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.