The URL can be used to link to this page

EDA Agenda 04-22-2003ANNUAL MEETING AGENDA MONTICELLO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AiJTHORITY Tuesday, April 22, 2003 - 4:00 p.m. City Hall -Academy Room MEMBERS: Chair Bill Demeules, Vice Chair Barb Schwientek, Roger Carlson, Robbie Smith, Clint I Icrbst, Ron l~oglund, and Darrin Lahr. STAFF: "['reasurer Rick Wolfsteller, Executive Director Ollie Koropchak, Recorder Lori Kraemer. 1. Call to Order. 2. Consideration to approve the January 29, 200 ~, and flpril 2, 2003, EDA minutes. 3. Consideration of adding or removing agenda items. 4. Consideration to elect 2003 EDA officers. ~. Consideration to review and accept the year-end EDA Financial Statcrncnts, Activity Repo~•t, and proposed 2003 13udgct. 6. Consideration to review year-encl balances of il~e GMC?I-~', DMR1-', L1DAG_ and ERG Funds. 7. Consideration to discuss Por approval authorizing the replacement of the l.it-luor h~unds. K. C'onsidcration to rcvicw for amendment the Business Subsidy Criteria of the EDA. 9. Consideration to approve execution of a Satisfaction ol` Mortgage for GMI-i~F No. O 1 S - 1 R"I' [ . 10. Continued - Consideration to rcvicw cosmetic design sketches and cost estirnatcs for rear facade improvements I`or Block 3S. 11. Continued -Consideration of a request by City Council 1'or commissions to rcvicw City's Vision & Governing Policies for input and to develop a list of goals. 12. Executive Director's Report. 13. Other I3usincss. 14. Adjournment. • MINUTES MONTICC'LLO ECONOIVIIC .DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 4:00 p.m. City Hall -Academy Room MEIvIBERS PRESENT: Chair Bill Demeules, Ron Hoglund, Darrin Lahr, and Clint Herbst. MEMBERS ABSENT: Roger Carlson and Barb Schwientek. STAFF PRESENT: Treasurer Rick Wolfsteller and Executive Director Ollie Koropchak. GUEST: Steve Grittman and Bob Kirmis, Northwest Associated Consultants. Pam Campbell, DAT member. 1. Call to Order. Chair Demeules called the EDA meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. 2. Consideration to a rove the December 16. 2002 EDA minutes. RUN HOGLUND MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE DECEMBER 16, 2002 EDA MINUTES. SECONDED BY CLINT HERBST AND WITH NO CORRECTIONS OR ADDCCIONS. THE MINUTES WERE APPROVED AS WRITTEN. 3. Consideration of addin~~ or removitl~ agenda items. Koropchak asked to remove agenda item #6 and informed the commissioners that the Clty COl1I1Cil On ,Ia11LIarV 27, 2003, appointed Clint Herbst to the EDA seat vacated by Ken Maus after IV[r. E~lerbst expressed interest to serve on the EDA. Herbst's six-year terns expires December 2004. The EDA had suggested the two out-going Council members be contacted for the vacated seat. Belsaas declined. Koropchak requested the addition of an item: Consideration of a request by City Council tier commissions to review the Citv's Vision & Governing Policies for input and to develop a list of ~,oals. ~. Considoratiun to review cosmetic design sketches and cost estimates for rear facade illlllror~~ments on Blcic(__3~• Koropchak noted at the last EDA meeting, the commissioners authorized Northwest :\ssuciatcd Consultants to prepare design sketcles and cost estimates for the rear facade of builclin~Ts on Block :~ at a cast not-to-exceed $3,000. C] EDA Minutes - 1/29/03 . Consultant Steve Grittman informed commissioners that the sketches were designed as a framework or idea to create an attractive and appealing rear entrance and plaza. Grittman introduced Bob Kirmis, an associate, who displayed a current panoramic photo of the rear of the buildings noting elevations and functions. Areas identified: 1. Signage - no continuity. 2. Visual and exposure of trash. 3. Inconsistent building heights. 4. Lack of visual entrance. 5. Doors and windows not consistent (uniform) with year of construction. 6. I-laphazard parking and trash areas. 7. Poor pedestrian connection between vehicles and east/west connection. Grittman noted the site plan can be adjusted to accommodate southerly parking. Kirmis continued presenting a design sketch to address the elevations and function. Suggestions: 1. Create a horizontal element for Signage providing a sense of consistency and eye f~~cus. 2. Relocate and consolidate trash into closed and detached containers. ~. Install parapets for visual prominence and to screen roof mechanical units. ~. Canopy options to det7ne entrance and to screen physical elements. 5. With the use of wood or transits alter existing doors and windows to the era of the building. 6. Facade color - individual choice of color or material to retain small town look. The site would create a pedestrian friendly plaza with east/west wall: area and plantings. The importance of the door/window elements create a focus for customer entrance. Responding to the cost alld material of parapets. Grittman noted the material is similar to stl.lcco like the cornice on Cub l~•oocls. The material is both durable and affordable and can be designed into a draina~~c system. Grittman did not have cost estimates available but estimated each buildin~~ less than $?O.1)00. I'crhaps r ould be a cost savin;;s if constructed as one. Would all property o~vnel-s a~~l'ee, It WaS Voted [htl[ [hre4 buildill~~s and one lot is under the same ownership. "CII~: [;D!\ rC'C1LIeSted ~F\C p--Clvldl. I11t1teClal alld Installation costs f01' each llldlvldllal builclin~~ and as ono project based on the su~~gestions. NAC could have the cost estimates by the end of February. 5. Consideration of re uest from IDC to review GMEF Guidelines for business/'ob retell loll. The k:DA received copies of the BRE Visit sumnlat-ies and Business Subsidy Criteria. Koropchsil: noted as tollu~vup to the l3c\''.13 ivletal Stampul~~ visit, the E,DA was requested to research to see if or should the ED.~ Critetia - GIv1EF Guidelines be amended to include job retention for existin~~ businesses. Denleul~s felt the purpose of the ED=\ loan ~~-as to increase value and jobs within the community. Their experience is that automatization requires more employees. generally hi4~hcr payin~~ wa4;es. 1-loglu-ul a4~reed that automatization increases production which in • EDA IvIinutes - 1/29/03 turn means more materials moving in and out. Lahr noted the EDA disc ounts the interest rate for growth. If the loan does not increase value or jobs to the community, then what is the benefit to the EDA? Koropchak noted in her research that the current EDA Business Subsidy Criteria - GMEF Guidelines states: In all cases, it is mandatory to create new jobs. Per the EDA Attorney the Guidelines can be amended to meet the Business Subsidy Criteria -Public Policy Requirement: All business subsidies must meet a public purpose in addition to increasing the tax base. Job retention may only be used as a public purpose in cases where job loss is imminent and demonstrable. Imminent and demonstrable is much like the "but for" test. A business must demonstrate if not for the loan, the company will lay-off X number of people or move. The Attorney warned in some cases, this may be a red flag and a business must have along-term plan to demonstrate how they plan to increase productivity. GLINT HERBST MADE A MOTION TO NOT AMEND THE EDA BUSINESS SUBSIDY CRITERIA FOR THE PURPOSE OF JOB RETENTION FOR THE REASONS STATED BY THE COMMISSIONERS. DARRIN LAHR SECONDED THE MOTION AND WITH NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. I1 date of 200 ~ EDA membershi a ointments. Removed. 7. l;xecutive Director's Re ort. In addition to tl~e written report. Koropchak noted that the H-Window building was scheduled to close on .lanttary 29. The buyer a local individual looking to lease out the building. Crostini Grille is scheduled to open. February 10. Lead from C.B. Richard Ellis - 150,000 scI ft distribution. Looking for 12 acres, ~ acres outdoor storage. 1UA accepted written report. 8. Other Business. Add on item: The commissioners were informed of the request of the City Council for commissions to review the City's Vision & Governing Policies for input, comments, etc. and to develop a list ot•goals or projects which would lead to or support the City's vision. EDA Minutes - 1/29/03 "f~he commissioners are to prioritize or rank their list rior to submission to the Council p for their scheduled March ?~l meeting. In addition to the City's Vision & Governing Policies_ Lahr requested a copy of the previous Project Priority List. Commissioners agreed to give this some thought and agreed to develop an EDA list as a group at the next meeting. Ad"ournment. CLINT HERBST MADE A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE EDA MEETING. SECONDED BY DARRIN LAHR, THE EDA MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:1 S P.M. Recorder C] C. 4 MINUTES MONTICELLO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Wednesday, Apri12, 2003 - 4:00 p.m. City Hall -Academy Room MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Bill Demeules, Vice Chair Barb Schwientek, Roger Carlson, Robbie Smith, Darrin .Lahr, and Clint Herbst. MEMBERS ABSENT: Ron Floglund. STAFF PRESENT: Executive Director Ollie Koropchak. GUEST: Steve Budd, Integrated Recycling Technologies, Inc. Eric Bondhus and Dennis Bondhus, T. J. Martin dba Lake Tool, Inc. Call to Order. Chair Demeules called the EDA meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. 2. Consideration to a rove the January 29 2003 EDA Minutes. ('lint Ilerbst nurc~e a motion to cr~~~r•nve the January 29, ,2003 EDA minutes us tivritten. Seconc( by Dca~rin Luhr. CarLs•on and ,Smith abstained (crhsent) unc( Schtiver.'ntc~k arrived later; thc~refar-e, nzotivn dicer' titre to a lack of ~c~uorum. 3. Consideration of addin~~ or removin~~ a enda item. None. Koropchak welcomed City Council Member Robbie Smith as a commissioner of the EDA. d. Status report a-~d_ consideration to approve subordinating to take-orrt the Lender's loan and addin additional dollars GMEF Loan No. 018 - IRTI . Koropchak informed the commissioners that Integrated Recycling Technology, Inc, (Steve Budd) and the EDA entered into a Loan Agreement on June 29, 200]. GMEF Loan No. 018 in the amount of $72,00 was a real estate loan subordinated to the lender, 21 th Century Bank. "C`he Guaranty Agreement with partners: Budd, Meyer, and BergLiam. "l~he remainin~7 principal balance of the EDA loan is $49,377.01 as of May 2, 2003 (advanced payment.) Per the request of Mr. Melrose, State Bank of Rogers, the EDA is asked to subordinate taking-out the first bank loan and to add additional dollars (consolidating, debt). `I"he remaining principal balance of the initial $350,000 bank loan is $340,377. Mr. Budd informed the commissioners he has bought-out his partners and is refinancing with a new lender. Mr. Budd also told the EDA, he was not requesting • EDA Minutes - 4/2/03 adding additional dollars. IRTI is growing and initially, Budd thought he'd rent out a portion of the building but instead is utilizing the entire facility. The Borrower being of ~=vvd c~~c'dit rrnd stcu~ding, Dcrrr°in Lahr made a motion to appr°ove sLrbordinating GMEF Lacm No. (~18 to take-out the existing bank loan of ,~3-10, 377 subject to execution of documents as deemed necessary cznd prepared by the EDA Attorney at the cost of the Bvrrowc'r. Second by Robbie Smith and with no-further discussion, the motion passed unanimously. The request to approve adding an additional $50,000 to the Bank's first position construction/working capital loan ($391,000) was withdrawn from the agenda by Steve Budd. 5. Status re ort and consideration to rocced with recover of funds for GMEF Loan No. 014 T. J. Martin . The EDA and T. J. Martin, Inc. entered into a Loan Agreement on February 18, 1998. The M&E loan in the amount of $87,500 was in second position to Marquette Bank. The existing principal amount ofthe EDA loan (GMEF Loan No. 014) is $45,886.66 as of October 2002. The EDA has Personal Guarantees from Carl, Dennis, and Eric Bondhus as well as a Security Agreement and Promissory Note. Sometime ago_ First National Bank of Elk River assumed the M&E, real estate. and other debt loan in the amount of $719.000 of which the unpaid principal amount is $29,620 per the Lender. A second loan (lease a~~reements) with US Bank has an unpaid balance of about $11,000. Koropchak informed the commissioners that per First National, both lenders have negotiated a settlement via a cash buy-out of $29.620 and $1 1,000, respectively. F.,ric and Carl Bondhus informed the EDA that tl~e receivables left to collect are siY months old and viewed as dead. They offered the EDA a settlement of an $18,000 loan at 6`% interest rate over three years in lieu of the E DA proceeding to recovery funds on defaulted GMEF Loan No. 014. Eric ri~rther noted that Eric, Carl, and Dennis must all agree. They still have personal ~.tuarantee liability, Carl is making payments on a $180,000 piece of machinery and they continue to utilize their credit cards as cash. Koropchak asked if they could accept a cash buy-out settlement of $ l 8,000. Eric responded they can take a look at it. Commissioner Herbst said he favored the $18,000 loan settlement as a means to end an unfortunate situation stating the City and the EDA recognized both the benefits and the risks ol`the GMEF Loan Program when established. Lahr agreed with Herbst and asked Eric if they preferred a monthly or quarterly payment schedule. Eric replied either way. • EDA Minutes - 4/2/Q3 Schwicntek also agreed with Herbst and Lahr. Due to home financing, Eric Bondhus requested the EDA loan settlement be effective June 1, 2003. Bcrr^h Schu~ientek made a motion to accept cr settlement of an ,518, 0O0 !Derr? crt 6. D% interest r°crte over three years ~ffec•tive Jzme 1, 2003, Borrower to pay crll EDA attorney fees, C0.5t.S, and expenses up front for preparation of documents deemed necessary by the EDA attorney. Clint Herbst second the motion and with no further discussion, the motion passed unanimously. Koropchak was asked to get an estimated cost from the EDA Attorney for preparation of necessary documents. 6. Executive Director's Re ort. Koropchak reiterated the written Executive Director's Report and added that the Special Legislation Bill to extend the 5-year activity rule from June 30, 1997, to June 30, 2007, for Downtown Tll~ District No. 1-22 received opposition from fottr local individuals. Prior to the scheduled introduction of the Bill to the Senate Tax Committee, today (April 2), Rep. Anderson and Senator Ourada received four phone calls each in opposition. Two of the four people in opposition, Pat Sawatzke and Keith Kjellberg were at the Capitol and claimed the Bill was being driven by a proposed Block 52 redevelopment project of which they object to the preliminary concept. Rep. Anderson and Senator nurada assumed the Bill was supported by the business community and noted for the City to clean up their act. Senator ()urada did allow the bill to be introduced at tl~e Serrate Tax Committee, Koropchak's testimony was well received by the Committee. The Chamber Director, at the direction of HRA Lobbyist John Choi., submitted letters of support from the Chamber Board of Directors. Koropchak continued noting the Bill allows the k-1RA additional time to complete pending, and other redevelopment projects within tl~e Downtown District carrying out the ~~oals and objectives of the Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. I and the Revitalizing Monticello's Downtown and Rivcrfront Plan (Comprehensive Plan). Additionally, the Bill allows the f-1RA the tlexibility to use the pay-as-you-go finance method (less risky) as well as the up-front finance method, the flexibility to increase the amount of the temporary bonds when refinanced if determined necessary, the flexibility to issue tax exempt bonds for public improvements if determined necessary, and does not request extending the 25-year life of the district. 'l~he Special Legislation Bill is not being driven by any specific redevelopment project. Koropchak also noted approved GMEF hoan No. 021 in the amount of $55.000 to Tappers Inc. is scheduled to close prior to April 18, 2003. 3 EDA Minutes - 4/2/03 7. Other Business. 6DA Annual Meeting -Tuesday, April 22, 2003, 4:00 p.nn. 8. Adjournment. Roger C:arlsvn made a motion to adjourn the EDA meeting. Clint Herbst sec•vnd the motion and with no further business, the EDA meeting adjourned at a: 00 ~. m. Ollie Koropchak, Recorder • • EDA Agenda - 4/22/03 • 4. Consideration to Elect 2003 EDA Officers. A, Reference and Background. In order to comply with EDA Ordinance Amendment No. 172, Section 2-3-2: The Authority shall annually elect a president, vice president, treasurer, assistant treasurer, and secretary. The current list of officers are: President Vice President Treasurer Assistant Treasurer Secretary Bill Demeules Barb Schwientek Rick Wolfsteller Ken Maus Ollie Koropchak Nominations will be made at the meeting; therefore, any EDA member unable to attend the meeting and dawn' t wish to be re- elected or nominated, please contact me. In order to comply with EDA Ordinance Amendment No. 172, Section 2-3-1: Creation: (C) Thereafter_ the initial appointment, all commissioners shall be appointed for six-year terms, except that any person appointed to fill a vacancy occurring prior to the expiration of the term which his/her predecessor has been appointed shall be appointed only for the remainder of such term. 2003 EDA membership and 6-year term: Darrin Lahr 12 -2003 Barb Schwientek 12 -2004 Bill Demeules 12-2005 Roger Carlson, Council 12 -2006 Ran Hoglund 12 -2007 Clint Herbst 12 -2008 Robbie Smith, Council 12 -2008 B. Alternative Action: 1. Motion to nominate and elect the following ....Chair,........ Vice Chair, ......... Treasurer, ......... Assistant Treasurer, and ............ Secretary as 2003 EDA officers. Page 1 EDA Agenda - 4/22/03 • 2. A motion to table election of 2003 EDA officers. C. Recommendation: No recommendation is given. D. Supporting Data: None. C] . Page 2 F,DA Agenda - 4/22/(13 5. Consideration to review and acre t the Year-End EDA Financial Statements Activi Re . ort and 2003 Pro used Bud et. A. Reference and Back round: In order to comply with EDA Ordinance Amendment No. 172, Section 2-3-6: The Authority shall prepare an annual budget projecting anticipated expenses and sources of revenue. And 13: `I,he Authority shall prepare an annual report describing its activities and providing an accurate statement of its financial condition. Said report shall be submitted to the City Council in May of each year. Enclosed arc the year-end statements, proposed budget, and activity report. The EDA will need to review and discuss prior to consideration of the following alternative action. B. Alternative Action: A motion to accept the year-end financial statement and report. for submission to the City Council on May 1?, ?00 ~. ?. A -notioii to accept the year-end. financial statements and report subject to na-ned revisions prior to submission to the City Coiulcil. ~, A motion to ilot accept the year-end financial statements and report. 4. A motion to table any action. C. Recommendation: If the EDA comrnssioncrs make a fording that the staten~cnts and report a--e so correct., recommendation is alternative no. 1. `1'he EUA financial report are consistent with City year-end reports. D. Su~~lrting Data: Copies of financial statements and report. C7 MONTICELLO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MONTICELLO GREATER MONTICELLO ENTERPRISE FUND (GMEF) Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance For the Year Ended December 31, 2002 REVENUES Appropriations - 2002 $ -0- Interest Income - GMEF Notes $ 25,899.74 Interest Income - DMRF Note $ -0- Interest Income - Investment GMEF $ 51,759.00 Interest Income - Investment UDAG $ -0- Interest Income - Investment SCREG $ -0- Interest Income - Investment MIF $ -0- Loan Fees $ 400.00 Legal Fees $ 191.75 Miscellaneous $ -0- TOTAL REVENUES $ 78,250.49 EXPENDITURES GMEF Loans - None $ -p- GMEF Legal Fees $ 1,459.14 GMEF Professional Fees $ -0- TRANSFER TO LIQUOR FUND $ -0- DMRF Loan - None $ -0- DMRF Grant - Chamber $ 2,172.82 Broadway Inconvenience $ 4,730.55 DMRF Legal Fees $ -OW DMRF Profess.iorlal Fees $ -0- Service Fees $ -0- Miscellaneous Other $ 4,200.00 Int. Adjustment - Notes $ -0- TOTAL EXPENDITURES 12 562.51 Excess of Revenues Over Expen ditures $ 65,687.98 FUND BALANCE - Beginning of Year X1.291,885.02 FUND BALANCE - End of Year $1..,357,573.00 L' 5 f~ MONTICELLO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MONTICELLO GREATER MONTICELLO ENTERPRISE FUND (GMEF) Balance Sheet December 31, 2002 ASSETS Cash in Bank $951,970.01 Notes Receivable - Tapper, Inc_ $ -0- Notes Receivable - Muller Theatre $ -0- Notes Receivable - SMM, Inc. $ -0- Notes Receivable - Aroplax Corp. $ -0- Notes Receivable - Custom Canopy, Inc. $ -0- Notes Receivable - Standard Iron $ -0- Notes Receivable - Vector Tool $ -0- Notes Receivable - Tapper, Tnc. $ -0- Notes Receivable - SELUEMED $ -0- Notes Receivable - T J Martin $ 45,886.66 Notes Receivable - Mainline Distribution $ 89,656.22 Notes Receivable - Aroplax Corp zI $ 91,704.82 Notes Receivable - TCDC $ 69,536.60 Notes Receivable - IRTI $ 70,231.95 ~otes Receivable -- GWJ,LLC $ 28,845.32 otes Receivable - VisiCom $ 9,741.42 Appropriations Re ceivables - 2002 $ -0- TOTAL ASSETS $1,357,573.00 FUND EQUITY Fund Balance Reserved for Participation Loans (Economic Development) 1 357 573.00 TOTAL LIABILITIES AND FUND EQUITY X1,357,573.00 * 2001 transfer to Liquor Fund $77,000 Original Liquor Fund transfer to EDA $383,000. C] MONTICELLO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY GREATER MONTICELLO ENTERPRISE FUND (GMEF) 2003 CASH FLOW PROJECTION BEGINNING CASH BALANCE, January 2003 $ 951,970.01 RECEIPTS Appropriations, Expected - GMEF $ -0- Notes Amortization Payments - Tapper Inc. _0_ Muller Theatre -0- SMM, Inc. -0- Araplax Corp. -0- Custom Canopy, Inc. -0- Standard Iron -0- Vector Tool -0- Tapper's II -0- SELUEMED -0- T.J. Martin ($547.60 Mo.) 5-06 $ • 3,833.20 Mainline Distrib.($702.08 Mo.) 5-04 $ 8,424.95 Aroplax Corp. II ($730.93 Mo.) 12-04 $ 8,771.16 TCDC ($1,457.29 Mo.) 7-07 $ 17,487.48 IRTI ($549.57 Mo.) Pre-pay $ 72,124.86 EDMA ($193.89 Ma.) 9-06 $ 2,326.68 VisiCom ($115.78 Mo.) 5-04 $ 2,778.72 UMC ($1,084.33 Mo.) 3-08 $ 10,843.30 Tapper 22I($524.76 Mo.) 5-08 $ 4,198.09 Interest Income - Investment (est.) $ 50,000.00 Loan Fees $ 200.00 Loan Fees Other $ 3,000.00 Miscellaneous 1 000.00 TQTAL RECEIPTS S 184,_988.45 TQTAL BEGINNTNG BALANCE AND RECEIPTS $1,136,958.46 EXPENDITURES GMEF Loans UMC - Recycled UDAG/GMEF $200,000.00 Tappers - Recycled GMEF $ 55,000.00 Other $100,000.00 T.J. Martin Write-Off $ 27,885.66 Re-payment to Liquor Fund 2003 $ -0- DMRF Grants Professional Fees $ 3,000.00 Legal Fees $ 3,000.00 Miscellaneous ~ 1,.000.00 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 389,885.66 EXPECTED CASH BALANCE, December 2003 $ 747,071.80 2002 ECONOMICry UEVELUPMENT ALITHORITY ACTIVITY 12EPORT MEF;'1'ING DATE S(.1BJECTS April 22, 2002 Accepted the Business Annual Meeting Subsidy Criteria for the Monticello F,DA without amendments. EDA Officers elected for 2002: President Bill Demeules Vice President Barb Schwicntek 'Treasurer Flick Wolfstcller Assistant Treasurer Ken Maus Secretary Ollie Koropchak Accepted F?UA 2001 Year-End Financial Statements and Activity Report noting replacement of $77,000 to the Liquor F'Ilnd. All existing GM1/'F loan paybacks are current. Approved to discontinue the DMRI~' program and to reserve DMRF dollars fc)r Block 35 project in 2003. Tabled action on rcplacetnent of Liquor h'und for 2002. June 1 K, 2002 Approved two Satisfaction of Mortgages for Bluc Chip Development Company, the mortgagor: Mortgage filed October 13, 1992, and amended Mortgage tiled November 28, 1995, relative to GMEF Loan No. 010. Some property owners of Block 52 reported that the arrangement between the city and property owners for 2001 /02 snow removal worked well. Property owners had a joint snow removal arrangement to provide service at a. lower cost and the City plowed tlae alley. Property owners and the EDA agreed to delay ally Improvements to Block 35 alley or area until completion of Broadway in 2003. Reviewed the preliminary GMEF loan application for Double Bull Archery, Inc. • 5~ 2002 F:DA Activity kcport Approved GMEF Loan No. U20 for Double Bull Archery, L,LC., in the amount of $50,000. "fhc real property acquisition loan at 2.75% fixed interest rate, amortized over 20 years with balloon in 5 years. Loan fee of $200. Loan becomes null and void December 18, 2002, if funds are not disbursed. GMEF legal fees responsibility of~ applicant. Collateral, guarantees and other condition requirements to be determined and prepared by the EDA Attorney. Loan approval subject to lender commitment and Council ratification of EDA action. Reviewed tlac preliminary GMEF loan application from Tapper's Inc. Approved GMEF Loan No. 021 fir "Tappers Inc. in the amount of $5.5,000. The maclaincry/cquipmerit loan to be amortized over five years at a fixed interest rate of 2.75%. Loan lee of $200. Loan becorncs null and void il~ funds not disbursed by December 18, 2002. GMI;I~' Icgal fees the responsibility of the applicant. Collateral, guarantees, and other conditions to be delermirted by tlic I~:DA Attorney. (iMF,F loan approval is subject to (ryourrcil ratification of the EDA action. August 20, 2002 Reviewed preliminary (iMIJ'F' loan application born tlltra Machining Company (UMC) Approved GMEF Loan No. 022 for t_JMC in the amount of $200,000 at 2% below prime rate (2.75"/<,). 'The real property loan with art amor'ti?ation not to exceed ~0 years, consistent with lender', balloon payment in S years. Loan fee of $200. Loan becomes ntrll and void if funds not disbursed by February 20, 2001. GMEF loan approval subject to lender commitment, credit worthiness letter and Council ratification. EDA was informed that the Council agreed with property owners that they did not want the parking lot ol~Block i_5 torn up during reconstruction of Broadway. • - 2002 EDA Activity Report October 8, 2002 In lieu of Broadway inconvenience, authorized tlae EDA to provide funds in an amount not to exceed $5,000 from the DMRF` as a one time contribution for the purpose of an event or advertising which would benefit all the businesses in the DMRF target area. Chamber President to work with the business owners on the event. Approved authorization io pursue recovery of funds for GMEF Loan No. 014, T. J. Martin, Inc. Approved the First Amendment to the Loan Agreement between the EDA and TCDC for GMEF Loan No. O 17 extending the compliance date to July, 2003. DAT Chair Campbell directed to get cost estimates for design cosmetic concept sketches for the rear I`acade of buildings on I31ock 52. Koropchak to check with WoII`steller to get a survey detertmitiing the ownet'ship of the alley. December 16, 2002 Approved extending the Non-f'crforrnance .Date for CiMl?}~' Loan No. 021 for Tappers Inc. from Uccember 18, 2002, to April 18, 2003, due to delivery delay of equipttaent. Approved awarding the bid to prepare cosmetic design sketches and cost estittlates for the rear facade of buildings on Block 3S to Northwest Associated Consultants ~.tt a cost not to exceed $1,000. Tabled any action on recovery of funds for GMEF No. 0l 4 for three months and io review at that time. Approved a motion of no interest to authori~c repayment of the Liquor Funds in 2002. With the six-year term of Ke.n Maus to expire December, 2002, Maus announced his plans to resign from the EDA. a W O Z LL ~_ o c o a ° = c v W _ a /9N T J ~ V ~ a z ~ O z a W ~ li W V 0 z 0 U W • ^ pp ~O 4n (~ a O ca r n ~ ~ ao ~ cn N r~ 47J a ~P 4n ~ v n o M c-~ W n tp ca ~ Q a 4 n r ~ M (p C~) ~ ~ O ~ C7 n N u~ M C7 CV GO 4A n ~ Ci N CD C~ a Ch C7 ~ r a0 ~ ~ ~C) ~ N ~fi N ~ C7 4t7 ti N a ~ ~ ~ M v GO O1 40 O r ~ M O) n m ~ ~- w ~ r r r r N M +-^ N ~" r r Q W F- Z ~ O Q QQ o S pp C] a ~ a a a a a o tD c~ N N N ao a cO 417 Q? N M N et ~ 4 0 0 0 0 0 C] ~ O tp ~ cD r 127 r Q 427 ~ r O Q W O W ~ t70 O tD n N w U z d GO °v ~~ S °a g o Q °v c h i n °r° v° o c° °o ~ ~ O a 0p asp Qpp O QO ~ (r1 c~7 ~ C~ GD ~ N Q O Q O O tc7 C~ X 0 0 Co ~ N ~ct N T H a J a°DO ~ ~ ~ ~ ti 4t°7 0 ° v ° ao M N r a a Z A. ~' CV O O O ~_ ui 0 n Ef3 Z a a a a Q ~ 0 0 4 0 ~ C7 ~ 4 ~ Q a o v o 0 C7 ~ ° 4 ° v o ~ ~ ~ a v v $ ~ 0 4 r o 4 r~ u i ~ a pp pO ~ cv 4n o a o r n a S o ci a s - r Z 4() l17 ~ n 417 a rt n CD O r r a r n M Y r r 0 J c~ a~ as o ~ O rn o~ rn °' a ° ~ ~ Q N Q ~ '-' ~ N .~ T ~ ~ O ~ ~ O w ~ rn N ~ - ` ` ~ ' o' ~ V • N `r ~ rn ~rnn ~ c^s o ~ ~ ~ ~, C _~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ © w ~ ry_ W em ~ v! ~ ~ N a •c n ~ F .., ~ ~ cl3 ''' - ~ 0 r ~ ~ N _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q U ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ U ~ ~ Q r (~ ~ ~ Z c ~ ~ ~ - ~ C c v ~ C 'c~ d o G •3 a? ~ ~ •~- ~ ~ ~ o © aa ~ ~ cn ~ ~ ¢ ~ ~ w ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ Q a m r ~ O ~ L~ H ~ ~ U cn m 4a r v r o w -' c 7 a r a a r 4a r o o h cq O x Q D w • • • ~ Q ~ O n N r r h ~ M ~ GD et ~ C] ~ N fp ao cQ ri r: ai co ~ ui n ~f ai vi r ~ CD r CAS N ~P r^ r r ~ l!7 W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ r r ~ r- CV CV r ~t7 N CD G ~ r ~ r- r N N C'9 u7 N Z Z a W H N W ~ O r N C7 ~ In (D 1~ ap ~ O r- J W Q1 O> 01 O~ O> O) ~ Q~ ~ O> ~ pp © g Q ~ O) C~ O> ~ Q1 ~ rn N 0 - F- H Z W F- N W Z }y C6 yy~~ v 3 ~ ~n ~ y, ~ ~ o O ~, ~ ~ a~~, ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ G ~ ~ ~ ~ (V ~ ~ ~ ~~r, ~ ~g~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~,~ ~ ~ 8 _S v ~ cv g Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r' ~ N c°v '`~ N .~ d ~ O y, ,~ o ~.~~~~ ~~- ~~~~ ~, ~, ~ a ~ Q ~ ~ :~ ~ °~° ~ ~ e ~ n e ~ ~ v o S '2 co 25 `~ m ~ +' +~ ~ ~ ~ ~, n iri w ~ ~ v~~~~~g,°~~g ~~~ °' °' ~, °' a ~ ~ a .~ ~o 0 F~ ~ ~ ~ ca ~ as F~ cn F~ ~ ~ H 5 W 7 .-~ cpv ~ up-> .po n o •-+ cwi ~ u-~ m n co rn r+ S O d O O~ 4 O d 4 O d O C? d ." i ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~.aa~~° a 0 vi d 0 w u_ EDA Agenda _ 4/22/03 ~' 6. t'onsideration to review ear-end balances of the GMEF DMRF ~1DAG Minnesota Investment Fund and SCERG Funds. A. Reference and Sack round: One GMEF loan payback payment (T. J. Martin) is delinquent and DMRF No. 111 (VisiCom) is delinquent. The la)A agreed to a settlement offer on the defaulted '['. ,I. Martin Loan and VisiCorn has been billed for the annual delinquent payment. All other loans current. GMEF No. 010 (Blue Chip/Vector) and GM E F No. 001 ~ (SELUEM ED) loans were paid off in 2002 Steve Budd has requested a Satisfaction of Mortgage for GMEF No. 018 (IRTI) and plans to pre-pay the loan in May 2003. Although GMEh' Loan No. 021 (Tapper Ill) and Loan No. 022 (UMC) were approved in 2002, the loan closings took place in 2003. Tlie I~.DA will show a loss of $27,886.66 for the 'I'. J. Martin Loan ($45,880.66 minus $18,000 settlement). No balloon payments arc due in 2003. Uisbursernents from the DMRh' account were to the Chamber for facade improvements and various vendors for Broadway Inconvenience. Current balance of DMRF is $145,2.56.66. Additional funds available for future use by the 1-~DA include the MIF I~cdcral-TCDC (2002 balance $157,660.71), SCRh;G-Aroplax/Standard Iron (balance 2002 $11,609.60, and MIF State-tIM(' payback (beginning May or June 200 ~). All L1DAC~-FSI dollars lYave been recycled. Due to the economy and foreign competition, TCDC has not filled their job and wage requirements for the M1F Federal loan. Although the time for creation of .jobs and wages care be extended for one more year (through July 2004), we arc advised not to recycle the MIF Federal dollars. Please note the total dollars available to the EDA for GMEF and DMRF programs less the paid commitments is $696.970.01 as of April 22, 2003. No action necessary by tlac F.DA. • MONT[CELLO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY DOWNTOWN MONTICELLO REVITALIZATION FUND December 31, 2002 • • Fund Balance, Uccelnber ~ 1, 1997 $199,000.00 Revenues Appropriations 0 _ TOTEIL REVENiJES $199,000.00 F;xpendiiures DMRF 101, Kathy Froslie, 2-6-9$ $ 2,500.00 8-31 W98 $ 2,500.00 DMRF 102, Steve Johnson DMRF 103, Kathy Froslie, 2-6-9$ $ 500.00 DMRF 104, Rich Cline, 10-11-9$ $ 2,94.1 1 1-24-9$ $ 180.12 DMRF ]0.5, AI Loch, 11-6-98 $ 2,610.00 DMRF 106, Dan Olson, 7-27-98 $ G,$14.1> UMR1~' 107, Steve Johnson UMRF 108, Bruce H~unmond 6-1 1-99 $ 5,411.80 DMRt~' 109, Dorothy Topel 7-12-99 $ 2,01 1.74 DMRI~' 1 10, I Icaton UMRF 1 1 1, F lamond 8-29-01 ($9,500) extended to 5- 29-02 I ~oan 4-10-01 ($10,644, 5.5°/,, _5-04) $10,644.00 DMRF 1 12 "I'hickpcnny _5-22-01 $ 6,960.2.5 DMRI~' 113 Chamber 1-10-02 $ 2,172.82 I)rayna 5-10-01 $ 1,000.00 Claybau~h 3-00 $ 810.50 4-00 $ 1,240.00 Grittman -O1 $ 822.80 Broadway Inconvenience -02 $ 4,710.55 [,coal (I.~oan document) $ 200.00 -O1 $ 240.50 TOTAL EXF'ENDI"1'I.JRF:S $ 53,743.34 Fund Balance, December 31, 2002 $145,2.56.fifi (o R GREATER MONTICELLO ENTERPRISE FUND (GMEF) LOAN STATUS December 31, 2002 Economic Development Authority (EDA) was created in 1989. APPROVED LOANS Tapper/Genereux (1990) $88,000.00 Muller/Monti Theatre (1990) $50,000.00 Barger/Suburban #004 (1992) $50,000.00 Schoen/Aroplax #005 (1992) $85,000.00 Birkeland/Custom Canopy #006 (1993) $42,500.00 Demeules/Standard Iron #007 (1993) $75,000.00 Blue Chip Dev/Vector Tool #010 (1995) $50,000.00 Tapper's #011 (1996) $100,000.00 Standard Iron/Seluemed #013 (1996) $70,000.00 T J Martin #014 (1998) $87,500.00 Mainline Distr #015 (1999) $100,000.00 Aroplax #016 (1999) $100,000.00 TC Die Cast #017 (2000) $100,000.00 Integrated Recycling #018 (2001) $72,500.00 EDMA #019 (2001) $30,000.00 Tapper's #021 (2002) $55,000.00 Tomann/UMC #022 (2002) $200,000.00 TOTAL APPROVED LOANS APPROVED PAYBACKS 2001 to Hwy Liquor TOTAL APPROVED PAYBACKS TOTAL APPROVED LOANS 8~ PAYBACKS LOAN DISBURSEMENTS_~transferred t~ GMEF) Liquor Fund^ 1991 to Tapper 1992 to Suburban 1992 to Aroplax 1994 to Standard Iron 1995 to Vector Tool 1996 to Standard Iron 2001 payback from ~ ~ ~'~ Total Liquor Fund • ($77,000.00) $73,000.00 $50,000.00 $65,000.00 $75, 000.00 $50, 000.00 $70, 000.00 ($77,000.00) $306, 000.00 $1, 355, 500.00 ($77,000.00) $1, 278, 500.00 GMEF-EDA.xIs: 4/16/2003 UDAG Fund: 1991 to Tapper $15,000.00 1991 to Muller $50,000.00 1992 to Aroplax $20,000.00 1993 to Custom Canopy $42,500.00 1996 to Tapper's $100,000.00 1999 to Aroplax (016) $100,000.00 1999 (2000) to Mainline $39,546.38 2000 to TC Die Cast $56,781.04 Total UDAG Fund $423,827.42 "Recycled" UDAG Money: 2001 to Integrated Recycling $72,500.00 2001 to EDMA $30,000.00 2003 to UMC $125,000.00 Total Recycling UDAG $227,500.00 SCERG Fund: 1998 to T J Martin $87,500.00 1999 to Mainline $60,453.62 2000 to TC Die Cast $23,198.02 Total SCERG Fund $171,151.64 GMEF (recycled funds): 2000 to TC Die Cast $20,020.94 2003 to UMC $75,000.00 2003 to Tapper 021 $55,000.00 Total GMEF Fund $150,020.94 TOTAL LOAN DISBURSEMENTS $1, 278, 500.00 GMEF-EDA.xIs: 4/16/2003 MINNESOTA INVESTMENT FUND • FINANCIAL REPORT December 31, 2002 GRANT TOTALS -TWIN CITIES DIE CAST Payback began in July, 2000 for 7 years ending in June, 2007. Annual principal and interest payback total is $61,176.72. ORIGINAL Principal $500,000.00 Interest $95, 747.11 TOTAL $595,747.11 PAID REMAINING $114,168.45 $385,831.55 $43,608.62 $52,138.49 $157, 777.07 $437, 970.04 EXPENDED: $468,266.60 $20,859.00 $10, 874.40 $500, 000.00 REVENUES Principal Payback -TCDC Interest Payback-TCDC Interest Income -Investment: 2aoa 2001 TOTAL REVENUES EXPENDITURES Prof Svc fees -TCDC TOTAL EXPENDITURES FUND BALANCE FOR MN INV FUND • 6/2/00 8/9/00 8/15/00 $114,168.45 $43, 608.62 $119.19 $3,071.00 $160, 967.26 $3, 306.55 $3, 306.55 $157, 660.71 MN INV.xIs: 4/16/2003 SMALL CITIES ECONOMIC RECOVERY GRANT (SCERG) FINANCIAL REPORT December 31, 2002 GRANT TOTALS - AROPLAX Payback began in December, 1992 for 7 years ending in November, 1999. Annual principal and interest payback total is $29,801.40. First $100,000 principal payback ends January, 1997. ORIGINAL PAID REMAINING Principal $170,000.00 $175,615.55 ($5,615.55) Interest $37, 969.92 $24, 018.99 $13, 950.93 TOTAL $207,969.92 $199,634.54 $8,335.38 Jan. 1997 GMEF STATE Principal $170,000.00 $100,000.00 $70,000.00 Interest $29,634.75 $24,018.99 $5,615.76 TOTAL $199,634.75 $124,018.99 $75,615.76 Grant must be expended by December 31, 1994, up to $170,000. EXPENDED: $116,556.75 1993 $16, 996.1$ 1993 $12,356.59 1993 $4, 021.10 1 /18/94 $15,132.50 4/13/94 $4, 936.88 7/20/94 $170, 000.00 GRANT TOTALS -STANDARD IRON Payback began in July, 1994 for 7 years ending in June, 2001. Annual principal and interest payback total is $33,306.12. Grant must be expended by December 31, 1994, up to $250,000. EXPENDED: $250,000.00 8/18/94 • SCERG.xIs: 4/16/2003 SMALL CITIES ECONOMIC RECOVERY GRANT (SCERG) Page 2 REVENUES Principal Payback -Aroplax $175,615.55 Interest Payback -Aroplax $24,018.99 Loan Payback -Standard Iron $282,382.02 Grant Administrative Fee - S.I. $6,065.00 Refund 97/98 fee to Wright County ($2,000.00) Interest Income -Investment: 1993 $1,061.92 1994 $1, 256.00 1995 $5,475.97 1996 $7,381.27 1997 $8, 770.56 1998 $9,741.95 1 ggg $10,450.10 2000 $9,058.60 2001 $682.00 TOTAL REVENUES $539,959.93 EXPENDITURES Payback to State -Aroplax $75,626.64 Reimbursement to Wright Co - S.I. $281,572.02 . Transfer to GMEF - T. J. Martin $87,500.00 Transfer to GMEF -Mainline Dist $60,453.62 Transfer to GMEF - TC Die Cast $23,198.02 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $528,350.30 FUND BALANCE FOR SMALL CITIES GRANT $11,609.63 • SCERG.xIs: 4/16/2003 • • URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACTION GRANT (UDAG) FINANCIAL REPORT December 31, 2002 GRANT TOTALS - BSI Payback began in January, 1988 for 12 years ending in January, 2000. Annual principal and interest payback total is $27,971.40. RI INAL PAID REMAINING Principal $256,957.71 $256,957.71 $0.00 Interest $78 700.35 $77,315.88 $1 384.47 TOTAL $335,658.06 $334,273.59 $1,384.47 REVEN~IES Principal Payback -FSI $256,957.71 Interest Payback -FSI $77,315.8$ Interest Income -Investment: 1990 $6,342.02 1991 $8,593.59 1992 $8,436.32 1993 $5,227.10 1994 $3,756.77 1995 $12,297.72 1996 $9,775.19 1997 $9,007.60 1998 $12,989.27 1999 $13,128.25 TOTAL REVENUES $423,827.42 EXPENDITURES 1991 Transfer to GMEF (Tapper 8~ Muller) $65,000.00 1992 Transfer to GMEF (Aroplax) $20,000.00 1993 Transfer to GMEF (Custom Canopy) $42,500.00 1996 Transfer to GMEF (Tapper) $100,000.00 1999 Transfer to GMEF (Aroplax) $100,000.00 1999 (2000) Transfer to GMEF (Mainline) $39,546.38 2000 Transfer to GMEF (TC Die Cast) $56,781.04_ TOTAL EXPENDITURES $423,827.42 FUND BALANCE FOR URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACTION GRANT $0.00 UDAG.xIs: 4/10/2003 CENTRAL MINNESOTA INITIATIVE FUND (CMIF) FINANCIAL REPORT December 31, 2002 GRANT TOTALS -STANDARD IRON Payback began in July, 1994 for 7 years ending in June, 2001. Annual principal and interest payback total is $13,322.52. EXPENDED: REVENUES $100, 000.00 1994 $100,000.00 Loan Payback (incl grant flee) -Standard Iron $113,241.42 Interest Income -Investment: 2001 $114.00 TOTAL REVENUES $113,355.42 EXPENDITURES Reimbursement to Wright County - S.I. Transfer to GMEF TOTAL EXPENDITURES FUND BALANCE FOR CENT MN INITIATIVE FUND $112,221.42 0.00 $112,221.42 $1,134.00 GMEF Cash Balance DMRF Cash Balance TOTAL LESS DISBURSEMENTS UMC Tapper BALANCE APRIL 22, 2003 SOURCES OF FUNDS April 22, 2003 $806,713.35 $145,256.66 $951,970.01 $200,000.00 $ 55,000.00 $695,970.01 EDA Agenda - 4/22/3 7. Consideration to discuss fora royal authorizin the re lacement of the Li uor Funds. A. Reference and back round: Again in 2003, the EDA is requested to discuss whether to continue replacement of the original Liquor Funds. In Apri12001, the EDA made the following motion: To authorize repayment of the liquor Funds in the amount of 10% of the GMEF cash balance, not to drop below a cash. balance of $400,000, to be reviewed on an annual basis. Repayment per EDA Business Subsidy Criteria. Below is an excerpt from the EDA Business Subsidy Criteria, Ori final Revolvin 7 Loan Fundin#~. "City shall transfer needed loan amount from existing accounts at such time that individual loans are approved. Keverluc created through this program shall be under the control of the EDA. and shall not be trarislerrcd to City funds unless the City Council deterrnincs that reserves generated are not necessary for the successfiul operation of the Authority. If such is the case, such funds must he transferred to the debt service funds of the City to be used solely to reduce tax levies for bonded indebtedness of the City (see Section SB of the ordinance establishing the Monticello I~.UA)." At the December I-:UA 2002, the EDA made a motion ol`no interest to authorize repayment of the Liquor Funds Ior 2002 and suggested the item be addressed at the annual meeting in April. The l?DA cash in bank balance as of December 2002 is $951,970.01. The amount of Liquor Funds disbursed to the EDA over the years totaled $383,000 (non-restrictive dollars) less the $77,000 authorised 1`or rc-placement in 2001 leaves anon-replaced balance of $306,000. "I'he interest and interest income from the UUAG and SC1?RG/Aroplax is approxirnatcly $350,000 and from the GMEh' is $480,000 for a total of $810,000 non-restrictive monies. The principal amount of the [JDAC7 $250,000 and SCREC7 Aroplax $100,000 totals $350,000, this restrictive monies. • EDA Agenda _ 4/22/03 S. Alternative Action: l . A motion to authorise a 2003 repayment of the Liquor Funds in the amount of $95,000 for use solely to reduce tax levies for bonded indebtedness of the City. 2. A motion to authorize a 2003 repayment of the Liquor Funds in the amount of .. for arse solely to reduce tax levies for bonded indebtedness oI`the City. 3. A motion ol~no interest to authorize a 2003 repayment of the Liquor Funds. 4. A motion to table any action. C. Recommendation: Remember to account for the DMRF $200,000 corrrrnitment as this must be from non- restrictive funds. Ten percent of year-end 2002 F:DA cash balance is $95,000. No recommcr~dation ~*iven. It appears the EDA has sufficient amount of rlon-restrictive Funds. D. Su~~rting Data: None. EUA Agenda - 4/22/U3 8. Consideration to_rev~ew for amendment the _ ' ~ Business Subsidy Criteria of the EDA. A. Reference and background: This is a housekeeping item. According to the Business Subsidy Criteria: "At a minimum, the LDA shall review the Fund Guidelines on an annual basis. No changes to the GM1-:h' guidelines shall be instituted without prior approval of the City C'ouncil." The criteria is attached for your review. S. Alternative Action: A motion to ~•ecomrnend amending the Business Subsidy Criteria as follows .............................. requesting approval from City Council, and calling for a public hearing. 2. A motion to accept the current Business Subsidy Criteria of tllc p;l)A. C. Necommcndation: Recommendation is alternative no. 2. U. Su~orting Data: Copy of Business Subsidy Criteria. ~J ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA Business Subsidy Criteria Public Hearing and Adoption the 31st day of August, 1999 Public Hearing and Adoption of Amendments the 8th day of November, 2000 Public Hearing and Adoption of Amendments the 24th day oFApril, 2001 PiJRPOSE 1:01 T'he purpose of this document is to establish the Economic Development Authority's criteria for granting of business subsidies, as defined in Minnesota Statutes 116J.993, Subdivision ~, for private development. This criteria shall be used as a guide in processing and reviewing applications requesting business subsidies. 1:02 The criteria set forth in this document are guidelines only. The Economic Development Authority reserves the right in its discretion to approve business subsidies that vary from the criteria stated herein if the Economic Development Authority determines that the subsidy nevertheless serves a public purpose. The Authority will file evidence of any devia From these criteria with the Department of Trade and Economic Development in accordant with Minnesota Statues, Section 116J.994, Subd. Z. 1:0 ~ The Economic Development Authority may amend the business subsidy criteria at any time. Amendments to these criteria are subject to public hearing requirements pursuant to Mitulesota Statutes, Sections 116J.993 through 116J.99~1. tion e 2. S~hA-hUTORY LIMITATIONS Z:O1 In accordance with the business Subsidy Criteria, Business Subsidy requests must comply . with applicable State Statutes. The Economic Development Authority ability to grant business subsidies is governed by the limitations established in Minnesota Statutes 116J.993 through 116J.99~. PUBLIC' POLICY REQiJIRF,MENT ,:01 All business subsidies must meet a public purpose in addition to increasing the taY base. Job retention may only be used as a public purpose in cases tivhere job loss is imminent and demonstrable. S~ Monticello City Hall, 505 Walnut Street, Suite 1, Monticello, MN 55362-$$31 • (763) 295-2711 • Fax: (763) 295-4404 Office of Public Works, 909 Golf Course Rd., Monticello, MN 55362 • (763) 295-3170 • Fax: (763) 271-3272 MoNT>cli.Lo EDA Bltsiness Subsidy Criteria 4. BC.1S[NESS Si1BSTDY APPROVAL CRITERIA 4:01 All new projects approved by the Economic Development Authority should meet the following minimum approval criteria. EIowever, it should not be presumed that a project meeting these criteria will automatically be approved. Meeting these criteria creates no contractual right on the part of any potential developer or the Economic Development Authority. 4:02 The project must be in accord with the Comprehensive Flan 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 sltbsidies financing plan and when deemed appropriate by the Econamic Development Autharity, the developer shall provide any required market and financial feasibility studies, appraisals, soil boring information provided to private lenders for the praject, and other information ar data as requested. 4:04 A recipient of a business subsidy must make a commitment to cantinue operations at the site where the subsidy is used for at least five years after the benefit date. 4:05 (Recipients of any business subsidy will be required to meet wage and job goals determined by the Economic Development Authority on a case-by-case basis, giving consideration to the nature of the development, the purpose of the subsidy, local economic conditions, and situational circumstances.) The Economic Development Authority may determine after a public hearing that job creation or retentian is not a goal of the subsidy. In those cases, the recipient must instead meet at least one of the following minimum requirements (in addition to all other criteria in this document ullzer• llzcm Chose relating to jobs and minimum wages): (1) The proposed subsidy must accomplish removal, rehabilitation or redevelopment of "blighted areas" as defined in Minnesata Statues, Section 469.002, Subd.l 1, ar must constitute a cost of correction conditions that allow designation of redevelopment districts under Minnesota Statues, Sections 469.174 to 469.179; or (2) The proposed subsidy must result in improvements to public infrastructure or public facilities, including without limitations, sewers storm sewers, streets, parks, recreational facilities, and other City facilities; ar . (3) The proposed subsidy must remove physical impediments to development of DAWN/WORD/POLICIES. 10130/00 2 EDA Business Subsidy Criteria land, including without limitation poor soils, bedrock conditions, steep slopes, or similar geotechnical problems. 4:06 I~or any business subsidy that does not meet the requirements of Section 4:05, the recipient must create or retain jobs as determined by the Economic Development Authority, as must meet the minimum wage thresholds, desca•ibed in Section 5:03. Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund Guidelines, 1.(b) (whether or not the source of the subsidy is tax increment financing). 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. 5:02 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 Following are the evaluation criteria that will be used by the Economic Development Authority: • • ~AWN/WORD/POLICIES: 10/30/00 EDA Business Subsidy Criteria GREATER MONTICELLO ENTERPRISE FUND GUIDELINES CITY OF MONTICELLO . 50S WALNUT STREET, SUITE #1 MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA 55362 (763) 271-3208 INTRODUCTION The purpose of the Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund (GMEF) is to encourage economic development by supplementing conventional financing sources available to existing and new businesses. Through this program 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 GMEF 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 To provide loans for credit worthy businesses that create new jobs. (a) One job is equivalent to a total of 37.5 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 160% of the federal minimum wage, exclusive of benefits, for individuals over the age of 20 during the term of the assistance. Annual written reporks are required until termination date. Failure to meet the job and wage level goals require partial or frill repayment of the assistance with interest. 2. To provide loans for credit worthy businesses that would increase the community tax base. 7'o 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 environmental effects of the business, if any. ~. To provide loans to be used as a secondary source of financing that is intended to supplement conventional financing (bank financing). 5. To provide loans in situations in which a fiindin~~ gap exists. 6. To provide funds for economic development that could be used to assist in obtainin~~ other funds such as Small Business Administration loans, federal and state ,rants, etc. L ~AWN/WORp/POLICIES 10/30/00 EDA Business Subsidy Criteria "CHE GREATER MONTICELLO ENTERPRISES REVOLVCNG LOAN FUND POLICIES I. BUSINESS ELIGIBILITY * Industrial businesses * Non-competitive commercial businesses which enhance the community * Businesses located within the city of Monticello * Creditworthy 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 in personal property used for business purposes, whichever is higher. II. FINANCING METFIOD * COMPANION • DIRECT LOAN - Example: Equity 20%, RLF 30%, and bank 50%. (All such loans may be subordinated to the primary lender(s) if requested by the primary lender(s). The RLF loan is leveraged and the lower interest rate of the RLF lowers the effective interest rate on the entire project.) * PARTICIPA"PION 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 lower interest rate). * Gt1ARANTEE LOANS - RLF guarantees a portion of the bank loan. (Personal and real estate guarantees handled separately.) • III. USE OF PROCEEDS * Real property acgtusition and development * Real property rehabilitation (expansion or improvements) * Machinery and equipment IV. TERMS AND CONDITIONS * * LOAN S17.I: - Minimum of $5.000 and maximum not to exceed 50% of the remainin~,~ revolving loan fiend balance; for example, if the remaining revolving loan fund balance is $50,000, the maximum loan issuance is $25,000. LEVERAGING - DAWN/WORD/PphICIES 1°130/°° Minimum 60% private/public non-GMEF Maximum 30% public (GMEF) 5 EDA Business Subsidy Criteria Minimum 10% equity EDA loan * LOAN TERN[ - Personal property terns not to exceed life of equipment (generally 5-7 years). Real estate property maximum of 5-year maturity amortized up to 30 years. Balloon payment at 5 years. * INTEREST RATE - Fixed rate not less than 2% below Minneapolis prime rate. Frime rate per National Bank of Minneapolis on date of EDA loan approval. * LOAN FEE - Minimum fee of $200 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 5 working days after City Council approval of GMEF loan. Nonrefundable. • * PREPAYMENT POLICY - DEFERRAL. OF PAYMEN'['S - No penalty for prepayment. Approval of the EDA membership by majority vote. 2. Extend the balloon if unable to refinance, veri:tication letter from two lending institutions subject to Board approval. LATE PAYMENT POLICY Failure to pay principal or interest when due may 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 $250 will be imposed on any borrower for any payment not received in frill by the Authority within 30 calendar days of the date on which it is due. 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 dt~e and payable at the same time as the amount on which it has accrued. • * INTEREST LIMITATION UN GUARANTEED DAWN/WORDlPOLICI ES. 10!30/00 6 EDA Business Subsidy Criteria LOANS - Subject to security and/or reviewal by EDA. * ASSUMABILI`l'Y OF LOAN - None. * BUSINESS EQUITY REQUIREMENTS - Subject to type of loan; Board of Directors will determine case by case, analysis under normal lending guidelines. * 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 guarantees). * NON-PERFORMANCE - An approved GMEF loan shall be null and void if Funds are not drawn upon or disbursed within 180 days from date of EDA approval. * NON-PERFORMANCE EXTENSION - The 180-day non-performance date can be extended up to an additional 120 days. 1. A written request is received 30 days prior to expiration of the 180-day non-performance date. 2. Approval of the EDA membership by majority vote. * LEGAL FEE - Responsibility of the GMEF applicant. The Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund is operated as an equal opportunity program. All applicants shall have equal access to GMEF funds regardless of race, sex, age, marital status, or other personal characteristics. DAWN/WORD/POLICIES' 10/30/00 7 EDA Business Subsidy Criteria ORGANIZATION The Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund is administered by the City of Monticello Economic Development Authority (EDA), which is aseven-member board consisting of two Council members and five appointed members. EDA members are appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council. Formal meetings are held on a quarterly basis. Please see the by-laws of the EDA for more information on the structure of the organization that administers the Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund. PARTICIPATING LENDING INS"fITUTION(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 APPLICA"PION/ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES The EDA desires to make the GMEF loan application process as simple as possible. However, certain procedures must be followed prior to EDA consideration of a loan request: Information regarding the program and procedures for obtaining a loan are as follows: City Staff Duties: The Economic Development Director, working in conjunction with the Assistant City Administrator. shall carry out GMEF operating procedures as approved by the EDA and Council. Staff is responsible for assisting 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 approximately one week. Staft~ will ask applicant to contact a lending institution regarding financing needs and indicate to applicant that further action by the EDA on the potential loan will require indication of support from a lending institution. 2. if applicant gains initial support from lending institution and if the preliminary loan application . is approved. applicant is then asked to complete a formal application. If the preliminary loan application is not approved by staff. the applicant may request that the FDA consider approval of the preliminary application at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the EDA. ~AWN/WORp/POLICIES: 10/30/00 EUA Business Subsidy Criteria 3. If the preliminary Loan application is approved, applicant shall complete a formal application. Formal application shall include a business plan which will include its management structure, market analysis, and financial statement. Like documentation necessary for obtaining the bank loan associated with the proposal is acceptable. Attached with each formal application is a written release of information executed by the loan applicant. 4. City staff will meet with applicant and other participating lender(s) to refine the plan for financing the proposed enterprise. 5. City staff shall analyze the formal application and financial statements contained therein to determine if the proposed business and finance plan is viable. Staff may, at its discretion, accept the findings of a banking institution regarding 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 have authority to approve or deny loans; however, within 21 days of EDA approval, the City Council may reverse a decision by the EI)A to approve a loan if it is determined by Council that such loan was issued in violation of GMEF guidelines. 7. Prior to issuance of 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 loan. ORIGINAI, REVOLVING 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 tLinds unless the City Council determines that reserves generated are not necessary for the successful 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 tax levies for bonded indebtedness of the City (see Section S B of the ordinance establishing the Monticello EDA). REPORTING Staff shall submit quarterly stunmaries and/or annual report detailing the status of the Monticello Enterprise Fund. FI1NU GUIDELINES MODIFICATION 1. At a minimum, the EDA shall review the Fund Guidelines on an annual basis. No changes to the GMEF guidelines shall be instituted without prior approval of the City Council. DAWNlWORD/POLICIES: 10/30/00 EDA Business Subsidy Criteria OAN ADMINISTRATION • 1. City staff shall service City loan, shall monitor City position with regard to the loan, and shall assure City compliance with intercreditor agreement. 2. All loan documents shall include an intercreditor agreement which must include the following: A. Definition of loan default, agreements regarding notification of default. B. Agreements between lending institutior3 and City regarding reproduction of pertinent information regarding the loan. All loan documentation shall include agreements between borrower and lenders regarding release of privacy regarding the status of the loan. • • DAWN/WORD/POLICIES. 10/30/00 ~ O Under the GMEF Guidelines use of proceeds for real property acquisition 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 Propert~Acquistion and Im~ro_v_ement 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 Machiner 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. • EDA Agenda - 4/22/U3 9. Consideration to a rove execution of a Satisfaction of Mart a _ c for GMEF No. O1$ - IRTI. A. Reference and back round: At the April 2 liaA meeting, the commissioners passed a motion approving the subordination of GMI~:F Loan No. O18 to take-out the existing bank loan of $i4U,3i7 subject to execution of documents as deemed necessary atld prepared by the EDA Attorney and at the cost of the Forrower. tJpon notifying the lender of the EDA motion and after further diset.ission betwcetl the lender (State Bank of Rogers) and Borrower (1RTI -Steve Budd), IRTI Clow plans to pre- pay the EDA loan and request a Satisfaction of Mortgage. EDA GMEI-' Loan No. 018 was disbursed in ,lone 29, 2001 in the amount of $72,500. This a real property loan amortised over 20 years with balloon payment in five years. The rernaitling principal balance is $69,177.01 as of May 2, 200;. This is more or less a housekeeping item. The l:i)A has had two to three other pre.-paid loallS. . Q. Alternative Actions: Motion to approve the execution ofa Satisfaction of Mortgage for CiMrF No. 018 (1RTi) subject to paymetlt in full of the remaining principal balance, $69,177.01, with document preparation at the cost of the Borrower. 2. Motion to deny approval to execute a Satisfaction of Mortgag,c for GMI~:T' Loan No. 018 (IRTI). >. Motion to table any action. (ry. Ilecommendation: IZeCOn1111endati011 is alternative tlo. I . D. Su ortin Data: Copy of recorded Mortgage. C] Ag Preaervalio nd ee p h ~ day of by Receipt No._ l)ou a rubor, Aud-Treas. C poly Audltctr-Treas. gate Year Q~ p®glstratl n tax hereon of $ MOI~'1'GAGr P id -Trees. except No `/~ Gounty Aud-Treas. ~~s5~ss prFlt:f, nr [iifUTtY ~11Ni,aR~ VtRt,~1t t f 1'r~l F, lJ ~ r' ~' ' tl E 0 .1 .. .. : .' ~'r„I 01 SEP -l PM I ~ 06 $20.00 CASH LS Return to: CTTY OF MONTICFLLO 505 WALNUT ST li l MONTTCELLO MN 55362-$831. MOK'TGAGE MORTGAGE IiCGIS'1'RY'1'AX bUE IIEIZEON: -$72,500.00- TH15 INDENTURE, Made this o7~_day of 2001 between Integrated Recycling'I'echnologies Corporation, a Minnesota eorporatiogor (whetltcr one or more), and Monticello Economic Development Authority, Mortgagee (whether one or more), WI'I'NESSrTkI,-Ebel Mortgagor, in considerationof and to secure Mortgagor's promissory note (tf even date herewith (the Nate) of the loan of the sum of SGVEN'I'Y-TWO Tl-IOUSANU DIVE I IUNURED AND OU/100 DOLLARS la Mortgagor, in hand paid by Mortgagee, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged by Mortgagor, does hereby convey unto Mortgagee, forever, real property in Wright County, Minnesota, described as follows: Lot 3, [31ock I of Monticello Cvnunerce Center 5°i Addition together wi lh al I hereditaments and appurtenances belonging thereto (the Property). TO IIAVE AND TO HOLb T'I-IG SAME;, to Mortgagee forever, Mortgagor covenants with Nlorlgagce ns follows That Mortgagor is lawfully seized of the Property and has good right to convey the same; that the Property is lice linen all encumbrances, except n tirsl ntortgnge in favor of 21"' Century flank securing n Ivan of uo more thou 5375,UOq; that Mortgagee shall quietly egjoy an(I possess the same; and that Mortgagor will warranty and defend the title to the saute ngninst all L•twful claims ttol hereinbefore specifically excepted. PROVIDCb, NEVER'I•FIELESS, That if Mortgagor shall pay or cause to be paid to Mortgagee the sum ol" Seventy=l'wo'fhousand Five Hundred and UO/100 DOt.L,AR5, according to the terms of the Note, the final payntem being due and payable on the dale and with interest at the rate provided in the Note, and shall pay or cause to be repaid to Mortgagee, at the times and with interest as specified, all sums advanced in protecting the lien of this Mortgage, in payment of taxes on the Properly and assessments payable therewith, insurance premiums covering buildings Ihcrevn, principal or interest rnt any prior liens, expenses and attorneys fees herein provided for and soots advanced for any other purpose authorized herein, and shall keep and perform all the covenants and agreements herein crntlainud, then ibis Mvngage shall be null an(I void, and shall be released at Mortgagor's expense. AND MORTGAGOR covenants with Mortgagee ns follows I. to pay or cause to be paid the principal sum of money and interest as specified in the Nole; ?. to pay all taxes and assessments now due or that may hereafter become liens ngninst the Properly before penalty attaches thereto; 1. to keep all buildings, improvements and fixtures now or later located on or a purl of the Property insured ngninst loss 6y lire, extended coverage perils, vandalism, malicious mischief and, if:gtplicahle, sle:utt boiler explosion, for al least the amount of Seventy-Two Thousand Five Hundred and UO/IUD Dollars at all times while any amount remains unpaid under This Mortgage. If any of the buildings, improvements or fixtuues are located in a federally designated hood prone area, and if Oood insurance is available for that area, Mortgagor shall procure and mainlnin (food insurance in amounts reasonably satisfactory to Mortgagee. Each insurance policy shall D,I(7-19xt,17v7 C-I ~ r755'7~5 MNJ2s-I I contain a loss payable clAUSC in favor of Mortgagee Affording fill rights an(I privileges customarily provided under the so-called standard mortgage clAUSC. In the event of damAge to the Properly by fire ur other casualty Mortgagor shall promptly give notice oFsuch danrlge to Mortgagee And the insurmtce company. The insurance shall be issued by An insurance company or companies licensed to (lu business in the Stale of Minnesota And Al'ceplable (0 IvlOrtgngee. The insurance policies shall provi(le fn l' I1nl IC$$ tll:lil tell days WI'IttCll Il(ltlce to Mortgagee before cancellation, non-renewal, termination, or change in coverage, and Morlgngor shall (leliver lu Mortgagee A (luplicatl° original or certificate of such iusurnnce policies; a. to pay or cnuse to be pniJ, when due, both principal And interest of all prior liens or encumbrances, if;my, and to keep the Property free and clear of all ether prior liens or encumbrances; 5. to conunit or permit no waste un the Properly and to keep it in good repair; G. to complete forthwith any improvements which n1Ay hereniler be under course of consh'uclion on the Properly; And 7. to pay any other expenses an(I attorneys fees incurred by MortgAgee by reason of litigation with any thir(I early for the protection of the lien of this Mortgage. In case of Mortgagor's failure to pay or cause to be paid said taxes and assessments, prior liens or encumbrances, expenses and attorneys lees as above specified, or to insure or to cnuse to be insured said building, iny)rovements, an(I fixtures and deliver or cnuse to be delivered the policies As aforesaid, Mortgagee Wray pay such taxes, assessments, prior liens, expenses and Attorneys Pets and interest thereon, or obtain such insurance, and the scans so paid shall bear interest from the date of such payment Al the same rate se[ forth in the Nole, and shall be impressed ns an additional lien upon the Properly and be immediately clue nn(I payable front Morlgngor to Mortgagee and This Mortgage shall liom dale thereof secure the repayment of such a(Ivances with inleresl. ~~ In case of default in any of [he lin'egoing covenants, Mortgagor crnlfers upon Ibe Morlgngoe the option of declaring the unpaid balance of the Note, and the inleresl accrued thereon, together with all sums advanced hereunder, inune(IiAtely clue And payable without notice, and hereby authm'izes and empowers Mortgagee to filreclose This Murlgage by ,judicial proceedings or to sell the Property at public auction and convey the same to the purchaser in fee simple in accnrdlutce with the statute, an out of the moneys arising from such sale to retain all sums secured hereby, with inleresl and all legal costs and chm•ges of such foreclosure end the mnxinnlm attorneys fees pennilted by Inca, which costs, charges And fees Mortgagor Agrees to pay. 'fhe terms of this Mortgage shall run with the Property and bind the parties hereto an(I (heir successors in interest. (IZGST Of PACb INTENTIONALLY (;LANK[ • ~~ 1)1Ci-191t117v3 C 2 MN)25-I I ~ss~cs IN TESTIMONY WI IERGOI', Mortgagor has hereunto set its hand the day and year firs( above written. ~~ STATL-' OP MINNL50TA ) ss. COUNTY OC' WRIGI-I'I" ) EY _._..W. Its ,rte r,:,G, r~ r~ L J he foregoitJb instrument was acknowledged belore me this J~,`~(lay of _ 2001, by,the~~~~~,~~ oflntegratedRecycliugTechnvlogiesCorpora vi~rlxn-atiun under the laws of Minnesota, vtJ behalf of the co(•porativn. ~.- SIGNATURti OI' 1'L'RSON WAKING ACKNOWLtiI)(iMl?NT OI ARIAL, 6'fAMI' OR Sk:AI, (()R U I I IhR'I I'I I,E OR RANK) I'hix document drul)ed hc: Kennedy c@. (inrven. Chmierud 47111'illshury Center Minncnhnlis. MN 554(12 IN'I'F.:GRATGU RECYCLING TECFINOLOGI ES CORPORATION ~- •, DEBRA A. WART] " NOTARY PUBLIC -MINNESOTA ~4 ,.a.~• MY COMM. EXP. 01f31lY005 hAILURL TO RLCORU OR F1LC THIS MOR~'GAGE MAY AFFF,CT TIDE PRIOIZI'TY OI~ THIS MORTGAGC. b)(i-IV%IJ7r7 MNJZS-1 I C-3 ~~ss~ss • • L>LCn~ uLSCiiu~~rioly "that property located in the Cily oPMonticello, Wright County, Minnesota~nd legally described as rol~oWS. Lot 3, 131ock I of Monlicel to Commerce Center 5i1' Addition bl(i-14A I,llv2 MN725_I I u- - 755766 F,UA Agenda - 4/22/03 10. Continued -..Consideration to review cosmetic design sketches and cost estimates for rear facade improvements f_'or Blgck_35. A. Reference and background: This item appears on the EDA agenda with the assumption Northwest Associated Consultants (NAC) has available the estimated costs for materials and rnstallation of cacla individual building and as one pro•jcct based on the cosmetic design sketches presented to the EDA on .lanuary 29, 2003. If the estimated costs arc not available, this item will be removed from the agenda. For new EDA commissioners, attached is a copy of the .lanuary EDA agenda supplement which summarizes the hackground. '1'hc minutes of the .lanuary EDA meeting summarize the cosmetic design sketches presented by Steve Grittman and Bob Kirmis. "1'hc owners of the vacant lot and two other buildings on Block ~5, have been working with city staff relative to concepts for development of the vacant lot. ,L.IIi is not available for the vacant lot solely as their exist no improvements on the lot for redevelopment.. An exchange ol'city parking lot lor- the Broadway lot was discussed. The City Plaliner I•ecommends preserving the Block i5 public parking lot not only for today but Ior- future anticipated density heeds. OIi April 1.5, DAT reviewed a sketch from the property owner of the vacant lot to a~nstruct a six-loot green-treated 1`ence to the Ii~ont and rear ol` the lot. "I~hc DA"I' rccomrY~ended denial based on height and aesthetic. Keep in mind, construction of the south side of Broadway (C'ounty Koad 75) will begin the week of April 2S with the switching oftrafhc to the north side. It is anticipated the work to be completed by the third week in .lone 200 ~. Also, tlae Council authorized plan and specs for the coI•e area streets (perhaps >'`' and 4`'' streets in the southwest corridor). Scope of project yet to be determined and construction could commence following the completion of the Broadway project. faith of Special Legislative Bill to extend the _5- year activity rule for 'I'1l•~ District No. 1-22 is uncertain. Based on the new information, the I:DA needs to determine its next step. B. Alternative Action: Accept cosmetic design sketches for rear facade improvements and cost estimates as prepared by NAC and forward to .DAT and/or property owners for review. 2. Recommend modilicatioll to cosmetic design sketches for rear facade improvements and cstirnates. EDA Agenda - 4/22/03 r~ Given. new information, take a wait and see approach. 4. Other. C. Recommendation: Without sccing the cost estimates, no recommendation is given. D. Supporting Data: .lanuary 29 agenda supplement. • • EDA Al;cncltt - I/Z~)/03 =4. Consule~•atic)n to revicrv cosmetic design sl:ctclt~e~ and cost estimates .for rear fac~rcte imp ~rr'overnents on Blocl:3~. A. Ilefe~-ence arrcl bacl: ronncL• Plattner Steve Grittrnan, Northwest f\5sociatcd ContiLlitants, will present (;ost~lctic cltsi~tl sl:eCclles and cost estimates for rear tacac(e improverrlents on Block 3~. f\s yoLl recall this itl not a clew a~ertd~t itetll for the 1-;D~1. In April ?00?, thu CDn clisa)ntinued the DN[RF' program artcl reserved the rettlaining balance of-the DNIRF tiulcls fora 1:31oc1: 35 project in 2003. It has been the interest oi~ the f:DA to upend dollars to create at1 attractive and appealing rear entrance alld plaza and to cllminate the tee build-up in the alley area of E31ock 3S. Prior to the BDf\ e~pencling dollars to replace the catch basis anCl alley part<til^/trash 1111pCOVenlelltS, the (;l)Illllltsslonet's W'OLLICI like a COII1i111t111e(1t frolll the property owners to itllprove the rear builclin~~ faeacies through a cosmetic design irnprovetrtenC. "phis to create a public/private partnership via all agreelllent. At the Decetllber 2002 EDA meeting, the c()111nlissioncrs a~~reecl that in Dreier to encourage participation by the property or~vllecs. the P;I~A would need to prepare sketches ol-costlletic clesi~~l1 optiotls for rear facade improve111ellts along with cost estimates prior to approaching t}1e property owners. The L-;DA authorized Northwest Associated ~.~OnSL11tL111tS t0 111"Lpal'e CICSI~ll sketches alld cOSt estimates 1-or the 1'E:aC facade o.l buildings otl Blocl< 3~ at a cost not to exceed $3,000. Previous cost estimates Sketch concepts [or park.illg to rear oI-buildings and trash lnlprovements: Without sidewalk and curbin~~ - F~,stimate $0,000. With sic(ewalk anal curbing - Cstirnate $7~,000. Replace alley anc} adcl a secollcl catch basin. - 1;stimate `50,000, not 111C:lucliilg engineer fees nor cost to slope private; surface; to match new alley elevation. Funding: Approximate balance of DIVIRh' - $ I ~O,000. Things to think <lbout: f\nticipated c;ompl~tion of l3r(:~adway lnlprovcmerlts. Anlollnt O~ assl:ssillent t0 propelty OWrters. Anticipated elate to contnlence public parking lot itllprovemcnts. Funding source not detcrnlille:cl. Again, the L~.[)A objectives was to develop design allcl cosC package for rear facade and alley/trash in11)rovctnunts for [31ock 3~ lot- l)rescntation to property Owners. 'h11c design io ft Co1lCtpt I1CCCis t0 ti0 thl'oLIL.~iI the (~lt~ ap})1'UVaI 171'OCt-;SS (111Ck (_)!~ f MI5 vVell X15 hC aCCC1t<1I71e. I to ploperty owners. l?Of\ needs to decide on a n~~,uti~ltioll strate4.~y: f?I~n vvillin~~ tc~ dO this at. this cost , ifthe })I-opcrty owners ~l.~rec to do this at this cost ___ _ Or what are the property owners vvillin~~ to contribute`? Tinlin~~ of Cl)n5trUCtloll I5 A11Utllt;l' llllCStton. K. .~\Itcrn~ttive .~\ction: I~CCL'pt GOS111et1C CiCSt~;11 sketchCS IOr I'eill' IaCflCie IrI1pI'OVelllCllts al1CI (:o5t eStlnlatCS as prepared by NfIC alld forward to DAT anci/or property owners fol- review. ~. fZeCOlI1l11C'nd n10CI1tIC~ltl011 t0 COS111etIG CleSI~T,11 si~etCl1GS tot' fear IaCL1CIC It1lproVe[Ilellt5 atld est1111atCS. ~. Othcr. ~~• IZ~CGIillriellflltl(1C1: wlthOLlt seC111~ C05I11etlC Clesl~ll SketchCS a11cI COSt Cstinlates, n0 C000111.111eTlclatlOll IS ~?iVerl. }s~. ~U OI't1T1~ U$t~l,~ Nonr;. EDA Agenda - 4/22/03 11. Continued _ Cryonsideration of a rc uest b Cit Council for commissions to review Ci 's Vision & Covernin Policies for in ut and to develo a Irst of oils. A. Reference and back round: The City Council held a special meeting on January 27 to hegira the process for setting goals. The Council members briel7y reviewed the City's Vision & Governing Policies and Project Priority List. Council was pleased with the number of projects completed on the List. 1~ach Council member was asked to share their list of proposed goals or projects. 1/ngineer Weiss presented a preliminary schedule for core street reconstruction. The Council has requested the city commissions review the City Vision & Governing Policies for input, suggestions, comrnents, etc. Based on the City Vision, each. commission was asked to make a list of goals or projects which would lead to or support the City's Vision. They requested a prioritized or ranked. list be submitted to the Council for the follow-up meeting of March 24. rollow-up meeting re-scheduled for sometime in May. This was an add-on item to the January N:l)A meeting and the commissioners agreed to give this some thought and agreed to develop a list ol~goals or projects as a group at the next meeting. A copy ot~ the City Vision & Governing Policies ~.rre attached as well as a copy of the prep~.rred HRA goals. • ~i CITY OF MONTICELLO C' o~ COMMUNITY VISION & GOVERNING POLICIES ~~~ MpNTICELLq ~r~w SEPTEMBER 8,1997 - As Adopted $y City Council The Monticello City Council is an elected body representing the citizens, businesses and other taxpayers within the City of Monticello. As such, it is the intent of the Council to provide representative leadership to the community and direct the resources* of the City toward achievement of an intended vision (goals). Boards and Commissions serve in an advisory role to the City Council, assisting the Council to make broad decisions and support the City Council by focusing on the details required to accomplish the intended Vision. The EDA/HRA also act as independent political subdivisions working in partnership with the City Council to achieve the shared vision. RESOURCES-- Direct resources of the City include but are not limited to its personnel, budgets, boards, commissions, consultants, machinery, buildings, public works, utilities and other capital improvements. Indirect resources of the City include its citizens, businesses, cornmuruty groups (i.e. IDC, MCP, Chamber afCommerce, Rotary, etc.), affiliated governmental agencies (i.e. Wright County, Monticello School District, ECFE, Head Start, WIC, etc.). The following statement of values and related policies are adopted by the City Council for the purpose of providing a foundation for Council leadership and direction to the City Administration. I. I I N: (A definition of ends not means) These community visions will be the basis for the City Council in making policy to achieve intended results... _ A. Values and Intended Results - AestheticlEnvironmental The image of our city will be as a friendly, thriving, and proud community that has retained its small town charm and identity. 2. The City will support paced growth and development so as to provide diverse, comfortable urban neighborhaads while preserving natural amenities for public use and enjoyment. GQVERN3.PCY: 9/8!97 I I Page 1 • The City will support maintenance and reinvestment in existing owner occupied and rental housing and business properties so as to discourage blight. Blighting influences on existing housing and businesses must be controlled. 4. Our city will have abundant parks and recreational spaces for its citizens. Its streets and neighborhoods should retain a pazk-like atmosphere that takes advantage ofthe city's location on the river and our developing pathway system. As "quality begets quality", public facilities and spaces should reflect pride by their construction and maintenance. Monticello should be clean, safe, well forested, and visually inviting. We will support pride in the place we call home. SociaUCommunity The City will create and encourage opportunities for people to become involved and connected to their community on all levels (i. e. civic, church, community organizations, government, etc.). 2. We will encourage civic and community organizations that provide welcoming opportunities for people to become actively and cooperatively involved with their neighbors. The City will seek constant renewal through community volunteerism and celebrations that reflect our history, our current accomplishments, and our vision of the future. c: 4. The City will promote partnerships with other communities and governing agencies to share a broader view of community. The City will strive to gain regional recognition as a desirable place to live and work ("Our kind of place") Cultural The City will encourage and support frequent and diverse opportunities to celebrate as a comrnurity so citizens may experience the unique and historic aspects of our community culture. 2. Our history and the fine arts, including music and dance, will be promoted and facilitated in our city. They define who we are and what keeps us here. Ecouomic The City will adapt and respond to the regional marketplace and direct our resources to stimulate the development of Monticello as a destination community that is self sustaining and selfsufficient. 2. The City will take economic advantage of our attractive regional location that provides ready access to transportation systems linking us with larger economic communities. GOVERN3.PCY: 9/8/97 Page 2 3. Our support of economic development will be directed toward the creation of jabs that aze not just "liveable" but prosperous, stimulate the local economy, and capable of supporting our families and community. • 4. The City will encourage reinvestment in our community and support with our resources the economic efforts of local businesses. 5. The City will save through dedicated reserves, be prudent in its investments and expenditures, and strive to maintain affordability of services to its citizens. Recreational 1. The City will promote, build upon, and take advantage of our public, private, and natural recreational amenities. We will seek to increase cooperative programming of the community recreational facilities (civic, township, county, and school). 2. The City will seek to expand public and private recreational opportunities in the civic core to increase downtown vitality. In providing for accessible recreation, opportunities must be provided far people during normal leisure time. We will provide for evening and weekend opportunities for community activities. The City will maintain and promote pride in our existing recreational facilities while continuing to develop new recreational uses and facilities which take greater advantage of the river and our city/country setting. We will strive to link pathways and trails to recreational destinations. L' 4. The City will promote `5aser ownership" of recreational facilities through volunteerism such as "Adopt-A-Pazk". The City will maximize year-round opportunities for organized and unplanned recreation for families and persons of all ages. Spiritual The City of Monticello must appreciate and celebrate the diversity of our faiths while recognizing the oneness and diversity of our moral and ethical beliefs. ' 2. ~ - The City will respect diversity in faiths and facilitate cooperation to make our community a place that protects the vulnerable and helps thane in need. 3.. In governing our city, officials will uphold the highest moral and ethical standards that reflect the values of our caring, compassionate community. • GOVERN3.PCY; 9V8r57 Page 3 B. Intended Recipients -The intended recipients of our efforts will be: Citizens Taxpayers Businesses The Natural Environment Institutions (schools, churches, hospitals, govern~uents ,civic groups, etc.) Persons in Need Visitors/Travelers/Transients (freeway traffic, temp. residents, business traffic, etc.) C. Intended Costs The monetary costs of accomplishing these visions/intended results will be reflected in the creation of budgets and capital improvement plans. Action plans developed by the City Administrator and City Council will be tested against this Vision to determine priorities for allocation of resources. II. CITY COUNCIL OPERATIQNAL POLICES: General Responsibilities -- 1. The City Council will at least annually review the Community Vision far the City of Monticello and performance measures toward attaining the Vision. This evolving Vision will be the governing foundation for strategic planning. It will provide for the aesthetic/environmental, social, cultural, spiritual, recreational, and economic character, vitality and growth of the city. 2. In the exercise of the privileges, rights, and obligations aftheir elected positions, City Council members will uphold the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of Minnesota, and the City's Comprehensive Plan. Each Council member must act within the law, professionally represent the City and diminish neither public confidence nor personal integrity. 3. The City Council will represent the Community Vision and the interests of the city before those of other governmental agencies. 4. City Council meetings are to be conducted in an orderly manner. The City Council will ensure that each member of the Council is encouraged to freely communicate and express opinions. The City Council will ensure open representative local government, maintaining the public trust by respecting and reflecting the needs and desires of the community at large. 6. City Council members must not permit personal conflicts of interest, nor tolerate any apparent or real conflict of interest, that may interfere with the freedom of the Council to carry out representative government. 7. The City Council will define the roles and responsibilities of its boards and commissions, support those roles and responsibilities, and maintain a communication plan to ensure cooperation and maximum utility. GOVERN3.PCY: 9/8/97 Page 4 Budget/Fiduciary Responsibilities - 1. The City Council must maintain its fiscal responsibilities and direct resources toward the Community Vision. The Council must prohibit misdirection or waste of municipal resources. Personnel - 1. The City Council and its City Administrator will be provided opportunities for training and personal development directed to the purposes of the City or as related to job performance. 2. Concurrent to adoption of the annual budget, the City Council will consider and approve or deny an annual pay plan for city personnel as recommended by the City Administrator. 3. The City Council will consider and approve or deny changes to the organizational structure of the City as recommended by the City Administrator. ~• M A LI L ON F TH~,;S'ITY ADS 1~TI,~~R~,.~21~: General Responsibilities -- 1. To achieve the Vision, the City Council authorizes the City Administrator to manage the direct resources of the City. 2. The City Administrator is responsible for the effective and efficient use of direct resources provided by the City Council and to develop and maintain productive channels to available indirect resources. 3. The City Administrator will uphold the ordinances and policies of the City of Monticello. 4. The City Administrator must not tolerate unlawful acts of any kind, by any person. BudgetlFiduciary Responsibilities - 1. The City Administrator must uphold the fiduciary responsibilities of the City. 2. The City Administrator is authorized sole authority to manage and direct/redirect monetary resources within the annual budget approved by the City Council. The City Administrator must gain approval from City Council to exceed the annual budget approved by City Council. 3. The City Administrator will make or cause to be made sound investments of municipal funds. 4. The City Administrator shall not permit waste of City assets and resources. GOVERN3.PCY: 9/8/97 GOVERN3.pCY: 9/8/97 Page 5 Page 6 Budget/Fiduciary Responsibilities -- l . The City Administrator will provide sufficient information and reports to the City Council to permit the Council to evaluate the allocation of its resources toward accomplishing the intended results. 2. As pazt of annual budget development, the City Council will annually evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of City efforts to accomplish the Community Vsion. The City Council will redirect its resources as necessary to attain intended results. Measurement and reporting policies will be determined by the City Administrator in cooperation with the City Council. Personnel -- l . The City Council will at least annually conduct a performance review of the City Administrator and ensure that the City Administrator is provided feedback on and be accountable to cleazly-defined performance criteria as established by the Council. • • C70VERN3.PCY: 9/8/97 Page 7 HRA GOALS FOR 2003 Prioritised and Ranked by the Commissioners - 3/5/03 FOR SUBMISSION TO THE CITY COUNCIL 1. Complete the redevelopment of Block 52 (Johnson). 2. Secure/purchase land for future industrial use. 3. Recommends the City continue to monitor the CCD Parkinyt Ordinance. 4. Complete the redevelopment of a portion of Blocks S 1 (Sawatzke) and 3G (Plush). 5. Increase HRA's presence of what the city has to offer and success stories through continued marketing and publication. Each I"IRA commissioner submitted a list of priorities which were than categorized by subject matter and ranked by the number of times listed. The above five goals were on the list of between 2 to 4 of the commissioners. The HRA does not view housekeepin~~ items or tasks as goals. The below list received one vote each and are not ranked. 6. Facilitate development alone West 7 Street near the new athletic complex. 7. Encourage removal of blighted properties thraubh purchase or redevelopment of property. 8. Incentives to clean up blirht. 9. Expand Riverwalk to the west. 1 Q. Substandard Housing Survey -Identify bottom S% of city's pauses far rehabilitation. it ~ EDA Agenda - 4/22/3 12. Executive Director's report: A. Production Stamping - "I'he purchase of the Fallon Avenue Building was scheduled to close on April 14. I talked with 1_,cs Wurm on April 1 1 and if all went well, he hopes to occupy the building by the end of April. "Thirty-five new jobs with the anticipation of adding 20 jobs within two years. A letter of intent was provided by the HRA with terms negotiated for amendment of the T11' Contract. Letter subject to IiRA approval on May 7 and Council thereafter. B. 1,000 sq ft need - A bong I,akc small engineering firm is looking to own its own facility. Office with shop for research and development. Lead from Wright Partnership. C. GMF:F Loan No. 014 (T..}. Martin) - I-3ascd on the H;UA motion of April 2, 2003, the FICA Attorl~ey estimated a cost of not-to-exceed $1,500 for document preparation of tl~e $] $,U00 loan at 6% interest rate over 3 years with an effective date of.lune 1, 2003. On April 15, the Bondhus' were informed of the IYOt-to- cxcecd figure and retrlinded of the need for the up-front payment prior to authorization to prepare docutncnts. [). Special Legislative Bill -Mayor Bruce "I'hiclcn and myself attended the "City I)ay at the Capitol" and visited with both of our representatives relative to the status of the Special 13111. Attached is a portion of the update to the Council ~:is of April 11. In conversation with the }IRA [.obbyist .Iohli Ohio on April 16, he will check with Senator Our~.tda as to whether Ourada. W111 (:C1nt1I1Lle t0 sllppOrt the 13111 to t}le Senate Tax Committee based on the letter ti•otn Mayor 'I~hiclcn. Perhaps another visit to the Capitol will be necessary. The Chamber of Commerce has been endarsing the Special Legislative Bill to extend the 5-year activity rule for ~I~Ir District No. 1-22. E. Marketing Committee - Cicatis invitations have been Inailed to commercial and industrial contractors/developers for the Chamber Golf Outing on Thursday, May } 5. The Mayor will host our guests and the gratis tickets are provided by the Marketing Committee. I~. Tapper Loan III - GMEF Loan No. 021 closed and the monies were disbursed on April 1.5. Bill Tapper and myself car-pooled to the closing at Stearns F3ank, St. Cloud. ~-~.0. Updates . Econnrnic Development Director A~)ril ll, 2003 City of Monticello Special Legislation .Bi/! - To exterzr/ the 5 year rule from June .311, 1997, to Jrrne 30, 2QQ7, for TIFDistrict Nn. 1-22. Attached is a letter to Representative Bruce Anderson and copied to Senator Mark Ourada from Mayor Thielen as a fi)Ilow-up to our visit with them at the Capitol on April 9, 2003, "`City Day at the Capitol". BACKUROUND: March S, 2003 HRA meeting -Commissioners denied endorsing a resolution to extend the 5-year rule for TIF District No. 1-22 because the benefits of the proposed resolution were not clarified and the commissioners felt this would encourage the developers ol~pending redevelopment projects to expend the tax increment by July 30, 2004. Following the HRA meeting, the 1-:xecr.itive Uircctor Koropchak informed the 1 IRA Attorney and Financial C"orlsultant of the HItA's decision to deny. They were surprised and their professional advice was for HRA Brad Barger-, the firlal7erill COrlsliltallt, and the t~:xceirtive Director to meet and further- discuss the benefits ol~extending the 5-year activity rule. This r~~eeting took place or) March ] 4, 2003. Benefits of the proposed Special Legislation Bill: "f'he extension of the 5-year activity rule allows the HRA additional time to complete pending and other redevelopment projects with the Downtown ~l~ll., District carrying out the goals and objectives of the Central Monticello Redevelopment Yrojcet No. 1 flan and the Revitalising Monticello's Downtown and Riverfront Plan (Comprehensive Plan). The extension allows the HRA the flexibility to use the pay-as-you-go finance rnctllod (less risky) as well as the up-front finance method. 3. The extension allows the FIRA the flexibility to increase the amount of the temporary bonds when refinanced if determined necessary. 4. "1'hc extension allows the l IKA the flexibility to issue tax exempt bonds (lower interest rate) for qualifying public improvements if determined necessary. Without the extension and as a result of the class rate compression, the future pending projects must he completed by .1uly 30, 2004, in order to repay the temporary bonds. 6. "I'he extension does Ilot request extending the 25-year life of the district. r~ [hIC to the deadline for introducing hills for the 2003 legislation session, the HRA Attorney and h'inancial Consultants suggested the City Council be asked to endorse the proposed Bill prior to the HRA meeting of April 2, 200 3. March 24, 2003 -City council adopts resolution endorsing the Special Legislation Bill. March 25, 2003 - Proposed 13111 introduced to Rep. Bruce Anderson and Sen. Mark Ourada. Per the advice of HRA Lobbyist John Choi, it was suggested the business community be present along with. the HRA Executive llirector Koropchak. Rep. Anderson had some hesitation due a previously Special Sales Tax Bill introduced a few years prior by the City of Buftirlo. Chamber 1)ircetor Susie Wojchouski attended with the approval of the Chamber Board. April 2, 2003 - I-iRA adopts the attached resolution. April 2, 2003 -Scheduled date to introduce bill into Senate Tax Conllllittee. bate at'ternoon of April 1, 2003, Koropchak rcccivcd voice-mail from Rep. Anderson that he was pulling the bill from the Ho~ISe CoI]lnlittee and would not introduce or endorse the proposed hill because he rcccivcd calls from lour individuals opposed to tl]e bill. The Chamber received all e-mail from Sen. ()urada relative to the same. In conversation with Lobbyist Choi, he suggested we come to the Capitol as planned and visit with our representatives. Two o(` the four individuals are in opposition of the proposed bill because they feel one proposed redevelopment project is driving, the hill. April 2, 200 ~ -Senator ()uracla allowed the Bill to be introduced to the Senate Tax committee. Koropchak testifies and Wojchouski is present alld Sllbn]1tS challlher eIldorseIllellt of blll. 1 hl; Bill was well rcccivcd by the Committee members. Pili Sawat~ke and Keith Kjellberg are present to oppose Bill during introduction to Committee. Based on Senator Ourada's suggestion that local issues be resolved locally and not at the Capitol, Sawat~ke and Kjellbel"g did not testify against the bill. Lobbyist. Choi suggested the business collununity contact the local rcprescntatlves. April 4, 200; -Koropchak directed Mark Rul7`, Ehlers & Associates, to contact Pat Sawatzke to ensure that Pat ulldel'stood the benelits of the proposed hill from a standpoint of both timing and fiscal ii]1plicatiol]s. April S, 2003 -Koropchak attends Chamber Board meeting to explain benefits of proposed bill. April 9, 2003 -Mayor "fhiclcn and Koropchak attend City Day at the Capitol and visit with Rep. Anderson and Scn. (hlrada. Mayor Thielen and Koropchak ask, "What do we need to do to resolve your concerns?" Mayor Thielen offers to write a letter of assurance. (See attached). April 10, 2003 -Letter drafted and executed. April 11, 2003 -Letter and topics mailed. Koropchak meets with Sawatzke to again outline benefits of the bill Copy of the letter given to Sawat~ke. S'l'A'i~i1S Oh' 'I'I lh~ I311,L, -The bill has been introduced to the Senate "l'ax C'ommittce and would become a part of the Omnibus Tax Bill if carried forward. The F3ill does not have to be introduced to tlac house Committee; however, this is very unusual. lobbyist Choi indicates he has never had opposition on a Bill that requests extending the 5-year activity rule which would allow a community to work on additional redevelopment projects. 1'IF' 1)1S"I'I2lCT NO. 1-23 Draft copy of a letter prepared by I IRA Attorney relative to assigning the "I'IF Contract with .IA('. to Production Stamping. .Y% ~~ CITY OF MONTICELL~D '":s~.r~=~.`a~, ACCOUNTS PAYABLE 505 WALNUT STFIEET • SUITS 1 MONTIC~l.LO, MN 55382 763-295-2711 iN~:.i'ICGLIA • C7P:1'E 04/14/2003 FIFTY FIVE THOUSAND AND 00/100 DOLLARS PAY TO STEARNS BANK N.A./TAPPERS, INC. ORDER 212 CHELSEA RD °F MONTICELLO MN 55362 ~s-issa ' 910 NO. 72443 MAROUF.TTE BANK - MUNTICELLO • P.O. BOX 729 MUNTICELLO, MINNESOTA 55362 • p63) 295-2A52 CHECK NO. AMOUNT 72443 $55,000.00 V ~, ~I'07 2443~~' x:09 ~0 ~6647~: 760 00 L 7~i' VENDOR 002695 STEARNS BANK N.A./TAPPERS, INC. 04/14/2003 CHECK 72443 FUND & ACCOUNT 1'.0.~~ INVOICE DESCRIPTION AMOIINT 250.18317 4/7/03 M&E LOAN GMEF 021 55,000.00 TOTAL $55,000.00 1 ~. ~' ~7 CITY OF MON"fICELLO • MONTICELLO, MN 55362 • • ~ ~ (O (p ~ ~ u7 N v 0 Q a ~ti ^ \ a ~~ r ~ ~ ., ~} ~_ \ W ` W Z 4• , ~ ~ ~ ' ~„`\ !r ~! \ - .. / ~/ •Hpeq uo sp5~a4 ~ •papn~au~ sem~a~ /qunpag J ~J Z o ~'1 ~ ;~ V ,~ ~~ J ~, ~ '`,` i ~~ ..~ ~ i ~ `~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~z q ~ ~ ~ rn ~. aim ~ ~ ~ u. ~ ~- ~°~ ~~~ ~ N \ ~ ~i ~•, ,^~~ 0 ~\` ~ i ~` I\` 1 ~ ~ N W \ \\ + I .~ .J ~~ ,~` ac a ._ ® W~~ 1 (..... U t0 W J N '~~ Y V\ W ZW~ `. T' Z N F ~ \ ~. ~ Q /~ W ~.l ~~. W Y H W Q ~ ~ I L Il F-40 56-{/ElpLSp wo~vwio}ezn~ep•u.~xrn gpEp-BZE-Op8}'i SWHOj 553NISI183Xf1134~