EDA Agenda 01-30-2001
.
AGENDA
MONTICELLO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Tuesday, January 30, 2001 - 7:00 p.m.
City Hall - Academy Room
MEMBERS: Chair Bill Oemeules, Vice Chair Barb Schwientek, Assistant Treasurer Ken Maus,
Clint Herbst, Roger Carlson, Ron Hoglund, and Darrin Lahr.
ST AFF:
GUESTS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
. 5.
6.
7.
.
Treasurer Rick Wolfsteller, Executive Director Ollie Koropchak, and Recorder
Lori Kraemer.
Kevin Heaton, property owner of 113 West Broadway.
Call to Order.
Consideration to approve the November 8, 2000 EOA minutes.
Consideration of adding agenda items.
Consideration to review for approvaVdisapproval the second OMRF application for 113
West Broadway.
Consideration to review GMEF No. 014 relative to late payments for action to call loan.
Executive Director's Report.
Other Business.
a) Annual meeting of the EOA - Tuesday, April 24, 2001.
8. Adjournment.
.
.
.
EDA Agenda - 1/30/01
4.
Consideration to review for approval/disapproval the second DMRF application for
113 West Broadwav.
A. Reference and backeround:
At the August 29, 2000 EDA meeting, the commissioners approved DMRF No. 110 for
the property located at 113 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 for up to 50% of the rehabilitation costs, not to exceed $11,000, for
the front facade and signage. The one time exception to the DMRF Guidelines was due to
unusual circumstances; length oflinear front footage, prominent location (heart of town),
and extreme per square footage rehabilitation costs. Attached are the DA T minutes and
reVIew.
After the approvals by DAT and EDA, Heaton elected not to move forward with the brick
facade 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
Building Official and EDA Office of his change in plans and the DAT Chair was notified.
Mr. Heaton inquired ifthe awning would qualify for funding, he was advised to re-apply
with the knowledge of no promises. The awning was included with the three (brick
facade) plans and bids approved by the DAT and EDA
On January 2,2001 DAT was requested to review the design ofthe awning associated
with the second funding application. The DAT minutes and review are attached. OAT
did not accept the application as the request came after the installation of the awning.
It was the Office of the EDA that suggested Mr. Heaton submit a new application for
funding. It appears that the first approved DA T plans include awnings with either of the
brick facade options. In review of the approval for the design and funding ofDMRF No.
107, it appears Mr. Johnson received approval for design and funding for the awning on
the MCP office at the time the stucco was applied. The DA T review noted stucco would
not be recommended ifthis were a restoration but for rehabilitation purposes it is just fine.
However, Mr. Johnson was never reimbursed because he did not complete the cornice
treatment as approved.
Two points of consistency: First, OMRF No. 110 or 107 did not receive reimbursement
because they did not complete the projects as approved for design. Secondly, application
No. 107 and 112 both request funding for an awning only with a new stucco facade.
Again, January 2 OAT motion" application not accepted as request after completion of
the installation of the awning." Mr. Heaton stopped by the Office of the EOA on October
17 or November 1, 2000 relative to his change in plans. OAT and Bob Claybaugh were
1
.
EDA Agenda -1/30/01
both notified for input and to encourage the brick facade as well as city staff. The building
permit for the stucco was issued October 23,2000, and the permit for the awning was
mailed December 21,2000. The DMRF application is dated December 27,2000. It is
unclear as to the commencement or completion date of the installation of the awning.
Certainly every effort was made by the city staff and DA T to encourage a brick facade
treatment. Mr. Heaton can address his reasons for the change in facade treatment. If!
recall correctly, it was a concern of economics and timing (the high facade investment to
an old building.) Skip Sorenson, a new member ofDAT and local architect, is researching
other community design guidelines. It is his view if the design guidelines are only
enforceable by those wanting EDA funding, the design guidelines have no teeth and the
objectives ofthe downtown revitalization facade program will not be met.
B. Alternative Actions:
1. A motion to approve DMRF No. 112 in the amount of $2,250 for the front
signage improvement at 113 West Broadway.
2. A motion to deny approval ofDMRF for 113 West Broadway.
.
3.
A motion to table any action.
C. Recommendation:
Although it is very important for the EDA to endorse the DAT design findings, it is also
important that the design approvals be consistent. Everyone worked very hard to
encourage this project as a prime example for downtown revitalization and was let down
with the stucco facade; however, the second application is for funding of the awning only
similar to another application. Whether DAT's request to review the application came
after completion of the installation ofthe awning is unclear to the Office of the EDA
D. Supportine: Data:
Second DMRF application, DAT minutes and review.
Previous DAT minutes and review.
.
2
.
.
.
DOWNTOWN MONTICELLO REVITALIZATION FUND
Monticello Economic Development Authority - 271-3208
250 East Broadway, POBox 1147
Monticello, MN 55362
FUND APPLICATION
I. Basic Information:
Name of Applicant/Property Owner \<' ~ \.l i",", L. \-\ e...1:L~ 0 '<"'-
-)..\ b 'b "':).. -r J\. ~ ~ 'Q. OJ 0.......:>
Address of Applicant/Property Owner ~ \..AD ~"'v ""' "^ N '5 s ~ ':).. C
Telephone Number of ApplicantJProperty Owner ,??-o - S S ~ - \.., <\, <t S
Social Security of ApplicantlProperty Owner
L.\.l\ f) - r'). t - Co 0 J~~
Tax: ID# of Applicant/Property Owner
II.
Nature of Revitalization Fund Request:
Street Address of Revitalization Property \ \. ~ \......J '\22!\...c cd I....V ~ . "rr\~
PID Number of Revitalization Property \ s c;, - c \ 0 - b S "').. 0 la..'C
Legal Description of Revitalization Property 0Block ';, :,).... Lot(s)
L-b\ ~ ~ 'e \" ~t \ 8 h"" . tl " Lo \" S
Revitalization Property is currently:
Occupied ~
Prospective Occupant
Unoccupied
If awlicable, Name of Occupant (Business) or Prospective Occupant (Business)
'< AL~IU'~ \' ~\ e_
If applicable, brief description of the nature of the business of the occupant:
~ ~U& ' ~J\""~ ~ c..9.--:,..~ ~ \~
I
4
.1
.
.
.
Downtown Monticello Revitalization Fund
Fund Application
ill. Type of Revitalization Fund Request:
A. Facade Grants
1. Front Facade and Sianasze Grant (Matching funds of up to $2,500)
Amount of Request $ ~ ~ ~ S 0 Projected Cost ofImprovements $ l\. s 0 ()
Amount of Equity $
Amount of Private Loans $
Please submit a minimum of two written cost estimates for the proposed revitalization
improvements, any deviation must be approved by the Design Advisory Team (OAT).
The DMRF does not cover routine maintenance or insured losses.
Brief description of the improvements for which applicant is seeking funds:
2. Rear Facade Grant (Matching funds of up to $2,500)
Amount of Request $
Projected Cost of Improvements $
Amount of Equity $
Amount of Private Loans $
Please submit a minimum of two written cost estimates for the proposed revitalization
improvements, any deviation must be approved by the Design Advisory Team (DAT).
The DMRF does not cover routine maintenance or insured losses.
Brief description of the improvements for which applicant is seeking funds:
2
4
.,
.
.
.
Downtown Monticello Revitalization Fund
Fund Application
3. Side Facade Grant (ifa"olicable) (Matching funds of up to $2,500)
Amount of Request $
Projected Cost of Improvements $
Amount of Equity $
Amount of Private Loans $
Please submit a minimum of two written cost estimates for the proposed revitalization
improvements, any deviation must be approved by the Design Advisory Team (DAT).
The DMRF does not cover routine maintenance or insured losses.
Brief description of the improvements for which applicant is seeking funds:
B.
Rehabilitation Loan (Maximum amount is the lesser of25% of total cost of the
improvements or $20,000)
Amount of Request $
Projected Cost ofImprovements $
Amount of Equity $
Amount of Private Loans $
Please submit a minimum of two written cost estimates for the proposed revitalization
improvements, any deviation must be approved by the Design Advisory Team (DAT).
The DMRF does not cover routine maintenance or insured losses.
Brief description of the improvements for which applicant is seeking funds:
c. 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)
Amount of Request $
Projected Cost of City Fees $
3
-I
4
.
.
.
Downtown Monticello Revitalization Fund
Fund Application
IV. Lender Information:
Name of Participating Lender
Contact Person
Telephone number
Vwe 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.
~~+l-L-
Signa re of Applicant/Property Owner
/ ~ ~ d '7 -a?J
Date
4
.,
t-f
G & J Awning and Canvas, Inc.
Invoice
.
1260 10th Street North
Sauk Rapids, MN 56379
I---;~TE -f'- ~~o~~~~J
\~;;O/'o~ -~l--- \
L__. ._______. ---.---,.,..---...--- ."
1"----..--"-....-------.-.--.---1
I BILL TO
r~~b~~~T~~L:,~~:~~AT::- -
1113 WEST BROADWAY III
i PO BOX 727
I MONTICELLO, MN 55362 I
_ ___.____. ...._.___.._n.____..___._._.._ ._____.______.._____._.....J
I----;~p T~----------..-------------1
r-.'..'...---.'''-----'.'- -----."..,--~ ---- -. --.,...-...,.___,,0. ----. _._~
\ SAME
.___ ...____ ,.___.'._.___ _____ '."____. ,.___ __' ._.___ .",____,., ,,-_no...
'=-- ":o~O~l___~~R;';i=-J~~~-~TE ~T= -;;~P_-
I I I I
I NET 10 i 12/30/'00 - i TS i
I-----J ------ ----"- ---T-L- T- -- -Lr-- -----j
r~: --I ~ ~~~;'~~&O~TYLf:3~:.~:~~~~J- Pi;~5:~ ~:~::%I~~~~~~~:~~oj
i W/GRAPHICS I ..
.
I
I ! I I
~~::s~~:~? a~~~e3~~~~s;_I~~~YOU!-~-- IT otalj- -- - $~::5:~O 1
L_.__. ____._.._. ___ _ __ _ ___ ,__ __~___ ----- -.. -----1-- ,---- --- ----- _____n________J
'1
.
.
.
KC & THE BOYS, LLC
21082 FRANKLIN ROAD
CLEARWATER, MN 55320-1307
~170
919
4271610394
Date --' "'" ..,} '7 -0lJ
5067
/
"
Pay to the /1 -r' " . ...... I $ tTO
Orderof _(,2:+""" 1"'tWf\''',:\ Q,LAr"\VfA"::> a,4S0'
_L ~."'. ~fr-~- j-<"-0-6-:01-~~.t~- Dollars
iiiill~ d8 Norwest Bank Minnesote South, N.A.
..iJiI.~1II
NORWSr8ANKS St. Cloud Office
1II~.GIf'il 400 First Street South
....,,,JI St.C/oud,MN56301 V ~
~~~ .'lOO!; 'l81:~ 2?1 ~O l'l~II'~~ ;cZ:' uu .
M'
m'''"'~'''M''
L!.I~~'DolI:>;
\
'-I
'3 w. /3 c
I I
Building constructed about 1912. The
storefronts were reconstructed prior to this
1930's photograph.
Two-bay storefront with decorative brick com Ice
and band above storefront.
Exposed steel beam over storefront.
Canvas roll-up awning above display windows.
Wood and glass storefronts with transom
windows.
Wall signs and projecting signs.
Historic Photograph
-."i~~~:7~.-'::~_:5-'-, '
." '.,,:'.
.'" IV
'-, . II
I~~ .....
Existing Conditions
. , '~
Transom windows have been covered with a
painted wood panel that serves as a sign
panel.
Projected lighting over sign panel.
Brick building front facade and bulkheads
below the display windows have been painted.
The historic wood and glass display windows at
Preferred litle, Inc. have been replaced with a
aluminum and glass system.
The wood and glass display windows are stili in
place at Mountain Top. One of the wood entry
doors has been replaced with an aluminum
door.
Preferred Title, Inc
113 West Broadway, Monticello, Minnesota
PT-O 1
! Apr. 10, 2000
CCLAYBAUGH PRESERVATION ARCHITECTURE INC
L/
.
.
.
~--"-- .~
.
,
Ii
'j
I
I
, i
.. I
~.~
..-1
~
." :
f
't 1!
~
c(
.
Minutes
Regular Meeting - Design Advisory Team
Tuesday, January 2, 2001
Monticello City Hall - Academy Room
MEMBERS PRESENT: Pam Campbell, Dennis Sullivan, Ron Hoglund, Mike Cyr
MEMBERS ABSENT: Susie Wojchouski, Amanda Gaetz, Skip Sorenson
OTHERS PRESENT: Jeff O'Neill Ollie Koropchak, and Fred Patch
1. Call to Order
Pam Campbell called the meeting to order at 4:30pm
2. Approval of minutes
Mike Cyr made a motion to approve the minutes of December 5.2000
Seconded by Pam Campbell Motion Passed
3. Consideration of adding items
a) Renewal of expiring Terms
b) Agenda Preparation
c) Update on Methodist Church
4.
. ~
s.
Heaton Property at 113 West Broadway
Heatons are requesting funding for a matching grant for the installation of ~ ,12-
a\vnings. In effect the application is requesting design approval <Ukr '\f\-..
installation has heen complete~. Motion to not accept the application was
made by Mike Cyr and seconded by Dennis Sullivan. Motion passed
Update on Broadway Avenue Improvement.
The Wright County Highway committee approved the application for
variance to the State of Minnesota. By the time this was accomplished.
the quickest it could be considered will be in March. This pushes the
project off until the 2002 season.
6. Update on 'Valnut Street Landscaping plan
Steve Grittman is still working the details.
7. Discussion with the City Council concerning strengthening the design
guidelines.
a) Jeff O"Neill made copies of the city ordinance covering the CCD district
and passed them around for study.
.
L/
.
.
.
Design Advisory Team
Final Review of Project
Date January 12,2001
Project Preferred Title Building
Name of Property Owner Kevin and Cindy Heaton
Address of Property 113 West Broadway
Team Memben Present Dennis Sullivan, Mike Cyr, Ron Hoglund, Pam Campbell
Team Memben Absent: Susie WoJchouski, Skip Sorenson
Staff Memben: Ollie Koropchak, Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch
Findings: From the DAT minutes of Tuesday January 2,2001, "Heatons are requesting funding for
a matching grant for the installation of awnings. In effect the application is requesting design
approval after the installation has been completed. Motion to not accept the application was made
-
by Mike Cyr and seconded by Dennis Sullivan. Motion passed."
Approve
Disapprove
Not accept the application
Comment: The Design Advisory T earn worked with the Heatons for over a year to rehabilitate their
building facade at 113 West Broadway. Bob Claybaugh. historic preservation architect, assessed the
building in March 2000. At the August 2,2000 meeting the DAT approved three possible treatments
for this facade based on his assessment. They were: repainting the brick with an appropriate color,
stripping the existing paint to expose the original brick, or rebricking the entire front facade. Awnings
were an option with any of the choices approved by DAT.
The Heatons chose instead to stucco the exterior. This treatment of a turn of the century
building does not comply with the design guidelines. In fact, the design guidelines encourage the
removal of such inappropriate materials to retain the. architectural character of a building.
While the awnings alone would otherwise be eligible for matching funds, the Heatons did not
get DAT approval prior to installation.
y
F MONTICELLO / BUILDING PERMIT ·
nut. Street/Suite 1/Monticello, MN 55362 (612) 295-3060
;;ite Address: 113 West Broadwa
Legal:' 6 Block
.
Property Owner Name: Preferred Title. ruc. - Kevin Heaton
Address: 113 West Broadway City: Monticello
PERMIT #
00-5501
Plat
Zone:
Original Plat Addition
PID # 155-010-052060
CCD
52
Contractor Name:
S tate License #
Address:
Phone #' 295-6140
State: MN Zip: 55302
Phone #
City:
Eng./Architect Name:
Address:
Plumber Name:
Address:
l1echanical Name:
Address:
State:
Zip:
Phone #
State:
Phone #
State:
Phone #
State:
City:
Zip:
City:
Zip:
City:
~.
Jescription of work:
Stucco front of buildil1~ facinK Broadwav.
Est. Value: $
4.000.00
'vue of Work:
~ew
~ Addition
OX Alteration
o Repair
o Move
o Other
Tree Ordinance Applies: 0 Yes:1::l No
Other Handouts Required: 0 Yes JIXI No
Additional Information:
Const. type: VIi
Occ. group: H/B
Division:
Sq. Ft.: 1
, # Stories: .
# Res. units: 0
Max. occ.load: NA
Fire zone: NA
Fire sprinklers: 0 yes D no
Off-street parking covered:
Off-street parking uncovered: _
'xve of Construction:
o Single Family
o Duplex
o Multi-Family
~ Commercial
o Industrial
o Res. Garage
o Other
*******************
Work performed without required inspections will result in removal of materials at
owner/contractor's expense until inspections are completed. NO EXCEPTIONS.
I have read and examined this permit and agree to comply with tbe building code in
effect at the time of this application. I agree to comply witb the ordinances of the
City of Mon~. 1.1.~ t
~ \..
'U! ;~. .~~
Applicant} .
-"
Zip:
FEES:
BIg. pennit 91.25
Plan review
State surtax 2.00
Big. Total 99.25
PIbg. pennit
Fixtures
State surtax
Plbg. Total
Mech.pennit
Fixtures
State surtax
Mech. Total
Sewer access
Water access
Water meter
Meter sales tax
Meter Total
Sew & water pennit
Trunk: water
Trunk: san. sewer
Storm sewer
Lift sta1ion
Park & Pathway
Fire Lock Box
TOT AL FEES 99.25
Reccipt# ~ 17~ _ ' I'
Date /'. D57 A. (f"!..>
/6 - t ~ ~ /! .....;
,.....,..:: j.
~l
CITY OF MONTICELLO / 8 ILDING PERMIT
505 Walnut Street/Suite 1/Monticello MN 362 (612) 295-3060
PERMIT #
00-5561
PID # 155-010-052060
Zone: CCD
Plat Original Plat Addition
Site Address: 113 West. :Rroadwa:
. Legal: Lot
Property Owner Name: Kevin L.. Heaton
Address: 21082 Franklin Road
City: Clearwater
Phone # 320-558-6795
State: MN Zip: 55320
Contractor Name:
State License #
Address:
Phone #
City:
Eng./Architect Name:
Address:
Plumber Name:
Address:
Mechanical N axve:
.~
Address:
City:
City:
City:
Description of work: Install Awning on Store Front..
Est. Value: $ 4 ~ 000.. 00
y=:
New
Addition
c:J Alteration
o Repair
o Move
o Other
Tree Ordinance Applies: 0 Yes DNo
Other Handouts Required: DYes 0 No
Additional Information:
Const. type:
Qcc. group:
Division:
Sq. Ft.:
# S toties:
# Res. units:
Max. acc. load:
Fire zone:
Fire sprinklers: 0 yes 0 no
Off-street parking covered:
Off. street parking uncovered: _
TY9f! of Construction:
o Single Family
o Duplex
o Multi-Family
eiJ Commercial
o Industrial
o Res. Garage
o Other
*******************
Work performed without required inspections will result in removal of materials at
owner/contractor's expense until inspections are completed. NO EXCEPTIONS.
\-:)- cL\-('()
Date
\ ~-a \ -l:()
Date
FRRS:
Big. pennit 97. _15
Plan review
S tate surtax 2.. 00
Big. Total
Plbg. permit
Fixtures
State surtax
Plbg. Total
Mech.pennit
Fixrures
S tate surtax
Mech. Total
Sewer access
Water access
Water meter
Meter sales tax
Meter Total
Sew & water pennit
Tnmk water
Trunk san. sewer
Storm sewer
Lift station
Park & Pathway
Fire Lock Box
99.25
TOTAL FEES
99.25
.
.
.
MINUTES
Special Meeting - Design Advisory Team
Wednesday, August 2 - 10:30am
Monticello City Hall - Academy Room
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Pam Campbell, Ron Hoglund, Susie Wojchouski, Mike Cyr,
Amanda Gaetz
OTHERS PRESENT:
Ollie Koropchak, Cindy Heaton, Jeff Heaton, Bruce Hamond
1. Call to Order
Pam Campbell called the meeting to order at 10:30.
2. Add Items
Not all DA T members were present so no agenda items could be added during the special
meeting.
3. Review of proposed building improvements to Heaton property (113 W Broadway)
The Heaton's expressed their appreciation of the Bob Claybaugh concept drawing completed
for their building, but also expressed concern with the idea of removing the gray paint from
the brick on the front fac;ade. It is very possible that major patching and poor tuckpointing
has been completed on the brick underneath the paint and would look quite poorly if
exposed. Pam stated that the best historical preservation work would be to remove the paint
and expose the original brickwork. Mike stated that this building has great potential to be
restored and that it may be possible to rebrick the front fac;ade if the paint is removed and the
original brick is found to be in poor condition.
Kevin Heaton stated that they will be having an awning made by Steve Houle in Clearwater.
They will have signage on the awning and the windows. The east side of the building is in
good shape and probably will not be touched. The boards will be removed over the transon
windows and the windows underneath will be repaired and exposed. Doors will be repaired
or new doors will be found.
DA T members decided to approve the proposed improvements in a 3-tract format so as to
allow the Heatons to attain assessments for removing the paint and for an entire rebricking of
the front fac;ade.
Pam Campbell moved and Susie Wojchouski seconded the motion to approve the design
improvements plans for the Heaton property at 113 W Broadway provided that they follow
one of the following three plans: Plan A includes repair of existing brick and repainting of
brick in a new color scheme; refurbishing of aluminum trim, uncovering & repair of transom
windows, restoration of door, and awning addition. Plan B includes all items from plan A
except that the front fac;ade brick will have its paint removed and all necessary tuckpointing
Li
.
.
.
and repair will be completed. Plan C includes all items from plan A except that the front
fa9ade brick will be removed and replaced with new or refurbished brick, with the
understanding that DA T will make a recommendation to the EDA to increase the funding for
this project. The Heaton's will move forward with either plan A, B, or C at their own
discretion.
Motion carried.
4. Review of proposed building improvements to Hamond property (214 W Broadway)
Bruce Hamond handed out copies of his DMRF application. He stated that he is requesting
grant monies for all four sides of the building and is also applying for the rehabilitation loan.
The Hamond property improvements will be done in 2 phases. Phase 1 has already begun
and is designed to get the building in decent condition for their tenant to open her business.
Phase 2 will involve more major improvements and is the phase that will be using the Dl\1RF
program.
Phase 2 may include removal of the front staircase provided that it will meet code
requirements. They will be adding a side entryway to the small green space on the west side
of the building whether or not the staircase is removed, but the staircase removal will dictate
where the entryway is located. The front fa9ade will look similar to the concept drawing
completed by Bob Claybaugh.
Bruce stated that they will probably use siding rather than clapboard because of the lower
cost and maintenance associated with siding. Mike Cyr stated that masonry siding should be
used instead of vinyl siding as it is not much more expensive than vinyl siding and it is much
more aesthetically pleasing.
Susie Wojchouski moved and Mike Cyr seconded the motion to approve the design and
materials presented for the Hamond property at 214 W Broadway with the recommendation
that masonry siding be used instead of vinyl siding.
Motion carried.
5. Adjourn
Pam Campbell moved and Amanda Gaetz seconded the motion to adjourn.
Motion carried.
Respectfully Submitted,
Amanda Gaetz, DA T Secretary
4
Design Advisory Team Review
Date August 24, 2000
.
Team Members Present Ron Hoglund, Susie Wojchouski, Mike Cyr, Amanda Gaetz, Pam Campbell
Team Members Absent Gail Cole
Ex.Officio Members Present Ollie Koropchak,
Applicant Present Kevin and Cindy Heaton
Property Owner Kevin and Cindy Heaton
Building Address 113 West Broadway
Sketch or Proposed Facade Improvements:
See attached
Improvements in confonnance with the Design Guidelines:
All improvements listed in the report by Bob Claybaugh are in conformance with the Design
Guidelines.
. Improvements in Don-conronoance with the Design Guidelines:
None at this time
Design Advisory Team Recommendation: To approve the application.
.
Comments: The DAT approved three alternatives for this project regarding the brick facade. First,
and least complicated is to simply repaint. Second, chemically remove the existing paint on the brick,
repair damaged brick and retuckpoint the mortar joints where necessary. Third, if the historic brick
is so damaged as to be unrepairable, the front of the building will be refaced with new brick.
Obviously this is the most costly of the alternatives.
Until an assessment of the condition of the brick is done, the owners have not reached a
decision. At this time they are considering the options. Any of the three will meet the revitalization
guidelines.
My initial recommendation would be option two. Find out what condition the brick is in by
chemically removing the existing paint and repairing the brick and mortar joints. Although there is
a chance the building will have to be repainted if the bricks are not in good enough shape, there seems
to be an equal chance they could be exposed to recapture the original facade of the building.
However, the DAT will work with the Heatons on whichever option they choose.
This building is one of the few with a reasonable chance of easily exposing the historic brick
meade. The owners seem committed to completing a quality project that will restore the integrity and
character of this building. It is a fine example of early twentieth century small town architecture.
y
.
.
.
EDA Agenda - 1/30/01
5.
Consideration to review GMEF No. 014 relative to late payments for action to call
loan.
A. Reference and back~round:
As you recall, GMEF Loan No. 014 with T. 1. Martin (Lake Tool, Inc.) has been a topic
of discussion at previous EDA meetings. The loan payments consistently appear to be
late. Letters dating November 2000 and August 2, 1999 and numerous telephone calls
relative to late payments have been made. The company eventually pays but not on a
timely basis. EDA loans have no penalty for late payments. You will notice on the
attached record, the October 1 and November 1,2000 payments were paid on November
21,2001. The December 1, 2001 payment was paid on January 19, 2001 leaving the
January 1,2001 payment unpaid with the February 1,2001 payment due within days.
The February, 1998, 7-year loan amount was $87,500, 6.5% interest rate. Interest
payments commenced the first day of the second month following the Loan Closing date
and principal payments commenced on the first day of the twenty-fifth month immediately
following the Loan Closing date. Monthly principal and interest payments are $1,716.12
with last payment due April 1, 2004. Remaining principal balance is $76,152.03.
Recently, I also notified the company relative to the tax increment deficiency of some
$3,000 due immediately and another approximately $1,500 due February 1,2001.
The GMEF Guidelines read: LATE PAYMENT POLICY: Failure to pay principal and
interest when due may result in the loan being immediately called. Events of default under
the Loan Agreement: (a) failure to pay when due any principal or interest on the Loan.
This appears on the agenda for two reasons: Notice to EDA member and consideration of
action. Below are some altemativesfor the EDA to consider.
B. Alternative Action.
1. A motion directing staff to draft a letter stating late payment due within -
days, ifpayment not received the EDA authorizes staff to contact legal consultant
to begin proceedings to call for loan.
2. A motion directing staff to contact our legal consultant to research the potential of
an amendment to the Loan Agreement adding an interest rate penalty of
% or a flat monthly late fee of for GMEF No. 014 as an alternative to
calling the loan.
3.
A motion to continue notifying the borrower of late payments due.
1
.
EDA Agenda ~ 1/30/01
4.
A motion to table any action.
c.
Recommendation.
Recommendation is alternative no. 2. An interest rate or flat monthly fee with substance
may act as an incentive for the borrower to pay on time. This gives the borrower the
choice to agree to a late fee or call ofthe loan. However, the penalty involves more
bookkeeping but doable.
D. Supportin~ Data:
Copy of previous letters and loan payment record.
.
.
2
.,
~
.
.
August 2, 1999
MONTICELLO
Mr. Eric G. Bondhus, Vice President
T. 1. Martin, Inc.
1347 Dundas Circle
Monticello, MN 55362
Re: GMEF Loan No. 014
Dear Eric:
Per the Loan Agreement between T. 1. Martin, Inc. and the Monticello Economic Development
Authority dated February 18, 1998, the Borrower received a loan in the amount of$87,500 from
the Lender. The interest payment on the repayment of the loan is due and payable the first day of
each and every month thereafter until paid in full.
No payment has been received for the months of June, July, and August of 1999, the total past
due amount is $1,453.48. Please remit this amount to the Monticello EDA, PO Box 1147,
Monticello, MN 55362. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 271-
3208.
Sincerely,
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
IN AND FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO
Cj~t~ ~V' ~0-~
Ollie Koropchak
Executive Director
c:
GMEF No. 014 File V'
::>
Monticello City Hal\, 250 E. Broadway, PO Box 1147, Monticello, MN 55362-9245 . (612) 295-2711 . Fax: (612) 295A404
Office of Public Works, 909 Golf Course RJ., Monticello, MN 55362 . (612) 295-3170. Fax: (612) 271-3272
J, _,
. .
~
November 14,2000
--
MONTICELLO
Mr. Eric G. Bondhus, Vice President
T. 1. Martin, Inc.
1347 Dundas Circle
Monticello, MN 55362
Re: GMEF Loan No. 014
Dear Eric:
Per the Loan Agreement between T. 1. Martin, Inc. and the Monticello Economic Development
Authority dated February 18, 1998, the Borrower received a loan in the amount of$87,500 from
the Lender. The following shall be an event of default under the Loan Agreement: (a) failure to
pay when due any principal or interest on the Loan.
. No payment has been received for the months of October and November of2000, the total past
due amount is $3,432.24. Please remit this amount to the Monticello EDA, 505 Walnut Street,
Suite 1, Monticello, MN 55362. At the next EDA meeting, the Commissioners of the EDA will
consider calling the loan if the principal and interest payment is not current.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 271-3208. Your immediate
attention to this matter is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
IN AND FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO
~,~, ~ eJi '" "\ 5). c~
Ollie Koropchak
Executive Director
c:
Sharon Mros, Marquette Bank Monticello
Roger Belsaas, Mayor
Rick W olfsteller, Administrator
GMEF No. 014 File v
s
.
Monticello City Hal!, 505 Walnut Street, Suite 1, Monticello, MN 55362-8831' (763) 295-2711' Fax: (763) 295-4404
Office of Public Warks, 909 Golf Course Rd., Monticello, MN 55362 . (763) 295-3170 . Fax: (763) 271-3272
\.~. \(V\~ \.. o~
G '{Y\ E~ ~o t)t l{
i:i
02-18-1998 ** AMORTIZATION SCHEDULE ** 08:31:23
( Actual/360 ) Page G
~~~~=_~_~___~:=~___~~.~J~~~~2~&~~~-~~~l~~__~_--~:~--~~J'
24 I 02/18/98 I 6.500% I $87500.00 I $87500.00
.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I x ) 1 04/01/98 663.54"" 0.00 87500.00
fs.,!SqQ,-fT2.,3J/3 L2 05/01/98 473.96v 0.00 87500.00
." 3,...__ 06jQ1.L21L"__M489. 76.~ __...~-----.O--'-O~------lTI5J)J)--n~-m----.
, 0'!ih~ -1f <2.21.L~'L_.... ....Q1LQJJ2~----..----.1..n-,-2.Q.~----- __O~1L___.8_'I5.QQ..Qa....____~_
_ 'IiI" _fta: '1 L, 1.2 _5.._._ ~Ql.L98_____489. 76"-:: ______--.ll.-'-OlL_.___ 87500.00
.I!..~1iZLi3~~1J_e._?}h1J _~__..Q_~IQ1L2~L_ ..___ _.__1~;?_.36 0.--. ___~.__ 0 ._90 875_Q.9~_.,-___~
~-fl&Tr ~m L~- i~~lli}- -----:-- :~~ : ~~ ~ ---= ~ :~g- =-.....-~~;&~-g6~--=~
__ 11/3r.).1'8 :_3-'1(,-1.__ 9 12 0!l98 ._ 473.96 V:::. 0.0-9_ _~_:Z.500.0_9_~__n__
YEAR 1998 4518.42 0.00 87500.00
_____ _~L/J2J'l'l_ _.x.1"&:l_1_HL__ __0;l/0l/99,. .___. _48;L,)_9~ 0.00 87500.00
~ ---W/J0(CZ{-------1f~-~- ---f~~----- --6~)6~7~;~- ~ _n_ :-:}:~-~S-..... 6:66 ~~;66:66
'-__ _ _____ _ __ _ _ ~ 13_ 04/01/99 489.76 0.00 87500.00
_ ______ _ _,14_ 05/oi/99- 473-'-96V'" 0.00 87500.00
8/'1/91 11307 ~15_ ... 0_6/01j99__ 489,.7?_.______ 0.00 87500.00
(16 07/01/99 473.96 0.00 87500.00
'l/as!9'1?J'1 i 17 .. 08/01799 489. 76 v- 0.00 87500.00
8f3/f9c;"1 1.)3 18 09/01/99 -4~9-'-76v"-" 0.00 87500.00
_____/9 'Il'f 19'1 (;, 'f~ 19 10/01/99 . 4 73.96~ . 0.00 87500.00
___ II),.)-/ 79 7 ~ '1 20 11/01/99 489.76. 0.00 87500.00
_" _jJl.IL~ (1(1--~2.j,j- 21 .. .12/01/99 473.96 v 0.00 87500.00
YEAR 1999---' "5766:52 --- 0.00 87500.00
~ ~~_:L7d, _ _ _ _ 22 _ _ 01/01100 489.76'/ 0.00 87500.00
,) Jil)y _ ..1093. 23 n - o2/oijo"o' . _ - 48'9-56_/ - . ~___ _ .0.00 8'7500.00
~/5:3 /ao 13d_'CJ. ~~1..__ _ruOUQSL_ __ ..________~?~~:),,?~ ___~__8'??09_. 00 0 . 00
YEAR 2000 1437.68 87500.00 0.00
Payment Arrount $
Fina~. Pay!l1E;~~ ... J?rroul1l:::__$_ "___.~7.~?8 .l?___,______.______
~O~Q ~
\., . c; 0/0
'J,. .. \ " -q ~
COpy
.
s
( 86273.64
2 05 01 00 467.32 85024.84
3 06 01 00 475. 0 . 83784.62
4 07 01 00 453.83 82522.33
5 08 01 00 461.90 81268.11
6 09 01 00. 454.88 V' 80006.87
7 0 7 v 78724 .12
8 11 01 00 440.64 v 1275.48 77448.64
9 12 01 00 419.51 1296.6- 76152.03
YEAR 2000 4097.11 11347.97 76152.03
10 01/01/01 426.24 1289.88 74862.15
11 02/01/01 419.02 1297.10 73565.05
12 03/01/01 371.91 1344.21 72220.84
13 04/01/01 404.24 1311.88 70908.96
14 05/01/01 384.09 1332.03 69576.93
15 06/01/01 389.44 1326.68 68250~25
16 07/01/01 369.69 1346.43 66903.82
17 08/01/01 374.48 1341.64 65562.18
18 09/0~/01 366.97 1349.15 64213.03
19 10/01/01 347.82 1368.30 62844.73
20 11/01/01 351.76 1364.36 61480.37
21 12/01/01 333.02 1383.10 60097.27
YEAR 2001 4538.68 16054.76 60097.27
22 01/01/02 336.38 1379.74 58717.53
23 02/01/02 328.66 1387.46 57330.07
24 03/01/02 289.84 1426.28 55903.79
25 04/01/02 312.91 1403.21 54500.58
26 05/01/02 295.21 1420.91 53079.67
27 06/01/02 297.10 1419.02 51660.65
28 07/01/02 279.83 1436.29 50224.36
29 08/01/02 281.12 1435.00 48789.36
30 09/01/02 273.08 1443.04 47346.32
31 10/01/02 256.46 1459.66 45886.66
32 11/01/02 256.84 1459.28 44427.38
33 12/01/02 240.65 1475.47 42951.91
YEAR 2002 3448.08 171.45.36 42951.91
34 01/01/03 240.41 1475.71 41476.20
35 02/01/03 232.15 1483.97 39992.23
36 03/01/03 202.18 1513.94 38478.29
37 04/01/03 215.37 1.500.75 36977.54
38 05/01/03 200.30 1515.82 35461.72
39 06/01/03 198.49 1517.63 33944.09
40 07/01/03 183.86 1532.26 32411.83
41 08/01/03 181.42 1534.70 30877.13
42 09/01/03 172.83 1543.29 29333.84
43 10/01/03 158.89 1557.23 27776.61
44 11/01/03 155.47 1560.65 26215.96
45 12/01/03 142.00 1574.12 24641.84
YEAR 2003 2283.37 18310.07 24641.84
46 01/01/04 137.93 1578.19 23063.65
47 02/01/04 129.09 1587.03 21476.62
48 03/01/04 112.45 1603.67 19872.95
49 04 01 04 111. 3 1604.89 1826B. 06
Monticello City Hall, 505 Walnut Street, Suite 1, Monticello, MN 55362-8831 . (763) 295-2711 . Fax: (763) 295+4404
Office of Public Works, 909 Golf Course Rd., Monticello. MN 55362. (763) 295-3170' Fax: (763) 271-3272
..
~
~ I'll!" · .( J..-
.
.
.
[I.::r; J'.'\. a. r-n \ Y'-
GJVl€F #Ol'f (L~\)
02-18-1998 "Ad, AM)RTIZATIQ\T SCHEDULE ** 08 :29 :36
( Actual/360 ) Page 1
~~~= - ~ - i - - - ~== _ _ _ i .~E:ji.=~o__]. -lSt~li~h, _ ~ __ _ ~::~=~ __
60 I 03/01/00 I 6.500% I $67500.00 I $87500.00
---------------------------------------------------------------
5
.
.
.
EDA Agenda ~ 1/30/01
6.
Executive Director's Report.
a) GMEF No. 010 (Vector Tool) - The modifications to the Loan Agreement and other
documents were drafted and executed by appropriate individuals at the closings on
November 29,2000. Attached is the new amortization schedule at the approved interest
rate and a letter of payment due for costs associated with the modification. Appropriate
filings at the Secretary of State and Wright County have been recorded and originals
returned.
b) GMEF No. 017 (Twin City Die Castings) - Invoice for costs associated with UCC filing
on equipment. UCC not filed the City $500,000 as all equipment not arrived and paid.
c) EDA Annual Meeting is scheduled for April 24, 2001 - I've attached a copy of minutes
from a budget workshop of the city council on November 16, 2000. On page 3 notes
some discussion relative to the EDA funds. After the year-end report, the EDA may give
some consideration to begin payback for Liquor Funds. This a thought for consideration
not necessary. 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 ifthe
EDA investment is paying off.
d) Integrated Recycling Technologies, Inc. - The Prospect Team visited this Rogers
company. They are a auto catalyst refiner with 3 FT and 2 PT employees. The owner,
Steve Budd, purchased Kermit Benson's home. He's looking to perhaps build a 10,000
sq ft metal building on a 2-acre parcel along Fallon Avenue. He would add 3-4 FT
workers within 2 years. Wages between $35,000 to $50,000 annually wlo benefits.
e) Barger/Harwood - Looking to construct another 15,000 sq ft metal building behind
Vector Tool. This resulted after C. H. Holt Company called my office for the need for
another 5,000 sq ft and B&B Metal Stamping need for additional space. Space may also
accommodate a St. Cloud and Big Lake company.
f) Red Wing Foods - Meeting scheduled with Charlie Pfeffer, company, staff, and builder
relative to construction of a 50,000 sq ft precast building on 6 acres ofland to the west of
Twin City Die Castings. Red Wing Foods would take 20,000 sq ft and the remaining for
lease. Red Wing Foods is a packager and distributor of gourmet foods with contacts to
Byerly's, Lund's, Target, etc.
g) North Anchor - Still working on acquisition of parcels along Front Street and working
on concepts for Amoco Block. Slow going.
h) Economic Development Goals for 2001 - Does the EDA have some goals in mind?
There has been some suggestion to think about the City of Monticello combining the
powers of the HRA or EDA. Simplicity and consistency. Give some thought to this for
discussion at the annual meeting. Secondly, looking to host a Lenders Breakfast with
HRA/EDA again this year. Thirdly, looking at the MTED community assessment for level
of readiness for E-commerce.
i) DMRF No. 111 Hamond - Following the EDA motion of November 8, I mailed Mr.
Hamond Attachment D for signature and confirmation. It was never returned and the
lender, Mr. Doty, has heard nothing from him.
1
NOV. 30. 2000 10:51AM EHLERS & ASSOCIATES csr. (877 P.2 .
G \0r\ c: y '0J 'D ' 0(0 D\v~
\?
City of Monticello ~o \:~
. Amortization Schedule ( \j -"- ,--,~Lh <l-D0 I )
r' Pnnapal Amount of Debt: .------.. ------$42,962.81
I Interest Rate 7.50%
Term: 10 year schedule with balloon in year 3
L. Close Date: .. .. _ lnte!.~st from 11/1 to 11/30 at 6.75O!o
- ....-----..
Payment Principal Interest Total Month End
.!'i\Jmber Month favment Payment Monthlv Payment Princical Balance
1 12/01/00 $241.31 $241.67 $482.98 $42,721.50
2 01/01/01 $242.97 $267.01 $509.98 $42,478.53
3 02101/01 $244.49 $265.49 $509.98 $42,234.04
4 03/01/01 $246.02 $263.96 $509.98 $41,988.02
5 04/01/01 $247.55 $262.43 $509.98 $41,740.47
6 05/01/01 $249.10 $260.88 $509.98 $41,491.37
7 06/01/01 $250.66 $259.32 $509.98 $41,240.71
6 07/01/01 $252.23 $257.75 $509.98 $40,988.48
9 08/01/01 $253.80 $256.18 $509.98 $40,734.68
10 09/01/01 $255.39 $254.59 $509.98 $40,479.29
11 10/01/01 $256.98 $253.00 $509.98 $40,222.31
12 11/01/01 $258.59 $251.39 $509.98 $39,963-72
13 12/01/01 $260.21 $249.77 $509.98 $39,703.51
14 01/01/02 $261.83 $248.15 $509.98 $39,441.68
15 02101/02 $263.47 $246.51 $509.96 $39,178.21
. 16 03/01/02 $265.12 $244.86 $509.98 $38.913.09
17 04/01/02 $266.77 $243.21 $509.98 $38,646.32
18 05/01/02 $268.44 $241.54 $509.98 $38,377.88
19 06/01102 $270.12 $239.86 $509.98 $38,107.76
20 07/01/02 $271.81 $238.17 $509.96 $37.835-95
21 08/01/02 $273.51 $236.47 $509.98 $37,562.44
22 09/01/02 $275.21 $234.77 $509.98 $37,287.23
23 10/01102 $276.93 $233.05 $509.98 $31,010.30
24 11101102 $278.67 $231.31 $509.98 $36,731.63
25 12/01/02 $280.41 $229.57 $509.98 $36,451.22
26 01/01/03 $282.16 $227_82 $509.98 $36,169.06
27 02/01/03 $283.92 $226.06 $509.98 $35,885.14
28 03/01/03 $285.70 $224.28 $509.98 $35,599.44
29 04/01/03 $287.48 $222.50 $509.98 $35,311.96
30 05/01/03 $289.28 $220.70 $509.98 $35,022.68
31 06/01/03 $291.09 $218.89 $509.98 $34,731.59
32 07/01/03 $292.91 $217.07 $509.98 $34,438.68
33 08/01/03 $294.74 $215.24 $509.98 $34,143.94
34 09/01/03 $296.58 $213.40 $509.98 $33,847.36
35 10/01/03 $298.43 $211.55 $509.98 $33,548.93
36 11/01/03 $33,548.93 $209.68 $33,758.61 $0.00
.
11/30/00
Prepared by Ehlers and Associates
~) fa
.
.
December 27,2000
--
MONTICELLO
Mr. Jim Harwood
Blue Chip Development Company
18071 Territorial Road
Maple Grove, MN 55369
Re: GMEF No. 010 (Vector Tool)
Dear Jim:
Attached are copies of two invoices associated with the costs to modify the Loan Agreement and
other documents for extension of the balloon payment date for GMEF No. 010. Kennedy &
Graven's legal fee in the amount of $208 and Ehlers & Associates' fee in the amount of$93.75
for a total of$301.75. Please remit the amount of$301.75 to the Monticello EDA, Attn: Ollie
Koropchak, 505 Walnut Street, Suite 1, Monticello, MN 55362. Thank you for the attention of
this matter.
Wishing you a great 2001.
Sincerely,
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
IN AND FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO
Ollie Koropchak
Executive Director
Attachments
c: File
6
~
Monticello City Hall, 505 Walnut Street, Suite I, Monticello, MN 55362-8831 · (763) 295-2711 . Fax: (763) 295-4404
Office of Public Works, 909 Golf Course Rd., Monticello, MN 55362 . (763) 295-3170 . Fax: (763) 271-3272
.
Page: 2
Kennedy & Graven, Chartered
200 South Sixth Street
Suite 470
Minneapolis, MN 55402
City of Monticello
November 30,2000
G'ff\8Y
'\'0'C)
MN190-00050 Vector Tool LaRa S::lle \........... ~ 1/' ,...,..-
Through November 30, 2000
For All Legal Services As Follows:
11/13/2000 DJG Draft amendments to EDA loan agreement
o\t>
11/21/2000
DJG Revise EDA loan amendments; draft closing instructions
Total Services:
Hours
.
Total Services and Disbursements: $
.
1.10
0.50
$
Amount
143.00
65.00
208.00
208.00
~
.
.
Monticello HRA
505 Walnut Avenue, Suite 1
Monticello, MN 55362
December 10,2000
MC100-01
GENERAL
Professional Services
Invoice # 17901
11/27/00 MTR Amortization - blue chip t:.-- \) ~ ~ G.- \fV\ t: c;
11/30/00 MTR Discussions with Ollie - housing and redo amortization
Hours Amount
0.75 - r93.'75\
1.00 ~
Total Due This Month:
Status of Account:
Current
$218.75
30 Days
$0.00
roo, 0\ 0
\+R\C\
G-~-1'_iU,c.JL
~
1.75 $218.75
Total
$218. 75
.
60 Days
$0.00
90 Days
$0.00
120+ Days
$0.00
PLEASE KEEP WHITE COpy FOR YOUR FILE AND REMIT PINK COpy WITH PA YMENT TO:
.
EHLERS
& ASSOCIATES INC
3060 Centre Pointe Drive
Roseville, MN 55113-1105
651.697.8500
b
.
.
.
q-- 0u O\'l
t;
G\f'A
Kennedy & Graven, Chartered
200 South Sixth Street
Suite 470
Minneapolis, MN 55402
(612) 337-9300
41-1225694
November 10, 2000
Invoice # 35380
Monticello EDA
Ollie Koropchak
505 Walnut Street
Suite 1
Monticello, MN 55362
MN325-00008 Twin City Die and Casting GMEF Loan
Through October 31,2000
For All Legal Services As Follows:
10/4/2000 DJG Revise UCC-1 and draft cover letter re same
10/10/2000 TLB Filing of UCC-1 with Minnesota Secretary of State.
Total Services:
Hours
0.30
0.50
$
For All Disbursements As Follows:
10/4/2000
10/10/2000
Postage
Photocopies
Lightning Express Courier - Courier Service
Minnesota Secretary of State; UCC-1 filing
Total Disbursements:
Total Services and Disbursements: $
Amount
39.00
45.00
84.00
$
0.33
1.20
15.73
20.00
37.26
121.26
~~
.
.
.
Kennedy & Graven, Chartered
200 South Sixth Street
Suite 470
Minneapolis, MN 55402
(612) 337-9300
November 10, 2000
Statement No. 35380
Monticello EDA
Ollie Koropchak
505 Walnut Street
Suite 1
Monticello, MN 55362
Through October 31,2000
MN325-00008 Twin City Die and Casting GMEF Loan
Expenses
84.00
37.26
Total Current Billing:
I declare, under penalty of law, that this
account, claim or demand is just and correct
and that no part of !~has aid.
EQ\;\
G\JY\ ~ ~
Signature of Claiment
~~
\ \-
121.26
\\)0
O\~
Q....~. -
.~O " ~
\ 'I - 0 0
~
.
.
.
MINUTES
WORKSHOP MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Thursday, Novemher 16, 2000 ~ 5:30 p.m.
Members Present:
Roger Belsaas, Roger Carlson. Clint Herbst, Brian Stumpf and Bruce
Thielen.
Members Absent:
None
Stafr Present:
City Administrator. Rick WolL'iteller: Deputy City Administrator, Jeff
O'Neill; Public Works Director, John SinlOla; City Engineer, Bret Weiss,
Community Center Director, Kitty Baltos
Mayor Belsaas called the workshop meeting to order at 5:45 p.m. and declared a quorum present.
The purpose of the meeting was to review and finalize the 2001 budget and tax levy and to discuss and
formulate an assessment policy for street reconstruction.
City Administrator, Rick Wolf'iteller summarized the changes made in the budget since the last budget
workshop. The primary revision was to include $29200 which would allow for adding four more
hours of police coverage starting in July. The other area of change was to reallocate the expenses and
revenues from the Monticello Community Center operating budget to the city hall. senior citizen center
and National Cluard portions of the building. The reallocation did not change any tax levy
requirements. I Ie noted that the proposed levy of $5.067.342 would be an increase of $328.000 or 6.9%
over what was collected in 2000. Rick Wolfsteller indicated that based on information he had received
from the Wright County Assessor's office. there is an increase in tax capacity value from $] 3,085.763
to $13,641,431.
The Council looked at the following areas as possible changes to the budget:
Law Enforcement - The preliminary budget was increased by $29200 to allow for an additional four
hours of police coverage to be added tllid-year. The Council indicated that thc additional $29.200
would remain in the budget.
Community Education - The preliminary budget did not include funding the $17.500 contribution to
the community education program. Duane Gates from Monticello Community Education was present
and explained to the Council that funding for their SUmtller programs comes solely li'om the City and
the school district and fees collected fronl the programs. "r"he Council felt that the programs offered by
community education were available to residents in the entire school district which is comprised of
all or parts of the cities of Monticello and Otsego and Monticello. Maple Lake and Silver Creek
Tmvnships and that all the entities should participate in the funding of the programs. When the City
initially contributed to the funding. the City did not havc other programs and facilities for youth that
they were supporting. lhe City now funds the parks and trails system and the community center. The
Counci I indicated that they were in support of the program but felt that it should be supported by all the
6
c)
.
Council Minutes.. 11/1 6/00
entitics who utilized it. The Council encouraged Mr. (iates to go bef()fe the other entities and request
funding. The consensus of the Council was that the City would commit to funding at least 50% of the
requested $17.500. The Council also stated that if a formula was arrived at by all the entities involved
that would split the funding based on market value, population or sonle other proportionate basis, the
City would fund their portion.
YMCA Dctachcd Workcr Program - The $7,500 contribution request was not funded in the
preliminary hudget. Karen Trondsen and Brian Burns representing the YMCA were present and
requested the Council to consider continued funding of the detached worker program. They explained
the program and the people it serves. The Council noted that this request was similar to that of the
community cducation program in that it was tlwa program that served residents from a number of
communities but was receiving financial support only from the City of Monticello. The Council
encouraged the YMCA to go to the other communities that also participate in the program and request
their financial support. The Council determined that the City would budget funds to cover 50% of the
budget request of $7,500.
Ccntral Minnesota Initiative Fund - Representatives from the Central Minnesota Initiative Fund had
spoken earlier to the Council about support for the program which provides grants and loans to various
businesses in Wright County. The Central Minnesota Initiative Fund was requesting the city to
consider a contribution 01'$2,000. The Council determined not to inelude this request in the 2001
budget.
.
Rivers of Hope - This agency provides services 1ix victims of domestic violence and was requesting a
contribution of $3,378 which was hased on the number of individuals served in Monticello. The
Council decided not to fund this request.
Bikc Park/Ramps - Kitty Baltos indicated that in preliminary discussions with Tru-Ride the cost li)r a
small bike park would be approximately $55,000 for the ramp only. In addition there would be the
cost of a 4' x 6' concrete pad over the entire ramp area and fencing for the ramp area. The fencing
should be compatible with that of the skate park. Kitty Baltos noted that a cheaper but probably less
desirable option would be a dirt track on the vacant lot adjacent to the Eisele property. The price
estimate for the larger bike park was $64,000. The ('ouncil discussed the possibility of getting grant
funds, approaching local organization and groups having charitable galnbling funds and estahlishing
other types of fund raisers to wine up with some of the cost for constructing a bike park. The Council
felt they should fund approximately $40,000 wi th the idea that the balance could be raised by other
sources. If the City would proceed with this it would be the only Illcility like it in this area. Based on
the use and revenue Qenerated bv the skate ))arl(, the feelinQ was that this tYI)e of facilitv should be
...... .,I ',- or
se I f-s upport ing.
MCP Contl'ihution - Rick Wolfsteller indicated that there is $] 5,000 in the budget for Cunding the
MCP. Last year in the budget deliberations the Council indicated that they would be rcducing the
annual contribution to the MCr>. The 2000 budget allotted $25,000 lilr the MCr> and the 2001 budget
dropped this to $] 5.000. There \vas discussion on how long to continue funding for the MCP and the
.
ro
o
!
Council Minutes - 11/16/00
.
future of the group. The Council decided to leave the $15,000 budgeted and review funding again
next year.
I{ick Wolfsteller suggested that $90,000 in the capital outlay fund f"l)r funding the acquisition of
industrial park land could be used as a possible source of funding for some of the items discussed.
There was discussion on the amount of funds that lIRA had and whether any of those could be used.
Roger Carlson indicated that based on preliminary information, it may be possible that a proposal
would come up where the HRA would need all their funding sources to support the development and
Roger Carlson didn't feci the city should be looking at using the lIRA funds.
Rick Wolfsteller cautioned the Council on the reserve funds. lIe stated the perception is that there is
money in the reserve fund. llowever, a good portion of the money is comlnitted for specific uses and
the balance of the reserve fund is needed to fund operations until the city receives state aid and tax
settlements in July. Clint Herbst suggested that the EDA money since it is designated for revolving
fund loans is unallocated and should be considered. It was also pointed out that initially transfers from
the liquor store were made to the EDA and the EDA could be paying some of the transfer back.
The Council tabled further discussion of the budget to consider the assessment policy.
.
City I.:ngineer, Bret Weiss presented information which outlined the city's current assessment policies
and summarized assessment policies used by other communities. Clint Herbst stated his position that
any new construction should be fully assessed but any replacement of existing bituminous or curb and
gutter should be funded through general taxes.
The City Engineer submitted in map tlwm a street inventory which designated the ages of the streets
within the city. lhere is approximately 39.90 lniles of city streets and 15.96 miles of these streets are
20 years or older. Streets that are 20 years or older are at the end of their design life and would need to
be reconstructed within the near future. Bret Weiss provided examples of street design and costs. If
the City is going to fund street maintcnance through the ad valorem taxes an estimate ofthe cost for
the replacement and maintenancc of the streets would have to be determined. In initial estimates, the
City Engineer projected that to reconstruct existing streets with eurb and gutter would be
approxinwtely $7,516,XOO. To reconstruct strcets that currently do not have curb and gutter would be
$3.177.050. This viOuld be a total of $1 0,693,X50 for reconstruction. In addition overlay and sealcoat
costs for strcets would be an additional $1,000,000 I. I f the city was going to embark on a program
where thc reconstruction work f"lw just the core streets would be spread out over seven years, based on
the engineer's preliminary estimates, the city would have to generate approximately $ 1.300.000 each
year in taxes to cover the cost of the work.. Rick WoI L"teller presented some infl)nnation that showed
\.vhat the ilnpact would be on a residence with a market value of $115.000 and a business with a market
value 01'$100.000 il'the city would levy f"l)r the streets.
In the past the city has normally bonded for street in111rOVelnents and assessed back the cost to the
bencJitting property owners. If the city would go to a tax levy. they may not be able to bond for these
ilnprovelnenls since bond regulations require that 20(~) of the cost to be assessed. If the city cannot
.
'"'
.)
~
c)
.
.
.
Council Minutes - 11/16/00
hond for the street improvements, then a reserve would need to he set up so that funds would he in
place to cover the construction costs as they occur. I f the city would go the route of levying f()I' street
improvements through ad valorem taxes, the first year the levy could appear on the taxes would he the
year 2002.
]n addition to reconstruction of existing city streets, the City Engineer and Puhlic Works Director also
presented cost estimates I()]" new street projects such as Fallon A venue, CSAH 18 interchange i:lI1d Jlh
Street improvernents. The Council also has to consider how to fund the city's share of the proposed
project to improve CSAH 75 f,'om Washington Street to Oller Creek. The Council discussed at length
how much revenue would need to be generated in 2002 to cover the city's expenditures for street
ilnprovements. The Council discussed whether to begin with a smaller levy amount and huild up to
an amount that would equal the $1,300,000 needed to fund the annual estimated street construction
cost or to initially levy the full amount needed. The Council also discussed whether some of the street
projects could even be delayed until the city would be able to levy for the improvement.
Rick Wolfsteller stated that at the present time there are no levy limits and it is possible that this could
change. If that happens then the city's ability to levy the necessary amounts needed for the street
construction would he hampered. The Mayor asked ahout the bonded indebtedness or the city and
whether as bond issues are retired irthere would be funds the city could utilize for the street
construction program. Rick Wolfsteller responded that most of the smaller bond issues would he
retired within five year or so but the two remaining issues were large ones covering the wastewater
treatment plant and the community center and run around 18 years.
Mayor Belsaas asked that John Silnola provide a list of the street projects and their estimated cost to be
included in the next agenda packet. The City Administrator was requested to provide inf(mnation on
the outstanding bonded indebtedness. The Council felt that there needs to be an education process for
the residents as Llr as the city's proposal to levy f(lr street improvements rather than assessing them and
the general feeling of the Council was that the first year's levy amount should generate at least
$600.000.
The Council then addressed the projects that were considered at the November 13th meeting,
specitically the CSAH 75 ]mprovelnent, Project No. 98-17C. In reviewing the project. the Council
determined that there were three properties that were affected. These properties which initially were
proposed to receive an assessment should not be charged since it was not new construction but
replacelnent.
The Council went back to the budget discussion. The Council directcd that in making final budget
changes. no further use of the reserves should be made and that liquor store funds, or other sources
should be considered.
BRIAN STUMPF MOVED TO ADJOURN AT R:30. RO(H~R CARLSON SECONDED TI-lE
MCHlON. MOT]ON CARRII::D lJNAN]MOUSL.Y.
Recording Secretary
en
4
~
.
.riJOQl
"
i \
\
_l1t0I5/2000 HON 15: 02 FAX
Project:#:
Project Oesc: OM~ 111
0Jv Date; November 5. 2000
Rev Date;
Document #:
Subject: Rehab Property 2121218 west Broadway
~
WorkPaperft. WRkPPR1.00c
T.v-
-
Requlllt . change to ;uideII-. for rehabilitatIOn loan.
1. 1rwtea4 of bank ~g. I ~-personally funding the =- not funGed by the grant- I wW be
praenUng reoeiptl to CWo for the GOmpletecl WOf1(..
2. I am ukInG for an ,*ntIon 01 time from May, 2001 to August. 2001 fotr the grant DMRF
#111. '
EDA MEETING OF NOVEMBER 8. 2000. 7:00 P.M.
EDA Commissioner Ron Hoglund made a motion f';- the approved DMRF No. 111 19ao must
remain in second pos~tion behind the lender. Amount of loan $10.644 at fixed interest
rate of 5;5%, 10 years amortization with balloon payment in 3 years.
.
And ~o extend the no~-performance date from May 29. 2001 to August 29.2001. Non-
performance means t1;l~apptoved DMRF No. 111 -shall become null and void if funds are
not drawn or d1sburs~d by August 29. 200~.
EDA Commiss1oner'Rog~r Carlson seconded the"'lD.ot1on and the motion passed unanimously.
The EDA dollars are ~ot intended as competitive dollars with the lending institutions.
The combination of tre below prime rate EOA. dollars llnd'Ttlie-lenaersl'tlaU"PtTov:1:.des"for
s""bIlenlied interest rr~e. The intent of the EDA programs.
I
DATED
~~
~~t~
\ \'- ~ ~ C 0
BORROWER1APPLICANT
m- :\
~~e,J'w
--X' evU
~ \. '\ ~ <....../
.
.