EDA Agenda 08-29-2000
.
AGENDA
MONTICELLO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Tuesday, August 29, 2000 - 7:00 p.m.
City Hall - Academy Room
MEMBERS: Chair Bill Demeules, Vice Chair Barb Schwientek, Assistant Treasurer Ken Maus,
Clint Herbst, Roger Carlson, Ron Hoglund, and Darrin Lahr.
STAFF:
GUEST:
1.
2.
3,
4.
.
5.
.
Treasurer Rick Wolfsteller, Executive Director Ollie Koropchak, and Recorder
Lori Kraemer.
Kevin Heaton, Preferred Title property
Bruce Hamond, The Sweetest Things property
DAT representative
Call to Order.
Consideration to approve the April 25, 2000 EDA minutes.
Consideration of adding agenda items.
Consideration to review for approval/disapproval the DMRF application for 113 West
Broadway.
Consideration to discuss and adopt a resolution amending the DMRF Guidelines,
FACADE GRANTS and REHABILITATION LOAN.
6. Consideration to review for approval/disapproval the DMRF application for 216 West
Broadway.
7. Executive Director's Report.
8. Other Business.
9. Adjournment.
.
.
.
EDA Minutes - 04/25/00
MINUTES
MONTICELLO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Tuesday, April 25, 2000 - 7:00 p.m.
City Hall - Academy Room
Members Present:
Chair Bill Demeules, Assist Treasurer Ken Maus, Clint Herbst, Ron
Hoglund and Darrin Lahr.
Barb Schwientek and Roger Carlson
Executive Director Ollie Koropchak and Recorder Lori Kraemer
Members Absent:
Staff Present:
GUEST:
Pam Campbell, OAT Chairperson
1. Call to Order.
Chair Bill Demeules called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. Consideration to approve the February 22. 2000 EDA minutes.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY RON HOGLUND AND SECONDED BY BILL
DEMEULES TO APPROVE THE FEBRUARY 22, 2000 EDA MINUTES. Motion
carried.
3.
Consideration of adding agenda items.
None
4.
Pam Campbell, DAT Chair, provided an update for the EDA commissioners on the
progress for preparation of the facade design concepts for the Companion Pets, Preferred
Title, and previous Senior Center buildings. Campbell noted that Claybaugh had visited
two of the three businesses, and that Dennis Anderson was hesitant to have Mr.
Claybaugh visit his building, the former senior center, as there is still a parking issue.
Campbell noted that Mr. Claybaugh was very hesitant to discuss price with the building
owners as he is more on the architectural end.
Pam Campbell provided designs from Mr. Claybaugh on his proposal and explained some
of the ideas Claybaugh had proposed. Koropchak enclosed a copy of an invoice from
Claybaugh for his one-day visit and observation ofthe three designated buildings.
Additional invoices will follow for preparation of concepts, etc. The EDA previously
authorized a not-to-exceed amount of $3,000 fl)f the concept drawings.
-1-
.
.
.
5.
EDA Minutes - 04/25/00
Campbell asked the members to advise her on where to go from here as only two
buildings were looked at versus the three initially proposed. It was suggested to possibly
apply the $1,000 still available to any future construction in that area. Campbell will
provide pictures of the original Masonic Lodge building at the next EDA meeting. Ken
Maus commented on the Bill Grassl building and suggested the city keep in contact with
him as well. No further action was required by the EDA.
Consideration to adopt a resolution ratifying: the agreement to extend the Non-
Performance Date for GMEF Loan No. 017.
Ollie Koropchak providcd thc commissioners a staff report advising that via a polling, six
of the sevcn EDA commissioners replied and agrecd to extend the Non-Performance Date
from March 28, 2000, to Scptembcr 28, 2000, for GMEF Loan No. 017. GMEf No. 017
was approved by the EDA for Twin City Die Castings Company on September 28, 1999
in the amount of $100,000. Thc loan is for machinery and cquipment and shares a
second position with the $500.000 Minnesota Investment Fund, and behind thc $4.8
million Industrial Rcvenue Bond.
Attorncy Bubul did not see extending thc Non-Performancc Date as setting a preccdcnt
because ofthc involvement and complexity of the State and Bond dollars. Although thc
die casting machines and CNC machincs are on order, until delivery, thcre was no
collatcral unless we proceeded with a tcmporary mortgage on thc rcal estate.
Management agreed, this was not practical. Therefore, the reason to extend the
performance date. Thc EDA loan closing documents are prepared and have bcen
, reviewed by TCDC and thc State. The closing for the EDA and State loans are
anticipated to close upon delivcry of the equipment.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY KEN MAUS AND SECONDED BY CLINT HERBST
TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION RATIFYING THE AGREEMENT TO EXTEND THE
NON-PERfORMANCE DATE FOR GMEf LOAN NO. 017. Motion carried.
6.
Consideration to rcview for a roval the
Inc. (dba Profile powder Coating:, Inc.).
lication from J.J. Com an
Ollie Koropchak provided the information regarding the preliminary loan application and
gave a brief project summary as well. Koropchak noted the GMEF Loan Request was for
$150,000 for machinery and equipment.
profile powder Coating, Inc. is a service company that specializes in providing metal
fabricators with a quality scrvicc at a compctitive price. The service provided at the
Rogcrs facility is a metal powder coat finishing. The Rogers facility has been in
operation sincc 1989 and was started by Steve DeJong and his father. Steve has been the
sole proprietor the last fivc to six years. The proposed facility in Monticello will be a
-2-
.
.
.
EDA Agenda - 4/25/00
wood powder coating process. The real estate property consist of 3.15 acres of land and
the construction of a 30,000 sq. ft. block ot1ice/manufacturing facility. The estimated
market value of the property for payable 2002 is $960,000.
The proposed expansion will create at least 30 new jobs for the City of Monticello, State,
and Region at an hourly wage of between $12 to $16 or higher excluding beneiits.
Koropchak had recommended reviewal of this information prior to the FDA meeting for
discussion and potential questions. Neither Steve DeJong, Profile Powder Coating, Inc.
nor Brad Stevens, Security State Bank, were present at the EDA meeting. Koropchak
advised the members that consideration to approve or disapprove GMEF Loan No. 018
would take place at a later date. However, Korpchak stated that the company may
appreciate an approval of the preliminary application and the loan amount subject to
review of lender's commitment and analyst and submitted final GMEF application. Rate
and term to be approved later as well.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY RON HOGLUND AND SECONDED BY DARRIN
LAHR FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL IN THE AMOUNT OF $150,000. Motion
carried unanimously.
7.
Executive Director's Report.
a) T. J. Martin Loan _ Koropchak provided a letter written to Eric Bondhus relative to the
change of monthly payments as per the Loan Agreement as the first two ycars of loan
payback were for interest only. Beginning April 1,2000, the monthly payment includcs
principal and interest. As of April 20, the April payment has not been submitted. This
loan payback has been repeatedly late. Herbst questioned whether the City/EDA had a
late fee and Koropchak advised that after speaking with thc City Attorney, it was advised
that the policy states that failure to pay would be grounds to tcrminate loan immediately.
It was suggested that Koropchak send Mr. Bondhus a copy of that section of the policy.
Koropchak was also advised to call Mr. Bondhus and advise him of the discussion at the
EDA meeting.
b) Twin City Die Castings - The $500,000 grant to the City from the State will be loaned
to TCDC at an interest rate of 4% over 7 years. The payback will go into a separate
account established by the City and will be accounted for independent of the EDA-
GMEF. In the future, the City Council will approve revolving loans that utilize this
money, not the EDA. The Profile dollars will also be Federal dollars and must eomply
with Federal regulations.
c) Lender, lIRA, Council Workshop - Scheduled for May 3, 5:30 p.m. Discussion about
downtown redevelopment.
,.,
-.) ~
.
.
.
LDA Agenda - 4/25/00
8.
Other Business.
None
9. Adjournment.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY BILL DEMEULES AND SECONDED BY DARRIN
LAHR TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:30 P.M. Motion carried.
-4-
.
.
.
EDA Agenda - 8/29/00
4.
Consideration to review for aoprovaVdisaporoval the DMRF aoplic:ation for 113
West Broadwav.
A. ~ererenc:e and Bac:k~ound:
The OMRF application is from Kevin and Cindy Heaton, property owners of the building
occupied by Preferred Title and Mountain Top Christian Books and Gifts. Mr. Heaton
will inform the EDA of his revitalization improvement plans. Enclosed are the August 2,
2000 OAT minutes stating the design approval and OAT review. On August 16, 2000,
DAT approved one written cost estimates for this proposed revitalization improvement
(minutes not available.) You will note OAT approved three design options and
recommended the EOA consider amending the DMRF Guidelines to accommodate Plan
C. If Plan C is the desired plan of the EDA and property owner, please consider agenda
item #5 first, so DMRF No. 110 is approved in compliance of the guidelines.
Please consider the following when reviewing the Heaton application. This is based on
existing guidelines.
Puroose
Does the proposed project seek to promote the revitalization of downtown Monticello?
1. Enhances 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 compliance with
local codes and ordinances. Yes _ No
3. Encourages building rehabilitation to provide space suitable for the proposed use. Yes
No
4. Provides funding to close the "gap" between financing needed to undertake the project
and the amount raised by equity and private loans. Yes _ No -
5. Provides economic incentives to locate businesses in the downtown. Yes No
Target Area Preference given to Blocks 34,35,36,51,52, and 53, Original Plat.
This proposed project lies within the preferred area. Location Block 52.
1
.
EDA Agenda - 8/29/00
Facade Grants
*
Matching grant of $2,500 for eligible improvements to the front facade and
slgnage.
Option A
No recommendation is given. Are estimates comparative by work being
preformed?
Option B.
Option C.
Awning.
Recommendation 52,500.
Criteria to meet:
1. Do the improvements meet the applicable design guidelines and all codes and
ordinances?
Yes_ No
.
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.
Not Applicable.
1. Do the improvements meet the applicable design guidelines and all codes and
ordinances?
Yes_No
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.
Not Applicable.
1. Do the improvements meet the applicable design guidelines and all codes and
ordinances?
Yes_No
.
2
.
.
.
EDA Agenda - 8/29/00
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 100-10 of the total cost of the
improvements up to a maximum of $500.
Request?
Projected costs of city fees ?
Recommend up to $500 if applicable.
Non-Penonnance
The approved DMRF becomes null and void if funds are not drawn or disbursed within
270 days from date of ED A approval. May 29, 2001.
B. Alternative Action:
1.
A motion to approve DMRF No. 110 in the amount of $2,500 for front facade and
signage improvements and up to $500 for fee reimbursement at 113 West
Broadway. Terms and conditions as detennined.
2. A motion to deny approval ofDMRF at 113 West Broadway.
3. A motion to approve DMRF No. 110 in an amount greater than the current
guidelines in the amount of $ because of unusual circumstances or
upon amending the DMRF Guidelines.
3. A motion to table any action.
C. Recommendation:
Mr. Heaton dropped off the non-completed application and the bids. At this time, I'm
unclear as to Mr. Heaton's priority and I'm unclear as to the description of work within the
bids. However, regard less, the awning bid alone qualifies Mr. Heaton for the $2,500 front
facade grant. Recommendation alternative no. 1
D. Suoportine: Data:
Copy of the application from the Heatons, DAT minutes and review, and Claybaugh
drawing and recommendation, and bids
3
.
.
.
OPTION A. REPAINT BRICK
Houle
May 28, 2000
Sunrise
July 27, 2000
Sunrise
August 15, 2000
113 West Broadway
Heaton Building Estimates
Total $3,100 + Door.
$1,900
$4,950 (repaint, remove wood)
OPTION B - REMOVE PAINT AND TUCKPOINT
Sunrise
July 27, 2000
Sunrise
August 15, 2000
$2,500 (remove paint)
$4,950 (remove paintltuckpoint/remove wood)
OPTION C - REMOVE BRICK AND REPLACE
Murphy
August 23, 2000
Banyai August 15, 2000
AWNINGS
GJ Awning August 23, 2000
" "
$16,550 (remove brick, wood, and replace brick)
$19,795 (remove brick, replace brick)
Vinyl $7,500
Canvas $5,000
.
.
.
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
Kevin L. Heaton
21082 Franklin Road
Clearwater, MN 55320
Address of Applicant/Property Owner
Telephone Number of Applicant/Property Owner (320) 558-6795
Social Security of Applicant/Property Owner
11477-70-6023
Tax ID# of Applicant/Property Owner
II. Nature of Revitalization Fund Request:
Street Address of Revitalization Property
113 W Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
PID Number of Revitalization Property
\ ~~ ... () \e... oS ":)oloO
Legal Description of Revitalization Property - Block CS ";;t
\..e"\ \..0 ~ e \ ~ ').\' \ 0 " V\ . 0 <:v \...0\ S
Lot(s) l p
.. ~\ K S k
-- - - - -
Revitalization Property is currently:
Occupied x
Unoccupied
Prospective Occupant
If applicable, Name of Occupant (Business) or Prospective Occupant (Business)
Preferred Title
If applicable, brief description of the nature of the business of the occupant:
Preferred Title - Title work, abstracting and closing of loans.
1
-I
.
.
.
Downtown Monticello Revitalization Fund
Fund Application
ID. Type of Revitalization Fund Request:
A. Facade Grants
1. Front Facade and Signae:e Grant (Matching funds of up to $2,500)
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:
2. Rear Facade Grant (Matching funds of up to $2,500)
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:
2
.1
.
.
.
Downtown Monticello Revitalization Fund
Fund Application
3. Side Facade Grant (if applicable) (Matching funds of up to $2,500)
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:
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 (OAT).
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
-,
.
.
.
Downtown Monticello Revitalization Fund
Fund Application
IV. Lender Information:
Name of Participating Lender
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 and I/we agree to apply for and receive all applicable building pennits prior to
the start of work and to comply with all building inspection requirements.
r- ., d- co
Date
4
.,
.
Steve Houle
340 Spring St.
Clearwater, MN
May 28, 2000
Cindy & Kevin Heaton
Preferred Title, Inc.
113 W. Broadway
Monticello, MN
Re: proposed renovation
Dear Cindy & Kevin,
I am very happy to see you considering a renovation
of your building. I believe that it will come out well
and be valuable to the community, as well as to yourselves.
While it will not be exactly easy, it should be very
feasible, and fairly economical.
This is my cost estimate, and some notes. Parts of
this estimate I would be willing to turn into a firm bid,
but parts of it will have to be done time & material.
The "Proposed Renovation" prepared by Claybaugh
Preservation Architecture, Inc., is a very good plan, and
I suggest you stay with it, with the exception of two parts:
.
1. I am not optimistic that the paint will come off
the brick. It does not scratch off, and I expect that
it is in the pores of the mortar. I also would expect
quite a bit of patching -- mortar repairs from years
ago, and new patches that would have to be made. The
obvious solution is just to repaint, with a better
color plan. While this solution might be disappointing
to preservationists (and I consider myself to be a
preservationist), one must be aware that what isn't
affordable doesn't get done, and if it doesn't get done
it is not really preservation work. Anyway, in terms
of long-term hopes for preservation work on Broadway
Street, the issue won't be one coat of latex sticking
to another coat of latex, but this grey paint sticking
to brick, and mortar pores, and patch work.
2. Why paint the stucco on the east facade? It is a
decent, neutral color. Both the paint and the stucco
are in very good condition, and probably would not have
to be worked with for years. I am certainly willing
to paint it, but I would not call this preservation work.
Here are the estimates for the work:
1. Painting the upper brick (prep, material, labor,
Benjamin Moore latex, any color) $600
.
( 2)
.
<~/
2. Uncover transoms, remove signs, repair windows
(material and labor) $800 to $1800.
Could possibly be more, if the windows have broken
glass, or are in such bad shape that major parts
have to be replaced. My honest guess, based on what
I can see -- and I can't see much -- is that it would
take about four days and about $200 in material, so
around $1000. This is an area where you will have to
accept some risk; we won't know what is there until
we take the wood off, and then it will have to be dealt
with anyway. But I think you should go ahead with this
part despite the risk. Chances are things will be
okay, and this will improve the look of the building
dramatically.
3. Restoring the west door, jamb, trim, and sill
(material and labor) $550.
4. Restoring the door to Mountain Top ???
It will be costly to make a new door. Perhaps MCP
could find one to match. I can hang it and restore
it. Two days of labor and $150 in material would be
typical.
.
I hope this answers some of your questions. Please
feel free to call me anytime, at 558-6792. The best times
to reach me are early morning or evening. Good luck.
Sincerely,
.
Received: 7/27/2000 1 :14PM; .>pre~erred Tit1e xno.; N616; Page 1
Thursday. July 27, 2000 1 :08 PM DENNIS L. WOLD 7632638891
p.01
unrise
19805 172nd SL 81 Lake. MN 55309
763.263.2312 ex 763-263-8891 mbl 612414.5225
PROJECT: PREFERRED TITLE
MONTICELLO
REMOVE PAINT FROM BUILDING FRONT MASONRY
ALTERNATE. REPAINT BUILDING FRONT MASONR'
$2.500.00
$1.900.00
ATERIALS, eQUIPMENT, TAX INCLUDED.
ADDENDA
00
DENNIS WOLD
Or OM
Do
DATE
7!~7/af.>
.
.
.
.
,-,-="" .L1.:I.'C;4.~'{.'
.1.1-.,:."1
~~c~c~~~~ 't.~e ~ l~~~~=l~(~~
7:::32:::3<:991
T~"lSda~ AuguSt ~5. 2000 1020 AM ::'ENNI'E L. welO 76,203&l91
PROJECT: PREFERRED TITLE
MONTICEI.LO
-
810 FOR SECTION:
ClelKl Mf paint Of repaint brick
Miscellaneous Tuckpointing
Remove Wood Fa~
BASE 810
".960.00
lABOR. MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, TAX INCLUDED.
~~~
DENNIS WOLD
0tl OT UM OD
ADDENDA
t-;c. .,81 [;1(:)01
pCt
DATE 8'. /5- DO
Pl-{OP()SAL
FROM:
t3 d.b f1 v'JIA y ell .
eo 0 I3tJA Ie; 2.-
/"1~
P~ES]
PAl_.!:': IJl./.
'_,I
DATE ~~
1,- d
_ ___,.~' ~w_~
JOB NAME i:-
f}. <::: <:';- ,. <:: (:-l___L!jL.~ --r
ADDRESS ~
Po 13 A I J lA/e f :;-~1
CITY / STATE{ ZIP
'1" I) 1; C! ~ II ~_L'2K_S2" J.2.
tONE
)
-~-~.
_._~_.- .'-~-
1
I
I
I
I
I~~ve
!
hereby submit :;pecifications and estimat.es for:
Aa.rno V'<..- 0 I e4 I3YJ1 G k
" e n1 0 V <.... ' l,A/o C tll C' V<"'y ~ ~ Yl P
f..-... j f,/ f JI/ '" V" 13,- ,', If
.
( 3 ?6)
Sf'y' fLj- /'
- ,~------------,.-.-...---...-.
_ ._~...,__,~..-........_~",,-~..I.iI',,^~_.,_',....o:.L, :-...-...._ ....-~----..,....-- ~---~~
...
! . '5 ; J\' 1.:.=..v /l
I
I
I
ir:::;:~5':;I:;:' 'H-:~:Jit.lJ;~'":)'2;?~~~;:~:'",,;':::: ;::i~:'",',:',',,::: ;~:,~:'
."Ii l1Iakri;'\ i_~~l\;lr:il::"I>d 1<> Iii' as S!)I'('i:i"d_ ,\11 \\orl; [.. II,' ('IIIllPld,'d ill ;1 WOI'!,llI;\l1li1;.. llI;ill!!"!' :,," -nli!'; " _'1:1:"1;,(,;1 i";\,'1 ill" \11\
;:!It'ralion
li :1t-\'ial;PII I'rolll :,iIlI\V '!H',d';.,;t\iplls i!l\-ohi!l~ ,,\[,',\ ,",sl_~ \\ill iil' "\I'('I;Io'd 'i1il,\" Ilplll' II :'ll("11 lllii'\"'. ,,;lIl \.. ,', (""'lill' :,:1 i'\lr-~
diargt' elver
,,11,1 alloV\' rill' l'sLid,(lU', ,\11 i1;.;1'I'\'ll\l'1I1.' l'(JlIlill,~\'lil iqiti!i,ll"Ikt,S, il('l'idl'IIIS, Ill' ([\'I.W' 11"\ nil lillr ".ilil!IIi. '1' '1';11': iTPjI'''';.': ,"lIl'jl'CI
III (In:i:'[Jtance
wilhin1....9 (lays and is void L1H'I\'a(lvr at till' <![Jtilln of tlit" HII' iglh' I ~.. ~./!~. . .' . .
" ,_.___ ,. _________,_____,\lIll,.,j 1/,'d ;-d'.!.,JI<dli'-.A -9..t:-Z/1___ ".----___--. ______. ,m.__ /
. ,I,t, '-," =-1' .'.::;:-. '; /h" ':F~:~ ' -... '
;~s O:.lt'l(i~;~l~S;:;~,(.sjJcriric;lllli!\~ ;dld cOl\ditilill~ an'l\('rl'b:~ Ih'u'pll'd, Ylil: an' aLl(liuriZ~l'dlli dll :11\' \Ililk ;~i'.'l'l\l--:i-i\"1. ~'I\lliI'llt' willi!!' wad\'
ACCEPTED: " ------- t'-:' ,... -.., ----....
~lgll.llun'~.- ,,~_~_ , ~~
I >aC.'
e .!. CON I fiAC I Uh~; I' l)] IM~,
?-.#3-<:T7J
I UI,M NU. LL 1:.:0
Signatllrl'
Af'HE
---
08/16/2000
11 :34
PREFERRED TITLE ~ 13202510722
NO.081
[il882
.
Proposal Propo.al N9.
.ROM BA NY A \ MASONRY sh..t No.
n 9 ox 12 '3
MOil Tin II 0 H~, 55382 Dot.
JEF F BAN Y ~ I 963-3105 $ -IS"00
Propo$al 5ubmitl.d To Work To 8. Performed Jt.t
Norne-1..r.t..f e ~ e c: d. 7~'fI(' r"C.o "~,, i'" II , ~J &i/,ON
./"~ .Jo' Str..1
Slre.t _--11J t' -11 d ..., t Po Bait 121 T City (Yi41d.c.-cl1o Slote_~' -=
City /1lol'1 ;fO( J. Date of I'Io"s_ ~----
Stallr 1'11;1 .rchitect
Telephone Number 2 '15' . (; / VO
_ ,We hereb)' _Pl9po.. to fu.nilh oU Ih. mal.riol. (lnd perfo"" (;Ill tl1'I~~J~L!"o.~~s~r)'J,I)' t~e c~~p!.~li~tl of . ......
=- f~fYlollt old B r/c. ~ u~,,~(e {,.O~ fre"+ 0.1 B..., lJ"'.j -----
----
Kt'1) Ja. 4 t: II r,L I. U <t /'7<:"(, R
/
-' I ~b,R Iria.~I"(( l.s :7;,c/"Jc d .I /'7 7 'S~CO
.r
- -
~--
.11 material is guo.onteed to be as Ipecifled. C1nd the obov@ work to b. performed in occordo"c. ",itk the dfl;"...ings
arod specificolions submitted for aX"e work .,n~ completed in a .ub,'antial workmonlike monner for the su", of
t',-ntr!e'l 7h"W$~..d .sc'I/~'" "....Jr(J r1,~ r,'",c /)~I/"tj -----------.. Ooller. 1$ /7 7 '500 ).
with payments to b. mode as follows: -rk'rJ h .",.'.1 I.~ J
C>,,~ dew..... j)i:~ d ,", ",t I 1>~1. t...: J.OI
I T
.
Any ell.ration o. deviation from obove speciflcalions ,"vol\lin9 elltra cosh, win be .lI.o;uted anI)' ...pon wril1en (nderl, and will
become on e.dra choloe over Qnd obo"e the .,timote. All ogreements conllngent upon strikes, acciden" or delays beyc>nd Ollr
.;ont.ol. Owner to carry fire, tornado and other ".ceuary insurance IIpQl\ above work. Workmen's Comf'lensation and p"blic
Liability In.urolice art above work 10 be laken oul by -
e.~f+Y A I' fifASON R Y fJtr () l~/
PO BOX 1 t 13 Respectfully submitted ---
MOItTlCEUO HH. 5536Z 1/
P.r ";I
JEFF HAH1A' 963-3705 --
Note _ This propo~ol lTIay be withd.own by U$ if nol accepted within 30 days
. -
ACCEP'1' ANCE OF PROPOSAL
Th. obov~ p,j"u. Jpecif;.-;o';on. ..no condition. ore soti.factor,! and ar. her~y accepted. '(ou a.. ailthori1l!d 10 do the work ai
,petlned. Paymenl will b. ",ade as outlined above,
Acc.pted - Signature -- .---.--'-._~ -_.~.
Ogle. . Signolure_ ..~_...............----------,----
, I
.
.
.
.
.
cG 17 J,l''W k\Jf jf It'1 ~ A H JJ cG ~1 ~'1V ),1 $
f:d) Phone 320-255-1733 Fax 320-255-0130
1-800-467-1744
August 23, 2000
Kevin Heaton
Farmers
2803 Clearwater Road
St. Cloud MN 56301
Kevin,
The tollowing is the information you requested after our conversation today. Please let me
know if there is any more I can do tor you.
Ballpark investments for awnings in the approximate size of 50' long 24" to 30"
projection and 48" to 54" tall, with moderate graphics.
V inyl will be betwcl.:n $ 140.00 and $160.00 per toot, making your a\vning around
$ 750(J.OO. Canvas will be bdween $ lW.OO and $ 100.00 per liwL mak.ing your av.lllllg
around $ 5000.00.
These are budget numbers and could go eithl.:r way alkr mon: inJi,>r1llulioll.
1260 10th Street North
Sa uk Rapidsl MN 56379
.
.
.
MINUTES
Special Meeting - Design Advisory Team
Wednesday, August 2 - 1O:30am
Monticello City Hall - Academy Room
tvIEMBERS 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
.
.
.
and repair will be completed. Plan C includes all items from plan A except that the front
fayade 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 I 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 DMRF
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 fayade 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
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 of Proposed Facade Improvements:
See attached
Improvements in conformance with the Design Guidelines:
All improvements listed in the report by Bob Claybough are in conformance with the Design
Guidelines.
.
Improvements in non-conformance 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 ref aced 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
facade. 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.
Proposed Renovation
Chemically strip paint from brick masonry street facade.
Repoint open mortar joints and reset loose brick.
Paint stucco east facade to match brick.
Remove wood covering over transom windows, repair and repaint window frames. Paint back of glass
a neutral color if transoms are not opened on the Interior.
Install painted signs on the lintel over the storefront and on the storefront glass.
Install retractable fabric awning at the top of the transom windows (not shown).
Replace aluminum door at Mountain Top entry with wood door to match the exis1ing wood door.
Preferred Title, Inc
113 West Broadway, Monticello, Minnesota
PT-02
Apr. 10,2000
CCLAYBAUGH PRESERVATION ARCHITECTURE INC
CCLAYBAUGH PRESERVATION ARCHITECTURE INC
. 361 W. Government St. Taylors Falls. Minnesota 55084
Site Visit Report
113 West Broadway/MCPOl
Preferred Title, Inc.
Monticello, Minnesota
Date: March 9, 2000
Participants: Pam Campbell, MCP
Amanda Gaetz, MCP
Sheila O'Btyan, MCP
Dennis Anderson, MCP
Cindy Heaton, Building Owner
Bob Claybaugh CP Ai
.
1. Building Use:
1.1. Existing:
A. The building is divided into two storefronts. This appears to be the original configuration
of the building. The building owner, Preferred Title, Inc. occupies the east storefront and
a tenant, Mountain Top, occupies the west storefront.
B. Preferred Title, Inc. has recently completed an extensive interior remodeling of their
office space.
C. There are no proposed changes in the building use at this time.
2. Issues:
2.1. Storefront:
A. The storefront layout appears to date from the 1930's photograph except that the transom
windows have been covered, and the alwninum and glass display windows that probably
were installed in the 1950' s.
B. The brick bulkheads below the display windows were probably installed at the same time
as the aluminum and glass storefront.
C. A beam supports the brick upper wall of the building across the storefront openings
without intermediate columns.
2.2. Building Materials:
A. The east fa9ade wall adjacent to the vacant lot was originally a party wall to a building
that has been demolished. That wall has been stuccoed to provide a weathertight wall.
The stucco is in good condition but the color does not match the brick on the street
fayade.
B. The original smooth red brick on the street fayade has been painted gray with red to
accent the corbelled cornice. The brick under the paint appears to be in good condition.
.
tel 651.465.7900 . fax 651.465.3505
.
.
.
c.
There are some displaced brick at the cornice on the east end.
3. Recommendations:
3.1. Storefront:
A. Remove the exterior wood covering over the transoms windows, repair and repaint the
window framing. If the transoms are not to be opened up to the building interior, the back
of the glass will probably have to be painted a dark neutral color. The exterior face of the
glass transoms could be used for a painted business sign.
B. Install a retractable fabric awning at the top of the transom windows.
C. Replace the entry door push/pull with a latching lever entry to reduce door blow open.
D. Replace weatherstripping for a more positive seal.
E. Replace door closer with an ADA approved closer.
3.2. Building Materials:
A. The stucco east fa9ade should be painted with a masonry paint to complement the street
fa9ade brick color.
E. The paint should be chemically stripped from the street fa9ade brick. It appears that only
one coat of paint has been applied, so removal may not be very difficult. A qualified
contractor should test strip a small piece of the brick to determine the appropriate
materials and methods of paint stripping. The paint-stripping test will allow the
contractor to determine a price for stripping the entire fa9ade.
C. Open mortar joints should be repointed with matching mortar and loose brick reset in the
same mortar.
Prepared by,
CLAYBAUGH PRESERV AnON ARCHITECTURE INC
Robert J. Claybaugh AlA
File: mcpOl-sv-030900
.
.
.
EDA Agenda - 8/29/00
s.
Consideration to discuss and adopt a resolution aDlendinc tbe DMRF Guidelines.
FACADE GRANTS and REHABll..ITATION WAN.
A. Reference and Backeround:
Attached are the DMRF Guidelines. Consideration to amend the guidelines is based on
the recommendation from OAT. At the DAT meeting, a member expressed the Preferred
Title building was one of the few building remaining with brick front facade and if the
brick after removal of the paint was not of condition to remain unpainted, they preferred
replacing the brick rather than repainting the existing brick. Additionally, they noted the
DMRF dollars were not being spend.
Recommendation: In no way, would I recommend exceeding the maximum amount of
$25,000 per applicant. To exceed $25,000 would require the EDA to establish a business
subsidy criteria with wage and job criteria. This would defeat our purpose.
Ifthe EOA sees a need to amend the guidelines perhaps an increase of $500 per side
facade grant is recommended. Although, I'm hesitant to begin amending the dollar
amount of the guidelines at this time. Amending the OMRF guidelines would require a
motion to adopt a resolution. Thereafter, Koropchak would prepare a resolution for
Council consideration.
I
.
.
.
DOWNTOWN MONTICELLO REVITALIZATION FUND GUIDELINES
CITY OF MONTICELLO
505 WALNUT STREET, SUITE 1
MONTICELLO, MN 55362
(763) 271-3208
PURPOSE
The Monticello Downtown and Riverfront Plan provides a guide for development in the
downtown area. As part of its efforts to implement the Plan, the Monticello Economic
Development Authority (EDA) offers financial assistance and incentives to property owners
through a program known as the Downtown Monticello Revitalization Fund (DMRF).
The DMRF seel\s to promote the revitalization of downtown Monticello by:
*
Enhancing storefronts and facades in accordance with the design guidelines in the
Plan.
*
Encouraging the rehabilitation of building interiors to bring them into compliance
with local codes and ordinances.
*
Encouraging building rehabilitation to provide space suitable for the proposed use.
*
Providing funding to close the "gap" between financing needed to undertake the
project and the amount raised by equity and private loans.
*
Providing economic incentives to locate businesses in the Downtown.
These guidelines describe the funding parameters and eligibility criteria for programs offered by
the EDA Meeting the eligibility criteria does not entitle an applicant to funding. The distribution
of funds is the sole decision of the EDA
TARGET AREA
These financial incentives and assistance will be available for existing buildings within the planning
area described in the Downtown and Riverfront Plan. Preference will be given to property
located in Blocks 34,35,36,51,52, and 53, Original Plat, City of Monticello.
1
.
.
.
DMRF GUIDELINES
FACADE GRANTS
The EDA may provide matching grants in the following amounts:
*
Up to $2,500 for eligible improvements to the front facade and signage.
*
Up to $2,500 for eligible improvements to promote improvements to the rear
sections of the buildings.
*
Up to $2,500 for eligible improvements to the side facade (if applicable).
To be eligible for grant funds, projects must meet the following criteria:
*
Improvements must comply with applicable design guidelines and all codes and
ordinances including building permits and inspections.
*
The grant will match private investment up to the stated limit.
*
Grant funds will be provided after completion of the improvements.
*
Applicants will provide the EDA with documentation of the actual cost of the
improvements.
Meeting the eligibility criteria does not entitle an applicant to funding. The distribution of grant
funds is the sole decision of the EDA.
REHABILIT ATION LOAN
The EDA may provide loans for the rehabilitation of existing buildings. The maximum loan
amount is the lesser of25% oftotal cost of improvements or $20,000. To be eligible for
rehabilitation loans, projects must meet the following criteria:
*
Improvements must comply with applicable design guidelines and all codes and
ordinances including building permits and guidelines.
*
Applicants must provide proof of financing for costs not funded by the grant.
*
Loan amortization schedule not exceed ten (10) years, balloon payment in five (5)
years.
2
.
.
.
DMRF GUIDELINES
*
The interest rate on the loan will be two percent (2%) below the Prime Rate. The
EDA may reduce the interest rate to encourage the reuse ofa currently vacant
building, the retention of an existing business, or the creation of a new business.
*
The rehabilitation loan will be in a subordinated position to the lender.
FEE REIMBURSEMENT
The EDA may grant reimbursement of City fees associated with undertaking improvement and
revitalization projects in the downtown area. The amount of the reimbursement will be the
equivalent often percent (10%) of the total cost of the improvements up to a maximum of$500.
Fees eligible for reimbursement include building permits, other city inspections, and land use
ordinances. To be eligible for fee reimbursement, projects must meet the following criteria:
*
Projects must comply with applicable design guidelines and all codes and
ordinances including building permits and inspections.
*
Reimbursement will be made after completion of the improvements.
*
Reimbursement will be based on documentation of actual improvement costs and
fees paid.
MAXIMUM FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
The maximum amount of financial assistance available to each rehabilitation property is an amount
not to exceed $25,000.
NON-PERFORMANCE
Approved DMRF shall be null and void iffunds are not drawn or disbursed within 270 days from
date of ED A approval.
ORGANIZATION
The Downtown Monticello Revitalization Fund is administered by the City of Monticello
Economic Development Authority (EDA), which is a seven-member board consisting oftwo
Council members and five appointed members. EDA members are appointed by the Mayor and
confirmed by the City Council. Formal meetings are held on a quarterly basis. Please see the
by-laws of the EDA for more information on the structure of the organization that administers the
Downtown Monticello Revitalization Fund (DMRF).
3
.
.
.
DMRF GWDELINES
PAR TICIP A TING LENDING INSTITUTION
1. Participating lending institution shall be determined by the DMRF applicant.
2. Participating lending institution shall cooperate with the EDA and assist in carrying out
the policies of the DMRF as approved by the City Council.
3. Participating lending institution shall analyze the funding application and indicate to the
EDA the level at which the lending institution will participate in the finance package.
LOAN APPLICATION/ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES
The EDA desires to make the DMRF application process as simple as possible. However, certain
procedures must be followed prior to EDA consideration of a loan request. Information
regarding the program and procedures for obtaining funding is as follows:
City Staff Duties:
The Economic Development Director, working in conjunction with the Assistant City
Administrator, shall carry out DMRF operating procedures as approved by the EDA and Council.
Staff is responsible for assisting an applicant in the application process and will work with the
applicant in development of the necessary information.
Apolication Process:
1. The applicant will meet with city staff to obtain information about the DMRF, discuss the
proposed project, and obtain a funding application form and a copy of Section 3, 4, and 5
of the Design Guidelines of the Downtown and Riverfront Plan within the Monticello
Comprehensive Plan.
Staffwill direct the applicant to contact the Design Advisory Team as a resource for
suggestions and review of improvements which comply with the design guidelines, codes,
and ordinances of the Downtown and Riverfront Plan within the Monticello
Comprehensive Plan.
Staff will request the applicant contact a lending institution regarding financing needs and
indicate to applicant that further action by the EDA on the potential loan will require
indication of support from a lending institution.
2.
The applicant shall complete a DMRF application. Staffwill review the application for
consistency with the policies set forth in the Downtown Monticello Revitalization Fund
Guidelines.
4
.
.
.
DMRF GillDELINES
3.
City staff will accept the findings of a lending institution regarding applicant credit and
financial viability of the project. EDA approval will require a letter of support from the
lending institution. Upon receipt of the letter of support, City staff shall submit a written
recommendation to the EDA and a decision regarding the application shall be made by the
EDA within 14 days of submittal of the letter of support from the lending institution.
4.
The ED A shall have authority to approve or deny the financial assistance of the
Downtown Monticello Revitalization Fund.
5.
The EDA shall not disburse approved DMRF without a written acknowledgment from the
Design Advisory Team that construction of the improvements are complete and comply
with applicable design guidelines and all codes and ordinances.
6.
The EDA shall not disburse approved DMRF (grants and reimbursement) without certified
documentation of the actual costs of the improvements and completion of the
improvements.
7.
The EDA shall not disburse the approved DMRF (loan) without proof of financing for
costs not funded by the grant and execution of the loan closing documents.
ORIGINAL FUNDING
SOURCE - Economic Development Authority, Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund
AMOUNT - $200,000 (F or Year Ending December 31, 1999).
The EDA shall disburse approved DMRF dollars from the payback of GMEF Liquor Fund dollars
at such time the approved DMRF is disbursed.
REPORTING
Staff shall submit quarterly summaries and/or an annual report detailing the status of the DMRF.
FUND GUIDELINE MODIFICATION
At a minimum, the EDA shall review the Fund Guidelines on an annual basis. No changes to the
DMRF guidelines shall be instituted without prior approval ofthe City Council.
5
.
.
.
DMRF GUIDELINES
LOAN ADMINISTRATION
1. City staff shall service and monitor all loans, matching grants, and fee reimbursements.
2. All loan documents shall include at a minimum, a note and mortgage.
DMRF Guidelines 7/97
DMRF Guidelines amended 2/98
DMRF Guidelines amended 5/98
DMRF Guidelines amended 3/99
DMRF Guidelines amended 2/00
6
.
.
.
EDA Agenda - 8/29/00
6.
Consideration to review for approval/disapproval the DMRF application for 216
West Broadwav.
A. Reference and Backeround:
The DMRF application is from Bruce and Cynthia Hamond, property owners of the
building to be occupied by The Sweetest Things. Mr. Hamond will inform the EDA of his
revitalization improvement plans. Enclosed are the August 2,2000 DAT minutes stating
the design approval and the DAT review. On August 16,2000, DAT approved one
written cost estimate for this proposed revitalization improvement (minutes not available.)
If the EDA elected to amend the DMRF Guidelines under agenda item #5, this may affect
the approval amount of this application as well.
Please consider the following when reviewing the Hamond application. This is based on
existing guidelines.
Pwvose
Does the proposed project seek to promote the revitalization of downtown Monticello?
1. Enhances 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 compliance with
local codes and ordinances. Yes No
3. Encourages building rehabilitation to provide space suitable for the proposed use. Yes
No
4. Provides funding to close the "gap" between financing needed to undertake the project
and the amount raised by equity and private loans. Yes _ No _
5. Provides economic incentives to locate businesses in the downtown. Yes No
Target Area Preference given to Blocks 34,35,36,51,52, and 53, Original Plat.
This proposed project lies within the preferred area. Location Block 36.
1
.
EDA Agenda - 8/29/00
Facade Grants
*
Matching grant of up to $2,500 for eligible improvements to the front facade and
slgnage.
Request $2,500. Projected cost of improvements $9,200. Equity $6,700.
Recommended $2,500.
Criteria to meet:
1. Do the improvements meet the applicable design guidelines and all codes and
ordinances?
Yes No
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 $4,750. Equity $2,250.
Recommended $2,375. Equity S2,375.
.
1. Do the improvements meet the applicable design guidelines and all codes and
ordinances?
Yes No
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 west side S2,500. Projected cost of improvements $3,250. Equity 5750.
Recommended SI,625. Equity SI,625.
Request east side $2,500. Projected cost of improvements $7,000. Equity $4,500.
Recommended S2,500. Equity $4,500.
1. Do the improvements meet the applicable design guidelines and all codes and
ordinances?
Yes No
.
2
EDA Agenda - 8/29/00
.
2. Does the amount of the grant match the amount of the private investment up to the
stated limit? Yes No
Rehabilitation Loan
For rehabilitation of existing buildings. Max amount lesser of25% of total cost or
520,000.
Request 520,000. Projected costs of improvements $31,576. Equity $11,576. Lender
520,000.
Recommend 510,644 (25% of $42,576). GrantIFeeI $9,500. Lender 522,432. Equity
Determine Tenn:
Interest Rate
Prime rate 9.500/., August 25, 2000.
1. Do the improvements meet the applicable design guidelines and all codes and
ordinances including building permits and inspections? Yes _ No
.
2.
Has the applicant provided proof of financing for costs not funded by the grant?
Yes No
3. Is the Rehabilitation Loan in a subordinated position to the Lender?
Yes No
Fee Reimbursement
Reimbursement of City fees in an amount equivalent of 100.10 of the total cost of the
improvements up to a maximum of $500.
Request $SOO. City waive fees.
Recommend up to 5500.
Projected costs of city fees? Unknown.
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. May 29, 2001.
.
3
.
.
.
EDA Agenda - 8/29/00
B.
Alternative Action:
1. A motion to approve DMRF No. 111 in the amount of$2,500 for front facade and
signage improvements, in the amount of $2,375 for the rear facade improvements,
in the amount of$I,625 for the west side facade improvements, in the amount of
$2,500 for the east side facade improvements, in the amount of up to $500 for fee
reimbursement, and in the amount of $10,644 for a Rehabilitation Loan at 216
West Broadway. Terms and conditions as determined.
2. A motion to deny approval ofDMRF for 216 West Broadway.
3. A motion to approve DMRF No. 216 in amounts other than Alternative No.1.
4. A motion to table any action.
c.
Recommendation:
Recommendation is Alternative No. 1 subject to commitment letter or letter of support
from Fint Minnesota Bank, improvements completed in compliance of DA T
approval, and in compliance with all codes and ordinances including building permits
and inspections. Interest rate of2% below prime is 7.5%, however, the DMRF Guideline
state the EDA may reduce the rate to encourage revitalization. I have spoke with Kevin
Doty of First Minnesota Bank who will up date me after his conversation with Bruce
Hamond. The lender is supportive of the EDA's effort for downtown revitalization and has
no problem with the amounts recommended.
D.
Supuortina: Data:
Copy of the application from the Hamonds, DAT minutes, Claybaugh drawings and
recommendations.
4
.
.
.
Project Cost including permit fee =
Less Facade Grant
Less Fee Reimbursement
EDA Loan
Lender
EDA
DMRF
216 West Broadway
Guidelines
$42,576
$ 9,000
$ 500
$10,644
$22,432
$20,144
Request
$42,576
$10,000
$ 500
$20,000
$12,076
$30,500
EDA Max $25,000
EDA Max ($4,856)
Loan 25% of project costs of $42,576 ($10,644) or $20,000 which is less.
Applicant proof of financing of costs not funded by the grant.
Two written estimates, any deviation must be approved by DAT.
.
.
.
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 ApplicantlProperty Owner ~ /1. (' -t;;!; -:;i~JA J
Address of Applicant/Property Owner ~ i 0~ - ~
Telephone Number of ApplicantlProperty Owner ~j 1-.7iS:' 50t:.t::
Social Security of ApplicantIProperty Owner 5."6(" -7t/~ / 1)):...
Tax ID# of ApplicantIProperty Owner --LL)....- tJ/O --L1.Jt - jlJ
II.
Nature of Revitalization Fund Request:
Street Address of Revrt&izatioo Property;~~: ). f~~']y 4;;dl
PID Number of Revitalization Property /:: (. oj J V..)
-
on Property - Block .5 6
Lot(s) ~
Revitalization Property is currently:
Occupied ~'
Prospective Occupant
Unoccupied
If applicable, brief de~cription ~f the nature of the busine~s of th~c~upant: ?~'__
(!;)jL jAr,' /o,lJ)cA - s;:.cr/ I",~~L ,[jV-P,-.yC,y"
~ _' )" ;: / /&"r ~r J .f;UJfh 7:dh I"
f,ej)& e,:.1//,-, L / ()tfr...e ~G c'
1
-,
.
.
.
Downtown Monticello Revitalization Fund
Fund Application
III. Type of Revitalization Fund Request:
A. Facade Grants
1. Front Facade and Signalle Grant (Matching funds of up to $2,500)
Amount of Request $ 25'0 \ )
Amount of Equity $ & F7 ~
,
Projected Cost of Improvements $
Amount of Private Loans $
'91~
~
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 i7provements for which applicant is seeking funds:
~t: CI J[~~i!:..t/ ":e?6O;J}A/JeNd~;;;:)~ ~Lr;.J1V S J
2. Rear Facade Grant (Matching funds of up to $2,500)
,..
Amount of Request $ 2 I LV
Amount of Equity $ .2. ;J:jB
Projected Cost of Improvements $ ~'I S:,
Amount of Private Loans $ <f
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:
,
/. /-!a~.Jt.lcr <"AJh-,.J~
:2 · 4h~ ~CC:I /"
)
);;{ qt/e
LA-J .I .. 77. /-I'e ~ V
-hL'd~;; -Z:' /'~4?;/)
2
-,
cL~
- ----"
;. :'::'L)..-v /
.
.
.
Downtown Monticello Revitalization Fund
Fund Application
3. Side Facade Grant (ifapolicable) (Matching funds of up to $2,500)
..
~j 01/
Amount of Request $ ::;Uf~O...:> Projected Cost ofImprovements $
~ ~ ?- ~""'D
~ ~ 7.
Amount of Equity $ ~ 5rr Amount of Private Loans $
~gD~ <;"0
f7:Q \f??-
I
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 ~crip~n of the improvement~ for whifh applic~is ~ng funds: ,-. ~ t
/. .....L: "L.JI;: It_!! .AJc.lA-- S"; ~A.;)rl,-:; -'-/J/!~) )L/~:::: \-JO -J
2 · .J:;v,7:-! i A;.. t!tJv jj Ii f)/"".7./ A ~ / r'J
B. Rehabilitation Loan (Maximum amount is the lesser of25% of total cost of the
improvements or $20,000)
Amount of Request $:JD t"'Jz:>O Projected Cost of Improvements $ :?j.:s "'7t
j
Amount of Equity $ 1/..1'96'" Amount of Private Loans $ .:Ji)(('),.;;0
-
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)
--- y'
Amount of Request $ ~W Projected Cost of City Fees $ 4.,k/ X;(./g...., .-'
U~ ~U /;'l'C: 37/e-. L;~ -/0 0-fO;/t:.
4.Jj! ~e;: I~JVV(~L'-" ~ y: VJ ~~S:.-r
-,
.
.
.
Downtown Monticello Revitalization Fund
Fund Application
IV. Lender Information:
Name of Participating Lender M ...Jc.
Contact Person ~ ~ 0'\ ~
~t ~
/ -
01 /;)~ 7;,.,. ..e-
Telephone number
I/we certifY that all information provided in this application is true and correct to the best of
my/our knowledge and I/we agree to a y for and receive all applicable building permits prior to
the start of work and to comply wit all ilding inspection requirements
~~)
Signature of Applicant/Property Owner Date
-I
4
.
.
.
Work Paper
Project:#: 9700025 Work Paper#: 232B_DMRF108.DOC
Project Desc: 214 E. Broadway Commerical Property
Org Date: May 19, 1998
Rev Date:
Document #: Re.construction Project DMRF# 108
Subject: Material and Labor Punch List
Work Unit Description
Phase
Material/Labor cost
This project will be completed in 2 phases over one year. This is due to a new business "The
Sweetest Things on Broadway" opening in August. Phase I items will be identified with PH I.
Phase II items will be identified with PH II.
Rear Facade (1200sq')
$4,750
$ 250
$ 700
$1,200
$ 400
Fix rear entrance door.
Install handicap entrance ramp.
Replace existing siding with 6" vinal siding
Paint
Supplies
Misc
Labor
PHI
PH I
PH II
PH I
$1,000
$1,200
$9,200
$1 ,200
Front Facade (1200 sq')
Remove frame canopy with 6" vinal siding PH
Remove existing second floor window shutters PH
Replace existing siding with narrow lap siding PH
Cover brick facade with wood PH
Replace upper wood cornice casement. PH
Remove air conditioner-install on East side PH
Remove heater vent to east side PH
Cover front window aluminum in wood trim PH
Replace trim boards on East side PH
Paint both doors to match PH
Remove front door and stairs PH
Install center door with display windows PH
Paint
Supplies
Mise
Labor
$1,200
$2,200
$ 600
$1,000
$1,000
$2,000
$3,250
$ 550
West Side Facade ( 3720 sq')
Replace sheet vynal asbestos with new siding.
Replace sheet vynal asbestos with holes.
Replace lower trim boards.
Install roof sofets
Paint
Supplies
Misc
Labor
PH I
PH I
PH I
PH II
$ 300
$ 600
$ 300
$ 500
$1,000
~
~e.-<:.P-'~,,<,--Cn .
~ So'
. Work Paper
Project:#: 9700025 Work Paper #: 232B_DMRF108.DOC
Project Desc: 214 E. Broadway Commerical Property
Org Date: May 19, 1998
Rev Date:
Document #: Re-construction Project DMRF# 108
Subject: Material and Labor Punch List
Work Unit Description Phase Material/Labor cost
East Side Facade (3720 sq') $7,000
Replace existing siding with 6" vinal siding PH \I $3,700
Replace trim boards PH \I
Install upper level airconditioning PH II
Replace windows PH II $ 600
Install roof sofets PH \I $ 300
Paint $ 600
Supplies $ 300
Misc $ 500
Labor $1,000
Miscellanous $2,000
. Paint the entire building. PHI $1,000
Supplies
Mise
Dumpster $ 500
Permit $ 500
Labor
Lower level interior repairs $10,076
Repair and replace plumbing PH I $3,924
Bathroom replacement and code repair PH I $4,152
Kitchen/food prep area
Ceiling tile
Electrical PHI $2,000
Upper level interior repairs $5,800
Replace airconditioning units PH" $ 600
Replace flooring PH \I $1,000
Replace doors PH \I $ 600
Paint PH 1\ $ 600
Electrical PH II $1,000
Misc repairs PH" $2,000
. Total $
Total Project Cost $ 42,076
.
and repair will be completed. Plan C includes all items from plan A except that the front
fayade brick will be removed and replaced with new or refurbished brick, with the
Wlderstanding 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 DMRF
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 fayade 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
.
.
.
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 Bruce Hamond
Property Owner Bruce and Cindy Hamond
Building Address 214 West Broadway
Sketch of Proposed Facade Improvements:
See attached
Improvements in conformance with the Design Guidelines:
All improvements listed in the report by Bob Claybaugh are in conformance with the Design
Guidelines.
Improvements in non-confonnance with the Design Guidelines:
On the applicant's materials list vinyl siding is suggested as a possible material for the exterior
of the building. The Design Advisory Team cannot approve the use of this material as it is
completely out of character for the age of this building and runs contrary to the Design Guidelines.
However masonite is also listed as a possible exterior material. This is a wood product, that
looks, feels and acts like wood and would be far superior aesthetically than vinyl. In the applicant's
list of prices, vinyl and masonite are the same,
Please note: The DA T August 2, 2000 minutes under number 4, the word masonry is used
incorrectly. It should read masonite.
Design Advisory Team Recommendation: To approve the application with the provision that
masonite, not vinyl siding be used.
Comments: This building on Monticello's main street is one of the oldest and certainly worthy of
this rehabilitation. In many small towns these clapboard buildings burned within a few years of being
built. In many cases they were replaced with brick structures which are less likely to bum.
Monticello has 3 of these clapboard buildings on the 200 block of West Broadway, two of which are
owned by the Hamonds. The owners are to be commended for their efforts in the revitalization of
historic downtown Monticello.
~
---=~-=at~---
-~::-j
_,__,_~~~'~'~"~____"'_"_"'7'~__~~__~"~......--""~~~_.....-------'.W~--,~.~
--,~~...~._-~~-""'_._-~----~~~--,~"'-'--'---'~.,--~~-~
_,_~,_",,'~___'_'__~_'__"'U__~_
- - - - ...
_ ~ ~~ _ c~-~c=- .~~:- _c~ -=-c~~~__ ~-::-~ ,
-'-----11...------11 --.
----~~~ -~-- -~ ~-,~-
~ --~~~~:. ~~~'~- ~~-_:~~
n___ . ,-- __.'n__ -----~- f
- --- - - --- - - - --~
- -
y - - "~ - ~~ -~
.._~__~~"'_,.,....._______...~,~__.~.~ft__~,_~.~~_~__'~~_~~~M~.
,______. .._,.._n___..' .,.._n.__ .__..__.._n _n.'" "'_"__u__ .. -....-- -,'.' ...-..- "---,--_...._--,.'_.'..".~'_..._--- -_Y'''-
_~__..,_~,.......------"~~~_,___._~~,____._.'"..~~--__._~~r~-~'J'~'
Proposed Renovation
Remove front door and access stair to the second floor.
Replace existing storefront with new wood-framed storefront with center entry. Add an entry and
display window on the west facade.
Add new stripped fabric awning over new storefront (not shown). Awning should start at top of transom
windows and extend to the edges of the storefront opening.
Remove second floor window shutters. Move air-conditioning unit and heater vent to the west building
facade.
Remove existing siding and replace with new painted wood siding. Reconstruct wood cornice.
Commercial/Residential Building
21 2 West Broadway, Monticello, Minnesota
CH-02
i Apr. 10, 2000
r:CLAYBAUGH PRESERVATION ARCHITECTURE INC
rCLAYBAUGH PRESERVATION ARCHITECTURE INC
. L..." 361 W. Government St. Tay10rs Falls, Minnesota 55084
Site Visit Report
212 West Broadway/MCP02
Monticello, Minnesota
Date: March 9, 2000
Participants: Pam Campbell, MCP
Amanda Gaetz, MCP
Sheila Q'Bryan, MCP
Dennis Anderson, MCP
Cindy Hamond, Building Owner
Bob Claybaugh CP Ai
1. Building Use:
1.1. Existing:
A The second floor is occupied as an apartment with a door and interior stair at the front and
the back of the building. The back stair is used as the access to the apartment. The
building originally did not have a front access stair and door to the second floor.
B. The ground floor is currently unoccupied. The last use was a pet supply store.
.
1.2.
Proposed:
A The second floor will remain as an apartment.
B. The ground floor will be remodeled and leased for a retail business. A coffee shop is an
idea that has been discussed. The building owner is trying to buy or lease the vacant land
adjacent to the building on the west for an outdoor patio.
2. Issues:
2.1. Second Floor Exits:
A The Minnesota State Building CodelUniform Building Code does not require a second
exit from the second floor of a building with less than 10 occupants (UBC 1004.2.3.1).
The second floor occupant load based on a residential use is five (1271 sf floor area! 300
sf per person). The owner should contact the Monticello building code official to see if
there are any local ordinances that would require a second exit.
B. The front door and stair to the second floor could be removed if only one exit is required
from the second floor.
2.2. Storefront:
A Existing storefront is not original to the building. The original storefront had a center
enny and no access door to the second floor.
B. The wood framed canopy is not original to the building.
.
tel 651.465.7900 . fax 651.465.3505
.
.
.
C.
D.
The second floor windows are not original to the building.
There are no doors or windows on the west fayade of the building adjacent to the vacant
land.
2.3. Building Materials:
A. The upper portion of the street fayade is covered with wide horizontal siding that either
replaced or covers the original narrow wood horizontal siding.
B. The west and south facades of the building are sided with 4' x 8' sheet of painted
plywood and wood battens. The original ground floor was a party wall to a single story
building that has been demolished. The original upper floor exterior wall probably
matched the street fayade.
3. Recommendations:
3.1. Second Floor Exits:
A. Remove the front door and access stair to the second floor, if approved by the City
building code official.
B. Maintain the rear door and access stair as the entrance to the second floor apartment.
3.2. Storefront:
A. Replace the existing storefront with a new wood-framed storefront with a center entry.
B. Add an entry and display window on the west fayade to provide access to the outdoor
patio.
C. Add a new fabric awning on the street fayade.
3.3.
Building Materials:
A. Remove the existing second floor window shutters. Leave the existing windows in place.
B. Move the existing second floor air-conditioning unit to the west building fayade.
C. Move the heater vent to another location when modifications are made to the heating
system.
D. Remove the existing siding on the street and west fayade and replace with narrow smooth
lap siding. Painted wood siding should be used to replicate the original appearance of the
building.
E. The Masonite Company produces a 6-inch wide composite primed siding that would
match the appearance of the original wood siding at a much lower cost. Information on
the siding is included with the report. A lumberyard in my area indicated that 6 inch
cedar siding would cost about $235/100 sf while the Masonite siding would be in the
range of $1 00/1 00 sf. The same source indicated that vinyl siding would cost in the range
of$60 to $160/100 sf.
V ARN ARCHITECTURE INC
.
.
.
X-90 Smooth CD & Details
"'..;
.
r
. Smooth texture for a classic look
. Factory primed and ready for field
finishing
. 25.year limited warranty
I"'..,~
"-.t
~ ~.,I
64 ;:
01 ~~.,~
4" .'
(Ittf ,',
12" ::,';
:;]
,RT
I/.~
PRODUCT SIDING NEEDED
7/16" (nominal) WIDTH EXPOSURE TEXTURE TO COVER 1,000 PLANT
Sq. Ft. (approx.)"'
6. 4.7/S. Smooth 1270 L
X.90 Smooth S" 6.7/S" Smooth 11 SO L
Lap 12" 10.7/S" Smooth 1130 LU
PRODUCT SIDING NEEDED TO
1/2" (nominal) WIDTH EXPOSURE TEXTURE COVER 1,000 Sq. PLANT
Ft. (approx.)"
X.90 Smooth S. 6.7/S" Smooth l1S0 U
Lap 12" 10.71S" Smooth 1130 U
"Allow additional material to cover cutting and waste which will vary
depending upon building design and other factors. Typically 5.10% is
sufficient.
All dimensions are nominal. Laps are 16' in length. All products may not be
available in your area. Call Area Sales Office for complete information or
product availability in your area.
ShortSpec: Siding shall be (insert product name) hardboard siding (width,
length and texture) as manufactured by Masonite Corporation.
http://www.masomte.com/masomtedom/html/body_x-YU_smooth _ell_detaIls. html
Page 1 of 1
J/2U/UU
Drop Side CD & Details
Page 1 of 1
..1 ~~
-rl
Available in smooth or I Ii
. -[rl ~
:1
. textured cedar finish It ;1 [
r ;1 I
, I
'I 1 ;
. Shiplap edges help speed ;1
:i '1 .". I
installation " 4-
:1 . i
Creates bold, eye-catching ~ ~
. :l t
_I
shadow lines -* I
I
1/2" (nominal) thickness I
. n :l :
J -
for long-lasting -If ............h
.. ~
performance "
PRODUCT
1/2" (nominal) WIDTH EXPOSURE
TEXTURE
SIDING NEEDED
TO COVER 1,000 PLANT
Sq. Ft. (approx.)"
1150
LU
DropSide
Cedar &
Smooth
Cedar &
DropSide 16 16.1/8" 15.3/8. Smooth
DropSide 16.1/S" 15.3/8" Cedar &
Double 8 Smooth
MANUFACTURING LOCATIONS:LAUREL, MS (L)
UKIAH, CA (U)
12"
11.1116"
lOgS
U
1098
U
"Allow additional material to cover cutting and waste which will vary
depending upon building design and other factors. Typically 5.10% is
sufficient.
.
All dimensions are nominal. Laps are 16' in length. All products may not be
available in your area. Call Area Sales Office for complete information or
product availability in your area.
ShortSpec: Siding Shall be (insert product name) hardboard siding (width,
length and texture) as manufactured by Masonite Corporation.
.
http://www.masomte.eom/masomtedom/html/body_ds_eu _ detalls.html
J/2U/UU
.
.
.
7.
EDA Agenda - 8/29/00
Consideration of Executive Director's Report:
a)
GMEF Loans - Payback on all loans are current. TJ, Martin continues to drag
their feet with payments one to two months behind, however, they are currently
current (See attached payment schedule.) Property taxes for first-half of 2000 were
also paid. Copy of the May 1 check after follow-up discussion with Bondhus per
the direction of the EDA on April 25, 2000,
Twin City Die Castings - Attached copy of invoice from EDA Attorney for
drafting closing documents for the EDA loan, Copy of check from TCDC for
EDA expenditures. Copy of the EDA check of $100,000. Closing for the EDA
and City/State Loan actually took place June 8, 2000, at the headquarters of
TCDC. Our attorney attended the EDA and State/City loan closing at no cost
because of the attitude toward TCDC by State's attorney due to the discrepancy
between the State Bond and State Loan agreements. Also attached is a summary
of the EDA and State/City Loan disbursement and list of equipment Allloan
funds have been disbursed to TCDC. Loan paybacks are on schedule.
EDA Business Subsidy Criteria - The lIRA has elected to increase the wage level
for TIF funding. The HRA decision came as the State of Minnesota increased the
wage threshold from $8.00 per hour to $9,00 per hour for non-metro.
Additionally, the HRA attorney is reviewing the business subsidy criteria for other
possible changes for compliance with the latest Legislature changes. It is my
suggestion, the EDA authorize amending the EDA Business Subsidy Criteria and
increase for the wage levels for funding consistent with the HRA and other
necessary changes if so necessary. See attached letter from DTED. Wright
County Partnership's threshold is $10,00 per hour.
Profile Powder Coating Company - Copies of letter relative to this project. The
EDA did not formally approve the request for dollars so no costs were incurred by
the EDA. It is the hope, the project will move forward 2001.
IDC Banquet ~ Tuesday, September 26, Vintage Grill. Wine Tasting/Speaker:
Nonn Coleman. Invitation and tickets going out week of August 28,
b)
c)
d)
e)
T J MARTIN, INC.
5109
Check Date:
May 1, 2000
Vendor:
City of Monticello
tern to be Paid - Description
n pymt
Loan for May
Check Amount: $3,432.84
Discount Taken Amount Paid
1,716.72
1,716.12
T J MARTIN, INC.
1347 DUNDAS CIRCLE
MONTICEllO, MN 55362
MARQUETTE BANKS
75-1664-910
AMOUNT
~
"
~
o
..
S
.!!:
-g
-g
~
~
~
.~
~
'"
Three Thousand Four Hundred Thirty-Two and 84/100 Dollars
.w
OF
May 1, 2000
********$3,432.84*
City of Monticello
Monticello, MN 55362
II' 0 0 5 .0 g II' I: 0 g .0 . b b L. 71:
g--m
m
M'
.
~}
lII==,.;::;,r==.-~
~l1l(.,.(J--
.
;13Jt>>___-!J~~L_____
.~_ ___ ___ _m________ ____________
I~_OQ
?19~_ _ _ff /9C.
r / 1'IT12Q~_]:. ~
a -_~:~ .J
.
.
li.J: IV\. a r h 'Y'-
Gfvl€F #'01+
02-18-1998 ** M-l)RrI~rION SCHEDULE ** 08:29:36
( Actual/360 ) Page 1
~~~= _ ~ _! ___ _ _ ~== - - _! ..,tE:$!.~~~- J. - ~~l~S1h- _! - - - ~~:~~~ ---
60 I 03/01/00 I 6.500%! $87500.00 I $87500.00
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
YEAR
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
YEAR
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
YEAR
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
YEAR
46
47
48
49
_.___ _04/0l/Q!.L_
OS 01 00
06 01 00
07 01 00
08 01 00
09 01 00
_-1QL01 00
11/01/00
12 01 00
2000
01/01/01
02/01/01
03/01/01
04/01/01
05/01/01
06/01/01
07/01/01
08/01/01
09/01/01
10/01/01
11/01/01
12/01/01
2001
01/01/02
02/01/02
03/01/02
04/01/02
05/01/02
06/01/02
07/01/02
08/01/02
09/01/02
10/01/02
11/01/02
12/01/02
2002
01/01/03
02/01/03
03/01/03
04/01/03
05/01/03
06/01/03
07/01/03
D8/01/03
09/01/03
10/01/03
11/01/03
12/01/03
2003
01/01/04
02/01/04
03/01/04
04/01/04
467.32
475.90 v
453.83 ,/
461.90.'
454.88
433.37
440.64
419.51
4097.11
426.24
419.02
371. 91
404.24
384.09
389.44
369.69
374.48
366.97
347.82
351.76
333.02
4538.68
336.38
328.66
289.84
312.91
295.21
297.10
279.83
281.12
273.08
256.46
256.84
240.65
3'148.08
240.41
232.15
202.18
215.37
200.30
198.49
183.86
181.42
172.83
158.89
155.4 7
142.00
2283.37
137.93
129.09
112.45
111.23
12 6
1248.80
1240.22
1262.29
1254.22
1261.24
1282.75
1275.48
1296.61
1134'7.97
1289.88
1297.10
1344 .21
1311.88
1332.03
1326.68
1346.43
1341.64
1349.15
1368.30
1364.36
1383.10
16054.76
1379.74
1387.46
1426.28
1403.21
1420.91
1419.02
1436.29
1435.00
1443.04
1459.66
1459.28
1475.47
17145.36
1475.71
1483.97
1513 . 94
1500.75
1515.82
1517.63
1532.26
1534.70
1543.29
1557.23
1560.65
1574.12
18310.07
1578.19
1587.03
1603.67
160~L B9
86273.64
85024.84
83784.62
82522.33
81268.11
80006.87
78724.12
77448.64
76152.03
76152.03
74862.15
73565.05
72220.84
70908.96
69576.93
68250.25
66903.82
65562.18
64213 . 03
62844.73
61480.37
60097.27
60097.27
58717.53
~J7330. 07
55903.79
54500.58
53079.67
51660.65
50224.36
48789.36
47346.32
45886.66
44427.38
42951.91
42951.91
4H76.20
39992.23
38478.29
36977.54
35461.72
33944.09
32411. 83
30877.13
29333.84
27776.61
26215.96
24641.84
24641.84
23063.65
21476.62
19872.95
182GB.06
~
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
. '
.
Kennedy & Graven, Chartered
200 South Sixth Street
Suite 470
Minneapolis, MN 55402
(612) 337-9300
Monticello EDA
Ollie Koropchak
505 Walnut Street
Suite 1
Monticello, MN 55362
July 11, 2000
Statement No. 33738 _ \ .-J
GvnEQ;- O~D
Through June 30, 2000
MN325-00008 Twin City Die and Casting GMEF Loan
Expenses
\ ~ \ fl
494.00
95.20
Total Current Billing:
589.20
Signature of Claiment
,
~)
.
Monticello EDA
Ollie Koropchak
505 Walnut Street
Suite 1
Monticello. MN 55362
Kennedy & Graven, Chartered
200 South Sixth Street
Suite 470
Minneapolis, MN 55402
(612) 337-9300
41-1225694
July 11, 2000
Invoice # 33738
MN325-00008 Twin City Die and Casting GMEF Loan
Through June 30. 2000
For All Legal Services As Follows:
5/23/00 DJG Telephone call with Ollie Koropchak re: letter of credit
issues.
5/24/00
5/30/00
.
6/7/00
DJG Revise documents and draft letter of credit language.
DJG Phone call with 0 Koropchak and C Pressley-Olson and
revise documents per phone call
DJG Add letter of credit language to loan documents
Total Services:
For All Disbursements As Follows:
,
Photocopies
Fax
Total Disbursements:
Hours
0.40
1.70
0.60
1.10
$
Total Services and Disbursements: $
Amount
52.00
221.00
78.00
143.00
494.00
$
92.20
3.00
95.20
589.20
~)
.
REMITTANCE VOUCHER
Lega 1 fees
750.00
750.00
CHECK NO.
TOTAL
-I:i
~,..~ -;:~~~~,:~ ~?~
ffg':i'i~;;:
t~~ :~~?;
PAY ***$750
DOLLARS AND OO****CENTS
I
PAY
TOniE
ORDER
OF
~,-.;:-.^~. ,~:'!F--
Hf!'.. f&Jil:':~~_;,c,
t1~~r-'
;..,.-".-.:..."";::.....,
--'-!""';-'"'.:."'.-
Mont i'cell oEDA
L
"I""
,iJIS'jj
II' 200... ~ ~II' -: 2 ~ .07000.-:
bO ..,00072 7u-
.
~
o
..J
..J
~ ~
~ 1il 0
Om2fX 0
~~::;gjl-O
><:x ... Z ,
zog~ =>
O<""..J':' 0 0
lDciw",::!!:O
t'-<l"a;~~.o:: T'
(.O~ Z r^-
0'" 0 v.
(.05 ::;
a:
<
::;
~I;:,
.",
'"
r---
.
6
z
o
...J
...J ,- C\j
W c.. LU CD
() :a: t: fri
- => ll)
I- ~ (f). z ;:
Z ::31--' ~ ";J
OU-(f)Oll)
..Jf-...J0l
-=<(~oJZ
.::; a: ...J () CD
LL.. w<j:::r'-
z:s:z
o wll)O
CJo~
> ll)
I-
-
()
.
LO
C\l
""
LO
o
Cf)
~
o
.
o
o
.0
or-.
Z(.O
50
UJ(.O
:r:
o
o
o
o
C\l
UJ"-.
!<(LO
ON
'-.....
LO
o
~
C'-
0
0
0
0 0
0
0 0
0
0 0
0
0 rl
0
rl
0
.. 0
LO
C'- N
U) ..J LO
n: t.n 0
o:t: t.n
...::I ...
....:J 0 0
0 0
Cl ...
Cf) [j
0 (!) 0
0 z . .
rl
"-. H
0 f-i....:J ~
0 (j)~ 0
~n:
Q W C'-
Z WCl t.n
o:t: Hr:rJ 0
Cl Clr>:. ~
Z )-4)-4 0
o:t: f-if-i ~
Cf) HH
b 00
0
:r: Zz
f-i HH
Cl 33
r:rJ f-if-i
n:
Q
z gUJffiu..
:::>
:r: ;.,J:oo
~I-a::
r:rJ c.; 0
Z
0
...
o
o
o
i:D
C'-
1-4
..:xl
f-i
o
f-i
o
...J
...J
LU
()
i=
z
o
:2
LL
o
>-
I-
13
\0)
TWIN CITY DIE CASTINGS
. DISBURSEMENT
PHASE I
EQUIPMENT ~ PAYMENT REMAINlNG
1. (2) 25 Ton Trim. Press (Metal Mechanics)
@ $43,070 ea. S 86,140.00
Less 30% Down ~ paid 5117/00 $ 25,842.00
Balance after disbursement $ 60,298.00
2. (1) Evolution 53D Casting Maclrine (Buhler) $413,239.00
Less 2Q9/o Down . paid 3/1100 $ 81,776.80
Balance after disbursement $331,462.20
3. (1) Evolution 53D Casting Machine (Buhler) $408,884.00
Less 20% Down . paid 3/1100 $ 82,647.80
Balance after disbursement $326.236.20
4. (2) MIlO Model 250 Melt Furnaces (Rauch)
@ $210,000 ea. $420,000.00
Less 20% Down ~ Wired 2-1()"'()() $ 84,000.00
Less 70% Down ~ Wired 6-13.00 $294,000.00
Balance after disbwxment $ 42,000.00
5. MS-600 Fwnace (Striko Dynarad) $ 39,472.00
Less 25% Down ~ paid 7120/00 $ 9,868.00
Balance after disbursement $ 29,604.00
. 6. MS.700 Furnace (Striko Dynarad) $ 43,964.00
Less 25% Down. paid 7120/00 $ 10,991.00
Balance After disbursement $ .32,973.00
7. (2) Portable Fire Station
@ 514,800 ea.. $ 29,600.00
Less 50% Down ~ paid 4/6/00 & 7/26/00 $ 14,800.00
Ba1a:oce After disbursement $ 14,800.00
TOTALS $1,441,299.00 $603,925.60 $ 837,373.40
DRAW NO. 1 5274,266.60
Monticello EDA Disbursed 6/8/00 5100,000.00 Sloo,ooo.oo 0
State/City Request 6/12/00 $500,000.00 S174,266.6O $325,733.40
DRAW NO. 2
State/City Request 6119100 $294,000.00 $ 31,733.40
DRAW NO. 3
State/City Request 7131/00 S 20,859.00 S 10,874.40
DRAW NO. 4
StatelCity Request 817/OQ $ 10,874.40 S ~~
.
QJ
~" 17", T"M,. 011i, K,c'poh..
From:Dave Erickson
512-282-5138
Page 212
.
.
.
Memo T():
DTED's D~vdopm~nt Parl.n~rs
))ate:
June 20, 2000
Re:
Minne!'>ota Inve!'>tment Fund Wage 'l1we!'>holds
'l1,e Minne!'>ota Inve!'>tment Fund (M IF) is ))"I'I.:))'s primary financialres()tl1'ce u!'>ed to pn)vide
fUl<Ull.lial assisl<Ull.l~ to bl1SU1~SSes l1mt arc l.lr~,tling cUlll r~tainulg ql1ality jobs. i\l.ll.lOrdulg to
M inne!'>ota Stanttes 116,1.~7] 1, Suhd. 5, the M I I' p1'Ogram require!'> wage thresholds to he met in
onkr for proj~l.lls to b~ ~ligibk. DTED has ~sl.ablish;,;d guid;,;lul;';s to conlonn wilh lh;,;s~
staU1tory requirement!'> a!'> well a!'> other polioy ohjectives. Previous guidelines fOt' the minimum
wag~ l~wls (~xdusiw ofl1on-m.u1(.lat~d lhl1g~ b~l1dlL~) w~r~ ~stablish~d in 1996 at $8.00 p~r
hour f()f th)n~met1'O p1'Ojeot!'> and $10-<>0 per hour for met1'O area p1'Ojects.
In onkr to stay Ul "'ompli.ull.l~ wilh Mi1Ul~sot<t laws and to cu.~il1stlor u1l1ation, DTED n~~ds to
inl.lrease lh~ wage r~ql1irem~nL~ lor MIF proji,;l.lls. W~ hav~ hll<;'~l1 th~ lo11owulg vall1~s ullo
l.lonsid~rutionto mak~ lh~s~ adjuslm~nls.
1. K~~p lh~ r~quirem~nls sunpk lor business~s to umkrshuul.
2. I':noourage ltwestment in the non~metro area
3. EnsuN lhat wa.g~ thr~sholds aN sl11l1l.li~nt to support stat~wid~ housUlg cosls.
4_ Maintain increa!'>ed suppOt1 tl.)!' highet' quality (wage) johs_
'l1,e tl.)llowing inorea!'>e!'> will take etYeet July 1,2000. P1'Oject!'> that have pending Pat1 11
applil.lalions and haY;,; gnult agr;';;';lIl~nls approv;,;d by Sept~mb~r 1,2000 will not b~ disquali11~d
if they do not meet the new wage guidelines.
Waee Thresholds ElStil1lUt.(.~d NIIF LOUll
Award.
Non-Metro Metro i\r~a
<$9.00 per hour
$9.00 p~r hour
$12.00 p~r hour
<$12.00 p~r hour
$12.00 p~r hour
$15.00 p~r hour
Ineligible
$6,000 p~r job
$10,000 per joh
* M IF Forgivahle loans (grant!'>) are typically 1/3 the !'>ize of a M IF loan.
1'01' more intl.)nnation, plea!'>e call Paul Moe, Director, Uusine!'>!'> Finance Unit, at (,51 ~297~ 1 391
~')
May 17, 2000
MONTICELLO
To: Mark Ruff, Ehlers & Associates, Inc,
Dan Greensweig, Kennedy & Graven
Lenny Kirscht, Park National Bank
Carol Pressley-Olson, Minnesota Dept of Trade & Economic Development
Allan Beilke, Central Minnesota Initiative Foundation
Re: 1. 1. Company LLC Monticello Project (profile Powder Coating, Inc,)
This letter is to infonn you that J. 1. Company LLC is presently unable to obtain financing for purchase
and construction of the proposed Monticello facility.
Please remit invoices associated with the costs for preparation of the Tax Increment Financing and for
preparation of the applications to the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development and the
Central Minnesota Initiative Foundation to Ollie at City Hall.
.
On behalf of the City of Monticello, the City requests the withdrawal of the Part I Small Cities
Development Program Application and the Central Minnesota Initiative Fund Application proposed for the
1. 1. Company LLC (profile Powder Coating, Inc.) project,
Should you have any questions, please call me at 763-271-3208,
Sincerely,
CITY OF MONTICELLO
o~ \<Q') 0 ~JJ~
Ollie Koropchak
Director of Economic Development
c:
Steven Dejong, Profile Powder Coating, Inc.
Steve M. Graffunder, Henningson & Snoxell L TO
Roger Belsaas, Mayor
Rick Wolfsteller, City Administrator
EDA File i/'
HRA File
.
d}
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
May 23, 2000
--
MONTICELLO
To: Mark Ruff, Ehlers & Associates, Inc.
Dan Greensweig, Kennedy & Graven
Lenny Kirscht, Park National Bank
Carol Pressley-Olson, Minnesota Dept of Trade & Economic Development
Allan Beilke, Central Minnesota Initiative Foundation
Re: 1. 1. Company LLC Monticello Project (profile Powder Coating, Inc.)
This letter is a follow-up to my letter of May 17 relative to J. J. Company LLC wherein the company
requested the City of Monticello take no further action relative to the proposed project. The company
infonns us it is their hope to proceed with the project in 2001. They request that we retain all files on this
. matter so that, if possible, we can avoid duplicating the work next year.
Should you have any questions, please call me at 763-271-3208.
Sincerely,
CITY OF MONTICELLO
CJ~~ \~d\o~D~
Ollie Koropchak
Director of Economic Development
c:
Steven DeJong, Profile Powder Coating, Inc.
Roger Belsaas, Mayor
Rick Wolfsteller, City Administrator
EDA File v
HRA File
.
6)
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
2Q~
May 23, 2000
MONTICELLO
Steve DeJong
Profile Powder Coating Company, Inc.
P.O. Box 69
Rogers, MN 55374
Re: 1. 1. Company LLC Monticello Project (profile Powder Coating, Inc.)
Dear Steve:
.
Attached you will find a copy of the letter dated May 23 addressed to the appropriate parties and
the request to retain the 1. 1. Company LLC files. Additionally, I've attached the invoice from
Lenny Kirscht, Park National Bank, whom the City contracted to prepare the applications
requesting funding from the State of Minnesota and the Central Minnesota Initiative Foundation
on behalf of the 1. 1. Company LLC Monticello project.
Indeed, the City agreed to incur these costs assuming the City of Monticello would benefit from
the construction of a 30,000 sq. ft. block industrial facility in 2000 and the creation of at least 30
new jobs within two years. Certainly, you, your lender, and the city acted in good faith to
proceed with the application requesting these funds. Based on the information provided the City
by Security State Bank, Albertville, and Profile Powder Coating, Inc., Lenny Kirscht proceeded
with the applications. Part I was submitted to the State Department of Trade and Economic
Development and Part II was prepared and scheduled to be submitted May 15. Part II is a
lengthy application including public hearing notices, an environmental impact study, financial
information, etc. As indicated by the attached invoice, no costs were attributed for preparation of
the Central Minnesota Initiative Foundation application. Please remit the $3,031.38 to the City of
Monticello. The City of Monticello will reimburse 1. 1. Company LLC for the $3,031.38 upon the
Monticello project proceeding in 2001.
The remaining balance of the $5,000 TIF deposit will be reimbursed to 1. 1. Company LLC upon
receiving invoices of costs incurred by the Authority to date.
.
do)
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
.
.
.
Mr. DeJw1g
May 23, 2000
Page 2
The City of Monticello and myself look forward to working with you for construction of your
project in 2001. I'll keep in touch. Please feel free to call me at any time at 763-271-3208 or if
you have any questions or wish to discuss this letter.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
Sincerely,
CJ~ ~cf\U C( D~
Ollie Koropchak
Economic Development Director
Attachments: 2
c:
Steve M. Graffimder, Henningson & Snoxell L TO
Dan Greensweig, Kennedy & Graven
Roger Belsaas, Mayor
Rick Wolfsteller, Administrator
TIP District No. 1-27 File
City/State of Minnesota File
d)
.
.
.
May 19,2000
Ms. Ollie Koropchak
Economic Development Director
City of Monticello
505 Walnut Street, Suite I
Monticello, MN 55362
RE:
~
,~
PARK NATIONAL
BANK
Profile Powder Financing Applications
MN Investment Fund/Central MN Foundation
INVOICE
Preparation of application materials, including the application
forms package, public hearing materials, Environmental Review
Record, and information for State of Minnesota Department of
Trade and Economic Development
Preparation of application materials, including the application
forms package and information for Central MN Foundation
Mileage - 75 Miles @ $ .325/mile
Copies - 140 Copies @ $ .05/page
TOTAL AMOUNT NOW DUE
5353 WAYZATA BOULEVARD. ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416
7001 BASS LAKE ROAD. NEW HOPE, MN 55428
(612) 544-3544
$ 3,000.00
$ 0.00
24.38
7.00
$ 3,031.38
August 18, 2000
MONTICELW
.
.
Mr. Steve DeJong
Profile Powder Coating, Inc.
21050 Commerce Blvd.
P. O. Box 69
Rogers, MN 55374-0069
Dear Steve:
Enclosed you will find a check in the amount of$957.65, the difference between the required
HRA deposit of $5,000 and the incurred HRA expenses of $4,042.35. Upon your decision to put
your expansion plans on hold for one year, you requested reimbursement of the unpaid deposit
balance. My apology for the delay. The legal invoice from Kennedy & Graven for preparation of
the first draft of the Contract appeared high, so I inquired and an adjustment was made which
caused a delay of the HRA refund. These costs were associated with the preparation of Tax
Increment Finance District No. 1-27 and the preparation of the Contract for Private Development
between 1. 1. Company, LLC and the HRA.
Also attached are copies of the invoices and a summary. Should you have any questions, please
call me at 763-271-3208.
I plan to contact you to arrange a time to visit and view the new process operation at your
existing facility. The City of Monticello looks forward to working with you for a continuation of
your planned expansion in Monticello.
Sincerely,
CITY OF MONTICELLO
(b ~ ..-0..)
~O) & ~
Ollie Koropchak
Economic Development Director
cc:
Rick W olfsteller, Administrator
JetfO'Neill, Deputy Administrator
File
6)
Monticello City Hall, 505 W&lnut 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