EDA Agenda 06-22-2004
.
1.
2.
3.
4.
.
5.
AGENDA
MONTICELLO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Tuesday, June 22, 2004 - 4:00 p.m.
City Hall - Academy Room
MEMBERS: Chair Bill Demeules, Vice Chair Barb Schwientek, Roger Carlson, Robbie Smith, Clint
llerbst, Ron lloglund, and Darrin Lahr.
STAFF:
Treasurer Rick Wolfsteller, Executive Director Ollie Koropchak, Recorder Angela
Schumann.
GUESTS:
John Simola, Public Works Director and Al Loch and other Block 35 property owners.
Bruce Cochran, WSB, Inc.
Call to Order.
Consideration to approve the June 15,2004 EDA minutes.
Consideration of adding or removing agenda items.
Consideration to review the revised Feasibility Study prepared by WSB, Inc. for authorization
to proceed with alley and plaza improvements to Block 35.
Consideration to request the City Council to authorize WSB, Inc. to design the project and go
out lor bids and specs.
6. Consideration to authorize preparation of a Contract for Development between the EDA and
said Block 35 property owners.
7. Other Business.
8. Adjournment.
.
.
.
.
MINUTES
MONTICELLO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Tuesday, June 15,2004 - 4:00 p.m.
City Hall - Academy Room
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chair Bill Demeules, Vice Chair Barb Schwientek, Clint Herbst, Ron
lloglund, and Darrin Lahr.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Council members Roger Carlson and Robbie Smith
ST AFF PRESENT: Treasurer Rick Wolfstellcr and Executive Director Ollie Koropchak.
GUESTS:
John Simola, Public Works Director, Bruce Cochran, WSB, Inc, and attach cd list of
Block 35 property owners.
1. Call to Order.
Chair DcmeuIes called the EDA meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. declaring a quorum.
2.
Consideration to aoprove the April 27.2004 EDA minutes.
Ron Hoglund made a motion to approve the April 27, 2004 EDA minutes. Sccondcd by Clint
Herbst and with no corrections or additions, the minutes wcre approved as written.
'"
.).
Consideration of addinQ or removing aQcnda items.
Thc Executive Dircctor requested the addition of one item under 7. Other Business: Review of
preliminary loan application from Water Monitor, Inc.
4. Consideration to review the Feasibility Study prepared by WSB. Inc. for authorization to
proceed with allcy and plaza improvements to Block 35.
Koropchak noted the Feasibility Study before the EDA was a f()llow-through ofthe EDA and
City Council action authorizing WSB, Inc. to complete a Feasibility Study for Block 35.
Commissioners were reminded of their original goals and ohjectives, informed of the property
tax delinquency for 2002, 2003, and first one-half of 2004 for one property, that the
unrestricted parking spaces (designated loading zones) were not identified in the Maintenance
Agreement, and that the EDA Attorney comments will be distributed.
Bruce Cochran, WSB, Inc., gave a brief background of his experience in projects similar to
Block 35 and noted he was recently hired by WSB. Having concept designs from Planner
.
.
.
EDA Minutes - 06/15/04
Grittman and observing the area first-hand, the Study was prepared and presented with thrce
options. Each option varied in costs from $265,000 to $307,000 mainly due to the location of
the catch basins and alley materials. Cochran was unaware of the EDA budget of $145,000
which he felt for a first analysis was an advantage. The commissioners and property owners
compared the cost options and identified line items to reduce costs. The Study included costs
to be paid by the private sector for drainage connections between roof tops and catch basins
($17,000) and costs associated with sanitary pipe for the Masonic Temple ($2,700). They
discussed the option of bituminous versus concrete for alley replacement. Public Works
Director Simola noted with the Aggregate Base Class 5 Mod proposed for the bituminous
alley, he could support the use of bituminous. He also informcd attendees that the biggest
difference besides costs is the life expectancy (25 years for bituminous versus 50 years for
concrete). Participants agreed that the location of the catch basin along the curb cut of the
plaza area was not the best option for accomplishing the goal to improvc roof and alley
drainage problems; although. it was the cheaper option. Location of thc enclosed consolidated
common trash containers was discussed relative to safety and visibility concerns at Walnut
Street and proximity to power lines versus conveniencc to users. Others items mentioned were
the location of the keystonc retaining wall planters, plaza material options, and the necd to
locate gas linc and telephone boxes. It was the consensus of the commissioners and the
property owners to reduce the overall costs and requested WSB to address the following items:
1. Grading levels for drainage flow to determine location of catch basins. 2. Usc of bituminous
for alley replacement. 3. Plaza material options othcr than pavers: Exposed aggregate,
stamped concrete, and colored concrete. 4. Planter dcsign and location. 5. Trash containcr
location. 6. Vegetation. Brucc also noted some flexibility in the contingency and 28% indirect
costs. A meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, June 22, 2004, 4:00 p.m. to review the revised
costs. Schwientek requestcd at the next meeting thc Executive Dircctor providc information as
to other EDA funds available for this project in addition to the $145,000. A copy of the EDA
Attorney's comments were distributed and Attorney Agosto was asked to comment from the
perspectivc of Block 35.
5.
Consideration to request the City Council to authorize WSB. Inc. to desi!2:n thc proiect and go
out for bids and specs.
Not applicable.
6. Considcration to authorize Drcparation of a Contract t(.Jr Dcvelopment between the EDA and
said Block 35 property owners.
Not applicable.
2
.
.
.
EDA Minutes - 06/15/04
7.
Other Business.
Koropchak reviewed a preliminary loan application from Water Monitor, Inc. requesting
$900,000 of public/community funding for working capital and operating costs fCJr location of a
inbound customer service/billing center. The company has toured the building on Thomas
Circle previously occupied by Fingerhut. The owner of the building ,Winkleman Builders,
prcfers to lease rather than sale and ran a D & B on the company which was marginal.
Koropchak noted that the following items did not comply with the GMEF Guidelines: USES
OF PROCEEDS: Working Capital. FINANCIAL, METI 100: GMEF must be used as
secondary source to conventional lender. BUSINESS ELIGIBILITY: Industrial. Koropchak
noted no credit analysis has been completed but noted the company's decision would be based
on community investment. Koropchak asked the commissioners if they concurred with the
analysis by the Director that this preliminary loan application from Water Monitor, Inc. did not
comply with the GMEF Guidelines. The EDA commissioners concurred.
The EOA was informed that Barry Fluth withdrew the Landmark Square II project due to
timing and monetary reasons and that TOLD Development Company working on behalf of
Walgrecn's withdrew from the Block 52 site due to high cost of acquisition and unwilling
sellers. Walgreen's remain very interested in Monticello and are looking at alternative
downtown sites as well as sites south of 1-94.
8.
Adiournment.
Bya consensus of the EDA commissioners, the meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m.
u~~~0~
Ollie Koropchak, Recorder
3
c\?~~O~,
. ~
XarR'n S (Vh'7er4-er-
[;US(( W'I{L"v
/I / ~&77---
, " /-. _z,c/t'~'l--'
'j I 1~~6 5~
r;Z&d' ;;;k /
~moC~J0~ )
.
.
\f\cl ~
\ S ,d QJ'OJ 1
/ Lf L/ //1 'I fA). MI-II<ft<j.
/..,;' lIaunJ- Le--f' /
c ,~ A.-' f,.J? I
/~C lv, p~,p[/ Iv~ Y
IV'Z w ii3W?-
/tfy w #roq~~;:
/ Ol:, 'fa.. c0, ~
.
.
.
EDA Agenda - 06/22/04
4.
Consideration to review the revised Feasibility Study prepared by WSR. Inc. for
authorization to proceed with allev and plaza improvements to Block 35.
A. Reference and back2:round:
At the April 24, 2004 meeting, the commissioners requested the City Council approve the
concept and authorize preparation of a feasibility for alley and plaza improvements to Block 35.
Before proceeding any further, the EDA wanted to determine if the preliminary cost estimates
were within their budget of$145,000. At the May 10,2004 Council meeting, the council
members did authorize WSB, Inc. to prepare the study.
A representative from WSB, Inc. or John Simola, Public Works Director, will review the
prepared study with EDA members and guests at the meeting.
Additionally, the EDA requested the Block 35 property owners to further detlne their
improvement costs and per individual property, and for the EDA Attorney to review the
Maintenance Agreement prepared by Block 35. This has been requested.
The Executive Director reported at the last meeting that one of the parcels was delinquent on
their property taxes. In a recheck June 10,2004, the taxes remain delinquent le)[ years 2002
and 2003, and the first half of 2004 are not paid.
Again these were the original goals and objectives of the EDA for Block 35:
I. Create a customer friendly parking and plaza-like rear entrance.
2. Consistent and eye-focus cosmetic facade design
3. Roof and alley drainage improvements
4. Relocate and consolidate trash into enclosed and detached containers.
5. Ratio of public to private investment. (1:35: 1.0)
Additionally, the EDA requested a ] 00% commitment from property owners and a
Maintenance Agreement in recordable lrom addressing the following: Unrestricted parking
spaces (designated loading zones), common trash, snow plowing, and landscaping.
Once the FDA has reviewed the study, determined its feasibility to proceed and reviewed the
commitment of the Block 35 property owners, the EDA then needs to consider the following
action and next two agenda items.
.
EDA Agcnda - 06/22/04
B.
Alternativc Action:
1.
A motion authorizing to proceed with the alley and plaza improvements to Block 35.
State reasons.
2.
A motion to not authorize proceeding with the alley and plaza improvements to Block
35. State reasons.
3.
A motion to table any action.
c.
Rccommendation:
The City Administrator is concerned about the ratio of public to private dollars particularly if the
private dollars continues to decease. Also, Wolfsteller has concerns about using public dollars
to finance private infrastructure on a property with delinquent property taxes. Docs the EDA
penalize all because of one? This is a policy question for the EDA.
D. Supporting Data:
.
Maintenance Agreement with attorney comments..
.
2
.
.
.
Kennedy:.
&
Grave'n
CHARTERED
470 Pillsbury Center
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis MN 55402
(612) 337-9300 telephone
(612) 337-9310 fax
http;//www.kenneuy-graven.com
BETH MERCEI~-TAYLOR
Attorney at Law
Direct Dial (612) 337-9283
Email: bmereer-taylor(ll]kennedy-graven
MEMORANDUM
To: Ollie Koropchak and City of Monticello EDA
From: Beth Mercer-Taylor, Kennedy & Graven, Chartered
Date: June] 5, 2004
Rc:
Block 35 Maintenance Agreement
As requcsted, I have reviewed the Block 25 Maintenance Agreement, which Ollie
Koropchak indicated has been signed by the relevant owners of property on Block 35 in
the City of Monticello (thc City). This agreement is inadequate to ensure that the
property owners will maintain the Bloek 35 property for several reasons, discussed
below. If maintenance is a critical issuc for the City and thc Economic Development
Authority of the City (the EDA) as the expenditure of remaining downtown revitalization
funds is considered, then a more detailed agreement or agreements between the property
owners and the City should be drafted and executed. Alternatively, the City, EDA, and
propcrty owners should consider ereating a Special Services District, described in the
latter part of this memo, to create a legal mechanism for the City to charge property
owners for the maintenance of improvement to Block 35. I can provide much more
information about that alternative, which has been used by several other city clients.
Issues with the Current Contract
The Block 35 Maintenance Agreement is signed by the individual property owners, yet
the Agreement obligates a group, referring to the property owners as "they." The legal
obligations of each ofthesc owners to this collectivc group is not clear. What would
happen to owners who voted against paying into the maintenance program, for various
reasons? If an individual owner refused to pay for a sharc of thc maintenance, would that
EMT-249345v I
MN325-17
.
owner be individually in default? Would all the owners be in default? Could the City
then assess that owner, or even all of the owners?
In order to give the EDA and the City the right to cure defaults, the EDA and the City
need to be parties to the Agreement. Consideration on both sides should be stated. The
City cannot assess property owners for maintenance that has not been provided, as there
is no legal authority to do this. A special service district under Minnesota Statutes
Section 428A.0 1, further described below, would otTer a way for the City to Icvy service
charges on property owners, and the statute provides a means for the City to collect
unpaid charges.
The agreement statcs that an agent shall be employed for snow and trash removal, but
that "they" (the owners) shall replace and maintain improvements on the property as well
as landscaping. It is not clcar what level of replacement and maintenance will be
acceptable and who will decide whether what has been done is acceptable. If the owners,
cither individually or collectively, do not agree with the City or EDA regarding
acceptable maintenance, it is not clear whether or not a dcfault has occurred.
.
Unless this Agreement is recorded and made a covenant to the deeds of the individual
property owners, successors in interest and assigns will not be legally bound. A buyer
without notice of this contract would not be bound by it. The contract needs to clarify
that current property owners will guaranty that successors and assigns will take over the
responsibility and sign the contract, and ifnot, that the current property owners would
continue to be bound.
This Agreement does not handle the various problems between thc owners themselves, or
between the owners and the EDA and City that could arise. Without guidance from the
contract, such disputes would have to be resolved in court, with increased risk of an
undesirable outcome for everyone involved.
Special Service District Alternative
Minncsota Statutes Section 428A.0 1 through 428A.I 0 1 (the Act) provides authority for
local units of government, in cooperation with eommereial and industrial property
owners, to implemcnt speeial service districts to finance special serviees beyond those
ordinarily provided throughout thc City. "Special services" are defined as having the
meaning used in a given city's ordinancc, but exclude those services not typically
provided throughout the city from the general fund. Services that are typically provided
throughout a city may be included if there will be an increased level of that service in the
district. See MINN. STAT. 9 428A.Ol subd.3. The Act defines a "special services
district" as "a defined area within the city where special services are rendered and the
costs of the special services are paid from revenues collected from service chargcs
imposed within that area." MINN. STAT. S 428A.OI subd. 4. Special services districts
may only include cOll1mereial, industrial, public utility, and vacant properties.
.
EMT-249345v I
MN325"17
.
.
.
Before a city may adopt an ordinance enacting a special service district, a public hearing
must be held. The hearing has to bc preccded by two notices in the official newspaper of
the city two weeks apart. In addition, notice must be mailed to each owner of land within
the district. MINN. STAT. S 428A.02 subd. 2. All property owners that will be subject to
the service charge must be allowed to be heard at the hearing. MINN. STAT. 9 428A.02
subd. 1. The ordinance may be adopted by the governing board of the city at any time
within six months after the conclusion of the hearing. MINN. STAT. S 428A.02 subd. 2.
The city can impose service charges as long as thcy are rcasonably related to the services
provided. The charges must be "as nearly as possible proportionate to the cost of
furnishing the service, and may be fixed on the basis of the service directly rendered, or
by referencc to a reasonable classification of the typcs of premises to which servicc is
furnished, or on any other equitable basis." MINN. STAT. 9 428A.02 subd. 3. The
charges must also be imposed on the basis of the net tax capacity of the property on
which the service charge is imposed. MINN. STAT. S 428A.05. Any affected landowner
may file a written objection asserting that their land should not be subject to the charge.
The city's governing body has the ability to exempt complaining landowncrs from the
charge if: (1) they will receive scrvices that are already provided throughout the city to
thc same degree, (2) the property is exempted, or (3) neither the landowner's property nor
its use will receive a benefit from the proposed special service. MINN . STAT. 9 428A.02
subd.4.
Before the eity can start any of these proceedings, at least twenty~ five percent of the
owners of the land area that would be subject to the charge and owners of at least twenty-
five percent of the net tax capacity of the area must fi Ie a petition requesting a hearing on
the proposed action. MINN. STAT. S 428AOR. In addition, after a city has approved an
ordinance creating a special service district, they must mail a summary of it to each
property owner within the district. If more than thirty-five percent of the property owners
or holders of greater than thirty-five percent of the net tax capacity file an objection
within forty-five days of the city's approval of the ordinance, it does not become
effective. MINN. STAT. S 428A.09. Therefore, the landowners have a power to
commence and a veto power. Lastly, the Aet has a sunset provision that makes it expire
on June 30, 2005. MINN. STAT. 9 428A.I 01.
FMT-249345v I
MN325-17
.
BLOCK 35 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the undersigned are owners of property located in Block 35 of the City of
Monticello (hereinafter "Owners"); and
WHEREAS, the Block 35 property subject to this Agreement is south of the Block 35
buildings and north of the Block 35 alleyway (hereinafter "Subject Property"); and
WHEREAS, the Monticello Economic Development Authority (hereinafter "ED A") and
the City of Monticello (hereinafter "City") desire to invest in the revitalization of the Block 35
Subject Property; and
WHEREAS, the EDA and the City seek to protect their revitalization investment in Block
35 by requiring that the Owners execute a maintenance agreement among themselves; and
WHEREAS, the Owners desire to accept the EDA and the City revitalization investment
in the Subject Property;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Owners agree:
That they shall replace and maintain EDA and City improvements made on the Subject
. Property; and
That they shall employ an agent to remove snow and trash for the benefit of all the
Owners; and
That they shall replace and maintain all landscaping installed by the EDA and the City on
the subject property; and
That they will administer their duties under this Agreement by a majority vote ofthe
undersigned Owners or their assigns; and
That, should the Owners default under this Agreement, the City may cure the default after
a I a-day notice to the Owners; and
.
That the defaulting Owners consent to be assessed by the City for its costs of curing the
default; and
~~\.~
That they, along with their successors in interest and assigns, shall be bound by thi.s . S- \_
\f\ <".J C ('
Agreement; and ~. ~<:.A'>~d,
~o+
That this Agreement shall commence September 1,2004 and terminate September 1, .-B
2014. b~
vCV
~-U
Executed by the Owners on the dates recorded below.
.
.
.
'~?-
EDA Agenda - 06/ts/04
5.
Consideration to request the City Council to authorize WSB, Inc. to design the project
and 20 out for bids and specs.
A. Reference and background:
This agenda item assumes the EDA moved to proceed with the project. The EDA must now
request the City Council to authorize design of the project and to go out for bids and specs.
This would appear on the next Council agenda, June 28, 2004.
The last step after going out for bids and specs is for the Council to award the bid. I believe it
is the goal of everyone for this project: AI1ey, plaza, parking lot and facade improvements to be
completed in 2004.
B. Alternative Action:
1. A motion requesting the City Council to authorize WSB, Inc. to design the project and
go out for bids and specs.
2.
A motion to not request the City Council to authorize WSB, Inc. to design the project
and go out for bids and specs.
3. A motion to table any action.
C. Recommendation:
Alternative No.1.
D. Supporting Data:
None.
.
.
.
),')..
EDA Agenda - 06/B/04
6.
Consideration to authorize preparation of a Contract for Development between the
EDA/City and said Block 35 property owners.
A. Reference and background:
As you recall at the last meeting, even Attorney Brad Larson agreed that a simple Development
Contract between the EDA and the property owners be prepared outing what the EDA/City
agrees to do and what the property owners agree to do including commencement and
completion dates for public and private improvements.
B. Alternative Action:
I. A motion to authorize the EDA attorney to prepare a Contract for Development
between the EDA/City and said Block 35 property owners.
2. A motion to not authorize the EDA attorney to prepare a Contract for Development
between the EDA/City and said Block 35 property owners.
3. A motion to table any action.
c.
Recommendation:
Alternative NO.1.
D. Supporting Data:
None.
.
.
.
EDA Agenda - 06/22/04
7.
Other Business:
Attachment A. Balloon payment due from Mainline Distribution.
Attachment B. Letter to Water Monitor, Inc.
Attachment C. Loan fee collected from WSI and invoice for amortization run.
NO ACTION NECESSARY, INFORMATION ONLY.
.
.
.
June 18, 2004
GMEF Loan No. I-IS - Original Amount $100,000
Mainline Distribution
9530 Fallon Avenue, Monticello, MN
Balloon Payment Due June 1,2004
Last Monthly Payment received March 1,2004
End Balance April I, 2004
Accrued Interest April (Past Due)
Accrued Interest May (Past Due)
Accrued Interest June (Past Due)
Subtotal
Plus Additional Accrued Interest of $13.65 per day*
Total Balance Due
$85,429.02
$ 409.34
$ 409.34
$ 409.34
$86,657.04
* Example if you make balloon payment on June 21 (21 X $13.65 = $286.65)
Ollie Koropehak
763-271-3208
~~
Vif'
\;
~\ (} f\
~
1. N, .
~.~.
LiliLd
June 16, 2004
~
yV
~~
v\uG 0
~\\
MONTICELW
Mr. Steve Haas
Chief Finaneial Officer
Water Monitor, Inc.
2500 West County Road B
Minneapolis, MN 55113
Re: Economic Community Development Projeet/Funding for Customer Service/Billing Center.
Dear Steve:
.
Thank you for completing and returning the preliminary loan application for the Greater Monticello
Enterprise Fund (GMEF). It was my pleasure to have met with you, Randy Mortcnsen, and Noel
LaBine.
As Executive Director to the Monticello Economic Development Authority (EDA) who approves the
GMEF loans, I reviewed the preliminary loan application from Water Monitor, Inc. for consistency and
compliance of the guidelines set forth in the Business Subsidy Criteria of the EDA. Unfortunately, your
preliminary application did not meet the following criteria:
A. FDA USE OF PROCEEDS: Real property acquisition and development, real
property rchabilitation (expansion and improvements), and machinery and cquipment.
Your $900,000 public funding request included working and operating capital
uses only.
B. EDA FINANCING METHOD: GMEF loans are for use as a secondary source of
financing that is intended to supplement conventional financing (bank financing).
C. BUSINESS ELIGIBILITY: Industrial businesses.
.
At the EDA meeting of June 15,2004, the commissioners concurred with the Executive Director's
analysis that thc preliminary loan application from Watcr Monitor, Inc. was not consistcnt nor did
not comply with the EDA Business Subsidy Criteria. However, that is not to say the BOA would not
welcome your customer service/billing center and/or corporate office to Monticello.
Monticello City Hall, 505 Walnut Street, Suite 1, Monticello, MN 55362-8831 . (763) 295-2711 . Fax: (763) 295-4404
Offiee of Public Works, 909 Golf Course Rd., Monticello, MN 55362 . (763) 295-3170 . Fax: (763) 271-3272
.
.
.
Mr. Haas
June 16, 2004
Page 2
Lastly, enclosed you will find the return of your original Confidentiality Agreement Information and the
2003 and 2004 Balance Sheets. Should you have any questions, please call mc at 763-271-3208.
Sincerely,
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
IN AND FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
C) ~~ \t\ ell 0 ~ j) ~~ --
Ollie Koropchak
Executivc Director
Enclosures
c:
Noel LaBine, Economic Development Partnership of Wright County
Tom Ollig, TDS Telecom
Bruce Thielo/l, Mayor
FDA File v
Iii I, iJ f1 U ~;) i'J U\!,. rii\~fi>: I,
.
Invoice
042104
Description
application fee
.
No:
18127 4/23/04 City of Monticello
':;;':'-'?"-~"-'-'---'-"':'':"'" ~:'"
W""-;I J :\ I JinJ :") 1'1 Ui\II:::;: fll C eH_, 1-) I I/,
I ,) I ) I r:::::::1110::W\I, :1C):\I)
i,r~)",:;;:,:(), i\/I~,!
~'\:'I: .'~~1(}:J /;';:.1":'~'~::';"!:':\()1)
Date: 4/23104
No: 18127
018127
Amount
200.00
Discount
0.00
Net Amount
200.00
~~jc
(\ r4 U
Amount:
200.00
i,
>:;((~::::l.~ ~:1.'\~1;(
':UII\Ii\, l\ilI'l :):,dJl.,i
1'';'.I!I)'.lIO
018127
Amount:
************200.00
Two Hundred and nol I 00 Dollars**********************************************************************
Ay to the
~rder of
City of Monticello
Economic Development Authority
505 Walnut St Suite I
Monticello MN 55362
II- 0 ~ 8 ~ 2 711- I: 0 9 ~ 0 ~... a 981:
')1..~ ~
L~1/ .r~"",,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,:,
.,,/,. -
200 ~ bOil-
.
.
Monticello ~ E;:S) f\
505 Walnut Avenue, Suite 1
Monticello, MN 55362
May 10, 2004
~, c itc-~ ~,
C)... ~
\\'Me;c1 U
MC100-01
General
Invoice # 22306
Professional Services
4/13/2004 MTR
4/28/2004 MTR
Hours Amount
Mtg on annexation ..,..... c:~ 1 50
Amortiza\tipr,!Jor35~k t: t) If'\ - '} c~~ 0 . \.-\ ~'J S 0 \, .,~ \ c\ q ~:50
\J) "7,,1,.. X "-\,"--' ,
Total Due This Month:
Status of Account:
_gurr~.El~_. 30Day?
$250.00 $0.00
60 Days "__ 90 pays _
$000 $0.00
18750
62.50
2.00 $250.00
120+ q9~__. Tot'!ll
$0.00 $250.00
.
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