The URL can be used to link to this page

EDA Agenda 02-13-2008AGENDA CITY OF MONTICELLO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Wednesday, February 13, 2008 - 6:00 p.m. Mississippi Room - 505 Walnut Street, Monticello, MN Commissioners: President Bill Demeules, Vice President Dan Frie, Treasurer Bill Tapper, Bill Fair, Bob Viering, and Council members Clint Herbst and Wayne Mayer. Staff: EDA Executive Director Ollie Koropchak, Secretary Angela Schumann, and Assistant Treasurer Tom Kelly. 1. Call to Order. 2. Roll Call. 3. Reading and approval of the January 16 and January 30, 2008 City of Monticello EDA Minutes. 4. Approval of the EDA bills and communication. S. Report of the Executive Director. 6. Report of committees: Marketing, continuing education, and fiber optics. ' ~ 7. Unfinished Business. A. Consideration of Request for Pre-Approval for recording service by a Community Center Employee. 8. New Business: A. Consideration to review response to administrative cost shortfall associated with the Purchase and Development Contract between the EDA and WRE Properties LLC and to consider alternative actions. B. Consideration of continued use of programs and to review Polices and Guidelines for possible amendment: 1. Transformation Home Loan Application Package. 2. Preferred Package Criteria for Monticello Business Center. 3. Declaration of Protective Covenants, Conditions, and Protections for Otter Creek Crossing. (Information only) C. Consideration to call for an EDA workshop following the regular meeting of March 12, 2008 for purpose to review Business Subsidy Criteria and Freliminary Development Agreements. 9. Adjournment. • MINUTES -SPECIAL MEETING CITY OF MONTICELLO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Wednesday, January 16th, 2008 6:00 PM 1. Call to order. President Dem.eules called the meeting to order at 6:00 P1Vl. 2. Administer Oath of Office. President Demeules directed Economic Development Director Koropchak to administer the oath of office to the Commissioner Mayer. Commissioner Mayer recited the oath of office. The Secretary is to file a copy of the oaths of office in the permanent records ofthe EDA. 3. Roll Call. On roll call, the following Commissioners were present: President Bill Demeules Vice President Dan Frie Treasurer Bill Tapper Commissioner Wayne Mayer Commissioner Bob Viering Commissioner Bi11 Fair Commissioner Clint Herbst Also present were Executive Director Ollie Koropchak and Secretary Angela Schumann and Assistant Treasurer Tom Kelly. Koropchak introduced EDA Attorney Steve Bubul and Todd Hagen, a representative from the EDA's financial consultant Ehlers and Associates. 4. Reading and approval of the Transcript of Proceeding: Or~anizatianal reconstituted City of Monticello EDA, D Commissioner Fair moved to approve the Transcript of Proceeding: Organizational meeting of the reconstituted City of Monticello EDA, December 18th, 200'7. Motion seconded by Commissioner Viering. Motion carried, 6-0, with Commissioner Mayer abstaining. S. Approval of the EDA bills and communications. Koropchak explained that the report on the item details a structure for payment of EDA • bills as suggested by the City's Finance Department. The procedure requires that the EDA Minutes - 01/16/08 Executive Director code the invoices, which will then come before the EDA far approval. After that step, the bills will go on to City Council for approval. Thereafter the Finance Department will disperse checks far the invoices. Koropchak noted that the bills presented for payment had been separated into two categories. The first sets of invoices related to the HRA's authorized demolition of the Cedar Garden Center. Koropchak stated that her recommendation is for approval of those invoices. Commissioner Fair inquired whether City staff had capped the services at the Cedar Street Garden Center. Koropchak stated that City staff had verified services present and went out far bid on the project, which included capping of services. The invoices represent lowest bid for the project COMMISSIONER TAPPER MOTIONED TO APPROVE THE EDA BILLS AS PRESENTED. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FAIR. MOTION CARRIED, 7-0. Koropchak stated that the second set of bills was related to the consolidation of the HRA and EDA, which had been directed by the City Council. Koropchak indicated that her recommendation is to approve the bills and request that the City Council transfer funds for payment, as these expenditures were not authorized by either the HRA or EDA. Fair clarified that there are two bills far which this authorization would apply. Koropchak confirmed that there are two invoices, which represent attorney fees from attorney Kennedy and Graven for consolidation efforts. Mayer requested. further clarification on the amounts of the invoices. Koropchak stated that the invoices are in the amount of $264.00 and $4,121.58. COMMISSIONER FAIR MOTIONED TO APPROVE BILLS AND REQUEST THE CITY COUNCIL TRANSFER FUNDS FOR PAYMENT AS RELATED TO THE INVOICES FOR EDA AND HRA CONSOLIDATION. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TAPPER. MOTION CARRIED, 7-0. Koropchak noted that she had received an invoice from the Monticello Times for the publication of the EDA public hearing notice dealing with the consolidation. Mayer recornrnended that the invoice be added to authorization made in the previous motion. COMMISSIONER MAYER MOTIONED TO APPROVE THE BILLS AND REQUEST THAT THE CITY COUNCIL TRANSFER FUNDS FOR PAYMENT. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TAPPER . MOTION CARRIED, 7-0. L' 2 EDA Minutes - 01/16/08 Commissioner Tapper asked who originally authorized expenditures. Koropchak explained that the consolidation had been originated by the City Council, Tapper inquired as to why the invoices come before the EDA for approval, as the invoices were most likely generated prior to the new organization. Mayer stated that these are all interim bills required as the organization was in transition. 6. Re ort of the Executive Director. Koropchak presented her report for review and questions. Koropchak commented that the Industrial Development Committee is working with the City Attorney and Administrator to complete a resolution and agreement of understanding, which would recognize the IDC as an organization receiving City support. That resolution will be presented for the IDC's review at their February meeting. Viering asked for clarification on the roles of the IDC versus EDA; Koropchak stated that the draft agreement states that the IDC will advise and assist the Council and EDA. Koropchak stated that the EDA has the financial tools for economic development and redevelopment. The IDC is more focused an industrial develaprnent and the creation of living wage jobs in Monticello. Fair asked what the 1DC's resolution process is intended to accomplish. Mayer responded that as the City allocates staff and resources, a resolution formalizes their path of input to the City. Viering asked if there is overlap in responsibilities between the two organizations. Mayer stated. that the IDC will come to the EDA with their input and advisement. Koropchak stated that their role to support industrial growth and development will continue. In further reviewing her report, Koropchak stated that the pervious EDA had approved a loan for an expansion project to the Washburn Computer Group building. The loan was approved subject to bank and plan approvals. Koropchak stated that the preparation of the loan documents was not authorized. Koropchak stated that the loan approval will become null and void on Feb 8t''. She reported that the owner of Washbum Computer Group led her to believe that the loan would not be requested for extension. Koropchak also noted that the Planning Carnrnission recommended approval of the extension of Conditional Use Permit for the Landmark Square II project. That project had received approval for TIF. Koropchak provided information on the fee structure for Ehlers & Associates' services. Koropchak also presented overview on the 2007 EDA cashflaw projections, which were estimated to include a cash balance of $435,213.06. She indicated that the EDA will be • EDA Minutes - 01/16/08 provided with detailed reports of EDA loan and grant programs at the annual meeting in April. 7. Report of committees: Marketing, continuing education, and fiber optics. Marketing Commissioner Frie noted that the Marketing Committee had met to discuss the use of marketing budget, which had previously been approved. Discussion concluded with one commitment to place an ad in the Wright County Partnership journal. The committee also discussed better use of the website and other opportunities. Frie stated that the Commission discussed the use of realtors and MLS services. Frie commented that while there isn't necessarily a comparable industrial listing service for industrial real estate, there is one for commercial real estate. The Marketing committee discussed the merits aflisting with those types of sites. Frie stated that it would need more research. Fair asked if anyone has a good idea of what commercial agents are using to site locations. Viering confirmed that in his experience, the first research is done online. Koropchak noted that she had included information on the city of Cambridge's economic development marketing materials. Those materials reference an agent commission. The Marketing Committee wanted feedback on whether that should be offered, and if sa, at what percentage. Herbst stated if that if a commission is offered, they must set criteria for what is proposed to be located in the City. Demeules stated that the commission would be set primarily for industrial park, which already has criteria in place. Herbst asked what happens for those who don't meet criteria. Fair clarified that those who don't meet the criteria are able to purchase property at the market price. In any case, the buyer must still meet all zoning and covenant standards. Frie suggested bringing in a commercial agent to provide more information on these topics. Fair asked that it be put on the agenda for a future meeting. Koropchak stated that it will be important to go over the set criteria so that everyone understands what is in place and to confirm that this EDA wants to keep that set of criteria in place. Mayer stated that the Marketing Committee should also emphasize the direct-to-site fiber capacity. 4 EDA Minutes - 01/16/08 Fiber Optics Commissioner Mayer reported that the Fiber Optics Task Farce is in the process of reviewing engineering proposals. Eight proposals were received from well respected firms. The group is evaluating the proposals an a points basis and will select the tap two to three candidates for interview in Monticello. 8. Unfinished Business. NONE. 9. New Business: a. Consideration to adopt a Resolution awarding tl~e Sale of Public Project Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2008 (City of Monticello, Minnesota Lease Obligation.) Ehlers & Associates representative Todd Hagen stated that the City Council supported the EDA in the action to proceed with the proposed refinancing of the bond issue for Community Center building. The original bond was issued in 2000. Hagen stated that bids for the refinance were taken until 11:00 AM that dot. The bids were based on an official statement about the financial status of the City. That statement was provided to the EDA far review. Hagen reported that they had worked with Maody's previously to have the bonds rated. The EDA has a rating ofA3, and the City has an A2 rating. A rating report, explaining Moady's logic was also provided for the EDA's reference. Hagen discussed the bid results and tabulations. He stated. that they had received four bids from six underwriters. He reported that the Banc of America had provided the best bid. He stated that the Banc of America holds bonds as privately placed. In summary, they do not offer the bonds to the public, which is what allowed them to provide the best rate and bid. Hagen noted that because the bonds are not publicly offered, Banc of America does not require a trustee and savings funds. As such, Ehlers will work with Kennedy and Graven to rework the documents to these circumstances. As a result, the cost of issuance goes up slightly. Hagen stated that in short, the Banc of America bid offers a much more streamlined process. They don't require payment of an agent fee and they didn't take any fee upfront. C] EDA Minutes -- 01/16/08 Hagen indicated that Ehlers had initially forecasted that the refinancing would represent a future savings value of $179,375. Based an the Banc of America bid, that savings is now$287,760, within the same period of time. The bond is now set at a rate of 3.2% versus 6.2%. If the bid is accepted by the EDA, the closing would be on February 20t". The resolution before the EDA authorizes the acceptance of the proposal. Once the bond sale documents are revised to meet the Banc of America terms, they will come back to the EDA for approval. COMMISSIONER HERBST MOTIONED TO AUHTORIZE ACCEPTANCE OF THE PROPOSAL FOR THE SALE OF PUBLIC PROJECT REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2008A (City of Monticello, Minnesota Lease Obligation)/ MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIERING. In discussion, Mayer asked if the previous motion should include the bank to which the sale is awarded. Hagen confirmed. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FAIR TO AMEND TO MOTION TO AWARD SALE OF PUBLIC PROJECT REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2008A (City of Monticello, Minnesota Lease Obligation) TO BANG OF AMERICA. MOTION AS AMENDED SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAYER. MOTION CARRIED, 7-0. Karopchak noted that the resolution will move forward to the Council on January 28t" Koropchak requested that the Commissioners set a date For approval of the revised bond sale documents. A date and time of January 30t", 4:45 PM. COMMISSIONER HERBST MOTIONED TO SET AN EDA SPECIAL MEETING OF JANUARY 30t" AT 4:45 PM FOR THE PURPOSE OF APPROVAL OF BOND SALE DOCUMENTS FOR FUBLIC PROJECT REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2008A (City of Monticello, Minnesota Lease Obligation). MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TAPPER. MOTION CARRIED, 7-0. • 6 EDA Minutes - 01 / 1 b/08 la. Certificate of Completion for WRE Properties, LLC Koropchak reported that the.HRA entered into a development contract with WRE Properties, Walker In-Store for the purchase and development of land within Otter Creek Business Park. As part of that contract, the developer is required. to put down deposit for the administration. costs of preparing the TIF district and related materials. When the Certificate of Completion is issued, expenses are reconciled against the deposit. The initial deposit is based on estimated costs to set up the district, at $10,000. However, for this project, the p'inance Department reports expenses at a total of $1 b, 010.15. Walker In-Store will be asked to pay the difference. Koropchak also explained that the Certificate of Completion is recorded at the County. Viering asked how this amount compares to other projects. Koropchak stated that for the newer TIF districts, the administrative costs for setting up the districts have averaged been about $5000 mare than the $10,000 deposit. She noted that raising the deposit amount in the contract will be something that the EDA will want to consider. Fair noted that with some history of preparing parcels for development, the EDA can be more prepared to make a determination of what they want the fee to be. Tapper stated that as a business owner, the overage is very frustrating and unexpected. He suggested that the EDA would be doing people a disservice to keep the deposit amount so low, if it is not representative of actual costs. Viering stated that he would agree. Koropchak noted that a review of development contract language was listed for the next meeting. Mayer asked that Koropchak also provide some history on these items for the EDA's reference. COMMISSIONER FAIR MOTIONED TO APPROVE THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION FOR WRE PROPERTIES, LLC NOTIFYING THE DEVELOPER OF THE $b,010.15 ADMINISTRATIVE COST SHORTFALL. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TAPPER. MOTION CARRIED, 7-0. c. Consideration to Revfew Bids for Demolition of Structures at Cedar Street Garden Center, City Project No. 2007-20C, and Consideration to Award Contract for Demolition Work. Koropchak explained that the EDA is asked to consider authorizing award for the demolition for the Cedar Street Garden Center to the lowest bidder, in the amount . of $12,700. 7 EDA Minutes -- 01 /16/08 The bids were also received and review b the City Council. The Council had Y tabled action to allow time to check references on the low bidder and their experience with asbestos abatement and tank removal. Koropchak reported that City Engineer Westby had reported that he believed the contractor to be acceptable. The low bidder had also received a favorable financial recommendation. Westby had communicated that the bid amount does not include costs for payment for performance bond. However, with cost for performance bond, this still represents the lowest bid. Koropchak stated that Westby is recommending that the EDA option for the joint praject rather than separate, since they were bid together. However, the EDA will only pay for Cedar Street portion of the demolition. Herbst stated that according to the information provided, if the contractor pulls tank, the seller is liable for it. Koropchak stated that she had spoken with the previous property owner on this issue and will follow up with a written letter. She stated that at this time, the City doesn't know the outcome of tank removal. Fair noted that in purchase agreement, there is a clause that says there was na underground tank. However, after purchase, it was discovered that there was. Koropchak stated that when the HRA took possession, it passed a resolution to cover removal costs up to $500. Herbst asked if the $500 is tied to removal and abatement. Koropcbak stated that it is tied to removal. Mayer inquired about the identification of tank contents. Frie stated that he believed it was fuel oil. Fair stated that the contractor won't know until they get into the jab. Viering asked if there was a staff estimate before bids. Koropchak responded that there was anot. Viering asked when the project would start and how long it would take to complete. Koropchak stated that the City needs to act on bids by February l0`", and the praject is expected to be completed within a few months. Tapper inquired if it is normal to have such a large difference in bids. Herbst stated that was a concern of the Council, and a reason for tabling to check references. COMMISSIONER FAIR MOTIONED TO AWARD THE JOINT PROJECT TO FITZGERALD EXCAVATING OF GOODHUE, MINNESTOA, BASED UPON THE LOW PROPOSAL OF $25,500, CONTINGENT UPON APPROVAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON JANUARY 28~~, 2008 AN ITEMIZATION OF TANK REMOVAL. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HERBST. MOTION CARRIED, 7-0. EDA Minutes - Q 1 / 16/08 10. Adjournment COMMISSIONER TAPPER MOTIONED TO ADJOURN. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIERING. MOTION CARRIED, 7-0. President • • Secretary 9 MINUTES -SPECIAL MEETING CITY OF MONTICELLO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Wednesday, January 30, 200$ - 4:45 p.m. Academy Room - 505 Walnut Street, Monticello, MN Commissioners: President Bill Demeules, Vice President Dan Frie, Treasurer Bill Tapper, Bill Fair, Bab Viering, and Council members Clint Herbst and Wayne Mayer. Officers: EDA Executive Director Ollie Koropchak, Secretary .Angela Schumann, and Assistant Treasurer Tarn Kelly. Call to Order. Fresident Demeules called the IDC meeting to order at 4:45 p.m. 2. Roll Call. Fresident Demeules asked for a roll call of commissioners: Tapper, Fair, Viering, Herbst, Mayer and Demeules responded as present. 3. Readin and a royal of the Janu 16 2008 Ci of Monticello EDA Minutes. (Not Available) 4. A royal of the EDA bills and communication. The commissioners were asked to approve one invoice for recording services and to pre- apprave future EDA recording services by a community center employee. Commissioners inquired to the availability or source of revenue far operational expenses of the EDA. Because the individual hired for future recording is a community center employee, the pre-approval would eliminate delayed payment for services rendered by coinciding with the payroll cycle of the city finance department. Requesting additional information from the Community Center Board and its Director on the request for pre-approval, WAYNE MAYER MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE INVOICE OF $70 FOR EDA SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH RECORDING OF THE EDA JANUARY 16, 2008 MEETING AND TO BRING BACK THE REQUEST FOR PRE-APPROVAL FOR RECORDING SERVICE BY A COMMUNITY CENTER EMPLOYEE AT THE FEBRUARY 13, 200$ EDA MEETING. BILL TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION AND WITH NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, THE MOTION CARRIED. YEAS: MAYER, TAPPER, HERBST, VEIRING, FAIR, AND DEMEULES. NAYS: NONE. EDA Minutes - 01/30/08 5. Re art of the Executive Director. Koropchak expanded an the fallow-up telephone conversation with Brian Walker upon his receiving the letter relating to the Certificate of Completion and Administrative Costs Shortfall. He inquired as to the services associated with the $8,000 flat fee by Ehlers & Associates and recalled conversations and the request for accountability of administrative costs. He stated the $8,000 which was SO% aver-the-amount of the deposit was clearly unacceptable and felt the administrative casts were strongly mishandled and not the intent of the Contract of which he may challenge. Koropchak acknowledged that the $8,000 fee was not acknowledged to the developer; however, the developer was informed that typical administrative costs run between $15,000 - $17,000. Koropchak requested Mr. Walker attend the EDA meeting of February 13 to express his viewpoints to the commissioners; however, Mr. Walker prefers Koropchak advise the commissioners of his viewpoint and respond to him on February 14, 2008. Koropchak noted the 15 days after receipt of the written notice dated January 25, 2008, was waived. Fair noted the HRA worked a long time on this project and felt Mr. Walker received a good deal with a purchase price of $43,560 for 5.77 acres of land of which 1.5 acres was developable and the remaining 4.27 acres consist of power lines and storm water ponding. Koropchak Hated the developer will be taxed on the 5.77 acres; however, she had talked to the County Assessor on the necessity to reduce the assessed land value on the 4.27 acres, accordingly. Koropchak agreed with Fair and noted the extra legal time associated with amending the Preliminary Agreement and to quantify the nature or operation of the business for an Economic TIF District. However, Koropchak also acknowledged that small projects are the most difficult to cash flaw. The cost by Ehlers for preparation and certification of an Economic TIF District is the same for a small or large project as it entails the same amount of work. Clint felt the business got a goad deal an the land price. Tapper noted the developer has no control over legal fees and empathized with Walker. Koropchak repeated Mr. Walker was not objected to the legal fees but the lack of notification of the $8,000 of which Koropchak accounts as anover-sight. This item will appear on the February 13 agenda with additional information and potential alternatives. Additionally, the EDA will further discuss as a policy the deposit amount associated with creation of TIF Districts. 6. New Business: A. Consideration to ado t a resolution awardin the Sale of Public Pro'ect Revenue Refundin Bonds Series 2008A Ci of Monticello Minnesota Lease Obli anon Korapchak informed the commissioners that a revised resolution was e-mailed this morning, the 30~" of January. The final revisions to the resolution were made upon the suggestion of counsel representing Banc of America. The very minor changes ensured that not more the $10 million of Bonds would be issued by the EDA in 2008. • 2 EDA Miixiutes - 01/30/08 The $6,180,00 Public Froject Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 200$A award remains consistent with the information provided by Todd Hagen, Ehlers & Associates, at the January 16, 2008. The award to the low bidder, Blanc of America Public Capital Corp, Troy, Michigan, at a true interest rate of 3.2003%. All Financing Documents were revised as necessitated by the commitment letter received from the low bidder requesting a private placement of the EDA refunding bonds. BILL FAIR MADE A MOTION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION AWARDING THE SALE OF PUBLIC PROJECT REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2008A (CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA LEASE OBLIGATION). BOB VIERING SECONDED THE MOTION AND WITH NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, THE MOTION CARRIED. YEAS: FAIR, VIERING, DEMEULES, TAFFER, MAYER, AND HERBST. NAYS: NONE. 7. Adjournment. BILL FAIR MADE A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE EDA SPECIAL MEETING. BOB VIERING SECONDED THE MOTION AND WITH NO FURTHER BUSINESS, THE EDA MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:25 P.M. MOTION CARRIED. YEAS: FAIR, • VIERING, DEMEULES, TAPPER, MAYER, AND HERBST. NAYS: NONE. Ollie Koropchak, Recorder Bill Demeules, President • EDA Agenda - 02/13/08 4. A royal of the EDA bills and communication. A. Reference and back round: Attached are two EDA invoices for engineering fees associated with Otter Creek and Dalton Extension from'the city engineer consultant, WSB.. Expenditures will be coded to the EDA General Fund - .Professional Services -Engineering Fees. B. Alternative Actions: 1. A motion to approve payment of $2,278.50 and $190.75 for WSB engineering services associated with Otter Creek Crossing. 2. A motion to deny approval of payment of $2,278.Sp and $190.75 for WSB services associated with Otter Creek Crossing. 3. A motion to table any action. C. Staff Recommendatian: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1; however, it is very difficult to the Executive Director to account for the services rendered. D. Su ortin Data. Copy of Invoices. • , WSB ~& Associates, Inc. Infrastructure 1 Engineering 1 Planning 1 Construction City of Monticello January 21, 2008 Attn: Tom Kelly Project No: 01488-920 505 Walnut Street, Suite 1 Invoice No: 35 Monticello, MN 55362-8831 ~ ~ LJ 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Te1:763-541-4800 Fax:763-541-1700 OtterCr,~k ~iaLGa~p~ir~ara}.~.Plat~-/-FirraFGrading Warr X15 ,t.~~pio ~p,~~ CP# 2006-18C Professional Services from December 1 2007 to December 31 2007 Phase 3 Construction Professional Personnel Hours Rate Amount Project Management/Coordination Bisson, Shibani 1.50 117.00 175,50 Pay Voucher Buckley, Susan .25 61.00 15.25 Totals 1.75 190.75 Total Labor 190.75 Tota l this Phase $190.75 Total this Invoice $190,75 Billings to Date Current Prior Total '~, Labor 190.75 101,256.50 101,447.25 Consultant 0.00 4,450.00 4,450.00 Expense 0.00 450.00 450.00 Field Services 0.00 14,020.50 14,020.50 Totals 190.75 120,177.00 120,367.75 Comments: Approved by: ,~,~1 ~~"'" Reviewed by: Bret Weiss Project Manager: Shibani Bisson • o~c ~ro pAY? o caa~: ~~e~;a~: Minneapolis 15t. Claud Equal Opportunity Employer WSB && As~~ Infrastructure 1 Engineering 1 Planning 1 Construction City of Monticello January 21, 2008 Attn: Tom Kelly Project No: 01627-570 505 Walnut Street, Suite 1 Invoice Na: 18 Monticello, MN 55362-8831 Dalton Ave e~Extension (~aft~nfet~ ~~ 3 ,-+~ ~a~• ?'°-y `' CP# 2006-15C Professional Services from December 1 2007 to December 31 2007 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 7e1: 763-541-4800 Fax:763-541-1700 ___ ... _ Phase 3 Construction Professional Personnel As-builts Gruber, Gary Hackman, Doug Totals Total Labor Total this Phase $2,278.50 Total this Invoice $2,278.50 Billings to Date Labor Consultant Expense Field Services Totals Comments: Current Prior Total 2,278.50 76,118.75 78,397.25 0.00 2,429.19 2,429.19 0.00 440.00 440.00 0.00 47,238.00 47,238.00 2, 27$.50 126,225.94 128,504.44 Wours Rate Amount 15.00 93.00 1, 395.00 9.50 93.00 $83.50 24.50 2,278.50 2,278.50 Approved by: ~~~ ~~ Reviewed by: Bret Weiss Project Manager: Shibani Bisson C)K TD PAY? ~~`~. C®d~: In~tia~: Minneapolis 1St. Claud Equal Opportunity Employer rte, 5. Report of the Executive Director. EDA Agenda - 02/13/08 a) A copy of the T1F pay-as-you-go checks for semi-annual February payment. b) Business Subsidy Reports to the State are due April 1, 2008. c) Walker In-Store has moved into their new facility on Dalton Court. d) The Continuing Education group is scheduled to meet February 8`t' with guest presenter Doug Parr, Riverland Community College, Owatonna. e) The Marketing Committee revised the ad for the County Partnership directory as well as the community pages were updated. Given the January MN Real Estate Journal was marketed as highlights of Sherburne and Wright County, the committee placed an ad. Upon receiving the Journal, Wright County was not featured and Monticello mentioned once. Working with the ad agent, the committee was given an option of an additional free ad ar a 500-word featured article. The committee opted for the 500-word article. ~ LEADS: 150,000 sq ft data center -Midwest state search. Due to the proximity of the power plant from business park, Monticello was eliminated. -15,000 sq ft -Out of state firm looking to build a 15,000 sq ft Lab within one-mile of MNRoad. $5-10 million investment. 10-15 engineer technicians. 5,000 sq ft heated and 3,000 sq ft unheated space. Purchase or lease. Low-tech, wood manufacturer. UMC -Congratulations for being named Outstanding High Economic Vitality Business of the Year at the annual meeting of the Wright County Economic Development Partnership. g) Fiber Optics -The committee of Mayer, Simola, Westby, and Shuman interviewed engineering firms on January 29. Frequency rate testing far location of equipment building conducted February 5. Band documents moving forward. h) The next IDC meeting will be the annual meeting and election of officers -Council considering approval of a resolution recognizing the Industrial Development Committee and appointment of its membership at the Council meeting of February 11. i) Bob Viering, Member of the EDA and Chamber Gov't Affairs -I've asked him to check and keep tabs on the SEED program scheduled to be induced to the Legislators. Question is whether Wright County included ar not included? j) Cedar Street Garden Center purchased by the EDA for future redevelopment should be demolished in February. Bids have been awarded by the EDA and Council. k) Copy of letter to First National Bank of Elk River -Document was signed and returned. Next record at County. 1) Excerpt from annual TIF Legislative Report by the Office of the State Auditor -Examples of same violations. m) Copy of letter from Attorney regarding Transformation Home Loan. EDA Agenda - 02/].3/08 n) For your information. Based the Economic Development Chapter within the Comp Plan I've begun to summary the chapter's objectives, benefits, and development strategies. This to lay the ground work for development of action plans by the EDA and IDC. o) I'll be attending the Ehlers Public Finance Seminar for one day only, February 14. p) Have an appointment with a local industrial business looking to expand. q) Just to let you know the resolution adapted by the EDA on January 30, 2008 was again revised because Banc of America changed its name to Bank of America, N.A. r) For your information - St Cloud HRA which owns the Opportunity Industrial Park off I-94 offers the land for $1.75 per sq ft and recently acquired another 150 acres. They also own the St. Claud Airport Industrial Park. They exchange land within the St. Cloud JOBZ boundaries. Becker is the lowest and Rogers the highest at $4-$5 per sq ft for industrial. Monticello's market price is $3.00 per sq ft plus trunk fees. • • 17.1 CITY ~1= MONTICELLU ~-~ 910 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE 505 WALNUT STREET • SUITE 1 ~~ 91 ~ ~ ~ MONTICELLp, MN 55362 763-295-2711 w~u.s ~naGO sawK ELLO MpNTICELI.q, MINNESOTA 55382 ~ (763) 295-229tl PATE CHECK NO. AMCIUNT o1/zs/zoos 91zs2 $s;~3~.00 EIGHT THOUSAND STX HUNDRED THIRTY SIX AND 00/100 DOLLARS PAYTQ BBF PROPERTIES oRO~w 19 57 7 18 0TH AVE of BIG LAKE MN 55309 II"09 ~ 28 ~II' x:09 10000 L9~: 760 00 L ?Ilr [7 4w .~„ GITY OE MONTICELLO • MONTICELLO. MN 55362 CfTY' 0~ IUIONTICELLO ACCOUNTS PAYABLE 505 WALNUT STREET • StJITE 1 MONTICELLO, MN 55362 7fi3.295-2711 titON'['(C~(,(,c7 QATE o1/a8/zoos THREE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED SIX AND 00/100 DOLLARS ~AVro CEDRUS CREEK CRAL=TSMAN, INC o~~~ra ATTN : JOHN KONAREK of 12420 ARMITAGE AVE NW MONTICELLO MN 55362 17-1 9,0 NO. 91284 wEUS Fa~co garaK M1ACNTtCELLq. MINNESOTA 55382 • (763} 2~ CHECK ND. AMOt1NT 91284 $3;606.00 11'09 1 28411' x:09 L0000 L9~: ~~0 DO ~ ?II' ,n ~ • .. ~ ~ .,~•, ,_ VENDOR 001114 CEDRUS CREEK CRAFTSMAN, INC D1/28/2008 CHECK 91284 FUND & ACCOUNT P.O# TNVOTCE DESCRIPTION .AMOUNT 213.46520.6511 TIF 1-20 PAYBACK INSTALLMENT 3,606.D0 .'TOTAL 3,606.00 CITY O~ MONTIC:ELLC) ~ MDNTICELLD, MM 55362 C9TY OF IViONTiCELLO ACCOUNTS PAYABLE 505 WALNUT STREET • SUITE 1 ~~. M(3NTICELLO, MN 55362 763-295-2711 DATE CHECK Np. 01/28/2008 91285 NINE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED SEVENTY SEVEN AND 00/100 DOLLARS PAYTC FIRST NAT'L BANK OF ELK RIVER ORDER ATTN ANGEL GMYREK a~ 729 MAIN ST ELK RIVER MN 55330 u^09 1 28511" x:09 L0000 19~: ?60 00 L 711' 17-i siD 91285 WE44S FARGO BANK MCNTICE4LD, MINNESOTA 55362 • (763) 295-2294 AMpUNT $9,377.00 .. .. .. "./b° VENDOR 002790 FIRST NAT'L BANK OF ELK RIVER 01/28/2008 CHECK 91285 FUND & P~CCDUNT" P.O.~ INVOICE DESCRII'TTON' AMOUNT. 213.46529.6511 TTF 1.29 PP;:Yk3ACK INSTALLMENT 9, 377.00 '~0'TAL 9, 377.00 • CITY O~ MONTICELLO • MONTICELLO. MN 55362 CiTI( CAF MONTICELLO Accoun~~s ~aYA~~.~ 5D5 WALNUT STREET • SUITE 1 MbNl"ICELLO, MN 55362 763-296-2711 MONTiCELLO DATE CHECK Nt7. 01/28/2008 91286 FOUR THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED THIRTY AND pD/1D0 DOLLPiRS PAYTQ INTEGRATED RECYCL TECH, INC. n~o~~ C/O STEVE BUDD of 9696 FALCON AVE NE MONTICELLO MN 55362 II'09 L 28511' x:09 L0000 19~. 17 1 1 -~ ~J10 No. 91286 WELL& FARQA BANK MON7ICELLO, MWN6&OTA 55352 • (763) 2~ AMOUNT $4,~k3D.00 ..(}. ..7}. .~. 750 00 L 711• •:. CITY OF MONTICEl..1.fJ • MCINTICELl.O, MN 55362 1 CI~'Y O~ M®IVTICELLU ACCOUNTS PAYABLE 505 WALNUT STREET • SUITE 1 MGNTICELLQ, Mn{ 55362 763-295-2711 'CELLO RATS CHECK ND. 01/2$/2008 91287 SEVEN THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED NzNETY AND DO/100 DOLLARS PAY TO MASTER'S FIFTH AVENUE, INC o~aER 2 04 LOCUST STR of SUITE 209 MONTTCELLO MN 55352 n^09 L 2811' x:09 LO0O0 L9~: 760 00 L III' ti~ ~ 91U NQ, 9..1287 WELLS FARGO BAINK MCNTICELLO, MINNpSOTA 95382 • (765) 79;-2290 ArnauNT $7,490.00 ''~' ,. VENDOR 002731 MASTER'S FIFTH AVENUE, INC 01/2$/2008 CHECK 912$7 ~'UNll & ACCOUNT P:O.~$ INVOICE DESCRIPTION AM©UNT 213.46585.5511. TIF 22.5 PA1'~ACK INSTALLMENT 7,490.00 TOTAL 7,490.00 [, rrY o~ N~onrric~l_~.o ~ MoN ncFL~o. MN ~~3sz CITY OF MONTICELLO ACCC7UNTS PAYABLE 505 WALNUT STC~EET • SUITE 1 ~~ MONTICELLD, MN 55362 763-295-27'11 niorrr~cei.w DATE CHECK NO. o1/2s/loos 9188 FOURTEEN THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED NINETY ONE AND 04/1.00 DOLLARS PAY TO PRESBYTERIAN HOMES HOUSING a~QER AND ASSISTED LIVING, INC aF 2845 HAMLINE AVE NO ROSEVILLE MN 55113 Il~ow ~ ~8811~ •.09 ioooo i9~. ~~o 0o i 711 17-1 ~ 910 91.28$ w~~~s ~a~Qa eaNK MON7ICELLd, MINNESOTA 55742 • (Yti3) P~ AMOUNT $14,791.04 -.,~.- :. ,r ~~, ;.;.. '.2 ir. CITY OF MONI"ICELLO • MONTICELLO, MN 5536 CITY OF MONTICELLO ~ ACCOUNTS PAYABLE 505 WALNUT 5TRlrET • SUITE 1 MONTICELLO, MN 55362 763-295-2711 liLLO DATE 01/28/200$ TWENTY ONE THOUSAND FIFTY FIVE AND 00/100 DOLLARS PAY TO ST CLOUD HOSPITAL apn~r~ C/O ST BENEDTCT' S CENTER of 1810 MINNESOTA BLVD. SE ST CLOUD MN 56304-2415 17-t 910 r~o. 9128 WELLS FARC~O BANK MOMTfCELLO, MINNE50'1'A $$3pi2 • (76x12952290 CMECK NO. AMOUNT 91289 $21,055.00 •. , y . , ~, ,~ u'09 L 28911' x:09 X0000 19~: • 760 00 L 711' CITY OF MbNTiCELLO • MONTICELLO, MN 55362 • 17.1 CITY OF MONTICELLQ 910 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE 505 WALNUT STREET ~ SUITE 1 N~, ~ 1 ~ 9 0 MONTICELLO, MN 55362 763-295.271 i WELLS PAR!?O BANK eS01~'CICELI.O MpPiTICEL 1A, MINNESOTA 55382 • (783) DATE CHECK NO. AMOUNT o~/za/zaoa gi2go $~,gz~.~r9 NINE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED TWENTY NINE AND 79/1Q0 DOLLAI?S' ~AYTO TAPPER'. S HOLDINGS LLC oaoEr~ ATTN: WILLIAM R TAPPER aF 3935 WALDEN LANE - ~~ WAYZATA MN 55391 '" ~.: :;, :. - ,~°~' II'09 ~ 29011' x:09 iD000 L9~: 760 00 L 711' •~-~ • CITY OF MONTICEL.LO • MONTIGELLO, MN 55362 171 ~ . c~rv tai nnoNTicEL~o g° ACCOUNTS PAYABLE 565 WALNUT STREET • SUITE 1 ND g 1 ~ ~ ~.. MONTICELLQ, MN 55362 763-295-2711 WELLS FARQO BARK MONTICELLO, MINNE507A SS862 ~ (768) 295.22BD L7ATE CHECK NO. AMOUNT O1/2$/2Q0$ 91:291 $32,74$.00 THIRTY TWO THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED FORTY EIGHT AND QO/10~ DOLLARS PAY TD TERRANCE & MARY TOMANN FLP o~p~~ C/O UMC ,~ o~ 500 CHELSEA ROAD - ~~ r MONTICELLO MN 5532 ~~~,f J• - ;' ~~ .. 11"091 X9111" ~:09 L0000 L9~: 760 00 L 711" ~...: .: .. ..:~,...._,_-_.•_~-~~.. CITY pF MpNTICELLO • MONTICELLD, MN 55362 CITY C)F MCaNTiCELLO ACCaUNTS PAYABLE 505 WALNUT STREET • SUITE 1 MONTICELLO, MN 55362 763-295-2711 MON't"ICk:1,IA DATE CHECK NO. 01/28/2008 91292 SIXTEEN THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED THIRTY TWO AND 11/1.00 DOLLARS PAY TO TWIN CITY DIE CASTINGS CO. ORDER ATTN : DOUG HARMON o~ 1070 SE 33RD AVENUE MINNEAPOLIS MN 55414 II'09 L 29 211' x:09 10000 L9~. VENDOR 000456 TWIN CITY DIE CASTINGS CO. FUND & ACCQUNT` F.O:# INVOICE 213.46526.6511 TIF 1--26 17-1 ~ 910 ~~, 91292 WELLS FARGA BANK MONTICHLLC, MINME5tlTA 55362 ~ (7ti9J 29~ AMOUNT $16.,632.11 - ,~ 760 00 L ~u' .. _''M`+ ,,;a ';~' 01/28/2008 CHECK 91292 DE,5CR1P'I'SON AMOUNT PAYBACK INSTALLMEN 1,6,.632..11 TOTAL 16,632.11 CITY OF MON"fiCELLO ~ MON'1ICELLO, MN 5536 \S> First National Bank of Elk River Attn: Angel Gmyrek 722 Main Street Elk River, MN 55330 3anuary 30, coos Re: Second Amendment to the Contract far Private Development by and among First National Bank of Elk River, as assignee to Front Porch Associates, Ltd.; City of Monticello Economic Development Authority; and the City of Manticello. Dear Angel: Attached is the original Second Amendment to the Contract for Private Development. This document was approved and executed by both the City of Monticello Economic Development Authority and the City of Monticello and is sent to First National Bank of Elk River for execution as per our telephone conversation. The Second Amendment amends Section 4.3(d) of the Contract to read: At least eight additional townhouses shall be cotnpleted on the adjacent property by no later than December 31, 200$. According . to the Monticello Building Department, three of the townhouses on the adjacent property have not been issued Certificate of Occupancy Permits. Through the amendment process all parties agree to an extension period of one year and the Contract remains in compliance. Please execute and return to the Office of the City of Monticello Economic Development Authority, SOS Walnut Street, Suite 1, Monticello, MN 55362. You may wish to make a copy for your records. Thereafter, the Second Amendment will be recorded at the County at the expense of the developer. Should you have any questions, please call me at 763-271-320$. Sincerely, CTI`Y OF MONTICELLO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY o~~~~~ Ollie Koropchak Executive Director Attachment: 1 cc: TIF District No. 1-29 File Monticello City Hatl, 505 Watnut Street, Suite 1, Monticello, MN 55362-$$31 • (763) 295-271 1 • Fax (763) 295-4104 Office of Puhlic Works, 909 Golf Course Rd., Monticello, MN 55362 • (763) 295-3170 • Fax (763) 271-3272 MONTICELLO ~~ Excess Increment Ex ended in Violation P Windom HRA TIF District 4 Road Hummer In the Initial Notice, the OSA found that the HRA had $21,478 of excess tax increment in TIF District 4 Road Hummer through December 31, 2005, and had expended $18,098 in violation of the TIF Act. In its Response, the HRA indicated that it returned $18,098 to Cottonwood County (County) for redistribution. In the Final Notice, the OSA acknowledged that returning the $18,098 to the County for redistribution resolved the finding of noncompliance. Exceeded Authorized Tax Increment Expenditures City of Caon Rapids TIF District 1-30 Prime Development Project In the Initial Notice, the OSA found that the City improperly expended $1,463 over the total estimated tax increment expenditures authorized in the TIF plan. While this amount is listed as a separate TIF Act violation, the amount is included in the monetary amount listed in the Ending that the City expended tax increment in excess of the administrative expense limitation defined in the TIF Act. In its Response, the City provided documentation that it returned the amount expended in excess of the administrative expense limit. After reviewing the documentation provided by the City, the OSA considers this finding resolved. Excess Increment City of Coon Rapids TIF District 1-30 Prime Development Project In the Initial Notice, the OSA found that the City received $74,366 of excess tax increment from this TIF district through December 31, 2006. In a conference call between the City and the OSA, it was agreed that the City had incorrectly reported the TIF activity on the 2006 TIF District Report. The actual amount of excess increment in this TIF district was reduced to $71,992. The City returned the excess increment to the county. The City provided the OSA with a copy of a cover letter to the county as well as a copy of the check returning the tax increment. After reviewing the documentation provided by the City, the OSA considers this finding resolved. r~ 25 Exceeded Administrative Expense Limit City of Coon Rapids TIF District 1-30 Prime Development Project In the Initial Notice, the OSA found that the City improperly expended $3,838 of tax increment from the TIF District through December 31, 2006, in excess of the administrative expense limitation defined in the TIF Act. In its Response, the City indicated that the amount of tax increment expended in excess of the administrative expense limitation defined in the TIF Act was returned to the county for redistribution. The City provided the OSA with a copy of a cover letter to the county as well as a copy of the check returning the tax increment. After reviewing the documentation provided by the City, the OSA considers this finding resolved. .Inadequately Documented Expenditures City of Albertville TIF District 7 Senior Housing In the Initial Notice, the OSA found that, absent supporting documentation, the City improperly expended $220,304.71 in tax increment from TIF District 7 on the tax increment note through December 31, 2005. In its Response, the City stated that it had received documentation from the developer for qualifying costs, including land acquisition, in excess of $729,810.12 for this TIF district. After reviewing the documentation provided by the City, the OSA considers this finding resolved. TIF District 9 Barthel Bus In the Initial Notice, the OSA found that, absent supporting documentation, the City improperly expended $58,843.19 in tax increment from TIk' District 9 in accordance with the contract for private development through December 31, 2005. In its Response, the City stated that it has located the engineer's estimate for the cost of the improvements and has visually verified that the required improvements have been installed. The City also stated that it is working with the developer and its contractor to obtain documentation for the payment of the improvements. In the Final Notice, the OSA reiterated the finding that, without written documentation, the City improperly expended $58,843.19 in tax increment from TIF District 9 through December 31, 2005. • 26 TIF District 11 Land of Lakes Stone Co. In the Initial Notice, the OSA found that, absent supporting documentation, the City improperly expended $161,940.02 in tax increment from TIF District 11 in accordance with the contract for private development through December 31, 2005. In its Response, the City stated that it had received documentation from the contractor who completed in excess of $120,000 in improvements, as well as a copy of the recorded deed substantiating the purchase price of the property of $335,000. After reviewing the documentation provided by the City, the OSA considers this finding resolved. Unavailable Documents City of North Branch Housing Dist. 99A-1 and Economic Development District.2000-1 In the Initial Notice, the OSA found that the City did not comply with Minnesota laws in supplying supporting documentation of casts incurred, and that this violation was considered sufficiently material for the matter to constitute a finding. In its Response, the City was able to provide some documentation to the OSA, but was not able to locate all of the necessary documents. In the Final Notice, the OSA reiterated the finding that the City failed to comply with Minnesota laws in the area of record retention. City of Taylors Falls TIF 1-2 (Housing) Nolde Dev. In the Initial Notice, the OSA found that the City did not comply with Minnesota laws in supplying supporting documentation of costs incurred, and that this violation was considered sufficiently material for the matter to constitute a finding. In its Response, the City provided additional documents supporting administrative expenses. In the final notice of noncompliance, the OSA withdrew this finding after reviewing the additional documentation provided by the City. Failure to Publish or lCncomplete Public Hearing Notices City of Albertville TIF Districts 7 Senior Housing, 8 ~etsch Cabinets, 9 Barthel Bus, 10 Mold Tech and 11 Land of Lakes Stone Co In the Initial Notice, the OSA found that the City could not demonstrate that it had complied with the publication requirements when it created TIF Districts 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11. However, the OSA also indicated that, while the failure of the City to demonstrate that it complied with the publication requirements is insufficient to invalidate the establishment of these districts, it is considered sufficiently material for the matter to n LJI 27 constitute a finding. In its Response, the City stated that personnel working with the City at the time the notices were to be published recall that maps were generated. It is the City's belief that the public hearing notices were properly published for each district. The City also stated that it is in the process of trying to locate copies of the actual publications from the Wright County Library and the Minnesota Historical Society. In the Final Notice, the OSA reiterated the finding that, without supporting documentation, the City could not demonstrate that it complied with the publication requirements when it created TIF Districts 7, 8, 9, 10, and 1 1. Failure to Provide an Qpportunity to Members of the School Board or the County Board to Meet with the TIF Authority and to Provide an Estimate of the Fiscal and Economic Implications of the TIF Districts to the School Board at Least 30 Days Prior to the Public Hearing City of Albertville TIF District 11 Land of Lakes Stone Co. In the Initial Notice, the OSA found that the City could not demonstrate that it had complied with the notification requirements when it created TIF District 11. However, the OSA also indicated that, while the failure of the City to demonstrate that it had complied with the notification requirements is insufficient to invalidate the establishment of the district, it is considered sufficiently material for the matter to constitute a finding. In its Response, the City stated that it believes that it had met this requirement and that it is working with the school district to obtain a copy of the required notification. In the Final Notice, the OSA reiterated the finding that, without supporting documentatian, the City cannot demonstrate that it complied with the notification requirements when it created TIF District l 1. • 28 ~1 i. l3 t7fv'9.:.. `. .......TTY'. F"~{J a9i ,. ., f .,.. .. ~. , .A ~~, F.„; .., ,,°~;~~ ..... CAMP'SELL KNUTS~N ~- ... L,r ~ w,, January 24, 2008 Mr. Reese E. Chezick Attorney at Law. 2219 Westview Drive Hastings, Minnesota 55033 Re: Metro Home Insulation, LLC vs. Antoinette Breiwick, et al. Court pile No. 86-CV-07-7094 Dear Reese: In September of 2007 you granted us an indefinite time to answer the Cazxaplaint. Has this matter been resolved? Can I close my file? I look forward to your response. Best regards, • • Caxnpbe tson Profes io so/c~iat_ion ~ "" ~ Thomas M. Scott a, f, t :,,-, TMS:cjh cc: Ms. Ollie Koropchak • EDA Agenda - 02/13/08 7. Unfinished Business: A. Consideration of Request for Pre-Approval for recording services by the Communi Center Em to ee. A. Reference and background: At the last EDA meeting, the commissioners were requested by Kitty Baltos, Community Center Director, to pre-approve payment far recording services by a community center employee. The commissioners, at their organizational meeting in December, elected to have the EDA meetings taped far the purpose of public information/communication. Since the commission approves EDA expenditures on a monthly basis only, the request by Baltos allows the community center employee who is on the community center payroll to be paid for the services rendered within the finance department payroll cycle. Example: Services rendered for taping EDA meeting: February 13, 2008 Fayroll cycle ending February 15, 2008 Next EDA approval of bills March 12, 2008 Payroll cycle ending March 21, 2008 Given the exaix~ple, the employee of the community center would not receive payment for services rendered February 13 until after the payroll cycle ending March 21, 2008. Being the EDA elected to tape their meetings, the commissioners assumed responsibility to pay for the services. Hopefully, this clarifies the request by the Community Center Director to pre- approve services rendered by a community center employee. Additionally, Baltos noted the need for the services of Jon Mellberg to train the community center employee at the February EDA meeting. Remember, Jon is hired via a contract. The question for the EDA Assistant Treasurer: Was there an operational budget approved for the EDA? The amount budgeted? The corninissioners requested this item be brought back to the EDA after further discussion with the community center director and/or the advisory board. I believe Commissioner Herbst has spoken with Baltos. The next MCC Advisory Board meeting is February 19. B. Alternative Actions: 1. A motion to pre-approve expenditures for services associated with recording of EDA meetings by an employee of the Community Center and/or for contract service. 2. A motion to deny pre-approved expenditures for services associated with recording of EDA meetings electing to not record. EDA Agenda - Q2/13/08 A motion table any action. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends Alternative No. l as this allows payment for services coinciding with the finance department payroll cycle. D. Supporting Data• None. ~~ • EllA Agenda - 02/13/08 8. New Business: A. Consideration to review res onse to administrative cost shortfall associated with the Purchase and Develo ment Contract between the EDA and WRE Praaerties LLC and to consider alternative actiax~ A. Reference and background: Previously, the commissioners were advised of the concerns raised by Brian Walker, WRE Properties LLC dba Walker-In Store, as to the $5,875.45 administrative cost shortfall. He recalled conversations and the request for accountability of administrative casts. Given the $8,000 flat fee of Ehlers which was 50°/a over the amount of the $10,000 deposit, he felt the cost shortfall was clearly unacceptable, the administrative costs were strongly mishandled, and was not the intent of the Contract of which he may challenge. Clearly there was an over-sight in that the developer was not notified of the $8,000 fee; however, the developer was informed that typical administrative costs range between $15,000 to $17,000. Attached is an excerpt from the Purchase and Development Contract -Section 3.9 Payment of Administrative Casts. Also attached are other letters of Administrative Cost Shortfall which identify the ainaunt ofthe shortfalls as $7,580.76 and $6,367.56. Payments were submitted. The developer purchased 5.77 acres of land for $43,560 with no assessments and no trunk fees, 1.5 acres developable and 4.27 acres undevelopable. The developer constructed a 10,240 sq f} building and committed to retaining of six jobs and creating five new jobs within twa years at an average hourly rate of at least $18.81 exclusive of benefits. Minimum market value of $708,000 as of January 2, 2008. The HRA negotiated a long time to reach an agreement for the relatively small project and the sale of an isolated parcel next to an I-2 zone. S. Alternative Action: A motion to affirm the administrative shortfall in the amount of $5,875.45 for WRE Properties LLC as consistent with the range of other administrative cost shortfalls. 2. A motion to affirm the administrative shortfall in the amount of $5,875.45 for WRE Properties LLC, submission of payment in two annual equal installments. 3. A motion to reduce the administrative cost shortfall in the amount of to WRE Properties LLC and the reduced amount becomes an administrative cost paid by tax increment from TIF District No. 1-38 (an eligible expenditure). EDA Agenda - 02/13/08 4. A motion to table any action. 5. A motion of other. C. Staff Recommendation: Although Ehlers would reduce their fee because the project size was small, that alternative was not outlined above because the work completed by Ehlers is the same whether the dollar value of the project is large or small for an Economic T1F District. Should you wish to reduce the amount Alternative No. 3, this becomes a policy question for the EDA. Given there was an oversight to submit written reports to the developer, perhaps the best alternative is Alternative No. 2. D. Su ortin Data• Excerpt from Purchase and Development Contract and copies of other administrative cost shortfalls. • (d) Reports. The Redeveloper must submit to the Authority a written report regarding business subsidy goals and results by no later than February 1 of each year, commencing February 1, 2008 and continuing until the later of (i) the date the goals stated Section 3.8(a)(3) are met; (ii) 30 days after expiration of the period described in Section 3.8(a)(6); or (iii) if the goals are not met, the date the subsidy is repaid in accordance with Section 3.8(c). The report must comply with Section 116J.994, subdivision 7 of the Business Subsidy Act. The Authority will provide information to the Redeveloper regarding the required forms. If the Redeveloper fails to timely file any report required under this Section, the Authority will mail the Redeveloper a warning within one week after the required filing date. If, after 14 days of the postmarked date of the warning, the Redeveloper fails to provide a report, the Redeveloper must pay to the Authority a penalty of $100 far each subsequent day until the report is filed. The maximum aggregate penalty payable under this Section $1,000. Section 3.9. Payment of Administrative Costs. The Authority acknowledges that upon execution of the Preliminary Agreement, Redeveloper has deposited with the Authority $10,000. The Authority will use such deposit to pay "Administrative Costs," which term means out of pocket costs incurred by the Authority and City together with staff costs of the Authority and City, all attributable to or incurred in connection with the negotiation and preparation of`the Preliminary Agreement, this Agreement, the TIF.PIan, and other documents and agreements in connection with the development of the Redevelopment Property. At Redeveloper's request, but no more often than monthly, the Authority will provide Redeveloper with a written report including invoices, time sheets or other comparable evidence of expenditures far Administrative Costs and the outstanding balance of funds deposited. If at any time the Authority determines that the deposit is insufficient to pay Administrative Costs, the Redeveloper is obligated to pay such shortfall within 15 days after receipt of a written notice from the Authority containing evidence of the unpaid costs. If any balance of funds deposited remains upon issuance of the Certificate of Completion pursuant to Section 4.4 of this Agreement, the Authority shall promptly return such balance to Redeveloper; provided that Redeveloper remains obligated to pay subsequent Administrative Costs related to any amendments to this Agreement requested by Redeveloper. Upon. termination of this Agreement in accordance with its terms, the Redeveloper remains obligated under this section far Administrative Costs incurred through the effective date of termination. (The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.) 305$50v4 MNI MN190-125 12 February 17, 2006 Mr. Gregory Dahlheimer Rocky Mtn Group, LLC P. O. Box 336 Monticello, MN 55362 Re: Certificate of Completion and Administrative Costs Shortfall. Dear Mr. Dahlheimer: This letter addresses two sections of the Purchase and Redevelopment Contract dated September 2, 2005, between the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) in and for the City of Monticello and Rocky Mtn Group, LLC. r1 f~ Per the Contract, ARTICLE IV, the Redeveloper must substantially complete construction of the minimum improvements by May 31, 2006, and the construction of the minimum improvements shall be deemed to be substantially completed when the Redeveloper has received a certificate of occupancy issued by the City of Monticello for the minimum improvements. The Building Department issued a certificate of occupancy on January 23, 2006. Although the Certificate of Completion is issued in accordance with the Contract, please note that the landscaping, irrigation system and same site work have not been completed per the approved Plans and the Otter Creek Declaration of Covenants. This is recognized as an unavoidable delay -seasonal construction period. The original Certificate of Completion is being recorded at the Office of the Recorder of Wright County by Kennedy & Graven. Secondly, per the Contract, Section 3.9, the Redeveloper is obligated to pay such administrative costs shortfall within 15 days after receipt of a written notice from the Authority containing evidence of unpaid costs. Attached are copies of invoices from Ehlers & Associates and Kennedy & Graven and a summary of the administrative costs. Please note the application of the $10,000 deposit and the subtraction of legal fees associated with title issues. Therefore as of February 1S, 2006, the administrative cost shortfall is $7,580.76. Please remit this amount to the Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority, 505 Walnut Street, Suite 1, Monticello, MN 55362. The HRA is proud to have the business of Dahlheimer's Distribution remain and grow in the City of Monticello. Congratulations on your new facility. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 763-271- 3208. With regards, HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA Ollie Koropchak Executive Director Attachments c: TIF District No. 1-36 File Mayor Clint Herbst April 12, 2007 Mr. Mike Maher SL Real Estate Holdings, LLC 3236 Chelsea Road West Monticello, MN 55362 Re: Certificate of Completion and Administrative Costs Shortfall. Dear Mr. Maher: This letter addresses three sections of the Purchase and Redevelopment Contract dated April 12 , 2006, between the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) in and for the City of Monticello and SL Real Estate Holdings, LLC. Per the Contract, ARTICLE N, the Redeveloper must substantially complete construction of the minimum improvements by March 1, 2007, and the construction of the minimum improvements shall be deemed to be substantially completed when the Redeveloper has received a certificate of occupancy issued by the City of Monticello for the minimum improvements. The Building Department issued a certificate of occupancy on February 26, 2007. Although the Certificate of Completion is issued in accordance with the Contract, please Hate that the landscaping, irrigation system and some site work have not been completed per the approved Plans and the Otter Creek Declaration of Covenants. This is recognized as an unavoidable delay -seasonal construction period. The original Certificate of Completion is being recorded at the Office of the Recorder of Wright County by the staff of the Authority. Secondly, per the Contract, Section 3.9, the Redeveloper is obligated to pay such administrative casts shortfall within 15 days after receipt of a written notice from the Authority containing evidence of unpaid costs. Attached are copies of invoices from Ehlers & Associates and Kennedy & Graven and a summary of the administrative costs. Please note the application of the $10,000 deposit and the subtraction of certain non-applicable legal charges. Therefore as of April 12, 2007, the administrative cost shortfall is $6,367.56. Please remit this amount to the Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority, 505 Walnut Street, Suite 1, Monticello, MN 55362. Lastly and as a reminder, per the Contract, Section 3.6, the Authority agreed to reimburse the Redeveloper for "general grading" costs associated with the buildable redevelopment property in an amount not to exceed $.12 per square foot upon receiving evidence of the total general grading casts. Mr. Maher April 12, 2007 The Authority is proud to have the business of Karlsburger Foods, Inc. relocate and grow in the City of Monticello. Congratulations on your new facility. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 763-271-3208. With regards, HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA Ollie Koropchak Executive Director Attachments c: TIF District No. 1-37 File • 2 ~., • 8. ,. EDA Agenda - 02/I3/08 New Susiness• S. Consideration of continued use of ro rams and to review Policies and Guides for ossible amendment: I. TRANSFORMATION HUMS LOAN APPLICATION PACKAGE. The Transformation Home Loan program was initiated by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) in 2005 and the sources of funds ($150,000) were earmarked from TIF District No. 1-22 (Redevelopment District) 25% Pawling Rule. The HRA approved and disbursed funds for three loans and one application did not meet the "structurally substandard" definition as determined by the Chief Building Official. Year and amount of disbursed funds: 2006 $19,846. 2006 $20,000 2007 $ 9,581 • The HRA annually assessed the benefit to continue the program and the need to amend its criteria. The EDA commissioners are asked to first consider the continuation of the program: 1. A motion to continue the Transformation Horne Loan program for year 2008. 2. A motion to discontinue the Transformation Home Loan program. Should the EDA commissioners wish to continue the program, please review the Application Package as a point to familiarize yourself with the program, to ask questions, and suggest items for possible amendment other than name change from HRA to EDA. Amendments to this program do not require a public hearing or Council approval. A motion to amendment the Transformation Home Loan Application Package criteria as follows: • 2. A motion to affirm the current Transformation Horne Loan Application Package criteria. 1 ~ .~ DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Phone: (763) 271-3208 Economic Development Director Fax: (763) 295-4404 E-mail; Ollie.koropchak(c~ci.monticello.rnn.us Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Monticello, Minnesota TRANSFORMATION HOME LOAN 2007 APPLICATION PACKAGE PURPOSE A "home transformation" means a major Name remodel, increasing its livable space and its value. Residents who enjoy living in the core city and know the benefits of living within walking distance of the Mississippi River, the community center, and the schools are choosing to adapt and redevelop their existing homes to meet their current needs. The Transformation Home Loan was developed to provide incentives for homeowners or home buyers in Monticello to begin major redevelopment/remodeling activities. The Transformation Home Loan seeks to promote and foster a vibrant core city by: • Encouraging redevelopment of structurally substandard homes. • Encouraging home owner-occupancy. • Encouraging investment into the core city. • Increasing housing market value. TARGET AREA The Transformation Home Loan program is available far existing single-family detached homes located within the core city described as: Westerly city limits, North of I-94 and South of Mississippi River Easterly city limits, North of I-94 and South of Mississippi River TARGET VALUE The Transformation Home Loan program is available for existing single-family detached homes with a 2006 assessed market value of $175,000 or less. TARGET CRITERIA The Transformation Hame Loan program is available for existing single-family detached homes that meet the redevelopment qualification requirement of structurally substandard as defined by Tax Increment Financing Law, 469.174. "Structurally substandard "shall mean containing defects in structural element or a combination of deficiencies in essential utilities and facilities, light and ventilation, fire protection including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior partitions, or similar factors, which defects or deficiencies are of suff cient total significance to justify substantial renovation or clearance. A building is not structurally substandard if it is in compliance with the building code applicable to new buildings or could be modified to satisfy the building code at a cast of less than .l S percent of the cost of constructing a new structure of the same square footage and type on the site. The municipality may find that a building is not disqualified as structurally substandard under the preceding sentence an the basis of reasonably available evidence, such as the size, type, and age of the building, the average costs of plumbing , electrical, or structural repairs, or other similar reliable evidence. The municipality may not make such a determination without an interior inspection of the property, but need not have an independent, expert appraisal prepared of the cost of repair and rehabilitation of the building. FUNDING SOURCE The Transformation Home Loan program is a one-year pilot program commencing January 1, 2005, with a limited amount of funds, $150,000. The program was extended in 2007 for one year. Program Features: - Pre-Remodeling Condition Report. The Monticello Building Department must assess the age of mechanical systems, measure square footage, and otherwise note the condition of the home prior to remodeling. Please ca11763-295-3060 for an appointment. ^ The Transformation Loan. The Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) characterized the Transformation Loan as an "incentive loan". The incentive is just a little more fmancing with terrific terms, so that a homeowner may feel equipped z • to move forward on their remodeling project. To apply far the loan, the cost of your remodeling project must be $30,000 or mare. The loan may be 25% of your remodeling project, when the cost of remodeling is $30,000 or more. The maximum loan amount is $20,000. The loan is interest-free, and is payable upon sale of your property or forgiven after five (5) years. If you have questions, call 763-271-320$. Funds are limited. Application Procedure: Prior to starting vour praject, obtain this application package which includes the builder requirements and summary of design consideration, loan application form, a list of remodelers (contractors), and a remodeler form for remodelers who have not worked under the program previously. 2. Submit a complete application. A commitment of funds can only be made when all required items have been received. Please note: The City ofManticello's Building Department must approve all building plans, and may have requirements independent of loan requirements. All setback and zoning requirements must also be met. 3. Applications will be reviewed an a first-come, first-served basis, with priority being given to projects that are most ready to move forward. Project readiness will be determined by those that have completed drawings, have total praject funding in place (e.g. have a loan commitment ar have closed on mortgage financing), and /or have a remodeler under contract. Funding will not be held for projects that are not ready. 4. Once an application and other required documents have been received and reviewed, a loan commitment will be made. Meeting the eligibility criteria does not entitle an applicant to funding. The distribution of funds is the sole decision of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Conditions of the Transformation Incentive Loan: l . Submitted applications will be reviewed for appropriateness and. completeness. Projects generally must be value-added improvements such as renovation or expanding space. Plans will be reviewed for design considerations. 2. The loan will be calculated at up to 25% of the initial contract price if the contract price for remodeling is $30,000 or more, but not to exceed $20,000. The commitment of funds is made at the beginning of the project. • 3. Funds are limited. Yau may want to call ahead of time to find out if funds are still available. 4. APre-Remodeling Condition Report is required by the HRA to meet city financing and auditing requirements. A property evaluator (not an appraiser) contracted by the HRA will spend approximately an hour at your home to assess the age of mechanical systems, measure squaze footage, and otherwise note the condition of the home prior to remodeling. This is a one-time report for HRA records and incurs na cost to the homeowner. 5. Loans will not be considered for work in progress or work completed. The Transformation Loan can only be considered for projects not yet begun. 6. You will be sent a commitment letter verifying the reservation of funds to be provided at closing. A copy of the letter will be provided to your lender. 7. A copy of a letter of commitment from your lender verifying approval of the primary loan is required. 8. The Transformation Home Loan funds will be deposited in an escrow account and disbursed by a title company. Upon satisfactory verification of work in progress or upon completion, the escrow account will be drawn upon in pro-rated increments simultaneously as funds are drawn upon from the primary loan to make payments to the remodeler. Work must be completed prior to final disbursement. 9. The Transformation Home Loan shall be secured by a Mortgage Deed and Note. 10. Final payment of the committed Transformation Loan must be disbursed by the title company by no later than six months after the date of lender's closing. Please be informed that financial data shall be submitted to the Lender for purposes of this loan application. However, the fact that you apply for a Transformation Home Loan, the final loan amounts are considered public data according to Minnesota Statute Chapter 13. General Remadeler and Design Criteria: The HRA does not recommend any particular remodeler. Selected remadelers must complete a Remodeler Form, and comply with the general criteria established by the Monticello HRA. "Sweat equity" maybe applied toward eligibility costs associated with interior improvements such as painting, flooring, etc. or by a Minnesota Licensed Residential Contractor and when verified by a certified appraisal at the applicant's expense. 4 • Surnrnary of Remodeler Requirements It is the homeowner's responsibility to check on contractors thoroughly before selecting them. Your builder should: l . Demonstrate financial capability by providing a statement from a financial institution of sufficient construction capital. 2. Possess adequate Builder's Risk, Carnprehensive General Liability and Worker's Compensation insurance coverage. 3. Have a written warranty policy to be shared with the homeowner ar written evidence of commitment to perform warranted repairs required by the Minnesota State Statute. If the rmodeler has not participated in the Transformation Home Program previously, the HRA will require a Remodeler Form to be completed. A form is attached. Summary of Housing Design The HRA will require the following: 1. Each home shall remain a detached single-family dwelling. 2. Each home shall be owner-occupied. 3. Garage space may be maintained or expanded, but not reduced. 4. The house building lines, roof lines, doors and window placement should minimize blank wall mass. House and garage orientation to the street must present a balanced and pleasing view from all sides. 5. Exterior materials should be low maintenance. Masanite type siding materials are not acceptable. 6. The site must be fully landscaped, including attractively placed Foundation plantings and complete sod installation, lot line to lot line. 7. Adjoining properties must not be disturbed by the construction process. Construction planning is important since five foot side yard setbacks limit construction space. 8. The construction process, site grading, and the finished structure must improve or not have a detrimental impact an storm water drainage patterns in the neighborhood. Re- working an existing site grade to improve neighborhood drainage maybe requested. If a roof is pitched towards neighboring homes, gutters may need to be installed to divert storm water, in addition to improved grading. L` EDA Agenda _ 02/13/08 2. PREFERRED PACKAGE CRITERIA FOR MONTICELLO BUSINESS C~'FNTF'R_ Following completion of the negotiations between the City and Chadwick for acquisition of approximately 120 acres of Otter Creek Crossing and given the preliminary estimated costs for development of the infrastructure by Bret Weiss, WSB Inc., the task force of IDC and HRA members along with the HRA Financial Consultant completed a financial model to cash flow the project based on assumptions: land costs, estimated infrastructure costs, absorption rate, project size, and tax increment generated to assist in determining the reduced land price. The preferred price was established for the purpose as an incentive and marketing tool. Thereafter in 2005, the HRA established the Preferred Measures as a means to promote consistency and covenants as a means to ensure a return of investment by both the city and the developers. The HRA annually reviewed the preferred measures for increases of the city trunk fees, account of actual costs of infrastructure, and absorption rate. The HRA is responsible for payment of the contract for deed between the city and Chadwick (remaining acres about 35 acres), payment due December of each year. The infrastructure completed was financed by city bonds and the HRA assessed. HRA revenues are generated by the sale of land and tax increment. It was the HRA decision to only sale land to developers with projects that met the Preferred . Measures. Given a new prospect, the Executive Director prepares a Preliminary Estimated Offer based on the completed application form by the developer, compliance of the Preferred Measures, and projected tax increment. The EDA commissioners are asked to consider the preferred measurers for possible changes: Jobs per acre, average hourly wages, building to land ratio, minimum size lot, and building market value. I would suggest the EDA commissioners consider the feasibility of the $1.00 per sq ft preferred price until after the annual reports by the Assist Treasurer and/or cash flaw analysis of Otter Creek Crossing. Consideration to amendment the preferred measures far Otter Creek Crossing. 2. Consideration to affirm the current preferred measures for Otter Creek Crossing. The average hourly wage measure for Otter Creek Crossing is greater than criteria in St. Claud and greater Minnesota, the State and Federal programs, and I believe surrounding immediate areas. However, as you recall one of the objectives within the Camp Plan Update as presented by Rusty Fifield, is attracting jobs at higher wage levels that allow more people to live and work in Monticello -promote wage levels that provide incomes needed to purchase decent housing, • EDA Agenda - 02/13/08 support local businesses and support local government services. The H1tA Mission Statement supported the Comp flan and recognized the need to preserve industrial land for quality prod ects. 3. Declaration of Protective Covenants Conditions and Protections for Otter Creek Crossin . The attached declarations were approved by City Council for both Phase 1 and Phase 1 of Otter Creek Crossing and recorded at Wright County. Therefore, this is provided to the EDA Commissioners as information only but for consideration in your assessment of the Preferred Measures. • Boa 2007 MONTICELLO BUSINESS CENTER OTTER CREEK CROSSING PREFERRED PACKAGE CRITERIA PREFERRED PRICE - $1,00 PER SQUARE FOOT UP-FRONT (CASK NO 2005 IMPROVEMENT ASSESSMENTS, NO TRUNK FEES PREFERRED MEASURES* Jobs per acre: 8 full-time permanent jobs/acre (5,445 per sq ft per job) Average hourly wage: At least $16.00 ph excluding benefits Building to land ratio: 2S% building: 1 acre land (10,890 sq ft: 43,560 sq ft) Minimum size lot 2.S acres (case by case) Building Market value: At least $SO per sq ft. * MUST MEET ALL MEASURES ********** FORMULA FOR MAXIMUM ACREAGE TO SELL ONE USER (Property not intended for speculation) 1) Building size X 2 = max area for building 2) max azea for building X 2 = area ofparking. 3) 1 + 2 X 1 S% = ? 4) 1 + 2 + 3 =Total maximum acreage to sell one user. EXAMPLE: 1) 50,000 X 2 = 100,000 sq. ft. 2) 100,000 x 2 = 200,000 sq ft. 3) 100,000 + 200,000 = 300,000 sq ft x .1 S% = 45,000 sq ft. 4) 100,000 sq ft + 200,000 sq ft + 45,000 sq ft. = 345,000 sq ft or 7.92 acres. EXCESS LAND PRICE - $3.00 PER SQUARE FOOT PLUS TRUNK FEES "Excess Land" means the difference between maximum acreage less preferred acreage. The "Excess Land" is sold at market value. Developer pays for trunk fees on "Excess Land" at the current rate at • , time of expansion or closing. No assessment for 2005 improvements and nn park fees. . EXAMPLE: 7.92 acres less 4.59 acres = 3.33 acres or 145,055 sq ft.@ $3.00 per sq ft = $435,165. 2007 TRUNK FEES FER ACRES -INDUSTRIAL Trunk Storm Sewer Fees: (Net acre) $3,245 Alternative Fonding Area $8,176 (not city-owned praperty) Trunk Sanitary Sewer $3,065 Trunk Water $2,267 TOTAL FER ACRE $8,577 TOTAL FER ACRE WITH PONDING $1.6,753 2 ~~~~ ~~ D ac. N o. A 947485 OFFICE aF THE COUNTY RECORDER WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA Certfied Filed and/or Retarded an 02-17-ZOOS at 01:x9 Check #: Fee: $19.50 Payment Code 04 Addl. Fee Larry A. Unger, County Recorder (Rcscr-yecf for Recorr/ing Irrformrainn) DECLARATION OF PROTECTIVE COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, AND PROTECTIONS FOR OTTER CREEK CROSSING THIS DECLARATION is made by the CITY OF MONTICELLO, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("Declarant"). WHEREAS, Declarant is the fee owner of real property in the City of Monticello, GVright County, Minnesota, legally described as Lot 1, Black 2, Otter Creek Crossing ("the Property"); and WHEREAS, Declarant has granted the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (hereinafter referred to "HRA") the authority to administer these protective covenants; and WHEREAS, Declarant desires to establish covenants, conditions, and protections which will benefit the Property for the nurpo5e of facilitating development of the Property and far the purpose of protecting and preserving the value and desirability of the Property; and WHEREAS, all Property Owners are advised that they will be expected to abide by the protective covenants hereby established by Declarant. These standards are intended to assure the integrity of Otter Creek Crossing and protect property values and adjoining property uses. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the Declarant declares that the Property, shall be used, occupied, and conveyed subject to the covenants, conditions, and protections set forth in this Declaration, all of which shall be binding nn all persons LJ IIh~~3 RETURN T0: CITY OF MONTICELLO l 505 WALNUT STREET 4t1 MONTICELLa MN 55362 owning or acquiring any right, title or interest in the Property and their heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns. SECTION 1 1. DEFINITIONS: I.1 "Declarant" shall mean the City of Monticello. 1.2 "Improvements" shall mean all structures and other construction on a lot ar parcel for use permitted by the zoning ordinances of the City of Monticello, including, but not limited to, buildings, outbuildings, parking areas, loading areas, outside platforrns and clocks, driveways, walkways, fences, (awns, landscaping, signs, retain walls, flecks, railroad tracks, poles, berms and swales, and exterior Lighting. I.3 '`Lot" shall mean a portion of the Property identified as a lot an a subdivision plat prepared in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter ~QS, and Eilecl for record in the Wright County Recacder's Office. I.4 "Occupant" shall mean piny person, other than an ovvner, in possession of a lot or parcel. 1.5 ``Owner" far urposes of this Declaration shall be the Declarant and its P successors as retarded fee simple owner of any part of the Property. Por purposes hereof, if any part of the Property is sold under a contract for decd or leased antler a ground lease, the contact for deed purchaser ("Vendee") and/or ground lessee shall be deemed the Owner in lieu of the record fee simple owner, provided however, that for purposes of amending or modifying this Declaration, the fee simple title owner and the Vendee and/ar ground lessee, as the case may be; shall jointly all be deemed the Owner~ 1.6 "Person" shall mean a natural individual., corporations, limited liability company, partnership, trustee, or other legal entity capable of holding title to real property. I.7 "Property" shall mean all of the real property submitted to the provisions of this Declaration, including all improvements located on the real property no~v or in the future. The P-•operty as of the date of this Declaration is legally described as Lot 1, Block 2, Otter Creek Crossing, Wright County, Minnesota. l~ LI ~ ih~s.> 2 SECTION 2 TANDARDS FOR CONSTRUCTION AND 1VIA[NTENANCE 2. S 2.l Minimum Standards The minimum standards far the construction, alteration, and maintenance of improvements on the Property shall be those set Earth by the City of Monticello and any other governmental agency which may have jurisdiction over the Property. All improvements on the Property shall conform to the then existing building codes in effect for the City of Nianticella and shall be in compliance with all laws, rt.tles and regulations of any governmental body that may be applicable, including, without limitation, environmental laws and regulations. Where the following restrictive covenants are more stringent than the zoning ordinances, other laws and regulations of the City of Monticello or any other applicable government agency, the restrictive covenants contained in this Declaration shall govern and become minimum standards by which the improvements and maintenance of them shall be controlled. 2.2 Use No outdoor storage is allowed. On all lots, no owner or occupant shall store materials, equipment, or items outside of any building. 'Che Following exceptions are n.ot to be considered storage, and may be located outside in compliance with other applicable regulations: a. Passenger vehicles and light trucks parked in compliance with the City of Monticello zoning regulations. b. Parking of company vehicles, including trucks, vans, and other similar vehicles, except that semi.-tractors and trailers may only be parked in the side and rear yards. c. Semi-trailers located in designated loading clocks. d. Trash handling equipment. 2.3 Building Quality and Materials No building shall utrlrze metal ar steel stdewall bLUldmg materials with the exception of architectural panels that do not exceed ten percent (10%) of the sidewall surface <Lrea. • i ~c»>; 3 2.4 LRnclscaping Irritation System On all fats on which a building is proposed to be constructed, the owner shall, prior to occupancy of the building, install in-ground landscaping irrrgati-on between the front building tine arrd the public street. `This requirement shall alsa apply to the side lot areas of corner lots which face a different street. [n the case of rear lot areas that front on a public street, the owner shall install landscaping irrigation far a[l landscaped areas within fifty (~0) feet aFthe public street. The irrigation system shall provide adequate water to all landscaped areas, including Lawns, shrubs, trees, flower beds, ar other similar features. This requirement also applies to the "boulevard" portion of the public right ai'way between the owner's property line anti the curb line of the public street. 2.S General Exterior Maintenance Each owner and occupant of a lot shall fully and properly maintain anti repair the exterior of any structure located on such lot in such a manner as to enhance the overall appearance of the Property. The exteriors of all buildings anti the parking, driving, and loading areas shall be kept and maintained in a good state of c•epair at all times and be adeq>.lately maintained. All lots shall be kept free of debris of any kind and a[I landscaping must be kept in good repair. fill landscaped areas shall be graclecl to provide proper site cirainage. I_anclseapecl areas shall be maintained. in neat condition, lawns mowed, anti adequately watered in summer, hedges trimmed, and leaves rakes. 2.6 Construction Canstruction or alteration of any improvement on a lot shall be diligently pursued ant! shall not remain in a partly finished condition any longer than is reasonably necessary for completion of the construction or alteration. The awner anti occupant of any lot upon which improvements are constructed shall, at all times,, keep the lot and streets being utilized by such owner in connection with such construction, free from dirt, mud, garbage, trash., or other debris which might. be aCCilslonecl by 5~lch CotlsCCtictlan ar alteratian. 2.7 Noxious Activities l`Io trades, services, activities, operations, or usage shall be permitted or maintained, nor shall anything else be clane which may be or may became a nuisance to owners or occupants, or offensive ar detrimental to the Property by reasons of: a. Unsinhtliness, or iii>s; ~ b. The emission of fumes, odors, glare, vibration, gases, radiation, dust, liquid wastes, smoke or noise or a nature and quantity prohibited by applicable laws. 2.8 Temporary Structure Trailers, temporary constrtction buildings, and the like, shall be permitted only for construction purposes during the period of construction or alteration of a permanent building. Such structures shall be placed as inconspicuously as practical and shall be removed not later than thirty (30) clays after the date of the substantial completion of the building. 2.9 Loading Docks No loading dock shall face School Boulevard or Chelsea Rand. SECTION 3 3. GENERAL TERMS 3.I Nature and Term The protective covenants hereinafter set fortis shall be considered as covenants running with the land, to be binding on all persons claiming antler them and run far a period afthirty (30) years From the elate of tiling with the Wright County Recorder's Uffice at which time the protective covenants shall be automatically renewed for successive periods aF ten (l 0) years unless, prior to the renewal date, the owners of eighty percent (80%) or more of the lots agree in writing that the covenants shall terminate at the end of that period. 3.2 Amendments This Declaration may be amended, modified, or terminated by an instrument in writing, executed by the Owners of eighty percent (80%) of the lots. Each lot shall be considered to have one vote. An instrument executed in accordance with this section shall be effective when fi-ed for recording with the Wright County Recorder's Office. 3.3 Sever~bility I f any term, covenant or provision of this instrument, or an exhibit attached tc7 it is held to be invalid or unenforceable for any reason whatsoever, such determination shall not be cleemecl to alter, affect, or impair, in any manner whatsoever, any other poc-tion of this document or exhibits. • ~ i r,,; 3 SECTION 4 d. COVENANT ADiVIINISTRATIOi`I 4.1 Enforcement The Declarant, I-IRA and the otivner of any lot shall each, either acting separately or in common, have the authority to bring action for specific performance or injunctive relief to enforce any protective covenant contained herein. 4.2 Adoption These Protective Covenants become effective ttpon their exectttian and recording by the C)wclarant. 5"f'ATE OF ivl[NNESO"TA ) )SS. COUN"I"Y OF 1,VR[GI-IT ) The foregoing instrument was ackno~vled~ecl before me this 14th clay of February , 240, by Clint E{erbst and Rick ~Volfsteller, the Mayor and City Administrator, respectively, of the City of Nlonticella, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalfof the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. Tr-ns IvSTrtUNtENT DRAFTED Bv: CAMPBELL ICNt1TSON, P.A. Professiorca! Ass•ocicrtiarz 317 Eagandale Office Center 1380 Corporate Center Curve Ewan, Minnesota Sa l21 TNCSlcjh II~~s3 CITY' OF V10NTICELL/O By:_ ~~'~~ Af t I-terbst, Iv[ay r ~ ,. Rick ~,Uolfstell r, City Administratar Notary Public DAWN M. GROSSINGER NpTARY PU6LfC -MINNESOTA My Commission Expires Jan. 31, 2010 6 94`745 • • EDA Agenda - 02/13/08 8C. Consideration to call for an EDA worksho . The EDA commissioners are asked to call for an EDA workshop following the regular meeting of March 12, 2008, for the purpose to review the Business Subsidy Criteria and the Preliminary Development Agreements. The recommendation by staff for a workshop allows for hands-on and a setting better suited for interaction. In reviewing the HRA and EDA Business Subsidy Criteria, I see the need to combine the two documents as they independently address Tax Increment Financing and the Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund. The combined document will be easier For the commissioners to review. Amending this document will require calling for a public hearing to amendment. However, I suggest the EDA commissioners review the combined document prior to calling for the public hearing. If I remember correctly, the Counci] also approves these amendments. 1. The motion to call for an EDA workshop following the regular meeting of March 12, 2008, far the purpose to review the Business Subsidy Criteria and Preliminary Development Agreement. • •