EDA Agenda 01-29-2003AGENDA
MQNTICF,LLO 1~.CONOMIC DEVEL.OPMF;N'T AUTFIOI~I7'Y
Wednesc(ay, ,January 29, 2003 - 4:UU p.m.
City hall -Academy loom
MI~M[31-;RS: ('hair I3i1] [)etr~eules, Vice Chair .F3arb Schwientek, Roder Carlson, Roil l Io~lttnd,
and Darrin l~ahz'.
S'l~Ali'F: "Treasurer Kick Wolfsteller, .Executive Director Ollie Koropchal., Recorder Lori
Kractner.
CiL1ES1'; Sieve Grittmatl, Nortl~wcst. Associated Consultants.
Susie Wojchouski, llA7' Vice C~h~.iir.
1. Call to Order.
2• Consideration to approve the December l6, 2002 F,[)A tllinutes.
~. (.'onsidcration of adding or removing agenda item.
~~ (.'onsidcr~:rtioii io review cosmetic dcsigra sketches and cost estimates for rear iacacle
improvernenls on F31ock 3.5. (Planner Steve Crittinzn)
. ~. C:'onsideration of request from IDC io review (_~M1JF ~ -
C~uidel-i~es fior business/job
retention.
6. [Ipdate of 2003 EDA n~etnbershil? appointments.
7. Executive Director's Repo~•t.
$• Other Business.
9. Adjournment.
MINt1T1~~S
MON`hICELLO ECY)NOMIC DEVI+.LAI'MENT AUTHORITY
Monday, December l6, 20U2 - 4:00 p.m.
City Hall -Academy Room
Members Present:
Absel7t:
Staff:
CiI.ICSIs:
1. Call to Urdcr.
Chair Bill Den7eulcs, Vice Chair Barb Scl7wientek, Assist Treasurer Kcn
Maus, Clint I4e1-bst, Roger Carlson, and Ron Hoglul7d
I~arrin. Lal7r
[~,Yecutive Director Ollie Koropclak a17d Recorder Lol-i Kraen7er
I'a177 ('alnpbell, DAT Chair
Dennis Bonclhus, T..I. Martin, Inc., dba. Lake Tool
Chair Delncules called the n7eeting to oI°der at 4:05 p.m. alld declared a gl1oI'LI177.
2. ('onsideration to a Trove the October 8 2002 h:[)A n7inutes.
A MOTION WAS MAD}~ BY BAI2I3 SC'I~WII~NTF;K TU APi'ROVE THF. MINUTF,S
OF THE ()C"1'UBl~;Ft 8, 2002 I~DA MEF;"LING. ROGER CARLSON SECONDI~;D TI{E
MOTION. MOTION CARRIED LINANIIVIULISI:Y.
3. Consideration of addil7 ~ or rcn7ovi17 r a ~cnda items.
Koropchal. h::ui no addltlol7al 1tCnls hilt sLlg~eSted that IteI71 C7 Lie 11CaTd 111"st Oll tl7e agenda
as Mr. I;ondl7us Was present.
4. Consideration to a ~ ~rovc extel7clin ~ the non- 7crformance date for GM F?F Loan No. 021
Ta ~ . er, Inca .
Ollie Koropchak, I~,xecutive Director, advised that the borrower was still waiting for a
piece of ec}uipment a17d tl7erefore wol.lld like to hold off closing on t17c loan until that
equipment carne in. There was no further discussion.
A MU'I'lON WAS MADF. 13Y RUN I IUGL.,LJNI) TU APPROVE EXTENDING TILE
NUN-PEK1~'UIZMANCF, DA"L~E FOR GMEF L,UAN NU. 02] F'UR T'APPEK'S INC.
FROM DECI-;MISER I [3, 2002 TU AI'KIL 1$, 200;. GLINT IIERI3ST 51~;CONDED
~'IIE MO"I ION.
'l,herc was ful-tl7er discussion on the possibility that the interest rate might cl7ange for this
loan, a17d Koropchak advised that she did I7ot feel that it would.
LDA Minutes - 12/1(/02
'fHCRE BEINC NU 1•'UR'l'IIER I)ISC[JSSIUN, THF, MC)TIC)N C;ARRII~D
IJNANIMOL)SLY.
5• Cotltinued -Consideration io review and award a big
sletches fot' rear facade irn ~t'ovements on 1-31oc1~ 3.5.
Korolachak briefly reviewed file El)A's tltotiort 1i-on1 the tllceting in October reg~u•ding
B1ocl: >>. Patn Campbell, DAZ' C11alr, aCIVISeCI that slle had bee11 pLl]-Slllllg this with
Michelle 1 Iertwig, stating that I Iertwig felt slle did not have t11e construction background
but would be intetested in prcparirtg sonic design sketches. C:'arnphell statc;d she. had left.
several messages for 1-lertwig bttt had not heard back ti•om 11er. Campbell staied she had
not writtelt a formal request for prol.~osal altd that it was more word of rtunttlt, htlt she had
1-eccivecl a positive response initially. Kot'opchak advised that Susie Wojcllouski,
(.~hatnber Director, 11.ad dt'opped off some pictures s11e had received front Packet'
McDonald, altllougll Koropchak advised chat they 11.ad not autllori~ed this and were only
authot'i7ing getting bids. 1'hcre was little disctlss.ion ot1 the pictures.
(.'lint Herbst noted that there had not been interest from file building owners ttp to this
point. 1~hc nlertlhers also felt that having sketches for the building owners to loot. at
would help. It was also 1loted that last year was not a good year to be investing, as well
its fife tirtlin`~ wit11 file County Road 7~ colstruction. '1'hcy also felt that tllaybe once
some ol~thosc things are completed. II1Cll.lCllllg the 11CW I'tstatu'attt at the forrncr
site, ihel-c n1i,~,ht be renewed interest. Amoco
Barb Sehwientelc advised that she is still not opposed to spending dollars to obtain
prol:~osals t11at t11ey can show the building owners. Ron Hoglund asked if they wanted to
wait until the block across the street was startccl to sec if this would get file owners
interested, bLlt SC17Wll'lltek stated she still W~l-1teC1 draW111gS t0 haVe otl hallCl. ~rhCy also
1loteci that previous work on the block across the street did not facilitate any nlotivaiiott at
that time. "They also noted that maybe they should wait until Co. Rd. 75 is co-1lplete.
Campbell stated it would be beneficial if the proposals could be stored fulfil a futtu-c date,
as well as having this information put on disc to distrbttte to the building owners for
them to review.
Kol-opchak staied that they did receive a proposal from Gt•ittman a11d Ca-nl?bell added
that slle Itad confidence in Grittman since 11e had been involved in the previous work with
file downtown revita.lizatiotl plan.
A MOTION WAS MADI~ l3Y BARB SC'1IWILNTk~K AWARDING TIFF, BID TU
PR}:I'ARF, CUSMF,TIC il?S[GN SKE"I("kICS AND COST NS"I'IMA7'I~S FUR 7'HL
REAR 1•'ACADE OI~ k3I1II,DINGS UN BLOCK >5 TO NOR.TI~WES'I' AS5OCIA'I'ED
C"ONS[1LTANTS A1' A COST' NO`1~ "1'O IJXCEL'D $;,000.00. OLIN"I' I IERBS'I'
SEC'ONULD '1'Fll/ MO'I'IUN. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Kol-opchak advised t11at they could not get easement information Ii-om. Dennis 7~aylor as
-,
L;DA Minutes- 1?/I~/02
he does not do title work.. She added that perhaps •}im. Agosto, who is an attorney as well
as a building owner, could check his abstract and see if`there ace easenlcnts recorded.
They advised to talk to AI .Loch or Brad Larson, also as building owners. Koropchak
stated she would make some calls. Herbst felt that at solve point the bacl: side of tllcse
buildings could become the main entrances.
6. Consideration oI`status report of GMI~F Loan No. 014 'I'..I. M411-till).
Koropchak tlpdated the r71e-nbers on tl7e st~.ltus of the loa-1 and. stated slle had spoken io
Carl Rondhus several times regarding the repayment ol~this loan.
Uellnis 13olulhtls ~uldresscd the I~,DA members and indicated it would be clitticult to make
t111s load payl11el1t and that they were 1laving tl-oublc making several lease payme-lis as
well. Alter the debt is retired, he Iclt they wot.lld have approxinlalely $10,000 left. He
also stated that of ille two leases, the largest is $1 1,000. Koropchak asked 13ondhus to
advise what he would like to propose to the Cl)A as a COtll]tC;l'-OLfCt' i:111d he 111d1Cdted they
could possibly pay $ 18,0f)0 over tllrec years al all Illtel'est 1°~~t~ ()f ~~/o. I~1'IC I~Ondlllls held
previot7sly advised Koropchal. they are still a)Ilectin ~~
g about b0% on receivables.
Korol?chak added that she had left a tl7essage to the (."ity's alto-ney bttt 11ad not yet heard
bacl: ti~orl7 him. She stated they have a recorded UCC, as well as personal guarantees.
Koropchak il(lvlsL'd that slle Wily look111g 111t() t11e L'OSt Ofpul'slnllg the funds as the I~I)
hall ~reviousl J A
I y ~.ulthol'ized. Herbst asked the 1-';[.)A members if they were fa-17iliar with the
process and Ken Mc1Lls addccl that this would be tulotllcr matter to take into consideration
when approving the loans as the City is in third place as fal' as recovering funds.
Koropchak added that the building had been sold, and tllc funds went to the bank as well
as to the IBIZA. 1-Ierbst noted this was a good, yet unfi~rttlnate eYperiellce (or the El)A,
stating the I~:DA is taking a chance when flying to help out a business in town. Dellleules
advised that the City cot-ld enforce a bankruptcy but there was still no guara-ltec that. the
City would get any honey. Maus stated he was inclined to see how much, if a-lything,
c<:u1 be recovered anal try to worl: with thclll on a 3 year payback, also adding that the
„ 1•:DA 11as the potential of goil7g through this again if~ t11ey c~:ulnot ii111111 the $ 18,000
obligation eithel•. 13ondl7t7s slated that these would be personal ciollal-s li"om the owners,
not from the business. lie did also state there is a potential for some more money if'some
of their pe--sor7al guarantees come through, but stated t11at some of their I•eccivables are
questionable. Maus stated pel-haps they want to wait for a f`ew months to see what.
position they are ill at illat time. '1'lley asked Bondhlls if i months would be enough. ii111e
and he felt that would he sufficient, stating that if Clot in i mol7ths, they probably
wot.llcln't collect ally ofthei.r receivables. It was also noted that possibly the EDA would
get more ir7fi)rmation fi"om illcil- attorney during that tir7le as well,
. A MO PION WAS MADL l3Y KFN MA[JS TU "I'ARLF, ANY ACTION ON
Rlr'C'UVI~,RY OF 1~[JNDS FOK CTMI-~,F LOAN NO. 014 POR'I'HREh: MON'I'tIS AND
Rl~:V11/W AT I'p1AT' TIME. 13AR13 SCI~W}LN'1'1/K SECONDCI) 7'1IF MOT1ON.
MO"PION CnIlRI1-;D l_1NANIMOUSI,Y.
IDA Minutes - I Z/I C/OZ
There was further discussion askitlg Koropchak to research and see iftherc was a-7ythillg
t17at t17e 1=r~f)A might I,avc missed oIl this, ally red tla.~s. Koropchak stated there had bee11
several changes from the begitlning and also reminded them of the borrower's colltillual
late payments and the need for electronic payments. I fel-bst stated he hoped that they
would not be too skeptical of future applicants.
7. C'onsidcration to discuss fora I-oval allthOI'17111 T the re lacemellt of the Lic uol• Funds.
Kotopchal< reminded the EDA of their previous rnotioll to <:luthori~e repayn7ent of t}le
l..iquor l~ uncls and their regl.lest that ibis be brought baclt at the end ol'the year for
discussion. Denleules asked if the IDA knew for certain that the paymcllt by the EDA
front tl1e. I.,iquor Funds were indeed used fol~ reduction in tax levies alld I-Ierhst advised
that they had.
Koropchak advised. that the --epayme-1t amount would be approxin7ately $79,000. S11e
~Idded that the balatlcc would be a little gre~:lter, unless the money for the downtown
revitalir,ation fund was expended. Koropchak also advised that Twill City Die C<:IStillgs
had not created the required number of jobs at this tinge. Ilerbst questioned if the EDA
felt that they could tell the C"ity were the dollars al'e t0 g0 t0 al1Cl K01"Opchak advised that
this ~~<.IS in the policy ~.Idoptecl by the City Cot.u7ci1. I Ierbst stated that he felt after the
budget is lixcd, the money should be given. He also questioned if there w~:ls any reason
toclCt On t111S L10W and it was decided to hold off until the a1111L1a1 117eCt111g 117 Apl-Il. They
could also clircct the City Council t0 Llse tl1e InOl,ey 1.01' Ot11e1" ItCllls. KOl'Opchak Stated the
I?UA bylaws would then need to be nloditied.
A MO"LION WAS MADE. i3Y CLIN`I~ I-Il/RF35T Or NO INTERI/S'1" ~'O Al JTl-IOR17E
1ZEI'AYMENT OF ~hHF? LI(~UOR t•'LINDS IN 2002. RUN FIO(:7L1JND SECONDED
"I~I~E' MO"['ION. MOTION CARRIh:D UNANIMOIJSLY.
8. Consideration of 200; k;DA I17cnlbcrshi ~ a . ~oir,tmcnts.
Koropchak advised that Ken Maus's term would be Llp in 2002 and that the City Council
would ~.Il.~point a new council n7ember to replace Clint Herbst. She asked Maus if he was
interested in serving another 6 year term. Ma(IS stated that he will be traveling more and
would not he available to attend a.ll rneetillgs. IIe felt they may want to look at other
candidates. Ron Hoglund concurred, stating he anticipated nlol-e travel as well. Clint
I Ierbst stated nn interest to serve or, the EDA at this time.
Koropchak added that she belt a possible. callclidate would be Heidi I'eper who lives in
Monticello and is now working for Short, Elliot, and Hcndricl<soll, had rnentioned a
. 1?le~'1()Lls Interest. In getting n7ore involved in the City. Maus also added perhaps asking
some of the candidates that ran for City CoLU7cil, as well as Roger f3elsaas. Roger
C:'~.u-Iso-1 slated that he would be staying on as ('ouncil representat.ivc,
GDAMint.ltes- 12/1C~/0?
The. col)sensus was to }rave Koropchal: do solnc I•esearch. M~.tus started he would
reconsider if they had no intcl'estcd persons.
9. I~xecutivc Director's, Report,
Koropchal: advised of the I1RA projects downtown, spcci}ically regarding Steve
.}ohnson's proposal. She noted i.hat she had received his pl-clili)inary agreement and
$.5,000 deposit that day as well. She also advised of Pat Sawatzl<e's proposal.
Koropchak ridded that she had spoken to Mr. Kjcllberg regarc.}ing his interest in fixing ul.~
hls hill}ding as Well. She did not see It t0 he eC(~I1o1111Ca} t() aCC}llll'e the S}7I"ItlghOrg
hlll}d111g at this tin)c. She is having Steve (irith~~an --cse~.u"cl~ earl<ing requirelnel~tts as
we} I .
Koropchak stated that ,lohnson's proposal was for office and retail, as wcl} as
L1ndC1'gl'OL111C} pcllk111g.
~I.11e 1-',D1~ 1~)embers then thanked C:'}int Herbst anal Ken Maus for their tilnc serving on the
I?DA.
10. ()thee I3ttsiness.
Where was no other husiness.
Il. nd'ourn.
Chair llcmetl}es adjourned the n-teeting at _5:3() p.ln.
Recorder
•
5
1;.UA Agenda - 1./29/03
4. Consideratic~n_to review cosmetic design Sketches and cost estimates for rear facade
4 _ ............._.................- --. _..._..-~-------- _ ..._
itn~rovements on 131oc1c 35.
A, Reference and back ronnd:
Planner Steve Cirittnlan, Northwest Associated Consultants, will present cosmetic design
sl<etchcs and cost estimates for rear facade improvements on 131ock 35.
As you rec~rll this in not a new agenda item for the EDA. In April 2002, the EDA
discontinued tllc DMRIi program and reserved the remaining balance of the DMRF funds
fol• a Block 35 pl-o.ject in 2001. It has been the interest ol'the EDA to expend dollars to
create an attractive ~.u1d appealing rear entrance and playa and to eliminate the ice builcl-up
in the alley area of Block 35. Prior to the 1?I)A expending dollars to replace the catch
basis and alley parking/trash improvcrllcnts, t11e cor11111issioners would. like a commitment
from the property owners to improve the rear building l~lcades through a cosmetic design
inlprovelnent. "I'11is to create apublic/private partnership via art agreement.
At the December 2002 F;l7A meeting, the conllnissiollers agreed that in order to
encourage participation by the property owners, the EDA woulCl need to prepare sketches
of cosnlctic design options for rear facade improvements along with cost estimates prior
to approaching the property owners. 7~he 1~;l)A authori~cd Northwest Associated
Consultants to prepare design sl<ctchcs and cost csti111ates for the rear facade of buildings
on 131oc1: ~5 at a cost not to exceed $ x,000.
Previous cost estimates:
Sketch concepts for' parking to rear of buildings and trash improvements:
Without sidewalk and curbing - Estinla.le $50,000.
With sidewa.ll: a11d curbing - 1/stirnatc $75,000.
Replace alley and add a second catch basin _ Estimate $50,000, flot If1CILlCling
engineer fees 11or cost to slope private surface to match new alley elevation.
k•'unding: Approxi111ate balance of DMRr - $150,000.
Things to think about: Anticipated completion of Broadway Impl•ovemerlts.
Alnoullt of assessment to property owners.
Anticipated date to commence public parking lot
improvements.
FL1f1Cllflg SOLII"CC 11ot detel'111111ed.
Again, the P;L)A objectives was to develop dcsigll arld cost package for rear facacle and
alley/trash improvements for F31ock i5 for presentation to property owners. The design
r~
EllA Agenda - 1/29/113
concept needs to ~~ through the City approval pl-ocess and DA"l' as well as be acceptable
to property owners. EDA heeds to decide on a negotiation strategy: l~;UA willil7g to do
dais at this cost , ifthe property owners agl~cc to do this _ at this
cost. O1- what are the property owliers willil7g to contribute'? ~l'11Tllflg Of
Collsti"L1Ct1o11 1S allotllel' C~LIeSt1011.
Q. Alternative Action:
Accept cosmetic design sketches for rear facade improvealaents and cost estimates
as prepared by NAC and forward to DAT and/or property owners for review.
2. Recommend modification to cos111etic design sketches for rear facade
improvements and estimates.
3. Other.
C. 1Zecommendation:
Without seeing cosmetic design sketches and cost estiltiates, no recoarn77cndation is given.
D. Su~7portinl; Data:
None.
•
I+,DA A~cnda - 1/29/U3
5• Consideration of re nest t'rom IllC to review CYMEF (;uidelines for business/'ob
retent~on-
A. Reference and back round:
I1pon the Business Retention 8c ~;xpansion Visits to existing local industries by an kDC
member atld the Economic Development Directo--, B & B Metal Stamping inquired as to
the EDA loan criteria (creation of jobs) stating his interest to pul•cllase
machinery/equipment i11 order to increase autonlati~ation (without creating Clew jobs)
thereby cutting his costs. Phis was also a discussion with TC"DC when. Carol Pressley-
Olson ~:u1ck Koropchak visited Doug Harmon relative to their I^ederal/City koan.
As a fellow-up, the 1DC requested the I~llA research to sec if or should the 1~;DA
Business Subsidy C:'rit.eria be amended to include job retention for existing businesses
with residency of X -1ut11be1- of years.
Attached is a copy ol~the EDA l3usil)ess Subsidy Criteria which does address job
retetltiorl (Sections i:01 and 4:06) However, the CM1=F Gtlidelilles states job creation is
nlarulatory. Also attached is an excerpt ti-on1 Mi11t1 Statutory 1 l Ei.1.994 regulating local
alld state bt151l1eSS SLlbslCly,
1~
L
In t11e meantime, t11e Executive Director wilk check to see if the Ll)A can legally amend
their' CrltCl'1~ and CiU1dE'I1nG's lOT' thls pLlrpOSe a11C1 s0001]Clly, if this would apply only to
Liquor bond dollars.
~'• Alternative Action:
A motion to amclld t11e L;llA Business Subsidy Criteria. for the put-pose oI job
retention as so clctermined, requesting Council approval, and calling for a. public
hearing.
?~ A motion to not atnend ille LDA Bustlless Subsidy C'riteri<a for the purpose of job
retention.
A motion to table arty action.
I~~DA Agenda - 1/29/03
C. Recomn~end~~tion:
No recornnlendation l.u)til input t~roln Attorney. Other things to consider: Would this he
f01' pLIP(:llase of1'ea( estate pI'Op~l'ty of I7laGllllll'1'y~CC~LI1pi11e]]t OI' 1?Oth'? Would this be for
leasing companies or owne-'-occlil:)icd only'? Would current wage levels apply'? Would
numher of years ofopcration in Monticello apply?
U. Su ortin Data:
l3Rl; VISiI SLilnmal'ics, Fi)n HL151flt;SS SL1l7Sidy C'riieria, and excerpt ti'om MN Statutes.
•
3 :. A
• tusiness Retention/Expansion Visit Sutrunary
B & B Nletal Statttping, Ittc.
Ntonday, January fi, "?Q13.3
Ollie Koropchak cinc} t visited with Alan Walters, President of B & Q Ntetal. Stamping,
Inc. Al was very congenial and the trteeting lasted approximately one ha1F hour. AI currently has
three fizl! time employees and stated that business was steady over the past year, Al appeared to
be pl.easeci that we were visiting his company and he rues interested in the packet of information
we presented.
The subject of ~ovez~.tnent sponsored loan programs was of sigzzificant interest to him.
Al stated that itt the past Few years, he had made sigttiftcant investments in new equipment.
1-lowever, he was unable to tap these low interest loans because of the job creation criteria
required by most of these loan prograts. We discussed why job creation was important For
government loan programs. I-Iorvever, Al maintained that for his husirtess, automating equipment
versus hiring more persottne{ was a better financial decision. The question then arose, cats the jab
creation criteria be waived in certain circuzxtstances if the loan assists in retaining a business and
it can be documented that additional personnel would be detrimental to the financial health of the
company. Dllie stated that she would discuss this with the proper finance committees in the
Future.
We discussed the current and proposed city projects and how they would affect fitture
business and tra#`fic patterns. AI was particularly interested the interchange at County Road 18
and I-94, as well as when Dundas Road would be paved through to Highway 25. AI stated that
having Dundas Road paved would Facilitate access to his building for the semi trucks that deliver
material and would make travel in and out of downtown much more conven.ient_ Ollie explained
that Dundas would likely not be paved until the Home Depot project began. He was satisfied with
this answer.
When asked if he had any concerns he would like to share, Al stated that he would like to
have increased police presence in the industrial area. In the past year, Al. said he had several
pallets stolen and that lie has had trouble with kids skateboarding, rntler skating and biking up
and down his load dock razttps. He hoped that additional police presence would deter theft and
keep the children out of the area so that they would not get hurt.
Finally, Al stated that he plans on staying in Monticello. He hopes to purchase the
building that he i.s currently renting. We discussed the inventory of vacant bt.tildings and potential
building sites bt.tt ha di.cl not seem interested i.n purchasing any of-these at this time. He stated that
he expects business to improve in. 2Q()3 a.nd looks forward to a good year.
lra ztiy opinion, it tivas <t very amiable meeting. Al enjoys li.vint; and working in the
Niontic;ello ~u~ea. Fle thanked us for stopping and fc~r acknowledging the irnpgrtance of having his
company in Nionticello.
f~espectfully submitted by,
Nlary 13arl;er
•
~' B and B Meta,-damping, Inc
Manufacturers of Custom Metal Stampings and Assemblies
Alan Walter
President
208 Dundas Road Phone:763-295.6300
Monticello, MN 55362 Fax: 763-295.6301
Ivan7e "gym r/ltOrO )c17~
Phone
FAX
I?-Iv(ail
Nlailin~~ Adclress
tilzr, vtSIT
WIZI"1"'1'1?N SUMMARY FORM
INDCISrI,ItY
Name E3&l3 1Vl(:tal St~ullp~n~r_Inc _~
I'r1111aI'y Contact Alan Walter. 1'resi(icn
1'17one 763-'?~)~-(~ 300
l;-Mail Non(;
[.oc~7tion ?OS Dundas I~uad
Monticello- N(N »362
1~AX 763-?9~-0301
D~rte of Visit IViond~ty Janu~u'r' G 2003 Time of Visit
•
Concluded at 2:30 p.m.
Sumniar~r~ of Visit:
:30
l . <<\lan Ir1ClL11rC)Cl a5 tU the availability of low Interest nlOlley Iol' 117aC171I1e1'y/eCllllpr7lellt or
property acquisition vvitl7out tl7e need to create additional new jobs`? It appears he
ar7Cl Ot17Cr e\lstlr)~ nlanLltaCtnC'In~ btrs117essl;S al'e IoolUI1~ t0 111C1'easC crlltOr17at17.at1017 117
order to ctlt costs. Recommendation: Forward to f~DA: Can or should tl7e EDA
I3U5111CSS Sllbsl(iy (_iLnClelllle5 bt' ~1117e11C1e(1 t0 I'eCl(IITL' n0 II1Cr('~lse 111 lob CI'Caho17 t01'
c~(istin~~ btlsir)esscs with resi(Icncy of X number oFycal's.
?. Whcl7 is Uundas (ZO~.ul schc( uled For con7pletion`? IZecc-mrrrendation: F'orw~u'd to City
C.'oullcil. ~\lan vvoul(I 17nc1 tl7e cOnlplction OF Uundas Roa(I a convenient route tor' his
C01711)at1y. I Ie vvas InlOrI)1C(l Il~the pl'OpUSeCI COf11111~1'C1aI CI('VClopn1E:I7t5 111UVCS IOrwarCl
~.r(Ijaccr)t to I)undas 1Zoad, the road would be: co177plct(:(I.
;. E3 c~ 13 Metal S41n7pin~~ 17as no e-n7<:Lil address.
~. Ki(Is arc using the: side IOadin~ (lock f~)r sl.:atcbc)al-(lirlti an(I hicyclirl~ ot~ weekends al1(I
durir7~ tl7e day. Ile h<IS notilicd Shcril~f~'s Ucpartn7cnt. "I~wcnty-I~ivc wooden pcllcls stolen
last sun7n7er. Iteco-x'trncndxtion: 1~Orward to I'olicc C'Omn7issiul7 l:rn(I u71orn7 Wrltiht
(.'aunty Shcril7~'s [)epartn7cnt to increase patrol.
MONT"ICET.LO
ECONOMIC DEVELOPIVIENT AUTHORITY
IN AND FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
Business Subside Criteria
Public Hearing and Adoption the 31" day of August, 1999
Public Hearing and Adoption of Amendments the S`h day of November, 2000
Public Hearing and Adoption of Amendments the 2~`h day of April, 2001
PURPOSE
I :Ol The purpose of this document is to establish the Economic Development Altthoritv's
criteria for ~,rantin~ of business subsidies- as defined in Minnesota Statutes 1 161.993.
Subdivision 3. for private development. This criteria shall be used as a ~~uide in processin<_>
and reviewin~7 applications requesting business subsidies.
1:02 The criteria set forth in this document are uuidelines only. The Economic Development
Authority reserves the right in its discretion to approve business subsidies that vary from
the critzria stated herein if the Economic Development Authority determines that the
subsidy nevertheless serves 1 public purpose. Th4 Authority will file evidence of amp deviation
from these critzria with the Department of Trade and Econotr-ic Development in accordance
with Minnesota Statues, Section 116.1.99=}- SGlbd. Z.
~ 1:03 The Economic Development Authority may amend the business subsidy criteria at any
/V~ time. Amendments to these criteria are subjzct to public hr:arin~~ rec~uiremellts pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes- Sections 1 161.993 through ] 16.1.991.
2. STATUTORY LIMITATIONS
2:01 In accordance with the business Subsidy Criteria. Business Subsidy requests must comply
. with applicable State Statutes. The Economic De~~elopment Authority ability to ~_>rant business
subsidies is ~?overned by the limitations established in ;Minnesota Statutes
1 161.993 through 1 16J.99~1.
PUBLIC POLICY' REQUIREMENT
~j,:Ol All business subsidies must meet a public purpose in addition to increasin~~ the tai base. Job
~` retention t~iay only be used as a public purpose in cases ~tihere ~ub loss is imm~
* "~/, demonstrable. J Inert and
Monticello City Hall, 505 Walnut Street. Suite I, Monticello, MN SS362-8831 • (7b3) 295-271 I • Fax: (763) 295-:1..304
Office of Public Works, 909 Golf Course Rd., Monticello, MN 553b2 • (763) 295-3170 • Fax: (763) 271-3?72
~' BL~SI'~IrSS S(r~BSIDY" APPROVAL CRITERIA
ED.-\ Busin~s5 Suhsid~ Criteria f~~
4:01 All ne~~ projects approved by the Economic Development At.tthority should meet the
following minimum approval criteria. However, it should not be presumed that a project
meetin~~ these criteria will automatically be a roved. Meeting
contractual right on the pain of any potential developer or tl~e Econom ctDevelopment o
Authority.
4:02 The project must be in accord with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. or
required changes to the plan and ordinances must be under active consideration by the
City at the time of approval.
4:03 Prior to approval of a business subsidies financinry
the Economic Development Authority. the developer shat] p ohed danvtregaPpd plarkeby
and financial feasibility studies, appraisals, soil boring information provided to privates
lenders for the project, and other information or data as requested.
4:04 A recipient of a business subsidy mast make a commitment to continue operations at the
site where the subsidy is used for at least #ive years after the benefit date.
4:0~ (Recipients of any business subsidy will be re aired
by the Economic Development Authority on a case-bv asetbasis~ ai`dnob goals determined
the nature of the development. the purpose of the subsidy, local economicccoonditions~and
situational circumstances.)
The Economic Development Authority may determine after a public hearing that job creation or
retention is not a goal of the subsidy. In those cases, the reci ient must i
one of the following p nstead meet at least
minimum requirements (in addition to all other critetia in this document
other tl7c~j~ those relating to jobs and minimum w~aL;es):
(1) The proposed subsidy must accomplish removal, rehabilitation or redevelopment
of "bli~~hted areas"' as defined in Minnesota Statues. Section 469.002. Subd.l 1.
or must constitute a cost of correction conditions that allow designation of
redevelopment districts under Minnesota Statues. Sections 469.174 to =#69.179:
or
(-') The proposed subsidy must result in improvements to public inti-astructure or
public facilities. including without limitations
parks, recreational facilities. and other City facilities: or
(?) The proposed subsid} must remove physical impediments to deg eloprnent of
severs storm sewers, streets.
DAWN/WORD/POLICIES 10/30!00
2
EDA BllSlness Subsiciv Criteria
land. including without limitation poor soils. bedrocl: conditions, steep slopes, or
siit~ilar geotechnical problems.
. =1:06 For any business subside that does not meet the requirements of Section=1:05, the recipient
must create or retain jobs as determined by the Economic Development Authority, as must meet
the minimum wage thresholds, described in Section 5:03. Greater iVionticello Enterprise Fund
Guidelines, 1.(b) (whether or not the source of the subsidy is tas increment financing).
5. GREATER MONTICELLO ENTERPRISE FUND PROJECT EVALUATION CRITERIA
5:01 The Economic Development Authority will utilize the Greater Monticello Enterprise fund
to support the community's long-term economic goals.
5:0? Each Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund subsidy will be analyzed and evaluated by the
Economic Development authority. Each project shall be measured against the general
criteria in Sections 1 through 4 and the specific criteria in this Section S applicable to the
Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund subsidies.
5:03 Followin~7 are the evaluation criteria that will be used by the Economic Development
Authority:
DAWNNVORD/POLICIES 10/30/00 ~ -
ED,a Business Suh,idv Criteria
GREATER i~IONTICELLO ENTERPRISE FL`NU GL~II)ELINES
CITE OF ,~10NTICELLO
• S0~ WALNUT STREET, SUITE #1
i~IONTICELLO, MINNESOTA ~~362
(763) 271-3208
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund (GHEE) is to encoura~~e economic
development by supplementing con~-entional financing sources available to existing and new
businesses. Through this pro~`ram administered by the Economic Development Authority and
participating lending institution(s)- loans are made to businesses to help them meet a portion of their
financing needs. All loans must serve a public purpose by complying with four or more of the criteria
noted in the next section. In all cases. it is mandatory that criteria #1 be satisfied, which requires the
creation of new jobs. It is the responsibility of the EDA to assure that loans meet the public purpose
standard and comply with all other GMEI~ policies as defined in this document. Along with
establishing the definition of public purpose, this document is designed to outline the process involved
in obtaining GMEF financing=.
DEFINITION OF PUBLIC PURPOSE
t. To provide loans for credit worthy businesses that create new jobs.
(a) One job is equivalent to a total of 37.E hours per week.
(b) At least 90% of the jobs created must pay a wage of the higher of $9.00 per hour. or at
least 1 b0°% of the federal minimum wa~~e. exclusive of benefits, for individuals over the
age of ?0 durin~~ the term of the assistance. Annual written reports are required until
termination date.
h'ailure to meet the job atld ~a~~e level goals require partial or full repayment of
the assistance with interest.
?. To provide loans for credit worthy- businesses that would increase the community tax base.
3. To assist new or existing industrial or commercial businesses to improve or expand their
operations. Considerations for loans shall take into account factors includin<=. but not limited
to. the nature and extent of the business, the product or service involved. the present availability
of the product or service within the city of Monticello. the compatibility of the proposed
business as it relates to the comprehensive plan and existing= zoning policies, and the potential
for adverse en~~ironmental effects ofthe business. if am-. W
4. To provide loans to be used as a secondar} source of tinancin~~ that is intended to supplement
com~entional tinancin~= (bank tinancin~,). W
~. To provide loans in situations in which a tundin~r vap zxists.
• 6. To provide titnds f
or econumtc development that could be used to assist in obtaining other
funds such as Small Business Administration loans, federal and state 4~rants. etc.
bAWNNVORO/POLICIES 10/30/00 4
EDA Business Subsid} Criteria
• TI-{E GREATER MONTIC'ELLO ENTERPRISES
REVOLVING LOAN FUND POLICIES
I• BUSINESS ELIGIBILITY
* Industrial businesses
* Non-competitive commercial businesses which enhance the community
* Businesses located within the city of Monticello
* Credit worthy existing businesses
* Non-credit worthy start-up businesses with worthy feasibility studies (Deny all
historical non-credit worthy businesses)
* $10,000 loan per each job created, or $5.000 per every $20.000 increase in property
market valuation, or $5.000 per every $20,000 increase m personal property used for
business purposes, whichever is higher.
II. FINANCING METHOD
* COMPANION
DIRECT LOAN - Example; Equity 20%, RLF ~0%, and bank ~0%. (All
such loans may be subordinated to the primary lender(s) if
requested by the primary lender(s). The RLF loan is
lev
d
erage
and the lower interest rate of the RLF lowers
the effective interest rate on the entire project.)
* PARTICIPATION LOAN - RLF buys a portion of the loan (the RLF is not in a
subordinate position, no collateral is required by the RLF.
and the loan provides a lowe
i
r
nterest rate).
* GUARANTEE LOANS - RLF guarantees a portion of the bank loan. (Personal and
real estate guarantees handled separately.)
III. USE OF PROCEEDS
* Real property acquisition and development '
*
Real property rehabilitation (
* Machinery and equipment expansion or improvements)
IV. TERMS AND CONDITIONS
* LOAN SIZE -
Minimum of $5.000 and maximum not to exceed 50°% of the
remaining? revolving loan fund balance; for example. if the
remaining revolvinn loan fund balance is $0.000, the maximum
loan issuance is $2i,00q.
• * LEVERAGING - ]VIi - °
nimum 60% privatz/public non-GMEF
Maximum ;0% public (GMEF)
DAWNNVORDlPp~ICIES 70/30/0°
S
EDA Business Subsiciv Criteria
Minimum 10°o eyuit}~ EDA loan
* LO:\N TER1~1 - Personal ro ert~ term not t
P p o exceed I~te of eyu~pment Generally
5-7 years). Real estate property ma~imun, of ~-year maturity
amortized up to 30 years. Balloon payment at ~ years.
* INTEREST RATE - Fixed rate not less than ?% below 1~Iinneapolis prime rate. Prime
rate per National Bank of Minneapolis on date of EDA loan
approval.
* LOAN FEE - Minimum fee of $2pp but not to exceed 1.5% of the total loan
project.* Fees are to be documented and no duplication of fees
between the lending institution and the RLF. Loan fee may be
incorporated into project cost. EDA retains the right to reduce or
waive loan fee or portion of loan fee.
*Fee to be paid by applicant to the EDA within ~ working
days after City Council approval of GMEF loan.
Nonrefundable.
* PREPAYMENT
POLIO' - No penalty for prepayment.
* DEFERRAL OF
PAYiv1ENT5 - 1. Approval of the EDA rnen:bership by majority vote.
2. Extend the balloon if unable to refinance, verification
letter from two lending institutions subject to Board
approval.
* LATE PAYMENT Failure to pay principal or interest when due may
POLIO' result in the loan being immediately called.
In addition to any other amounts due on any loan, and
without waiving any right of the Economic Development
Authority under any applicable documents, a late fee of
$?~Q will be imposed on any borrower for any payment
not received in full by the Authority within 30 calendar
days of the date on which it is duce. Furthermore, interest
will continue to accrue on any amount due until the date
on which it is paid to the Authority. and all such interest
will be due and payable at the same time as the amount on
which it l,as accrued.
• * INTEREST
LIMITATION ON
GUAR-~NTEED
DAWNM/ORD/POLICIES. iq/30;gq 6
•
•
CJ
ED.\ Business Subside Criteria
LOANS - Subject to security and:'or rep ie~~al b~ EDA.
* ASSUMABILITY
OF LOAN - None.
* BUSINESS EQUITY
REQUIREMENTS - Subject to type of loan; Board of Directors will determine
case by case, analysis under normal IendinC7 ~*Liidelines.
* COLLATERAL- *
Liens on real property in project (mortgage deed)
.
* Liens on real property in business (mortgage
deed).
* Liens on real property held personally (subject to
Board of Directors -homestead exempt).
* Machinery and equipment liens (except equipment
exempt from bankruptcy).
* Personal and/or corporate guarantees (requires
unlimited personal ~~uarantees).
* NON-PERFORMANCE - An approved GMEF loan shall be null and void if fiends
are not drawn upon or disbursed within 180 days ti~om
date of EDA approval.
* NON-PERFORMANCE
EXTENSION - The 180-day non-performance date can be exte~lded up to
an additional 1?0 days.
1. A written request is received ;0 days prior to
expiration of the 180-day non-performance date.
?. Approval of the EDA membership by majority
vote.
* LEGAL FEE -
Responsibility of the GMEF applicant.
The Greater IVlonticello Enterprise Fund is operated as an equal opportunit}~ program. All applicants
shall have equal access to GMEF funds regardless of race, sex, age, marital status. or other personal
characteristics. `
DAWNM/pRD/PdI.ICIES 10/30/00
ED:1 Business Suhsidy Criteria
ORG.AN[IATION
"I he Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund is administered by the Cite of Monticello Economic
Development Authority (EDA). ~yhich is aseven-member board consistitl~~ oti two Council members
and tiye appointed members. EDA members are appointed by the Nlayor and cont7r-ned by the City
Council. Formal meetings are held on a quarterly basis. Please see the by-laws ofthe EDA for more
information on the structure of the organization that administers the Greater Ivlonticello Enterprise
Fund.
PARTICIPATING LENDING INSTITUTION S
Participating lending institutions(s) shall be determined by the GMEF applicant.
2. Participating lending institution(s) shall cooperate with the EDA and assist in carrying out the
policies of the GMEF as approved by the City Council.
Participating lending= institution(s) shall analyze the formal application and indicate to the EDA
the level at which the lending institution will participate in the finance package.
LOAN APPLICATION/ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES
The EDA desires to make the GM)/F loan application process as simple as passible. However, certain
procedures must be followed prior to EDA consideration of a loan request. Information regarding the
program and procedures for obtainin~~ a loan are as follows: 4
City Staff Deities:
The Economic Development Director, working: in conjunction with the Assistant City Administrator.
shall carry out GMEF operatin~7 procedures as approved by the EDA and Council. Staff is responsible
for assistin~ti businesses in the loan application process and will work closely with applicants in
developing the necessary information.
Application Process:
Applicant shall complete a preliminary loan application. Staff will review application for
consistency with the policies set forth in the Greater Monticello Fund Guidelines. Staff
consideration of the preliminary loan application should take appro~cimately one week.
Staff will ask applicant to contact a lendin~~ institution re<~ardin~~ tinancin17 needs and indicate to
applicant that further action by the EDA on the potential loan will require indication of support
from a lendin~~ institution.
?. It applicant 4~ains initial support from lendin~_= institution and if`the preliminary loan application
is approved- applicant is then asked to complete a formal applicati~Sfi: If the preliminary loan
• application is not approved h} staff: tlae applicant may request that the EDA cunsidcr approval
of the preliminary application at the nett re~~ularly scheduled meetin~~ of the EDA.
DAWNiWORD/POLICIES 10/30/0q
EDA Business Subside Criteria
~. [fthe preliminary loan application is approved, applicant shall complete a formal application.
Formal applicuti~~n Shull include a business plan which ~~ill u7clutle its mana47ement structure, -
• market analysis. and til~ancial statement. Lilo documentation necessary for obtaining the hank
loan associated ~yith the proposal is acceptable. Attached with each formal application is a
written release of information e~ecttted by the loan applicant.
~. City staff will meet with applicant and other participating, lender(s) to refine the plan for
financing the proposed enterprise.
S. City staff shall analyze the formal application and Enancial statements contained therein to
determine if the proposed business and finance plan is viable. Stai-Tmay, at its discretion.
accept the findings of a banking institution re<~ardiny applicant credit and financial viability of
the project. After analysis is complete, City staff shall submit a written recommendation to the
EDA. A decision regarding the application shall be made by the EDA within 60 days of the
submittal of a completed formal application.
6• The EDA shall ha~~e authority to approve or deny loans; however, within 21 days of EDA
approval, the City Council may reverse a decision by the EDA to approve a loan if it is
determined by Council that such loan was issued in violation of GMEF guidelines.
7. Prior to issuance ot`an approved loan. the City Attorney shall review and/or prepare all
contracts, legal documents, and intercreditor agreements. After such review is complete, the
City shall issue said luau.
ORIGINAL REVOLVI
NG LOAN FUNDING
"LETTER OF CREDIT" FROM MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL - $200.000
SOURCE -City Liquor Store Fund
City shall transfer needed loan amount from existing accounts at such time that individual loans are
approved. Revenue created through this program shall be under the control of the EDA and shall not
be transferred to City funds unless the City Council determines that reserves venerated are not
necessary for the successtiil operation of the Authority. If such is the case, such funds must be
transferred to the debt service funds of the City to be used solely to reduce tai levies for bonded
indebtedness of the City (see Section ~ B of the ordinance establishin~* the Monticello EDA).
REPORTING
Staff shall submit quarterly su~Ylmaries and/or annual report detailin~~ the status of the
Monticello Enterprise Fund.
FL~ND GUIDELINES MODIFICATION
1. At a minimum- the ED:~ ahall re~~ie~y the Fund Guidelines on an annual basis. No than<~es to
the GMEF ~,tuidelines shall bt instituted without prior approval of the City Council.
DAWNANpRD/PpLICIES 10/30/00 9
EDA Business Subsidy Criteria
LOAN ADMINISTRATION
1. Citr' staff shall service City loan, shall monitor City position with re~a~•d to the loan- and shall
assru-e City compliance ~~~ith intercreditor agreement. 4
2. All loan documents shall include an intercreditor agreement which must include the followin<~:
A. Definition of loan default, agreements regarding notification of default.
B. Agreements between lending institution and City regarding reproduction of pertinent
information regarding the loan.
3. All loan documentation shall include agreements between borrower and lenders regardine
release of privacy regarding the status of the loan.
C~
J
DAWNM/ORp/POLICIES 1tl/30/00 ~ D
[Jnder the GNIEF Guidelines use of proceeds for real property acquisitio~~ and development,
real property rehabilitation (expansion or improvements) and machinery and equipment. The
following commentary is intended to assist developers with those costs typically considered
eligible:
Real Pro erty Ac uisition and Im rovement Costs
Land Acquisition
Building Permit Fees
Building materials
Construction labor
Landscaping
Grading
Curbing/Parking Lot
Engineer/Design Inspection Fees
Architect Fees
Soil borings
Appraisal Fees
Legal Fees
Environmental Study
Recording Fees
Title Insurance
Machinery and E ui ment Costs
Personal property used as an integral part of the manufacturing or commercial business, with a
useful life of at least three years. Acquisition costs would include freight and sales taxes paid.
As a general rule, office equipment would not qualify.
•
r ~
LJ
Page 1 of 6
Minnesota Statutes 2000, l 167.994
Minnesota Statutes 2000, Table of Chapters
~~~
Table of contents for Chapter 11 bJ
' 11~~_ggq Regulating local and state business subsidies.
public purpose. A business subsidy
Subdivision 1. include, but may not be ~/~_
must meet a public purpose which may only be rY+~~'
limited to, increasing the tax base. Job retention may
used as a public purpose in cases where job loss is specific and
demonstrable.
Subd. 2. Developing a set of criteria. A business
subsidy may not be granted until the grantor businesstsnbsidies
criteria after a public hearing for awarding
with this section. The criteria may not be adopted
that comply ible
on a case-by-case basis- The criteria must set specific minimum
requirements that recipbsid~esmusTheecriterpadmustoincludega
to receive business su aid for the jobs
specific wage floor for the wbe sta~.ed as a specific dollar
created. The wage floor may enerate a
amount or may be stated as a formula tha~v~ate prom its criteria
specific dollar amount. A grantor may
by documenting in writing the reason for the deviation and
attaching a copy of the document to its next annual report to
the department. The commissioner of trade and economic
development may assist local government agencies in developing
criteria. A copy of the criteria must be submittedw~~ht~he
department of trad~ followingmthedenactmenttoflthis section or
first annual repar ted criteria,
with the first annual report after ~t has adap
whichever is earlier.
subsidy agreement. (a) A recipient must
Subd. 3. rantor of the subsidy
enter into a subsidy agreement with the g
that includes:
a description of the subsidy, including the amount and
(1) e of district if the subsidy ~s tax
type of subsidy, and typ
increment financing;
~~) a statement of the public purposes far the subsidy;
. (~) measurable, specific, and tangible goals for the
subsidy;
(q) a description of the financial obligation of the
recipient if the goals are not met;
is needed;
(~) a statement of why the subsidy
a commitment to continue operations in the jurisdiction
(6) ears after the
-~._ whew the subsidy is used for at least five y
benefit date;
y • the name and address of the parent corporation of the
(7)
_ Recipient, if any: and
__ http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats(116J/994•html
8/8/01
EUA A;end~i - 1/20/03
S b. L1 date of 2UU3 I~:UA mcmbershii a ..ointments.
A. Itefere>Ilcc nncl b:YClt~roun[.1:
At the 1?l7A meeting i11 Decerllber, C'orn111issioner Maus inlornaccl the ~I)A he felt it was
time to step-clown as hC WOlild bC gOlle tOL11' IllOlaths OLIt Ot the year" flild LllLable tC) att4'ilCl
lIleCtlllgs. Malls alld CyOLlnell Metlaher Herbst's G-year tel'Ylas expired I)ecellabcr 1, 200?.
The Council will appoint a member of the C"ity Council to ~'cplace Herbst. l/DA menlbcrs
suggested Wolfstcller contact Roger Belsaas of his inte--esi to replace Maus. If not
interested than pl-oceed with the list ol~people who ran for Council. Koropcllal:
sLlggested 1-leidi Ycper.
Wolfstcller did contact Belsaas who was not intcrestec~ in serving. Koropchal: (lief cont~let
one individL.lal on the list but put on hold after the Council decided to ~1(lvertise and accept
applicatio-as for the vacant Council seat. Ai~ter the Mayor appoints a Council Menlhcr
dIld tl1Cil a Council Member is appointed to t)lc l~L)~1, 1{oropclaal: will. proceed.. Does the
EDA want Koropchak ic) contact. all the individuals remaining on the list and III more. Chan
o11e is interested, hold interviews or do first irltcl-est?
EDA A~cncla - 1./29/03
7. Economic Development. Report:
a) Production Stamping - l talked with Les Wurrn on January 1~ ar1d 11C Ir1t01"flied Illy,
that Van Heel, owner of the 1"311011 Avclltrc Building, reduced his selling price.
Wurn1 is looknlg lllt0 1"ellOVtlt10I1 Costs clll(i per111LtS a11d WIII Make a decisior]
whether to build or ptrrchase in 30 days. The HRA had collected a ~S,OW deposit
and the T1F District was not certified at the County. Bottom-line the City wants
his company iIl town and the jobs.
b) BRE Scheduled Visit - Stlburball Manufacturing and Vector Tool tentatively
scheduled 1`or Tuesday, February 1 1, 200 ~, in a.m. Need IDC volunteer to go
along. Also calls into TCDC" and Aroplax.
c) Twin City Die Castings (~I~CDC) - l3tlilding, Official Frecl Patch was invited out to
Monticello facility for lIlpLlt I11t0 COrI11)lE:t10I1 Ot SCCOI]d floor Off1Ce space.
Company has new contracts for Monticello plant. Lay-offis were at St. P~.lul/Mpls
Facility.
d) IIRA/IDC Marketing, Subcornrnittee scheduled to Illect Friday, .lanuary 2~1, "7:30
a.m., Acaden]y Roon1. Elected to participate with file Chanlbcr Golf Outing set
Ian' 1~hursday, May 15, Monticello Cotultry Cl(.11, with no tote- or breakfast event
prior.
e) City Council Goal Setting Meeting, Monday, January 2"7, x:00 p.m., Mississippi
Roonl. Regular Illeetlllg 7:OO p,1.11.
l) Northwest. Corridor developll)ent a11C1 111tC1"Cl1aI1gC C011]p plan meeting with Xcel
anti NMC Security and EIl]ergency persorlncl, city staff and consultants field
January ? ~, 8:30 a.rn. Good meeting: NMC concerns -design aI]d construction
(bridge height and closeness to p1al]t.). Analysis of i-ldustrial users (building
heights/chemical use). NMC/Xcel r.]eecls more detailed information orl bridge
design and where, and defined ilulustrial area. City needs list ()f restrictive
inclustri<ll uses. Goal: Work. together for a design that benefits both NMC ~.1nd
City/al-ea. Next meeting within two I]un]tlls.
g) Development issues & Solutions Seminar Series presented by the Wright C'oullty
Economic Ucvclopnlcnt Partnership, Febrl.lary 12, 7001, 1 1:30 to 1:30, Russell's
St. Michael. Is anyone intel-ested in attending`?
h) Chadwick parcel -Council adopted a joint. resolution supporting annexation of~
Chadwick parcel(s) on .lanuary 13, 2003 (See Attac11l11ent). Un May 13, 2002, the
Council approved the Otter Creel: Business P~.-rk concept PL11), based on a finding
that the concept is consistent with the C'ity'S Cornprellensive Land Use Plan. On
March 13, 2002, the Planning Colx]nlissioll 111adc a motion to recolnmencl
approval of the concept and developll]ent stage PUD based on the findings that
the proposal is consistcllt with the Con1p 1-'Ian, .......... And the Planning
Commission made a Illotion to recolnrllclld approval of the ()tier Creek concept
PiJD based on a finding that the concept is consistent witl] C.'ity's Comp Ilan.
>C;1)A A~endx - 1/29/03
i) I ,ca.ds: } . } 0,000 to 20,000 sq ft warcl7ousc/rnantlfacttu'i.117 s _ ace for sale fi'onl
b p
real estate agent. 2. Lame retail user - cons(.Iltant out of Collnnbia Maryland. 3.
I'urcl7asc real. estate properties (retail 4,000 to 60,000 sq ft). l)cvclopcr from.
I'ittsbllrgl7, PA. 4. Request for information on industrial land and existing
bl.lildings for sale frorn F3oard Mcm:bcl' o:f a St. Cloud. firm. 4. Reprint of artworl< -
pllblishing and printing Witll sI1.7a11 amount. ol~Irollt retail. Checking 017 zoning. 5.
International business 177anufactt>ri.17g Winci tl.n'bines, blades, ~:lnd towers used for
Wllld tal'1115. 1 Otal land, 28 acres, thI•ee b(.Iildillgs total 205,000 sd fa, 20U_johs.
Proposal to State, August ?>, 2002. Update J~.uluary 6, 200 ~. MTED supplied
State. incentive information and hopes to sleet with con7pany contacts.
-j) [1MC' Annl.lal Report to Minn '1-'1-adc & h:col7ornic Development due a.nd submitted
fol• .Ianu~ll'y 25, 2003 deadline.
k) l'01' yOLI W110 1'e171e177hCr l~l"Ik I~jcrclingstccl, first pI'esident ol~ihe H-Window
(~0117p4111V, I lli:ld it I11Ce fllel'tlllg Wltll }11177 017 .lal7llal"y 2(), 1115 111'St V1Slt. t0 ~JS lIl
ten yc47rs,
l) Remmelc 1-~:nginccring -I've placed a cal] to Greg Pickert Ior ~.ln update on the
status oftl7c Monticello facility. 1/24/03. "I~he Monticello f~lcility is being intcr-
gradcci into tllc L3ig Lake facility alld 1110 Monticello facility (50,000 sq tt) will be
01:1. the Il7al'kel IOI' Sal('. rhraflSltlOn COn1pIi;tCd \~'1t111I1 Slx II7.017t17S (,lone).
rn) Cil\~11;1~. Loan No. 014 ('f..l. Martin) - Ai the I~DA ill December, the commissioners
. fabled ally action on the defLiLlltGd 1oa17 101' llll'ee I11011t11S aS the EDA Ielt It WaS
hl'elllililll'e t0 taI<e ally aCt1017 t0 pLlrsllC 1'CC(:)Vel'y Ol .flI11dS. I30I1dl7lIS II11Or11led the
COI1111715tilOllel'S llley had 110t. CO1lectecl aII thCll" 1"CCCIVahICS al7d 1'C;gUCStCCI 1114' l'.T)/~,
reduce the remaining unpaid prillci.p~7l. balance oI~$45, 886 to $18,000 over 3 'cars
at 6%. I',I)A Was also C011CC1"I1Cd that the C'Olnpa.lly Sold 1110Ct~a~ed eCllllpnlellt a17C1
tell that was illegal. Koropchak io work \-Vlth lelldel' Who haS IIrSt 17o51t1011 Olt t11C
CCILllp171(:llt. I'Ve e-111alled, taxed, aflCl phollCd tllc. 1G'ndCr al7d rCCC1V(:d 110 1'eS})OI7Se.
n) I)all (_~reensweig, Kennedy & Graven, who 17as served as the HRA and LDA
attorney fol- the last rlw77bcr of years is ]cavil7g il7e tirnl al7d taking it position with
the State Auditor's Office, effective within the next col.lple of weeks. PIRA at
tl7cil' rebruary meeting will discuss olatiolls.
O) 13rOadWay ('OnStrl.ICt1011 117CO11VeI7Il:fICC - Attached is a S11111111ary Ol the not tC)
exceed 55.000 allocated for this one tin7c evc-7t. 't'otal expended cvas $4,730.5.5.
p) Copy oh letter from MCCF al7d listing of lnernbers.
• ~
Presents: ~ ~ ~'
DeveCopment ~sstices & SoCutions
Seminar Series
~Lt
Rticsse~Cs (of cv(,Lrse)
(Cocatec~ tivest of I-,~4 on z~.l in cCvtivnto~v(i St. ~VLichc~el)
fee: slv pre-re~~istered or ~'Y5 cit the door (incC(,LCtes C(,Lr(ch)
~1Neclnesd~ay, ~'e6ruciry Iz, zoo;
.~~~,~en L;f~a.
r 1:; o-lz:oo Ke~.liste( /LLinch/'Net~vor~ i(~~1
rz:on-L?:ns 1Nelc:o~ne c~ ILitrodL(ctio(is
L2:o5-iz:zo "I'tLttin~J it aCC'To~.~ethe~r" - :Keith '~Listctcl, 'LlLli.tec~
`p'roperties
Iz:zo-Yz:3o " 27evelo~?~ne~~t Iss(,Les" tro(~~ cz. P~ctn(iers
perspective- Steve yr(tt(r(c1n, of :NtiV .~l.ssoci~ttes, St.
~OlL1S PLlY~
12:~C)-1z:~C) ".~`l CLlse .St'LLL~1~"t?'07'1. GZ ~L1L~LiE?rs pe1'S~_'1eCtl'Ve- ~~1'e~]
.'}-fc~~es, Shin~oCee Bui(~ers
i z:~o-rz:5o " Protecti(~.~7 th.e People's Interest" fror(~ a. Cities
perspective-'- Phil .7Cer(1, Citti/ o~ Delano
iz:,o-1:~0 ~?ti(estiorts 6y tG(e :Nlocterator a(1cl the .~uL~ie7lce,
Con'iments 6~ tG1e PaneC
'Ilia is x7.11 op~~ortunity to he F?airt of arl, (~~e7t forum tllalt will ciiscl+SS t/ie DE:vE:I(p7n.(rltt
ISS(lB5 iYl wY1.~:JI'It LOLI11.C71. j11C,1'7111'17n5'E of 111.1.5 4'ttOrt 1.5 to rC11a~1 5011It10115 t0x7rnH~CY1'15 tllalt C.rISt (,i11(:i
t0 $L'E:I: L(7 CI'L'L1tB 0~'7~'7(71'tL+llitlL'S t(7 5(7l1'e ~lOtC11t1a71C(71i~-IICt tlialt 1?lalll all"15'C CCt11'4'Lil t11C L~1~'CI"E'lll
(>YC]c111lZLltln115 L771L~1 1'IE:II'~'7(71111~ ti11Y"YOL+11L~1C11~] L1 f'1'(?~~1'YlBllt. 'I lI [~C(77~] 0~'74'll (1COlit t11E:lY~'IPYSI`lPCtll'E?5
cilla~ l'[E?11'~'7(711715, 1/105(1 I11YUll'C'c.I (11 t/1 (S Cll.5CUS511711 c1YL' tail:(Ii(~ c111 ill'1~7(71`t(711t StE'_Z'7 111 tht'x71"(7CL'~~ of
LlI1c~BY5taiYlaj(11~] La1C11 Ot/1B1'.
c~~`~
• RSVP Information
Contact:
NoeCat (763) 477-3086 or Jeanene at (763) 477-3aoo ext. 347~~
emaiC- jstrumC~tivhe.org, (,~- (763) 477-3054 or on our ~we6site at
~wtiv~w.~wrigFitpartnership. org
.Na.r11 e:
~)Y~) LL 11 i.Z Ll. C 1011:
.~GCc~ress:
~~~1011e:
FY1lGl i l
_`IVlLYI'l~'7E'Y ~rte11L1!i.'1'l~]:
.]
~~ 11~26~%200~2~~13i~57~~FAX~ 9529331153
.. TO LTD ......................:............................ .
. ........................
. ........ RLK KULIS T S .... .
0]001/001
~ EXHIBIT B ~ ~~ '
•
r.~ .~.~._ W._
7/~ ~ ~ ?~ ~ "~~~ i ~ ~
i//~/~` ~ a f~ J ~ ~J~ r l
I _
q r'
~ ~
/ •, ~
~r
~ ~ /~ / \~`~` I
~ ..
..
. _,
i /~ ~ I /• ~
i ~
i ~
~~ ~~---
---.~;- .
I~~
~~.
~~
~:
;i'
~:
ryry~~~ I
l'
r~ j
~~ ~//.
.. `;, .
f ~ R'~/
~/fr.
~~ m ~; ~
.~ z ;~
S M .n^
it
s
~y ~a
~ ~ ~
a
s
~~~ or~Ex aecrx aeasv.ws
w~acaio r.ryn
,~..w ~.,~.~
~~~
J
1 tp
~: s:
~~
13911 Ridgedale Drive I Suite 260 I Minneapolis, MN 55305
phone: 952 541-9674 I fax: 952 541-9684 I website: www.mncommunitycapitalfund.org
1 e~
The jnllawing communities and organisations have made comrnitme»ts• to become members of the NICCF.•
Class A Members
Carlton County
Faribault County
Great River Energy
Itasca Development Corporation
Minnesota Power
Prairieland Economic Development Corporation
Red Wing Port Authority
St. Cloud HRA
St. Louis County
Winona
Class B Members
Becker County
Brainerd Lakes Area Development Corporation
Cloquet
.Detroit Lakes
East. Central Energy
East Range Joint Powers Board
Elk River
Fergus Falls
Hibbing
Jackson County (Jackson, Lakefield, Heron Lake, b'c Okabena)
Milaca
Mille Lacs Area CDC (Willow River, Hinckley, Sandstone & Pine County E.DC)
Mille Lacs Electric Cooperative
New Ulm
Pipestone County
Sleepy Eye
Class C Members
Big Lake
Blue Earth
Buhl
Cannon Falls
Chatfield
Chisholm
Dodge County EDA (Claremont, Dodge Center, Hayfield, Kasson, Mantorville 8c West Concord)
Economic Development Partnership of Wright County
Hutchinson
Kandiyohi County Economic Development Partnership
Kenneth L. Kellar Foundation
Lake Crystal
Luverne
Madelia
Moose Lake
New Prague
Preston
Sherburne County
Tracy
Wabasso
Warroad Port Authority
Worthington