Loading...
EDA Agenda 08-21-2007AGENDA MONTICELLO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Wednesday, August 21, 2007 - 4:00 p.m. City Hall -Academy Room MEMBERS: Chair Bill Demeules, Vice Chair Barb Schwientek, Council members Wayne Mayer and Tom Perrault, and Ron Hoglund. STAFF: Executive Director Ollie Koropchak and Recorder Angela Schumann. 1. Call to Order. 2. Roll Call. 3. Consideration to approve the Apri124, 2007 and August 21, 2007 EDA minutes. 4. Consideration of adding or removing agenda items. 5. Bills and communications. None. 6. Executive Director's Report. • None. 7. Committee Reports. 8. Unfinished business: 9. New Business: A. Public Hearing -Consideration to approve the Business Subsidy Agreement for GMEF Loan No. 026 to Washburn Computer Group. 10. Adjournment. MEETING MINUTES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Tuesday, April 24, 2007' City Hall ~.. Academy Room Present: Wayne Mayer, Tom Perrault, Ron Hoglund, Barb Schwientek, Bill DeMeules Absent; Darrin Lahr 1. Call to Order. Chairman Demeules called the meeting to order and noted that a quorum of the Authority was present. 2. Ra11 Call. Chainxaan Demeules called the roll and noted the absence of Commissioner Lahr. 3. Consideration to a rove the Se tember 19 2006 EDA minutes. • MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCHWIENTEK TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2006 EDA MEETING. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HOGLUND. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 4. Consideration of addin or removin a enda items. Wayne Mayer and Tom Perrault requested that the replacement of Commissioner Wojchouski be added as item for discussion. 5. Bills and Cornrnunications. a. Koropchak stated that unlike the HRA, the EDA doesn't need to approve the bills. However, they are provided review. Koropchak pointed out that one of the loan application criteria is that there is a loan fee set at a minimum of $200, ar a percentage of loan amount. With some of the previous loan agreements, the fee was set at the minimum. However, Koropchak stated that because of business subsidy law, notification of the loan needs to be published in the paper and the total cost for publication may exceed the application fee. • Hoglund noted that in that case, the EDA is then paying for the balance of the cast. 6. Executive Director's R ort. a. Open EDA position Koropchak explained that the Council was going to begin examining the potential for the HRA and EDA to merge. The City Administrator had proposed this and may have called individual EDA members to discuss the possibility. He had asked Koropchak to put a Council agenda item together on the topic. Koropchak had explained that a discussion had happened a couple of years ago on this same idea. However, because of desire far mare people in local government, it was dropped at that time. Koropchak stated that she had talked with HRA and EDA attorney Steve Bubul about the process. Koropchak stated that the issue isn't so much who the Commissioners are, but rather the functioning of the organization. The Council needs to authorize proceeding in merging and hiring a legal firm to complete the process and then make decisions about the end result organization. The end result would be a transfer of powers. Subsequently, there are needed resolutions. Koropchak said that Bubul had estimated the legal casts between $2000 - $3000. Due to these discussions, Wojchouski's position went unfilled. Perrault asked haw long the merger would take. Koropchak replied that once put into process, probably 2-3 months. Koropchak noted that the HRA has more assets than the EDA. Perrault asked if perhaps having different missions may keep them separate. Koropchak stated that the HRA was established in 1972. The EDA has greater powers. The HRA cannot buy land outside the City limits. Koropchak stated that as she understood it, all of the HRA's power and assets would be transferred to the new organization. Hoglund stated that the 1DC pushed for the EDA and revolving loan program. Mayer asked which organization makes more sense. Koropchak stated her recommendation would be that the HRA transfer their power and assets to the EDA. That would give the City the maximum number of powers. Demeules stated that there maybe same move to disband the EDA because of the limited agenda. Koropchak noted that the EDA currently has members from outside City limits, HRA members cannot come from outside. Koropchak stated her opinion that the new organization members should be City residents. Mayer agreed. Koropchak explained that the HRA commissioners had also been involved far sometime and they are very knowledgeable about TIF and HRA programs. Schwientek asked if the HRA had discussed this. Koropchak stated that O'Neill had also called them. Koropchak explained that the Council could choose to go out and interview a whole new graup for the new organization. . Demeules asked about whether the residency restriction applied to restrict membership to residents only, of if property owners could serve. Koropchak stated that she would check. Koropchak reminded the group that only the HRA has the authority to spend TIF. Mayer asked Koropchak to confirm what powers would stay, or whether the transfer could result in the loss of some powers. Koropchak explained that the powers are transferred; the EDA has greater powers under state statutes. Mayer asked for the information to go forward to the City Council. Koropchak stated that the marketing group had been working with students from SCSU on a feasibility study for a bioscience park. The marketing graup and City representatives would be going to hear a presentation by the students. Mayer commented about manufacturing leads being slow, and asked if this is common within the industry. Karopchak stated that she has calls and inquiries. Many are looking for outdoor storage, or are put off by the restrictive covenants. She stated that the industry has been quiet. Mayer reported that the fiber optics task force has been elevated to a paint where the task force does not have the proper set-up to keep proposals and data privacy. There will always be a place for the task force for marketing, etc. Mayer stated that the effort is at the juncture now where a fiber committee is needed so that it can take on some of these functions and take on more power to accomplish more. 7. Committee Re orts. Unfinished Business a. Update on GMEF Laan Na. 02S (Karlsburger) Koropchak reported that the loan had closed and that she had provided the EDA with a list of the equipment under the loan. 9. New Business a. Cansideration to elect 2007 EDA officers. Koropchak stated that pending the merger of the HRA and EDA, this action would be required to be redone. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCHWEINTEK TO NOMINATE BILL DEMEULES AS CHAIR, BARB SCHWIENTEK AS VICE CHAIR, RICK WOLFSTELLER AS TREASURER, RON HOGLUND AS ASSISTANT TREASURER AND OLLIE KOROPCHAK AS 2007 EDA OFFICERS. Holgund stated that he plans to resign at year-end 2007 and would like to be removed from the officers list. Schwientek asked if the slate could be left as is until the merger is complete. Hoglund agreed. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSION DEMEULES. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. b. Cansideration to review and accept the year-end EDA Financial Statements, Activity, Report, and proposed 2007 budget. Koropchak presented the review and noted that the report is required by the by-laws. Schwientek indicated that the reports improve each year. Koropchak stated that she, Wolfsteller and Paula Mastey had worked through the information to make sure EDA reports and audit reports were consistent. Koropchak reviewed revenues and expenses as well as interest and income. Hoglund asked if the EDA forgave an amount on the TJ Martin loan. Koropchak confirmed that a couple of years of payments had been forgiven. Demeules asked if the payback to the liquor store funds should be shown as a liability on the balance sheet. Hoglund stated that funding was originally "seed money". Koropchak responded that it was given as an appropriation and was not required to be paid back, although the EDA has chosen to do so. Demeules noted that an some of the reports it is called a line of credit. Koropchak stated that is what it was termed in the ordinance. Koropchak explained that in summary, the EDA has a projected cash balance of $453,213.06 for year-end 2007. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HOGLUND TO ACCEPT THE 2006 YEAR-END FINANCIAL STATEMENT AND ACTIVITY REPORT FOR SUBMISSION TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON MAY 14 OR 29~H, 2007. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCHWIENTEK. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. c. Consideration to review the summary year-end balances of other sources of revenue. Koropchak stated that this report summarizes that the EDA has two other sources of funds to draw far loans, which are the paybacks from the Twin City Die Castings and UMC loans. Korapchak stated that given this information, she and Wolfsteller recommended that the EDA payback $100,000 to the liquor store funds for 2008. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCHWIENTEK TO AUTHORIZE THE EDA TO MAKE A PAYMENT OF $100,000 TO THE LIQUOR STORE FUNDS IN BUDGET YEAR 2008. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSONER PERRAULT. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. d. Consideration to review for amendment the Business Subsidy Criteria and Bylaws of the EDA. Koropchak stated that she didn't see any need for amendment to either the bylaws or subsidy criteria at this point. Mayer inquired about terms and conditions of the UMC original loan. Koropchak confirmed that both UMC and Tapper have balloon payments, so that in 2008, there would be more cash available to the EDA. Perrault inquired why section 4.05 of the subsidy criteria is in parentheses. Koropchak stated that she would find out and clarify. Perrault asked about wage levels if federal minimum wage changes. Koropchak confirmed that they would change in the EDA criteria also. In relationship to the GMEF loan criteria, Perrault asked when the loan amount per job was last evaluated. Koropchak stated that perhaps they should be review the programs and criteria. Hoglund stated that the ratio would still be the factor to look at. Demeules stated that it should be reviewed as part of whether Monticello is competitive in the marketplace. Korapchak noted that the majority of the time, it is the $10,000 per job created that is used. Many times, that is more than what would be recommended. Koropchak confirmed that she can check with some other communities to see if the numbers are relevant. • Mayer stated that page 10 stated of the EDA Business Subsidy Criteria states that the liquor store money doesn't have to be paid back. Koropchak stated that EDA members' goal was to be self-sufficient, and was accountable by paying back the funds. Mayer suggested that the $100,000 would be better off used as a loan. Demeules stated that one of the EDA's goals was to be self sufficient. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HOGLUND TO ACCEPT THE BUSIENSS SUBSIDY CRITERIA OF THE EDA AND THE BYLAWS OF THE EDA AS WRITTEN. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCHWIENTEK. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. Perrault asked if in Section 3-3-6 of the Bylaws relating to officers a report was being submitted as required. Koropchak stated that she thought that had been amended so that the report would be given after the EDA's annual meeting. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCHWIENTEK TO AMEND SECTION 3-3-6 OF THE BYLAWS OF THE EDA TO REFLECT THAT THE ANNUAL REPORT SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE CITY OF MONTICELLO AFTER THE EDA ANNUAL MEEETING. MOTION SECONDED BY PERRAULT. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. e. Other Business. None. l0. Adjournment MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HOGLUND TO ADJOURN. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAYER. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. r1 L.J MINUTES MONTICELLO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Wednesday, August 8, 2007 - 4:00 p.m. City Hall -Academy Room MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Bill Demeules, Vice Chair Barb Schwientek, Council members Wayne Mayer and Tom Perrault, and Ron Hoglund. MEMBER ABSENT: None. STAFF PRESENT: Executive Director Ollie Koropchak and Recorder Angela Schumann. GUESTS: Ken and Karin Curtis, Washburn Computer Group Call to Order. Chairman Demeules called the meeting to order and declared a quorum. 2. Roll Call. Consideration to a rove the A ri124 2007 EDA minutes. Koropchak indicated the minutes would be provided for the next meeting of the EDA. 4. Consideration of adding or removing agenda_tems. NONE. Chair Dernuelues moved item 9 listed on the agenda as New Business up as item S on the agenda. 5. New Business A. Consideration to review the relimina loan a lication for Washburn Com uter Grou . Koropchak reviewed the preliminary loan application, explaining that a loan application had been requested to enable a 30,000 square foot expansion as a real property rehabilitation expansion or improvement loan. Koropchak explained that the company had agreed that in exchange land for the Chelsea Road improvements, Washburn would enhance the exterior of their building and comply with parking requirements. Demeules asked Washburn representatives to briefly discuss their company. Ken Curtis explained that the company is 18 years old and currently has 63 employees. Based on current customer requests, they will need to double the size of their facility and add more employees. He indicated that Washburn repairs and services point of sale computer equipment for major retailers. Koropchak noted to the EDA that the GMEF subsidy criteria refers to job creation versus retention. So, in approving a loan amount, the EDA will need to consider whether the date of job creation would be January of 2007 or from the date of the new application. Koroochak referred to the application, discussing total uses and sources at $1,735,000. She referened the 90% job creation criteria, requiring 6 news jobs from two years of loan closing, and that 90% of the new jobs must pay a wage of higher than $9.31 per hour. The estimated increase to total tax base is $33,665 and $21,133 to local tax base. The loan would be used as a secondary source to conventional fmancing and used as gap financing. EDA would be in second loan position behind conventional lender Gateway Bank and the SBA. Koropchak then reviewed the GMEF policy requirements, indicating that based on new job creation, the applicant would be eligible fpr $60,000, based on total job creation they are eligible for $470,000, based on increase in property value, they would be eligible for $275,000. Koropchak stated that she is recommending a loan amount of $275,000. Koropchak reminded the EDA that the loan size is not to exceed 50% of the remaining fund balance. Fifty percent of current balance is $415,355. The loan term cannot exceed a 30-year amortization, and typically the EDA has worked with the conventional lender to set a consistent term. The interest rate is required to be not less than 2% below Minneapolis prime with balloon payment due in five years. Koropchak reported that as of August 8th, the prime rate is at 8.25%. Koropchak indicated that in terms of a loan fee, the EDA has typically set a fee of $200, which is the minimum. There is no penalty For pre-payment. Koropchak stated that it is the preference to proceed with approval as soon as possible, but the applicant leas 180 days to draw on the loan. Koropchak noted that if the EDA wanted to approve a loan amount greater than $100,000, it would need to call a public hearing, as required by business subsidy by-law. B. Consideration to a rove or den a roval of GMEF Loan No. 026 for Washburn Conn uter Grou and call fora ublic hearin if necess Koropchak stated that the EDA is asked to approve or deny GMEF Loan No. 026 for Washburn Computer Group and call for a public hearing if necessary based on the previous information. The Commissioners are asked to consider if the loan encourages economic development, if the EDA finds that it complies with the business subsidy criteria and then define the terms. Koropchak referenced that there was research completed regarding the possible use of federal dollars, but due to the requirements for compliance, it was felt that the amount that could be used would not off-set the costs of compliance and reporting. Koropchak again stated that it was her recornrnendation that the EDA use job creation from January 27t", 2007, and approve a loan amount of $275,000. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCHWIENTEK TO APPROVE GMEF LOAN N0.026 FOR WASHBURN COMPUTER GROUP IN THE AMOUNT OF $275,000 WITH A LOAN FEE OF $200, AT A 6.25% FIXED INTEREST RATE, AT A TERM CONSISTENT WITH THE CONVENTIONAL LENDER COLLATERAL, GUARANTEES, AND OTHER CONDITION REQUIREMENTS TO BE DETERMINED AND PREPARED BY THE GMEF ATTORNEY. THE GMEF LOAN APPROVAL IS SUBJECT TO A PUBLIC HEARING ON BUSINESS SUBSIDY, LENDER COMMITMENT, CREDIT WORTHINESS LETTER, BUILDING PLAN APPROVAL, AND COUNCIL RATIFICATION OF EDA ACTION.. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HOGLUND. MOTION CARRIED, S-0. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER PERRAULT TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON BUSINESS SUBSIDY CRITERIA FOR PROPOSED GMEF LOAN NO.026 FOR AUGUST 21S`, 2007 AT 4:00 PM. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCHWIENTEK. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. C. Consideration to review the new ci bud et form and acce t EDA 2008 Prelimin Budd Koropchak explained that in the past, the EDA has not had a formal budget. The City Finance Department has prepared worksheets based on Governmental Accounting Standards Board requirements. Koropchak reviewed the preliminary worksheets, noting goals for exploration of a bio-science park, the support of a fiber optics network and options for education training facility. Koropchak then reviewed measurable workload items including GMEF loan approvals, marketing efforts, job creation and annual payroll of jobs created. Koropchak explained that for the preliminary capital improvement plan, she had budgeted a split ofbio-science investment and a job training campus between the HRA and EDA over a five year period beginning in 2008. The EDA Commissioners agreed that they were satisfied with the 2008 EDA Preliminary Budget as presented. 6. Bills and communications. GMEF No. 025 UCC Filing Koropchak stated that the filing information and invoices had been provided as information only. No action is required. 7. Executive Director's Re ort. Koropchak reviewed the repart, highlighting that the TIF District Reports had been prepared by Paula Mastey with her assistance. The reports were due August 15~ and were sent. She indicated that the marketing group had met with Rusty Fifield of HKGI to discuss the integration of bio-science goals into the comp plan. She also noted that she has had preliminary discussion with Anoka_Ramsey College and others about the possibility of developing a job/education training center in Monticello. Committee R orts. A. EDA/HRA merger. Demeules reported that both the HRA and EDA are not running with the full compliment of commissioners. As such, the committee has recognized the need to proceed if a merger is the decided outcome. Demelues stated that the goal of keeping the EDA's fund balance intact and dedicated to the purpose of industrial economic development was expressed and supported during the committee meetings. There have been preliminary discussions on the makeup of the new organization. A Council workshop has been set for the 13~" of August to discuss further outcomes. Mayer stated that the workshop may be cancelled in order to get this in front of the Council more quickly. He indicated that with both boards running short of members, now is the time to make the transition, as it seems like the organization that comes out of the merger can accomplish as much as both. Koropchak stated that she had contacted Kennedy and Graven for a timeline based off of what could be the HRA's last meeting date of September 12~". The indicated that it would be possible, but tight. Couccil would need to approve resolutions on their August 27t" meeting. The other items that needs to be decided is what powers the Council wants to designate to the new organization and which they may choose to keep. Mayer asked the other commissioners what they might recommend in terms of the makeup of the new body. Schwientek stated that as far as the structure and make-up, she would support what works in terms of the best interest of the City, although her preferences would be for a smaller number of members. She stated that with a larger commission, it can be difficult to reach consensus. Mayer stated that it was his feeling that perhaps a group of seven voting members, with two of the 7 being Council members. Koropchak recommended staggered terms. Schwientek and Hoglund agreed that they would be supportive of members being property owners within the City, but not necessarily residents. 9. Unfinished business: NONE. 10. Ad~ournment. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCHWIENTEK TO ADJOURN. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HOGLUND. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. • EDA Agenda - 0$/21/07 9A. Public Hearin -Consideration to a rave the Business Subsid A reement for GMEF Loan No. 026 to Washburn Com rater Grou . A. Reference and back round. OPEN PUBLIC HEARING The public hearing notice appeared in the local newspaper on August 15, 2007, meeting the requirements of the Business Subsidy Act. A local government assistance of $100,000 or greater requires a public hearing and a copy of the business subsidy agreement must be an file at the City Hall far review. Said business subsidy assistance is in the amount or $275,000. The draft copy of the Business Subsidy Agreement was prepared by the EDA Executive Director in accordance with the EDA approval of August 8, 2007. Authorization far the EDA Attorney to prepare the Loan Agreement is subject to execution of a contract between Washburn Computer Group and a new client/customer and certain conditions as identified by the commissioners in the approval action of August 8, 2007. In addition to the Business Subsidy Agreement, attached is a copy of the EDA . approval/commitment form as executed by Washburn and a notice of the public hearing. The City Council will consider ratifying the EDA's approval of GMEF Loan No. 026 on August 27, 2007. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING After closing the public hearing, please consider the following alternative action. B. Alternative Action: A motion to approve the Business Subsidy Agreement for GMEF Loan No. 026 to Washburn Computer Group. 2. A motion to deny approve of the Business Subsidy Agreement for GMEF Loan No. 026 to Washburn Computer Group. 3. A motion to table any action. EDA Agenda ~ 08/21/07 C. Recommendation: The Executive Director recommends approval of the Business Subsidy Agreement, Alternative No. 1. Remember the Business Subsidy Agreement lies or is included in the Laan Agreement which will be prepared later by the EDA Attorney upon satisfaction of certain conditions approved by the EDA. Therefore, should the conditions not be satisfied, the approved GMEF Loan No. 026 is null and void and the Business Subsidy Agreement simply does not exist. D. Supporting Data: Draft copy of the Business Subsidy Agreement, executed copy of the EDA approval form and public hearing notice. • 6. Business Subsidy, .Agreement. The provisions of this Section constitute the "business subsidy agreement" for the purposes of the Business Subsidy Act. (a) General Terms. The parties agree and represent to each other as follows: (i) The subsidy provided to the Borrower (Washburn Computer Group) consists of the principal amount ($275,000) of the Loan. (ii) The public purposes of the subsidy are to promote development of a 30,000 square foot addition to an existing industrial building in the City, increase quality job growth in the City and the State, and increase the tax base of the City and State. (iii) The goals for the subsidy are: to retain the minimum improvements of an under utilized existing building located on the Froperty; to maintain the minimum improvements of the 30,000 square foot addition to an existing industrial building located on the Property; and to create the jobs and wage levels in accordance with Section 6(b) hereof. (iv)) If the goals described in clause (iii) are not met, the Borrower must make the payment to the Lender (Monticello Economic Development Authority) described in Section 6(c). (v) The Borrower must continue to operate on the Property as a computer repair shop facility for at least five years after the Benefit Date (defined hereinafter). (vi) The Borrower does not have a parent company. (vii) The Borrower has not received, and does not expect to receive, financial assistance from any other "grantor" as defined in the Business Subsidy Act, in connection with the Property. (b) Job and Wage Goals. The "Benefit Date" of the assistance provided in this Agreement is January 1, 2007. Within two years after the Benefit Date (the "Compliance Date"), The Borrower shall cause to be created at least fifty-three new full-time permanent jobs on the property, and cause the hourly wage of the 53 new jobs to be as follows: (i) at least 13 new jobs shall pay no less than $10.00 per hour exclusive of benefits; (ii) at least 19 new jobs shall pay no less than $12.00 per hour exclusive of benefits, (iii) at least 13 new jobs shall pay no less than $14.00 per hour exclusive of benefits, (iv) at least 3 new jabs shall pay no less than $16.00 per hour exclusive of benefits, (v) at least 2 new jobs shall pay no less than $18.00 per hour exclusive of benefits, and (vi) at least 3 new jobs shall pay na less than $22.00 per hour exclusive of benefits. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, if the wage and jobs goals described in this paragraph are met by the Compliance Date, those goals are deemed satisfied. The Lender may, after a public hearing, extend the Compliance Date by up to ane year, provided nothing in this section will be construed to limit the Lender's legislative discretion regarding this matter. (c) Remedies. If the Borrower fails to meet the goals described in Section 6 (b), the Borrower shall repay to the Lender upon written demand from the Lender a "pro rata share" of the outstanding principal amount of the Loan together with interest on the amount at the implicit price deflator as defined in Minnesota Statues, Section 275.50, subd. 2. The term "pro rata share" means percentages calculated as follows: (i) if the failure relates to the number of jobs, the jobs required less the jobs created, divided by the jobs required; (ii) if the failure relates to wages, the number of jobs required less the number of jobs that meet the required wages, divided by the number of jobs required; (iii) if the failure relates to maintenance of the Minimum Improvements at the Property in accordance with Section 6(a)(iii)(v), 60 less the number of months of operation as a computer repair shop facility (where any month in which the facility is in operation for at least 15 days constitutes a month of operation), commencing from the date of Closing, 20~, and ending with the date the facility ceases operation as determined by Lender, divided by 60; and (iv) if mare than one of clauses (i) through (iii) apply, the sum of the applicable percentages, not to exceed 100%. Nothing in this Section shall be construed to limit the Lender's remedies under Section 7 hereof In addition to the remedy described in this Section and any ater remedy available to the Lender for failure to meet the goals stated in Section 6 (a)(iii)(v), the Borrower agrees and understands that it may not receive a business subsidy from the Lender or any grantor (as defined in the Business Subsidy Act) for a period of five years from the date of the failure or until the Borrower satisfies its repayment obligation under this Section, whichever occurs first. (d) Reports. The Borrower must submit to the Lender a written report regarding business subsidy goals and results by no later than February 1 of each year, commencing February 1, 200$, and continuing until the later of (i) the date the goals stated Section 6(a)(iii) are met, (ii) 30 days after expiration of the period described in Section 6(a)(v); or if the goals are not met, the date the subsidy is repaid in accordance with Section 6(c). The report must comply with Section 116J.994, subdivision 7 of the Business Subsidy Act. The Lender will provide information to the Borrower regarding the required forms. If the Borrower fails to • , timely file any report required under this Section, the Lender will mail the Borrower a warning within one week after the required filing date. 1f, after 14 days of the postmarked date of the warning, the Borrower fails to provide a report, the Borrower must pay to the Lender a penalty of $100 for each subsequent day until the report is filed. The maximum aggregate penalty payable under this Section $1,000. n L.J 3 • DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Economic Development Director Economic Development Authority in and for the City of Monticello, Minnesota GREATER MONTICELLO ENTERPRISE FUND APPROVAL/DISAPPROVAL Freliminary Loan Application Approval. BUSINESS SUBSIDY PUBIC HEARING Loan terms negotiated and agreed upon between the developer, the lending institution, and the EDA Executive Director. Formal Loan Application and Financial Statements analyzed by the lending institution or City Staff. Building and Site Plan Preliminary and/or Final Review. Building Permit approval or construction commitment. Phone: (763)271-3208 Fax: (763)295-4404 E-mail: Ollie.koropchak(a~ci.monticello.mn.us AUGUST 21, 2007 Loan documentation reviewed and/or prepared by the EDA Attorney. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL: LOAN NUMBER: GMEF No . 026 LOAN APPROVED: YES BORROWER: WASHBURN COMPUTER GROUP ADDRESS: 218 CHELSEA ROAD EAST DISAPPROVED: _ LOAN AMOUNT: $275, 000 TWO HUNDRED SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND/:DOLLARS =AND NO CENTS RATE: FIXED RATE 6.25% DATE: AUGUST 8, 2007 TERMS: MAXIMUM AMORTIZATION UP TO 30 YEARS, BALLOON PAYMENT TN YEAR FIVE, FEE: $200 DUE AND PAYABLE NOT LATER THAN SEPTEMBER 1, 2 7. ** OTHER (SECOND PAGE) A motion was made by EDA Commissioner BAPk$~r~I~TaK to (approve~r~~ Greater Monticello Enterprise Funds in the amount of _ ~ ~ ~ s non nn r _._....._....__.... -- ~ars and cents to developer this $-~t--,_.. ~Y a~--- 11T36Td$T ~ 2$AT-' Seconded by EDA Commissioner YEAS: SCHWIENTEK, HOGLUND NAYS: NONE DEMEULES, PERRAULT, AND MAYER ABSENT: NONE GMEF ApprovaUDisappraval Page 2 GMEF disbursed EDA Treasurer. by Check No. CITY COUNCIL MAY REVERSE AN EDA LOAN DECISION WITHIN TWENTY-ONE DAYS OF EDA APPROVAL. TO CITY COUNCIL AUGUST 27 , 2007 ACCEPTANCE OF TERMS I (We) hereby accept the terms stated above as approved by the Economic Development Authority in and for the City of Monticello. DATED: '' i ~ ~_ ~~~ __.. Developer ** LOAN APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMMITMENT LETTER AND CREDIT WORTHINESS LETTER FROM LENDER, . APPROVAL OF BUILDING EXPANSION PLANS, PUBLIC HEARING ON THE BUSINESS SUBSIDY, AND COUNCIL RATIFICATION OF EDA ACTION. COLLATERAL, GUARANTEES, AND OTHER CONDITION REQUIREMENT TO BE DETERMINED AND PREPARED BX THE EDA ATTORNEY. EDA LEGAL FEES THE RESPONSTBTLITY OF THE APPLICANT. GMEF LOAN N0. 026 BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF APFROVED $225,000 LOAN NOT DISBURSED BY FEBRUARY $, 2008. FAILURE TO PAY PRINCIPAL AND INTERST WHEN DUE MAY RESULT IN THELOAN BEING IMMEDIATELY CALLED. AT LEAST 53 NEW JOBS TO MONTICELLO AT A WAGE LEVEL OF AT LEAST $9.3b PER HOUR WITHOUT BENEFITS AND AS DESCRIBED ON THE ATTACHED JOB/WAGE FORMS..-'':JOBS'>CREP.TTON~-FROM JA-IVUARY 2007 THROUGH TWO~YEARS FROM CLOSING'(~ENEFIT DATE). THE REAL PROPERTY REHABILITATION (EXPANSION AND IMPROVEMENTS) LOAN IS FOR THE CONSTRUCTII OF A 30,000 SQ FT ADDBf'Y'ION TO AN EXISTING INDUSTRIAL BUILDING. ~ '' • JtJL 11 2(107 9:48AM HP LASERJET 3200 .~ 7632552096 _ .5 DEVELQp~r $E$VIC$~ P'~on~ f 1~ 27I-1308 ,roonamio DevafopmaaitTl~eb~t ' FaG (7d~ Z~S-4104 ~'' ~ QTY U~' M011t'YTCFX.LO~ ~OTA dOB Alm ~fTA{~_IEVffi. TI~YG J~HS _ _ j _ P~C88C Iq~1C$~C l1~Il~C[ O~C13Y'~ct1~17E1~+Oi1L RfYp(dY0Q8 ~ a~ ICVCL a~ ~CafD 1bO C.0~0~1.II$ i~C$L IGYGL °~ - ~~ oero~s ~ F~ot~rlvValu~_ ~v~~ . ~. -an¢a Part-time (F~cL ~aao~ts) ~ r~$7.aa ~.oa ~ 17.99 ~(~ ss.oo ~ 39.9g ~ ~ $lo.oo ro $u.q9 . i ~1 X12.00 ~ $13.99 $14.00 60 $25.99 $16.00 t~ $17.99 ~- ~~ $18.00 bo $19.99 ~~~.oa m $21.99 ~„_ $~z.0a a~ roaswec~crs~rc~.~a~ i Monticello Times B Section Thursday, Aug. 16, 2007 P2ge 5B 'ublic Notices '~ 10. Consideration of accepting Fea- A sI 111ty Renort for 6th 5trget Pedes- 3, trien Facility Improvements. N Bruce Westby reviewed the history of E this project. The Council accepted the J. initial feasibility report on September 11, 2006. However the Council direct- ti ed staff to conduct an informational In meeting with the residents in the area The concerns expressed by the prop- ~r erty owners were replacemeht of land- r scaping, loss of green space, getting d advance notice of the project sp that h landscape and irrigation systems could >- be moved back, and increased foot traffic in the area. If a retaining wall is d required, the residents would like to have some input on the color and de- ~ sign of the wall. Public Works Director, Jahn 5imala ,_ pointed out that when sidewalk is E placed on the grid system that deter- R mines how the, sidewalk is assessed. Anything on the grid system is as- sessed 25% and the City picks up the E remaining 75°/ , He believes the Coun- 'I is under the assumption that any- ;_ g on the grid system is maintained Y he City but that is not the case. The E rid system determines how it is as- F sessed not who maintains it. H The Gouncil directed Bruce Westby to a look at how the assessments could be 5 allocated. Wayne Mayer suggested )- Bruce Westby investigate ways of pos- I- sibly saving some pf the bushes and V landscaping. Bruce Westby will took at J options and bring them back to the V Council. I- Rick Wolfsteller asked where the 75% I' pf $158,000 that would be the City's portion was coming from. Would it be n assessments, park funds, or some 0 other fund? tt BRIAN STUMPF MOVEDTO ACCEPT ;- THE' FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR e CITY PROJECT NO. 2006-28C, ORDER THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR r AUGUST 13, 2007 AND ADD THE ' SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS TO THE CITY'S GRID SYSTEM AND DI- - RECT STAFF Tp CONDUCT A 4 WORKSHOP ON WHAT PATHWAYS 1» THE CITY ARE CURRENTLY~CLEAN- 9 ING SNOW OFF OF AND WHAT T OTHER PATHWAYS SHOULD BE 1- CONSIDERED FOR MAINTENANCE. V WAYNE MAYER SECONDED THE I. MOTION. MOTION CARRIED WITH TOM PERRAULT AND SUSIE WOJC- rt HOUSKI VOTING IN OPPOSITION. r Tom Perrault felt it was premature to eed at this time and felt it would be it er to waft until the Ruff property de- a roped. Susie Wojchouski felt be- i, cause the financial and budget con- s straints now might not be the best time to proceed with the project. y 7. >t i- tion of amounts to Countv. e Mayor Herbst opened the public hear- ri inn nn 4hn rlalinnnanf ntilihv flccncc_ an odd numbered address inspected the next year and the common area would be done every year. Wayne Mayer felt that Sectipn 4-4-2 of IPMC was not explicit and should detail that the provisions apply to all rental hpusing. Wayne Mayer also ques- tioned section 303.2 dealing with en- closures around spas, pools etc. ex- ceeding 24 inches in depth. He stated that based pn 24 inches many of the smaller pools sold at the stores would require an enclosure. D.J. Hennessey stated that Section 303.2 was replaced and the language about the pools and enclosures was from the City's zoning ordinance. Wayne Mayer also ques- tioned 304.14 which requires any door, window or outside opening required for ventilation of habitable rooms, fond preparation areas ar areas relating to food processing, packaging pr con- sumption shall have an approved screen. He asked ii this provision was meant to apply to only restaurants pr to all properties. Wayne Mayer felt the language was vague and that the vague language made the provisions open to interpretation, He would prefer to see things spelled out in black and white. - Wayne Mayer asked that section 304.14 be clarified before the agenda item is voted on with the clarification being that this provision applies to commercial areas only. There was further discussion on sec lion 303.2 with Clint Herbst feeling that the pool depth should be changed to 48 inches before requiring an enclosure. Tom Scott said since this provision is part of the City's zoning ordinance, the zoning ordinance would have to be amended. An amendment to the zon- ing ordinance requires a public hear- ing. Tom Scott suggested that instead of including the text pf 3-2F10 in sec- tion 303.2 they could just allude to the section of the zoning code and then at same point amend the zoning ordi- nance to reflect the Council's desires. Tom Perrault expressed concern about the misdemeanor provision and Wayne Mayer also expressed some discom- fortwith the City being property police. Gary Anderson, Building. Official re- sponded that it is their intent to use common Sense and it is not the big arm of the City coming down on the land- lords. SUSIE WOJCHOUSKI MOVED TO APPROVE THE ADOPTION OF CITY ORDINANCE TITLE 4, CHAPTER 4" ADOPTION OF THE INTERNATION- AL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE"WITH THE GRANGE TO SEC- TION 303.2 THAT REFERENCES SECTION 3-2F10 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE BUT NOT INCLUDING THE TEXT OF THE PROVISION ANp THAT SECTION 3D4.14 IS CLARI- FIED TO STATE THAT THE SCREEN- ING REQUIREMENTS APPLY TO rnnenecarini nocnc nnuv ~nin Stop sign at Fallon Avenue and School Boulevard: Clint Herbst noted that there is demand for a four way stop sign at this intersection and asked what harm there would be in installing it. Bruce Westby stated the City did re- ceive apetition from residents in the area so there is a great deal of local support for the installation of the sign. Staff is in the process of determining whether the intersection meets the warrants for a four way stop. Bruce Westby stated the harm of placing the stop sign is that it impacts the function- al classification of the road. He has not looked at how this would impact the City's Transportation Plan, Rick Wolfsteller: Clint Herbst painted out that this would be Rick Wolfsteller's last Council meeting. Clint Herbst com- mended him on his 32 years of service to the City and stated it was hard to express how much the City and its stall appreciated his service and his exper- tise in financial matters. 15. Consideration of aaorovino oav- BRIAN STUMPF MOVED TO AP- PROVE PAYMENT OF BILLS, .SUSIE WOJCHOUSKI SECONDEDTHE MO- TION. MOTION CARRIED UNANI- MOUSLY, 16. ASljourn• The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Recording Secretary 'This is a summary of the approved minutes of 7/23107. A full version of the minutes can be reviewed at City Hall or an the City's website: www.ci.mpnticel- Ip.mn.us (Aug. 16, 20D7) mt-minutes 7-23-07 City of Monticello (Official Publication) NOTICE OF WEARING ON IMPROVEMENT 6TH STREET AND ELM STREET PEDESTRIAN FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS CITY PROJECT N0.2006-28C TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Monticello will meet in the Council Chambers of the City Hall at 7 p.m. on August 13, 2007 to consider the making of an improve- ment on 6th Street from Locust Street to Elm Street and along Elm Street from 6th Street to County Road 39 by the construction pf a 6-foot wide con- crete sidewalk along the north side of 6th Street from Locust Street to Elm Street and along the west side of Elm Street from 6th Street tp County Rpad 39 including pedestrian curb ramps, crosswalk improvements and other necessary appurtenant work pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 429.011 to 49q 11 City of Monticello -~ (Official Publication) NOTICE OF PUBLIC WEARING STATE OF MINNESOTA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO COUNTY OF WRIGWT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Economic Development Authority in and for the City of Montinello, Min- nesota, will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, August 21, 2007, at approxi- mately 4:00 p,m., at the Gity Halt, 505 Walnut Street, Academy Rnom, Monti- cello, Minnesota, regarding a proposed business subsidy to be granted by the Economic Development Authority to the Washburn Computer Group (the "Recipient") under Business Minneso- ta Statutes, Sections 116J993 through 1.16J.994. The proposed subsidy in- volves abelow interest loan to assist with the expansion and improvements of the construction of an industrial facil- ity by the Recipient in the City of Mon- ticello. Proposed amount of the sub- sidy is $275,000. Information about the proposed business subsidy is available for in- spection at City Hall during regular business hours. All interested persons may appear at the hearing and present their views orally or in writing, BY ORDER OF THE EGONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Ollie Koropchak, Executive Director (Published August 15, 2007) (Auq. 16, 2007) mt-NOPH EDA-0Ilie School District 882 (Official Publication) SPEGAL MEETING -BOARD OF EDUCATION MONDAY; JUNE 11, 2007 (The following is a summary of the meeting held on June 11, 2007. A complete copy of the minutes is on file in the District Office and will be posted on the district's website (www.monticeilo.kl2.mn. us) following board approval.) ~, The Monticello Board of Education held their special board meeting on Monday, June 11, 2007, at 5:00 p.m. in the High School Media Center. The meeting was called to order by Chair Scott Hill with The following board mem- bers in attendance; Hili, Sawatzke, Burns and Lindberg. Members ab- sent: Leitch-Sell and Wigen (arrived late). Also present were school district administrators and guests. Citizens Comments: None Consent Agenda: A motion was made by Sawatzke, seconded by Lind- berg, with all voting aye (Wigen and Leitch-Sell absent): motion carried 4-0.