMEF Loan No. 014 for T.J. Martin, Inc. in the amount of $87,500. Terms ofthe M&E
loan at a 6.5% fixed rate with an amortized schedule as such: Interest payback over 7
years or 84 months and principal payback over last 5 years or 60 months. The GMEF
loan is in a subordinated position behind Marquette and SBA on all machinery/equipment.
Loan fee is $200 paid at time of closing. GMEF No. 014 becomes null and void July 20,
1998 if approved funds are not disbursed. Collateral, guarantees, and other condition
requirements to be determined and prepared by the GMEF attorney. Loan approval
subject to lender and SBA approval. Clint Herbst second the motion and with no further
discussion, the motion passed unanimously. City Council will be requested to ratifY the
EDA's approval ofGMEF No. 014 on January 26, 1998.
5.
Consideration to review for approvaVdisapproval the DMRF application (reimbursement
fees) for 103 Pine Street
The October 1, 1997, DMRF application from Kathy Froslie did not include a request for
fee reimbursement therefore was the request now before the EDA. Based on the permit
fee total and certification of payment in the amount of$I,764.50, Barb Schwientek made
a motion to approve DMRF in the amount of $500 for reimbursement fees at 103 Pine
Street (Going-in-Style). Seconded by Ken Maus and with no further discussion, the
motion passed unanimously.
6. Consideration of Executive Director's report:
Report was accepted.
2
.
,
,
EDA MINUTES
JANUARY 20, 1998
7. Other Business:
Maus indicated he would be out-of-town for a week and Herbst February 19 through 28.
Koropchak informed the EDA commissioners that DAT reviewed and found the rear
(north) facade of the building located at 103 Pine Street to be completed per DAT
recommendations, the applicant elected not to complete the work on the side (east)
facade, and found the front (south) facade improvements incomplete per approved DA T
recommendations. Upon submitting certification of payment for the rear facade
improvement costs, a check will be issued.
8. Adiournment.
The EDA meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m.
CJ~ ~<fl~~
Ollie Koropchak, Executive Director
~
3
I
,
I
MINUTES
MONTICELLOECONO~CDEVELOPMENTAUTHORnY
Tuesday, February 17, 1998 - 7:00 p.m.
City Hall
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chair Ron Hoglund, Vice Chair Barb Schwientek, Assistant
Treasurer Ken Maus, Roger Carlson, and Bill Demeules.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Clint Herbst and Darrin Lahr.
STAFF PRESENT: Treasurer Rick Wolfsteller and Executive Director Ollie Koropchak
GUEST:
Rich Cline, Ernie's Bate.
1. Call to Order.
Chair Hoglund called the annual meeting of the EDA to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. Consideration to approve the JanuRl)' 20, 1998 EDA minutes.
Tabled.
3.
Consideration of addina aienda items.
Koropchak: submitted a draft copy of a marketing piece for local assistance programs.
Submitted under item 9. Other business.
4. Consideration to review for approval/disapproval the DMRF application for 112 East
Broadway.
Taking Ernie's Bate Shop off the for-sale market, Rich Cline informed EDA members that
workers began repairing the storm damage and make other improvements to the building.
The front facade was replaced with new logs and new windows and a shingled awning was
installed. One primary sign and smaller backlit signs are yet to be installed and the new
log siding will be finished when the temperature is consistently above 50 degrees. Cline
appeared interested in a fish sign if the new ordinance allows for such.
Commissioners agreed the project is a big improvement~ however, they had concerns
about setting a precedence ifEDA funds were approved for projects outside the target
area or in non-compliance of the DMRF guidelines. Bill Demeules made a motion to
modify the DMRF Guidelines to include Lots 6 through 15, Block 34 and Lots I through
I
I
,
,
EDA MINUTES
FEBRUARY 17,1998
10, Block 53, Original Plat, City of Monticello in the TARGET AREA of the D:MRF
Guidelines. Barb Schwientek seconded the motion and with no further discussion, the
motion passed unanimously. Modification forwarded to the City Council for approval.
Ken Maus made a motion to approve DMRF in the amount of $2,500 for front facade and
signage improvements and $500 for fee reimbursement at 112 East Broadway (Ernie's
Bate). Disbursal of the matching grant funds in the amount of $2,500 and fee
reimbursement of $500 subject to compliance of the facade designs as recommended by
DAT, compliance of codes and ordinances by the Building Official, and evidence of
payment of approved improvement costs. The approved funding becomes null and void
October 17, 1998. Bill Demeules seconded the motion and with no further discussion the
motion passed unanimously.
5. Consideration to Elect 1998 EDA Officers.
EDA commissioners reviewed the five-year staggering terms of each commissioner. Ken
Maus made a motion to nominate and re--elect the current EDA officers for 1998:
President
Vice President
Treasurer
Assistant Treasurer
Secretary
Ron Hoglund
Barb Schwientek
Rick W olfsteller
Ken Maus
Ollie Koropchak
Roger Carlson seconded the motion and with no other nominations, the motion passed
unanimously.
6. Consideration to review and acc~t the Year-End EDA Financial Statements. Activity
R~ort. and 1998 Proposed Budiet.
Koropchak reviewed the year-end 1997 statements starting with the Statement of
Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance. With interest income from notes
and investments totaling $35,266.87 and expenditures totaling $1,158.75, the year +end
EDA fund balance is $976,278.70.
The Balance Sheet shows assets and fund equity of an equal amount of $976,278.70.
Noting the remaining principal balance of the GMEF loans and the $200,000 annual
appropriation, the cash in bank is $458,594.05.
The 1998 Cash Flow Projections assume an annual appropriation of $200,000 from the
SCREG and UDAG, payback from existing loans, and interest income investment for total
2
I
I
EDA MINUTES
FEBRUARY 17, 1998
receipts of $302,873.43. Expenditures include GMEF loans of $200,000 and DMRF
grants of $30,000 and loans of $20,000 plus miscellaneous for total expenditures of
$251,500. Expected cash balance year-end 1998 is $529,539.60.
Also included was the year-end EDA activity report.
Commissioners noted to recognize the EDA as being self-supporting and that the
$200,000 matching DMRF dollars will produce a one-half million dollar investment in the
revitalization of downtown. In order to accelerate the revitalization of downtown, Ken
Maus made a motion to sunset the DMRF allocation of $200,000 to January 1,2000, and
to market the dated allocation accordingly. Barb Schwientek seconded the motion and
with no further discussion, the motion passed unanimously.
Bill Demeules made a motion to accept the year-end EDA financial statements and activity
report for submittal to the City Council on February 23, 1998. Ken Maus seconded the
motion and with no further discussion, the motion passed unanimously.
7.
Consideration to review year-end fund balances of the GMEF. UDAG. and ERG Funds.
Koropchak reported on the year-end balances of the GMEF, UDAG, and ERG Funds
stating with the disbursement of the GMEF loan to Lake Tool and the DMRF to Kathy
Froslie, the total available uses of funds is $613,919.82. However, $199,000 is earmarked
for the DMRF, the UDAG has two years of payback remaining, the SCREG is paid off,.
and perhaps the Liquor Fund dollars will be earmarked for other activities. All GMEF
loan paybacks are current.
8. Consideration of Executive Director's rel'orts.
The report was accepted as written.
9. Other Business.
Koropchak submitted a draft copy of the local financial assistance marketing piece for
commissioners to review for comment.
10. Adjournment.
The EDA meeting adjourned at 8: 15 p.m.
I ~~~~~~
3
,
I
,
MINUTES
MONTICELLO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, May 20,1998 R 7:00 p.m.
City Hall
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chair Ron Hoglund, Assist Treasurer Ken Maus, Roger Carlson,
and Bill Demeules.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Vice Chair Barb Schwientek, Clint Herbst, and Darrin Lahr.
STAFF PRESENT: Ollie Koropchak.
GUEST:
Mayor Bill Fair, Steve Johnson, and Rita Ulrich.
1. Call to order
Chair Hoglund called the EDA meeting to order at 7:20 p.m.
2.
Consideration to approve the Janu8.I:y 20. F ebrumy 17. and April 14. 1998 EDA minutes.
Ken Maus made a motion to approve the April 14, 1998 EDA minutes. Seconded by Bill
Demeules and with no corrections or additions, the minutes were approved as written.
Carlson abstained, not present at the meeting.
3.
Consideration of adding agenda items.
Addition to Other Business: 6c: Mayor Bus Tour and Golf Outing.
4. Consideration to review for approval/disapproval the DMRF application for 107 West
Broadway.
Steve Johnson, owner and applicant of the parcel located at 107 West Broadway,
described the revitalization, not restoration, plans for the building. The building is
currently occupied by the Monticello Conununity Partners. Plans include the placement of
a stucco cornice to the front and east side of the building and a 7 to 8 ft fixed-awnings at
street level and possibly to second floor. Signage will be on the awning and the awning of
an earth tone. Old photos indicate the building was originally stucco.
EDA members found the project to be in conformance as the basic architectural
appearance is consist with the 1940's. The cornice construction will be followed by the
placement of the awnings Johnson implied.
1
I
I
.
EDA MINUTES
MAY 20, 1998
Bill Demeules made a motion to approve DMRF No. 007 in the amount of$1,750 for the
front and signage facade improvements, $700 for the side facade improvements, and $200
for fee reimbursement at 107 West Broadway. Disbursal of the matching grant funds in
the amount of $2,450 and the fee reimbursement of $200 subject to compliance of the
facade designs as recommended by DAT, compliance of codes and ordinances by the
Building Official, and certification of payment of approved improvement costs. DMRF
No. 007 becomes null and void February 20, 1999. Ken Maus seconded the motion and
with no further discussion, the motion passed unanimously.
5.
Consideration to review the DMRF Guidelines and application form for modification.
EDA reviewed the recommendation from DAT for modification to the DMRF Guidelines
and application form. Conunissioners agreed the recommendations would serve to create
an awareness to developers. Demeules felt the recommended language (if possible) on the
application form was double talk. All commissioners agreed and also felt the request for a
minimum of two written cost estimates was appropriate in most cases. However, in cases
where specialized revitalization work is necessary only one estimate would be sufficient
due to the shortage of the specialized craftsmanship and suggested any deviation to be
approved by DAT.
Ken Maus made a motion to modify the DMRF Guidelines adding the following language
to FACADE GRANTS. REHABILITATION LOAN. AND FEE REIMBURSEMENT.
page 2 and 3 of the guidelines: To be eligible for grant funds, rehabilitation loans, and lor
fee reimbursements, projects must meet the following criteria:
1. Improvements must comply with applicable design guidelines and all codes and
ordinances including building permits and inspections.
And to modify the DMRF application to add the following language to m. Type of
Revitalization Fund Request, A Facade Grants_ 1,2, and 3, and B. Rehabilitation Loan.
page 2 and 3 of the application form:. Please submit a minimum of two written cost
estimates for the proposed revitalization improvements, any deviation must be
approved by the Design Advisory Team.
Lastly, to add the following language prior to signature of applicant, page 3 of application
form: IIwe certifY that all information provided in this application is true and correct to the
best of my/our knowledge and I/we agree to apply for and receive all applicable
building permits prior to the start of work and to comply with all building
inspection requirements.
2
,
,
,
EDA MINUTES
MAY 20, 1998
The motion was seconded by Bill Demeules and with no further discussion, the motion
passed unanimously. Modification to the guidelines to be submitted to City Council for
approval on May 26, 1998.
6. Other Business:
Commissioners were reminded of the joint commissions and council meeting of May 21 at
6:00 p.m. Additionally, Koropchak invited EDA members to the Mayor's City Bus Tour
and Chamber golf outing on June 10, 1998. The tour begins at 10 o'clock at city hall and
is intended for site locators and developers as well as a developer's appreciation event.
The gratis event will be funded by the lIRA and the afternoon golf event will support the
Chamber's fundrasier.
7. Adjournment.
The EDA meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
a~ \<~o~J)~
Ollie Koropchak, EDA Executive Director
3
,
.
.
,
EDA AGENDA
JUNE 23, 1998
4, Consideration to review for approval/disapproval the DMRF ~plication for 232 West
Broadwl\)',
A. Reference and Backifound:
The enclosed application is from Bruce and Cindy Hamond, property owner of the
building which is occupied on the street side by Rachel's. Recently, the Hamond's
reconstructed the rear apartment for future office space and plan to revitalize the front and
sides of the structure, Please read the enclosed project description and recommendation
from DAT. The property owners will be present at the EDA meeting.
Consider the following when reviewing this application.
Purpose
Does the proposed project seek to promote the revitalization of downtown Monticello?
1. Enhj.ces storefronts and facades in accordance with the design guidelines in the Plan.
Yes No
2, Encourages the rehabilitation of building interiors to bring them into compliaqc~ wit~
local codes and ordinances. Y es ~ No '1\ __k ~~,' <:..- uJ&...JLU
3, JPcourages building rehabilitation to provide space suitable for the proposed use. Yes
--rNO
4, Provides funding to close the "gap" between financing needed to undertake the project
and the amount raised by equity and private loans, Yes.:.x- No _
5. Provides economic incentives to locate businesses in the downtown, Yes L No
i
Target Area Preference given to Blocks 35,36,51, and 52, Original Plat.
This proposed project lies within the preferred area. Location Block 36.
Facade Grants
Matching grant of $2,500 for eligible improvements to the front facade and signage,
Request $2,500 Projected cost of improvements $7,000 Equity $4,500
1
I
:
,
EDA AGENDA
JUNE 23, 1998
Criteria to meet:
1. Do the improvements meet the applicable design guidelines and all codes and
ordinances?
Yes No
You will note, DA T approved the design of the front facade.
2. Does the amount of the grant match the amount of the private investment up to the
stated limit? Yes No
Matching grant of up to $2,500 for eligible improvements to the rear facade.
Request $2,500 Projected cost of improvements $22,800 Equity $20,300
1. Do the improvements meet the applicable design guidelines and all codes and
ordinances?
Yes No
You will note, DATfinds the rear facade to be reconstruction or new construction as the
old apartment was basically removed after storm damage. The Hamond's, however,
refer to it as renovation.
2. Does the amount of the grant match the amount of the private investment up to the
stated limit? Yes No
Matching grant of up to $2,500 for eligible improvements to the side facade.
Request $1,900 Projected cost of improvements $3,800 Equity $1,900.
1. Do the improvements meet the applicable design guidelines and all codes and
ordinances?
Yes No
Yau will note, DA T approved the design guidelines for the side facade and determined
the structure to be a free-standing building for consideration of side facade funding.
2
,
,
,
EDA AGENDA
ruNE 23, 1998
2. Does the amount of the grant match the amount of the private investment up to the
stated limit? Yes No
Fee Reimbursement
Reimbursement of City fees in an amount equivalent of 10% of the total cost of the
improvements up to a maximum of $500.
Request $500 Projected costs of city fees Not known.
Non-Performance
The approved DMRF becomes null and void if funds are not drawn or disbursed within
270 days from date of ED A approval. March 23,1999
B. Alternative Action:
1.
A motion to approve DMRF in the amount of $ for front facade and
signage, $ for rear facade, and $ for side facade
improvements and $ for fee reimbursement at 232 West Broadway.
Terms and conditions as determined.
2. A motion to deny approval ofDMRF in the amount of $2,500 for front facade and
signage, $2,500 for rear facade, and $1,900 for the side improvements and $500
for fee reimbursement at 232 West Broadway.
3. A motion to table any action.
C. Recommendation:
The enclosed estimate appears to be for the rear reconstruction only~ therefore, the
application does not include two estimates. You will note the modification of the
application form to include the request for two estimates was in process of the approved
change.
Recommendation is to approve the request for a total of$4,400 DMRF Match Grant and
$500 Reimbursement Fees with disbursal offunds subject to completed improvement
review and approval by OAT and certification of paid improvement costs.
D.
SuPportini Data:
3
,
,
,
DOWNTOWN MONTICELLO REVITALIZATION FUND
Monticello Economic Development Authority - 271-3208
250 East Broadway, POBox 1147
Monticello, MN 55362
FUND APPLICATION
I. Basic Information:
II.
Name of Applicant/Property Owner
~e.-,i /C(jn'llwiA. ~~
Nature of Revitalization Fund Request:
Street Address of Revitalization Property "?~:b t#:, ~ad~ 40J1tJt~, /))11)
M~~_f /d; .-02.D -OD/Dt; /
Pro Number of Revitalization Property f /5 \' -I)/L) - () r~ .lj!L)
Legal D~scription of vit~tion Property - Block (l.Pt
Lot(s) () / I
Revitalization Property is currently:
Occupied ~
Unoccupied
Prospective Occupant
If applicable, ~ame of Occupant (Business) or Prospective Occupant (Business)
Ra (! l'lI!!ls - ~&1Dn Tr> /J ~ It 1z4.,n~ ~ # ,v5HT k't::7'E?9rS
R~;rfe" t n.- tlzLbLe.c -
If applicable, brief description of the nature of the business of the occupant:
6toT~ fmt- fat!~.J BHadW71j ~ CL/;~'3 {!6nSt-fJ/l/?Un-t-
~ .
baers{d e -Ee.s.idL/ttz..a..b nparfme/t 1-
/C.'tILOUa..:&:-d.-tbr ~fi t! e-- f'Z't!e .
1
,
,
,
Downtown Monticello Revitalization Fund
Fund Application
III. Type of Revitalization Fund Request:
A. Facade Grants
1. Front Facade and Signage Grant (Matching funds of up to $2,500)
,....
Amount of Request $ 2 Ji'J/:> Projected Cost ofImprovements $ f r.),).)
2J 1- ~ ,S~ t:l ./
Amount of Equity $ ~ Amount of Private Loans $ rA'
/ {
Brief description of the improvements for which applicant is seeking f\mds:
As L.e~crmmend~d.by me r:~'.ulfc/'-y tJ&~t ~ ~s~~ Jt-~Sertkt-1i'()naLl:s,
tt.appfKJ.rd -1-0 t.()II't:r I1-mft~4.L brt~J::.f-~ I 'Rutz;f:U..
r}!-(.rn arOlu7d 1I./!.-nd.4ws ,&s'-~ _ ~ St'4LLd ~ ~
r,ean$l)177 ~ k.s~ - ~ UJnd,l.:H011e1" )t!!.~/1f.O'2A..41L,
;9tu. 'fit ppn-rW1nd"UjJ ~M in wca:::t. ~
2. Rear Facade Grant (Matcmng funds of up to $2,500) ~ UJmple bd h Y &U)7'l.../.A/
Amount of Request $ 2.S;!!'O~
,~O, t:, 0-0
Amount of Equity $ __; (?eX;> Amount of Private Loans $
Brief description of the improvements for which applicant is seeking funds:
S~~ c.:J7;J7J
Projected Cost ofImprovements $.22 .fo :J
/
I
3. Side Facade Grf, <:q lll>~cable) (Matching funds of up to $2,500) ,
Amount of Request ~:? r) T Projected Cost of Improvements $.s ro()
./ CJ./,Croo
Amount of Equity $ ?f:) J ~
Amount of Private Loans $
r/
f
Brief description of the improvements for which applicant is seeking funds:
~s7:!t .An 6-v~h~H-' ..4.t s'!~ ~/.
~'-0 c!LykJs~;//_
;;;j 7 2
-40k-~ S'~c--T~y.,u~j
~b,-ck
,
,
,
Downtown Monticello Revitalization Fund
Fund Application
B. Rehabilitation Loan (Maximum amount is the lesser of25% of total cost of the
improvements or $20,000) /Jv) 4/ I/' I ~ 7:.~ ~
Amount of Request $
Projected Cost of Improvements $
Amount of Equity $
Amount of Private Loans $
Brief description ofthe improvements for which applicant is seeking funds:
IV.
C. Fee Reimbursement (Reimbursement of City fees in an amount equivalent of
10% ofthe total cost of the improvements up to a maximum of $500)
----- d-
Amount of Request $ S-Ol} Projected Cost of City Fees $ ,u1.J,/ ~ _nll.._;,/
l-!L ~ .:I.../p) L-/ '/e, T; ~vq- /7.:: c..:.;y 'b u-Ja/VG c;-<.LV ~c<:: /
l~v<l:>la>eJ ~....7X '7J. rr L.'I"o ,.....~,7- /
Lender Information: ,- v
Name of Participating Lender /~~ 4/ /1 rt"", ~
Contact Person Telephone number
I/we certify that all information provided in this application is true and correct to the best of
my/our knowledge.
L
D-::f/
/'j /97;----
Signature of Applicant/Property Owner
3
'.~~'
.,.'
':
,
...~:'
"I ~:: ... j. ", ,
'.i',"
~ G--v-e o..-\-
;.J(.) ~~~ t- Mc...,s c... "2 ~ '^- e...
fC, OC;
~ I nllti(.(,,,O.\\~ 1'; ~'11 t COIlHt ~', :\1 j Iln,'sol:t.
".
d
,~
I~
.,
with tile leading and enterprising' busln.',s
men of 1I1ontlcello. By his clo'~ att~nti,-,n
to bU51n~"s Ilnd hOllorahle mcth<.Hls he h:ts
~ecured the (avor and conndence of the ('n-
tire community, Mr. \Vet7.cl locat~d hcre ill
1369 and ('lljoyS the distinctloll of being" th"
olde.!it m('l'ciJallt ill thp city. .TIr~ carrle~ it
carefully f>{'lf'c{(\fl f't/lck o( wat.ch0s, eh"H:"lc,c;,
r
147
(Ill Is attested hy the larp;-e number o( pa-
ti~nts whn hn"~ l'l:1.ced in hiS ha.nds the
"Iltirc cnl'~ o( not only thplr own teeth. but
those o( all the 11l~llIb'.'I'" of the family. TOO
much '-'annot he ~'id of the enre and patns.
taklllg' of the U"e'''1' A g-rrldullte of the
n. of ,\1. In the cJ:t~s of 1901. he (s full o(
,'nprgy ;tnl! push lint only [or his profes-
, i'! . j
F~~~~,~;L~,';,:.~~~~~~~~e:~~~."~~,~~,~~~I~~~.w;~~,.
'..'W..).THOMPSONl!<SON..,:. qW.J.THOMP;;ON',~SON.'"
WAGON AND CARRIAGE - SHCf' VIMK ;HITH ANn MACHINE ~1f(lP.
AtJr{.7MoelLEAi.li(j 9t('YC(['~i'~AiJR"<r; ..;.,.;,~~. ~'!I[)~!"'l ~ ~Nu,l'~ .
,
e.
;t
"Po .J. Tho'''I'~on & Snn.~ IUfl(!k~nlitb anfl '1r14'~hillt"' ,~hOIJ n~ 'loufi~l"lIot )lInn.
sinn. ""t f"r tI'e city of hi~ selection as
""'ll.
f
I,
"
I}
Y
I-
I}
"
jewelry, ~ilverware, fnllcy goods, sewing ma-
chine", len.ther g-oods alld mlll;!eal Instru-
ments. Tile stock would be a credit to any
city three times the sl7,e of Monticello. A
uniformly iow price and a unlfol'mly square
deal. the quality of goods being- cnnSlder",-l.
has wOn him just recog-nltlon and added a
valuable asset to Ilis bUslnes~. III~ store Is
14>:60 and well filled. His SOn as~lsts him
and both are practical jewelers. Mr. Wd-
zel w.as at one time treasurer of the city.
,v. .J, '1'n()~H>"ON & lOON.
A success attaine!1 by hut fl'w In either
a mercantile or m"-Ilufacturlng' business Is
the happy and prou,l <1istlnctlon enjoyed Ily
W. J. and RoY S. Thompson. operatlng lin-
deI' the firm name of W. J. Thompson & S"n.
This lo.rg'p' blislness consists of the n.a,,"-
facture and rp.p<\ir of bic:rcJe~" nutomn-
biles. wllg'pns. eanill.g-es. lawn mowers "-'H1
all kinds of (arm mn.nhinery. the gentlemen
conductlnl';' ;tn uP-to-,late machine shop. hut
have (or sale blcyclf's and biCYCle sundries
and ga.soline engines. This housoJ was p.~-
tabllshe,1 in lR90 by W, J. Thompson an<1
successfully conducted by him until In,st
year, whf'n his son RoY S. purchased an
Interest an,1 the flrrn became as per tile
ca.ptlon of thts skH.ch. The prem Ise~ oc-
cupied a.~e 6S'<:70 of brlcl,. constltutlnP:' one
of the lllrg'est a.nd hest equipped blll,cksmil h
and lllllchlne shops In Wrlg-ht connty. Bpt,h
gentlemen composing this firm n.l'e eXP~r-
ff"nced workrn(>n and all work turned nut
Is or tbe very best. hoth IlS to material alld
work performed. 'VA show h"rewlth a ellt
o( thts lll;tmllloth estnhllsllment. In Ilddltlo"
to the cnlHluct of this shop Mr. 'W. J. h:ls
(or 19 y~rtrs served the city In tilt' c"-pllcily
of Rec()rdt~r. a continuance In office whi~h
spAaks In,,,l~r thall words as to his reli:t~
billty all<l cap"-blllty.
r
,
I
,
DR .J. re. 'I'nF.NCn.
This "p'-'ein.lty In t.he bl"Oa.d fiehl nf me<l-
lC1l1 sclelle,' tllat has for Its ob.i"et the ca,I'''
and trert.tmellt of the or"",,-ns contained in
the oral eavlty, has withi;, the Ind few ,l,'~
ca.des ma(h~ ad'i,;:,uIC0rnent (Illite equal to :lIlY
o( the Illher !.rn.nel",s of menicllle. Dr. J. !C.
Trench Is Ilmonl';' the foremost <lell tlsts o(
the stMe, hllvlnl\' mastered ev~ry step of
thp. proCAs:~ion ::\.llIl is a s',ilIed WOr"knl:l.n
'The Doctor e~tahli.sJlf~d in l\fontieoth> f:!01l10
tt't'r)jIt g,crn f'l"M ...I.........~ .l....a..lk.. "1___ L__
or
lIF.I.'''~n JL\NSON.
Tt Is very Important in every village, city
or town to ha.ve a shoemaker, someone to
n'pair our shoes and boots and thereby
RaVe Uft the expense or purchasin~ new
ones. In this regar<1 Monticello Is well fitted
out, having in it.s midst such an able and
competent shoemaker all Helmcr Hanson.
^/thoup;-h nnly having been leCllted here for
rtbout six months. the eharacter at Mr. Han-
son's work and his reasonahle prices have
w,;n (or him Il host of customers and a. bus-
~~.:.~'
w_~~::- ~t~..:~'~J'~'~~.:
-
I"ess whiCh Is ;t '-'~~<lit to his "stabllshment.
No ,vO,"I.;; is allowpd 10 If'fl.n:~ this place which
i~ not I1rst."I,,-ss in el'pry particular and (or
thi8 ren~On ('\"ery fl0\V ClIstornf'r here becomes
a regular. "Ir. llnnsot\ has a kindly word
fOt' all and is SUrf' of succ~~s.
(OVI< JnTTJ~R.
,;
6
. ' !
.
/
LeJ......_--n.:..,--...'
- . , '"
, . , .
MONTICELW
March 3, 1998
Mr. Bruce Hamond and Mrs. Cindy Hamond
1 021 West River Street
Monticello, Minnesota 55362
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Hamond:
,
In response to an inspection request made by your contractor, I made an inspection of your
building located at 232 West Broadway, The apartment unit located on the south side of the
building had been heavily damaged as a result of the July 1, 1997 windstorm. Upon my
observation of the building, the contractor had removed the roof, interior wall finish materials,
and other damaged building elements.
In the course of my duties with the City of Monticello I observed that the building was heavily
and substantially damaged, and suffered a constructive loss due to damage caused by the storm.
The damage rendered the building uninhabitable and unsafe under the Minnesota State Building
Codes and other health and safety laws of the State of Minnesota. Upon my observations, I
specifically observed that the exterior walls were significantly deteriorated and could not be used
in the reconstruction of the building.
All new construction and new construction elements for the building are required to meet the
1995 Minnesota State Building Code and other health and safety laws of the State of Minnesota.
Should you have questions or concerns regarding this letter, please contact me directly at
271-3214.
_ Sincere!> I (
--7 '-l.TF~
, Fredrick H. Patch, Building OfficiallZoning Administrator
Monticello City Hall. 250 E. Broadway, PO Box] J47, Monticello, MN 55362-9245 · (611) 295.27J I . Fa)\.; (612) 295-4404
Office of Public Works, 909 Golf Course Rd.. Monticello. MN 55362 · (612) 295-3170 · Fllx: (61::!) 271-3272
,
I"~ ') /
FOR~~ f#e:Z!~
~ ~r 0. ::v"r~ 3/--:
~~/tf!- ~4/
...s::.!?c; <::..- ____
~~~.~ Z~1~. M.~
DESCAIPTION
Paul Becker Construction
, ..
600 West River Street
Monticello. MN 55352
(612) 295-3857
c~
~~
frv /<-~ ,P2~4 ~J
~ -~_.. -.,,;~
~ ,
~/ ~ ~?~ (..__~..-,,1' ~
(.<?1:#'(.,.r'/-:~ . ,RG~./ i.L~' 2- f ~~
,
. ,
~--~ A-?f ~-&......;:;; .
~' . /.
I~
$ ~.,,4~ ___~p~~
/
~ ~4~~.
C4-t.-~ ~~ ~
c~~ '. Y'<<~
?t!~ +~-o/ -I ;1-0. #~ -r-p:...;~
#47/~, -~ __a~~
I~~ ~~~
c..~ ~ Ca..U4';~'~~~
4/.uu #~ ~
~ .
c-_e~ ~ crV....,.~ .
~,p.-, ~
t. ,,9
2-2, J6-o .
,
."
,
RE-CONSTRUCTION
MATERIAL AND LABOR
punch List
DATE: AUGUST 1, 1997
PROJECT NAME: 232 E. BROADWAY COMMERlCAL
RE-CONSTRUCTION PROJECT
PROJECT#: 9700025.PUN
ACTIVITY NAME:
CONTRACTOR:
PREP DATE:
PUR MAT DATE:
DO WORK DATE:
RATE:
METHOD OF PAY:
TOTAL COST:
work unit Description Status Units Materials/Labor Costs
l--------------------------------,-----~--I-----I--------------------------1
KITCHEN
REPLACE CEILING TILE
REPLACE PRESS BOARD WALL
SHEETROCK BFD
PAINT WALLS, 2 COATS
REPLACE CEILING INSULATION
R & R
R & R
R & R
REFIN
R & R
, EXTERIOR
REPLACE 2/1 CHALK BOARD R & R
REPLACE ROLLED SIDING R & R
PAINT EXTERIOR ROLL REFIN
A.P.S. FENCE
REPLACE CHAIN LINK FENCE R & R
TOP RAIL FOR CHAIN LINK R & R
GENERAL
EMERGENCY REPAIRS CLEAN
DEBRIS REMOVAL AND HAUL OFF CLEAN
TREE REMOVAL FORM ROOF CLEAN
ROOF
~MOVE EXISTING ROOF R & R
REPLACE EXISTING ROOF R & R
ADD ON FOR 2 STORY CHARGE R & R
ADD ON FOR STEEP CHARGE R & R
DECK UPPER LEVEL R & R
DECKING ON LOWER LEVEL R & R
REPLACE ANTENNA R & R
REPLACE FOLL ROOFING R & R
REPLACE FLASHING ON LOWER R & R
BEDROOM
, SHEETROCK BFT R & R
PANELING R & R
REPLACE CEILING TILE R & R
CLEAN AND DISINFECT R & R
CARPET AND PAD EeONO R & R
,
DATE: AUGUST 1, 1997
RE-CONSTRUCTION
MATERIAL AND LABOR
Punch List
PROJECT NAME: 232 E. BROADWAY COMMERICAL
RE-CONSTRUCTION PROJECT
PROJECT#: 9700025.PUN
ACTIVITY NAME:
CONTRACTOR:
PREP DATE:
PUR MAT DATE:
DO WORK DATE:
RATE:
METHOD OF PAY:
TOTAL COST:
Work unit Description Status units Materials/Labor Costs
1--------------------------------1--------1-----1--------------------------1
':IVING ROOM
CLEAN AND DISINFECT
CARPET AND PAD ECONO
PANELING
BASEBOARD REGISTERS
PEPLACE CEILING TILE
,
Notes:
bid should include
Square Feet(SF}
Eaches (EA)
Linear Feet(LF)
CLEAN
R & R
R & R
RM/RST
R & R
in Units column
in units column
in units column
,
,
,
Design Advisory Team Review
Date June 4, 1998
Team Members Present
Rita Ulrich, Susie Wojchouski {until 9:30), Ron Hoglund {until 10:00) and Pam Campbell
Team Members Absent
Gail Cole
Ex-Officio Members Present
Ollie Koropchak and Fred Patch (until 9:25)
Applicant Present
Bruce and Cindy Hamond
Property Owner Bruce and Cindy Hamond
Building Address 232 West Broadway Monticello
Sketch of Proposed Facade Improvements:
See details in narrative
Improvements in conformance with the Design Guidelines:
Retain the existing serviceable clapboard siding. Replace the artificial brick siding with matching
clapboard siding. Remove the air conditioner from the front facade to a more inconspicuous place.
Remove the asbestos shakes from the front of the building and replace with clapboard siding. Paint
the clapboard siding an appropriate color. (White or grey most probably.) The window trim will be
painted, a transom window will be installed over the entry door. The front window aluminum trim
will be covered with wood.
Improvements in non~conformance with the Design Guidelines:
Design Advisory Team Recommendation: To approve
Comments: See attached
,
,
,
This building in Monticello probably dates to the mid-1850s and is one of the oldest commercial
buildings in town. It is an example of the early clapboard buildings, most of which burned (early
buildings heated with wood and most towns have lost a good share of them) and were replaced with
brick or stone which were less flammable. Insurance companies offered lower premiums for brick
or stone as well. So to have one survive nearly ISO years is remarkable and worth saving today.
Front facade plan: The artificial brick will be removed and replaced by clapboard siding which will
match the existing siding on the east side. The textured siding which may contain asbestos will be
removed and replaced by clapboard siding. The air conditioner will be moved to a less conspicuous
place. A transom window will be installed over the front main entrance. The 3 upper windows will
remain the same, but the trim will be sealed against the weather and painted. The aluminum window
trim on the lower windows will be covered with wood and painted. The color of the front will be
grey. It is probable that sometime in the first few decades of this building's life it was grey or white.
Either color would be appropriate.
East side facade: The clapboards will be painted to match the front.
.
West side facade: The non-clapboard siding will be removed and replaced with matching siding. It
is possible the non-clapboard siding is asbestos and will need specialized labor in its removal. The
owners will check into it.
Rear facade: The apartment in the rear of the building was damaged severely in the July 1, 1997 storm
and was tom down and replaced. The 22 x 24 apartment is on the ground floor. The owners have
completed this portion of the project.
Sign: The retail business called '"Rachel's" will be renamed "Neat Repeats" and the question of sign
placement came up. It would be possible to capture some of the traditional sign configuration ifit
were painted on the front window. It would also be acceptable if the sign were to be placed over the
first floor storefront windows.
Windows: The upper windows will remain the size they are today even though the original were
bigger. The lower windows and entry door will remain as they are today even though they formerly
configured a center door flanked by two large windows. The cost of replacing them is prohibitive.
One idea is to install mullions on either side of the center window with wood mullions. It would
convey the 1850s style of windows without the cost. Window glass at that time was so expensive
in large sizes, especially shipped this far west as to prohibit too many large panes in anyone building.
So smaller panes were pieced together with wood or lead to make a bigger space for light to enter.
Fire escape: The building to the west has a fire escape on its east side that is attached to the
Hammond building. The Hamonds will inquire as to if this attaclunent is necessary.
,
,
,
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO DESIGN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Thursday, June 4, 1998 - 9:00 am
Monticello City Hall
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Pam Campbell, Ron Hoglund, Rita Ulrich, Susie Wojchouski
Gail Cole
MEMBERS ABSENT:
ALSO PRESENT:
Ollie Koropchak, Bruce Hamond, Cindy Hamond.
1. Call to Order.
PAM CAMPBELL CALLED THE MEETING TO ORDER.
2. Consideration of addinQ items.
No items were added.
3. Consideration of an application for a matchino Qrant under the Downtown Monticello
Revitalization Fund. 232 West Broadwav. Applicant: Bruce & Cynthia Hamond.
The Hamond's application was for matching grants for front, side and rear facades and fee
reimbursement. The front of the building is occupied by a clothing consignment shop and
the back of the building is currently a residential apartment which is also suitable for
commercial office space. Proposed work on the front of the building includes replacing the
artificial brick with clapboard siding to match existing siding on the east side of the building;
removing the air conditioner over the door and replacing it with a transom window; sealing
upper window trim; and covering the aluminum trim on windows with painted wood. The
name of the business is going to be changed, so a new sign will be put up. It may be
placed over the front lower level windows. On the west side of the building, the non
clapboard siding will be replaced with clapboard siding matching the front and east sides of
the building. All sides will be painted in the same color. probably grey or white. Work on
the rear of the building has already been done. It was heavily damaged in the July 1',t storm
of 1997 and needed to be rebuilt.
The OAT members expressed their appreciation to the Hamonds for respecting the original
integrity of the building in their plans for the building, which is one of Monticello's oldest
commercial buildings.
Since work on the rear of the building was already complete, members felt they would need
to view the work to ascertain its appropriateness for DMRF funds. SUSIE WOJCHOUSKI
MOVED, AND RON HOGLUND SECONDED, TO TABLE APPROVAL OF THE REAR
FACADE GRANT.
AFTER DISCUSSION, SUSIE WOJCHOUSKI MOVED, AND RITA ULRICH SECONDED.
TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE SIDE AND FRONT FACADE GRANT FOR 232
WEST BROADWAY. MOTION CARRIED.
1
,
,
,
June 14, 1998
I have tried to contact Cindy Hammond today and have been unsuccessful. I left a message at 2:45.
I have a few questions regarding this project that should be discussed at the June 17 meeting.
1. Will the fake brick on the front facade be removed or, as it states in the application, covered?
2. Are the Hamonds requesting matching funds for the rear apartment? Rita and I did an on-site
inspection on Friday June 12, and it looks like the apartment is a completely new structure. The bid
from Paul Becker states he will tear down old apartment and rebuild a 22 x 24' apartment addition.
The apartment while it complements the existing 1850s colors, is covered in vinyl siding, has new
windows, and a roof pitch that is much more modem. I question whether the rear facade meets the
DMRF guidelines and the Design Guidelines.
3. The rear gable of the original building has been covered in vinyl siding as well. I don't think the
purpose of the rehab funds is to purchase vinyl siding,:even though the color is the same.
4. Adjourn.
RITA ULRICH MOVED, AND PAM CAMPBELL SECONDED, TO ADJOURN. MOTION
CARRIED.
•
2
,
,
,
EDA AGENDA
JUNE 23, 1998
5. Consideration of Executive Director's Report.
a) Enclosed is a copy of the reminder letters written to Froslie and Johnson relating
to the non~perfonnance provision of the DMRF Guidelines and their approved
funding. You may wish to discuss how the EDA will handle a request for
granting an extension for disbursal. GMEF are not extended and an applicant must
submit a new application, this is avoid tie-up (commitment) of dollars rather than
having available dollars and to encourage a timely completion of projects.
b) I attended the Chamber of Commerce Merchant's meeting to market the DMRF
program. The purpose was to encourage owners, tenants, or neighbors of and to
use the available public dollars. The first~come, first-served dollars available
through December 31, 1998. The process intended to be simple yet accountable
of public dollars.
c) City Council approved the recommended modifications to the DMRF Guidelines
the end of May and the application and approval/disapproval fonns and guidelines
have been adjusted accordingly.
d)
City budget process for 1999 begins in July, if you have anything for the EDA
please so advise.
e)
Next regular meeting of the EDA is July 28.
1
..t
I
-
.)
June 16, 1998
- ~.. ^X'i6:x
~
MONTICELLO
Kathleen Ann Froslie
7833 Aetna Avenue NE
Monticello, MN 55362
Re: Downtown Monticello Revitalization Fund No. 101 :
Dear Kathy,
On behalf of the Economic Development Authority (EDA), this letter serves as a reminder of the Non-
Performance Provision within the Downtown Monticello Revitalization Fund (DMRF) Guidelines. The
provision states: An approved DMRF shall become null and void if funds are not drawn or disbursed within
270 days from date of ED A approval.
,
DMRF No. 101 was approved for the property located at 103 Pine Street on October 21, 1997, therefore, the
approved funding becomes null and void on July 21. 1998. Two thousand five-hundred dollars of the
approved $5,710 funds were disbursed on February 6, 1998, for the completed north side or River Street
facade improvement. The Design Advisory Team (DA T) approved completion of the north side facade
improvement on January 16, 1998; however, they tabled any decision on the east (Pine Street) and south
sides until the work was completed.
Should you wish to receive the remaining $3,210 approved funding, please contact DAT at 295-0999 to
schedule a construction completion review for compliance with design guidelines and submit certified
documentation of actual costs of the approved improvements to the EDA Office.
I thank you for participation in the revitalization program and hope you will take this opportunity to
maximize the funding approved for your facade improvements. Should you have any questions, please do
not hesitate to call me at 271-3208.
Respectfully yours,
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
IN AND FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
QJ~ ,<, en ~ \~
,
Ollie Koropchak
Executive Director
cc: DA T
File
Monticello City Hall, 250 E. Broadway, PO Box 1147, Monticello, MN 55362-9245. (612) 295-2711. Fax: (612) 295-4404
Office of Public Works, 909 Golf Course Rd., Monticello, MN 55362. (612) 295-3170. Fax: (611) 271-3272
,
,
June 16, 1998
--
MONTICELLO
Steven C. Johnson
P.O. Box 598
Monticello, MN 55362
Re: Downtown Monticello Revitalization Fund No. 102:
Dear Steve,
On behalf of the Economic Development Authority (EDA), this letter serves as a reminder of the Non-
Performance Provision within the Downtown Monticello Revitalization Fund (DMRF) Guidelines. The
provision states: An approved DMRF shall become null and void if funds are not drawn or disbursed within
270 days from date of ED A approval.
DMRF No. 102 was approved for the property located at 121 West Broadway on October 21, 1997,
therefore, the approved funding becomes null and void on Julv 21. 1998.
Should you wish to receive the $6,200 approved funding, please contact DA T at 295-0999 to schedule a
construction completion review for compliance with design guidelines and submit certified documentation of
actual costs of the approved improvements to the EDA Office.
I thank you for participation in the revitalization program and hope you will take this opportunity to
maximize the funding approved for your facade improvements. Should you have any questions, please do
not hesitate to call me at 271-3208.
Respectfully yours,
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
IN AND FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
O~ \~~~~~
Ollie Koropchak
Executive Director
cc:
DAT
File
Monticello City Hall, 250 E. Broadway, PO Box 1147, Monticello, MN 55362-9245' (612) 295-2711 . Fax: (612) 295-4404
Office of Public Works, 909 Golf Course Rd., Monticello, MN 55362' (612) 295-3170' Fax: (612) 271-3272
June 16, 1998
•
•
Kathleen Ann Froslie
7833 Aetna Avenue NE
Monticello, MN 55362
Re: Downtown Monticello Revitalization Fund No. 101-
Dear Kathy,
On behalf of the Economic Development Authority (EDA), this letter serves as a reminder of the Non-
Performance Provision within the Downtown Monticello Revitalization Fund (DMRF) Guidelines. The
provision states: An approved DMRF shall become null and void if funds are not drawn or disbursed within
270 days from date of EDA approval.
DMRF No. 101 was approved for the property located at 103 Pine Street on October 21, 1997, therefore, the
approved funding becomes null and void on July 21. 1998. Two thousand five-hundred dollars of the
approved $5,710 funds were disbursed on February 6, 1998, for the completed north side or River Street
facade improvement. The Design Advisory Team (DAT) approved completion of the north side facade
improvement on January 16, 1998; however, they tabled any decision on the east (Pine Street) and south
sides until the work was completed.
Should you wish to receive the remaining $3,210 approved funding, please contact DAT at 295-0999 to
schedule a construction completion review for compliance with design guidelines and submit certified
documentation of actual costs of the approved improvements to the EDA Office.
I thank you for participation in the revitalization program and hope you will take this opportunity to
maxi_m»e the funding approved for your facade improvements. Should'you have any questions, please do
not hesitate to call me at 271-3208.
Respectfully yours,
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
IN AND FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, NIINNESOTA
o~ KN~~~~
cc: DAT
File
Ollie Koropchak
Executive Director
Monticello City Hall, 250 E. Broadway, PO Box 1147, Monticello, MN 55362-9245 • (612) 295-2711 • Fax: (612) 295-4404
Office of Public Works, 909 Golf Course Rd., Monticello, MN 55362 • (612) 295-3170 • Fax: (613) 271-3272
MONTICELLO
June 16, 1998
Steven C. Johnson
P.O. Box 598
Monticello, MN 55362
Re: Downtown Monticello Revitalization Fund No. 102 -
Dear Steve,
On behalf of the Economic Development Authority (EDA), this letter serves as a reminder of the Non-
Performance Provision within the Downtown Monticello Revitalization Fund (DMRF) Guidelines. The
provision states: An approved DMRF shall become null and void if funds are not drawn or disbursed within
270 days from date of EDA approval.
DMRF No. 102 was approved for the property located at 121 West Broadway on October 21, 1997,
therefore, the approved funding becomes null and void on July 21, 1998.
Should you wish to receive the $6,200 approved funding, please contact DAT at 295-0999 to schedule a
construction completion review for compliance with design guidelines and submit certified documentation of
actual costs of the approved improvements to the EDA Office.
I thank you for participation in the revitalization program and hope you will take this opportunity to
maximize the funding approved for your facade improvements. Should you have any questions, please do
not hesitate to call me at 271-3208.
Respectfully yours,
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
IN AND FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
Ollie Koropchak
Executive Director
cc: DAT
File
•
Monticello City Hall, 250 E. Broadway, PO Box 1147, Monticello, MN 55362-9245 • (612) 295-2711 • Fax: (612) 295-4404
Office of Public Works, 909 Golf Course Rd., Monticello, MN 55362 • (612) 295-3170 • Fax: (612) 271-3272
MONTICELLO