Loading...
EDA Agenda 10-21-1997AGENDA MONTICELLO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Tuesday, October 21,1997 - 7:00 p.m. City Hall MEMBERS: Chair Ron Hoglund, Vice Chair Barb Schwientek, Assistant Treasurer Ken Maus, Clint Herbst, Roger Carlson, Bill Demeules, and Darrin Lahr. STAFF: Treasurer Rick Wolfsteller and Executive Director Ollie Koropchak. 1. CALL TO ORDER. 2. CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE THE JULY 22, 1997 EDA MINtJ'I'ES. 3. CONSIDERATION TO REVIEW FOR APPROVAL/DISAPPROVAL THE DMRF APPLICATION FOR 112 EAST BROADWAY. 4. CONSIDERATION TO REVIEW FOR APPROVALJDISAPPROVAL THE DMRF APPLICATION FOR 103 PINE STREET. 5. CONSIDERATION TO REVIEW FOR APPROVAL/DISAPPROVAL THE DMRF APPLICATION FOR 121 WEST BROADWAY. 6. CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR FUNDING TO PROVIDE AONE-DAY T'P:AINING SESSION FOR MEMBERS OF THE DESIGN ADVISORY TEAM AND OTHERS.. 7. CONSIDERATION TO REVIEW FOR DISCUSSION AND TO MEASURE THE INTEREST-LEVEL TO CONSTRUCT AN INDUSTRIAL BUILDING FOR LEASE. 8. OTHER BUSINESS. 9. ADJOURNMENT. MINUTES MONTICELLO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Tuesday, July 22,1997 - 7:30 a.m. City Hall MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Ron Hoglund, Vice Chair Barb Schwientek, Roger Carlson, .Bill Demeules, and Darrin Lahr. MEMBERS ABSENT: Assist Treasurer Ken Maus and Clint Herbst. STAFF PRESENT: Ollie Koropchak. STAFF ABSENT: EDA Treasurer Rick Wolfsteller GUESTS: Mayor Bill Fair; Tom Lindquist and Carol Vogel, First National Bank of Monticello; and Pam Campbell, MCP Design Committee. 1. Call to order. Chair Hoglund called the EDA meeting to order at 7:30 a.m 2. Consideration to approve the June 19, 1997 EDA minutes. Barb Schwientek made a motion to approve the June 19, 1997 EDA minutes. Bill Demeules seconded the motion and with no corrections or additions, the minutes were approved as written. 3. Consideration to discuss the proposed DMRF Guidelines and motion to approve the i lin Commissioner Schwientek requested clarification as to the reason the DMRF dollars must come from the Liquor Fund payback. Koropchak explained because State and Federal Grants are awarded to cities for the purpose of industrial job creation therefore the payback dollars are restricted for use of industrial job creation and become known as restrictive funds. Unlike the local dollars which is a non restrictive fiord, the payback need not be restricted to only industrial job creation. As reported the accumulative payback from the EDA-Liquor Fund (non-restrictive fund) over the years is slightly over $200,000, the amount suggested and earmarked for downtown revitalization. The $25,000 maximum fiindmg allowed per property is to avoid the need for job creation reporting to the State. Members wanted the DMRF Guidelines to be perceived by the property owners as an encouragement for revitalization rather than a discouragement. In response to Michael C EDA MINUTES JULY 22, 1997 Schroeder comments of July 21, 1997, the EDA members felt perhaps utilizing DMRF monies for architectural fees may send the wrong message "revitalization is too expensive". Members felt the role of the Design Advisory Team should be educational and if dollars are necessary for architectural fees, the Advisory Team should come back to the EDA for approval of such funding. Lahr reported the HRA in preliminary discussions had a concern that public dollars be utilized in a consistent manner..Although the design guidelines will be adopted into the Comprehensive Plan, will the sign ordinance be amended at the discretion of city staff or through the establishment of a historic district? Some discrepancy remains as whether the guidelines are voluntary unless public dollars are requested. It was suggested to allow the opportunity for exposure to architectural expertise, the EDA request further research as to the cost to invite two or three architects to conduct a one- day educational seminar for the property owners, Design Committee, and EDA. Tom Lindquist, First National Bank of Monticello, stated historical architectural fees do not add value to a building. The value of a building determines the rent which is the cash flow necessary for a mortgage. Lindquist questioned `whether this is a quick-fix" and • `what about environmental issues?" SBA and lending institution look at loan to value ratios and the ability to cash flow (rents). Mayor Fair and EDA members agreed the DMRF must be viewed as an incentive and as an investment into the community, they also recognized and accepted the risk and agreed to a subordinated position behind the lending institutions. Pam Campbell, MCP Design Committee Chair, informed members that according to the Main Street Design Program, every community which supported the historical preservation program saw the rents increase after a number of years perhaps five years. Commissioner Barb Schwientek made a motion to approve the Dowrrtown Monticello Revitalization Fund Guidelines as written with the following changes: Clarification of the five-year balloon payment for the rehabilitation loan and adding the DMRF is in a subordinated position to bank financing. The DMRF Guidelines are subject to final approval of the Design Guidelines. Darrin Lahr seconded the motion and with no fiuther discussion, the motion passed unanimously. The DMRF Guidelines will be presented to the City Council for approval on July 28, 1997. Chair Hoglund left the EDA meeting. Mr. Lindquist informed commissioners First National would consider a program other than conventional loans, perhaps a specific program with low interest rates for downtown revitalization. Example: the bank could block-out a dollar amount of $500,000. • 2 EDA NIINUTES JULY 22, 1997 Commissioner Schwientek made a motion requesting the Design Committee obtain proposals from architectural firms for cone-day educational or training seminar for property owners, Design Committee/Advisory Team, EDA, and lenders and to develop a list of architects including consulting fees for the EDA to review for possible funding. Bill Demeules seconded the motion and with no further discussion, the motion passed unanimously. In order to receive State funding for preservation, a community must be certified by the CIG as a historical preservation district. Lindquist inquired of the potential of grants through the Initiative Fund or the League of Minnesota. 4. Consideration to discuss the application and annrovai_/disapproval forms The commissioners did not discuss the forms but agreed to their use. 5. Consideration to appoint an EDA representative to the Design Advisory Team With Commissioner Ron Hoglund a member of the MCP Design Committee, EDA members felt it appropriate to appoint Hoglund as the EDA representative to the Design Advisory Team Roger Carlson made a motion to appoint Ron Hoglund as the EDA representative to the Design Advisory Team Bill Demeules seconded the motion and with no other nominations, the motion passed nnan~mously. 6. Adjournment. Vice Chair Schwientek adjourned the EDA meeting at 8:45 a.m O~ ~~.~ Ollie Koropchak, Executive Director ~g ..:: '~ ~ ~ ~C d ~~~ ~ { /~ 1 O ` ~ - ''Q~ S : q~+~~ ~ ¢ ate. ~' EDA AGENDA OCTOBER 21, 1997 3. Consideration to review for ap~rovaUdisapproval the DMRF application for 112 East Br w A. Reference and Background: Although Pam Campbell, Rita Ulrich, and myself have visited or talked with some 12 different property owners, Ernie's Bait Shop is the first applicant to request funding. This property is currently on the market for sale. Please consider the following when reviewing this application. Does the proposed project seek to promote the revitalization of downtown Monticello? 1. Enchances storefronts and facades in accordance with the design guidelines in the Plan.. Yes No 2. Encourages the rehabilitation of building interiors to bring them into compliance with local codes and ordinances. Yes No 3. Encourages building rehabilitation to provide space suitable for the proposed use. Yes No 4. Provides funding to close the "gap" between financing needed to undertake the project and the amount raised by equity and private loans. Yes No 5. Provides economic incentives to locate businesses in the downtown. Yes No Target Area Preference given to Blocks 35, 36, 51, and 52, Original Plat. This proposed project lies outside the preferred area. Location Block 34. Facade Grants Matching grant of $2,500 for eligible improvements to the front facade and signage. Request $2,500 Projected cost of improvements $5,900 Equity $3,400 t • EDA AGENDA OCTOBER 21, 1997 Criteria to meet: 1. Do the improvements meet the applicable design guidelines and all codes and ordinances? Yes No 2. Does the amount of the grant match the amount of the private investment up to the stated limit? Yes No Non-Performance The approved DMRF becomes null and void if funds are not drawn or disbursed within 270 days from date of EDA approval. July 21,1998 • B. Alternative Action: 1. A motion to approve DMRF in the amount of $ for front facade and signage improvements at 112 East Broadway (Ernie's Bait Shop -Richard & Sylvia Cline). Terms and conditions as determined. 2. A motion to deny approval of DMRF in the amount of $2,500 for front facade and signage improvements at 112 East Broadway. 3. A motion to table any action. C. Recommendation: Although the improvements proposed are outside the target area, the project has merit. The real question is "Does the DMEF close the `gap' between the financing needed to undertake the project and the amount raised by equity and private loans?" If the proposed improvements are strictly replacement for storm damage, does this meet the DMRF purpose? D. Supporting Data: Copy of the application for Emie's Bart Shop. • 2 i, DOWNTOWN MONTICELLO REVITALIZATION FUND Monticello Economic Development Authority - 271-3208 250 East Broadway, P O Boa 1147 Monticello, MN 55362 FUND APPLICATION I. Basic Information: Name of Applicant/Property Owner ~`~~~'~ -~' -~,~/c/~r- ~/"'0 Address of Applicant/Property Owner i /1 E ~~eav~:-clk.-/ Telephone Number of Applicant/Property Owr_er o?9.f- ~Z .Z .t. Social Security of Applicant/Property Owner ~~'- 7~ -~~ Z3 ~ Y77-70 - 69 g~ Tax ID# of Applicant/Property Owner ,~0 3 I/~6 II. Nature of Revitalization Fund Request: Street Address of Revitalization Property //-Z ~ !~lea.o~ccda~/ PID Number of Revitalization Property /~5 - O /O - 4 3`~/ 30 Legal Description of Revitalization Property -Block c~ 3y Lot(s) D /3 Revitalization Property is currently: Occupied ~~ Unoccupied Prospective Occupant If applicable, Name of Qccupnt (Business) or Prospective Occupant (Business) Fin /...~! .8.3,E t F 7'4 c ~ /~ Co If applicable, brief description of the nature of the business of the occupant: Du.~'o%v~ spo~>s~wS 9oo°~O. ~a,~, taa.~/-r, ~~c/~~.~. F~a.-....-s' • Downtown Monticello Revitalization Fund Fund Application III. Type of Revitalization Fund Request: A. Facade Grants 1. Front Facade and Serge Grant (Matching funds of up to $2,500) Amount of Request $ a~,fvo • °~ Projected Cost of Improvements $ .Swo. `'° Amount of Equity $ Brief description of the improvements for which applicant is seeking fund/sf ~~ f~~ , //l,fu~ivCl~ Clnd /AtfJl..?~ .a.I s/ uJ.~ o'or~s' d ~ E/.~ ~p~a,~' 2. Rear Facade Grant (Matching funds of up to $2,500) Amount of Request $ Amount of Equity $ Brief description of the improvements for which applicant is seeking funds: -~ ~-~ ~ . ~ ~ ~- ~ ~ 3. Side Facade Gram (jf apglicablel (Matching funds of up to $2,500) -~, = • Amount of Request $ Amount of Equity $ Brief description of the improvements for which applicant is seeking funds: Amount of Private Loans $ Projected Cost of Improvements $ Amount of Private Loans $ Projected Cost of Improvements $ Amount of Private Loans $ s Downtown Monticello Revitalization Fund Fund Application B. Rehabilitation Loan (Maximum amount is the lesser of 25% of total cost of the improvements or $20,000) Amount of Request $ Amount of Equity $ Projected Cost of Improvements $ Amount of Private Loans $ Brief description of the improvements for which applicant is seeking funds: C. Fee Reimbursement (Reimbursement of City fees in an amount equivalent of 10% of the total cost of the improvements up to a maximum of $500) Amount of Request $. +~' IV. Lender Information: Name of Participating Lender Contact Person Projected Cost of City Fees $ Telephone number ~~~~, I/we certify that all information provided in this application istrue and correct to the best of my/our knowledge. Signature of Applicant/Property Owner Date • 3 Design Advisory Team Review Team Members Date Property Owner ~"/-mod , ~ ~~(~,~. ~/,,,~ Building Address //,z ~- B.-~~~/ ,~~.,.,/ Sketch of Proposed Facade Improvements: ,/ b u., /p!,, f ~~ // /'.t tea,.. f.Lr ,Sa....~ v'~v fc~ ,r, ~.Z a~..e /ua ~ r..e Q /lp u~l da.G~ t~i,( ~! ~s~1in ( /YlA.rlr'i~ LV/l~l ~ CF r.J2 ,~~d.^/Yf pAM'~Gf ?O~~ QnG~ /'p l/~~~, 0%1/~/ i-'/+i..f Q~i~dnf ~,tJi/% 4-l f~ .E /'ni..af c?J~.., ~ ,s',C-n. c/%~/ b-Q e ~4~ z d . • Improvements in conformance with the Design Guidelines: ~.a ~1 /'.1t q ,f,E.td .moo f ~o L'/az••s~ 7.~v Q~P/i'a.r C.Q So ~~ w ~ ~~ .,c. a -t. Improvements in non-conformance with the Design Guidelines: Design Advisory Team Recommendation: Comments: Proposal PBPMA16997045 FROM ~~, Ken Leroux Construction Sheet No. ' -' 16821 245th Avenue • Big Lake, MN 55309 Date 9 ~ 2 5 ~ 9 7 u Phone (612) 263-6878 License No. 0002757 Proposal Submitted To Work To Be Performed At Name ' BA T Street Street 112 EAST BROADWAY City State City MONTICELLO Date of Plans State MN Architect Telephone Number 612 - 2 9 5- 3 2 2 2 We hereby propose to furnish all the materials and perform all the labor necessary for the completion of REPAIR STORE FRONT TO INCLUDE: REPLACEMENT OF THREE WINDOWS WITH ACORN VINYL CASEMENT UNITS, REPLACE UPPER SECTION OF EXTERIOR SIDING, REPLACE I CEDAR SHAKES ON OVERHANG, SET FOUR EXTERIOR LIGHTED SIGNS, INCLUDES CLEAN UP AND DISPOSAL OF WASTE AND BUILDING PERMIT. BID DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY PAINTING OR STAINING OF MATERIALS BID DOES I10T INCLUDE ANY ELECTRICAL WORK. BID FIGURED WITH 4'x8' `111 SIDING----*ADD 7S0 00 FnR S° c~>~nAR r.AP DEDUCT IF STOCK WHITE WINDOWS CAN BE INSTALLED All material is guaranteed to be as specified, and the above work to be performed in accordance with the drawings and specifications submitted for above work and completed in a substantial workmanlike manner for the sum of FIVE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED FORTY FIVE AND NO/100 Dollars ($~, 945.00 ~• with payments to be made as follows: $2,972.50 ON OR BEFORE START DATE---BALANCE UPON REASONABLE COMPLETION Any alteration or deviation from above specifications involving extra costs, will be executed only upon written orders, and will become an extra charge over and above the estimate. All agreements contingent upon strikes, accidents or delays beyond our control. Owner to carry fire, tornado and other necessary insurance upon above work. Workmen's Compensation and Public Liability Insurance on above work to be taken out by CONSTRUCTION Respectfully submitted Lba+» No. 0002757 Inwnd 3 Bonded Note -This proposal may be withdrawn by us if not accepted within days ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL The above prices, specifications and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized to do the work as specified. Payment will be made as outlined above. Accepted Signature Dote Signature • i • • ~~~ J c ~~ asp a P ~ ~.c e ~~- r'8~ b~~~-~.~,,k5 ~. ~-(~e 5~,~ . ~- S,~o~. ~"f- TS ''F'~P movie Cxs Oc.~~ • Design Advisory Team Review Team Members Ron Hoglund Rita Ulrich Gail Cole Susie Wojchouski Fred Patch Pam Campbell Date October 15, 1997 Others present: Ollie Koropchak Property Owner Sylvia and Richard Cline Building Address 112 E. Broadway Sketch of Proposed Facade Improvements See attached Improvements in conformance with the Design Guidelines: Replacement of 3 upper windows. • Improvements in non-conformance with the Design Guidelines Design Advisory Team Recommendation: Tabled for consideration by future owners. Comments: The Design Advisory Team had difficulty determining the if the request for assistance would provide actual improvements to the property or if the project was simply to replace storm damage. In consulting with the owner, the Design Advisory Team found the only improvements would be upper window replacement. This business is for sale and the present owners have a purchase agreement pending buyers' financing process. The application was tabled for the time being. The new owners may be willing to make additional improvements that would fit with the suggestions from the Design Workshop on September 4th. Those suggestions include a timbered cornice, awnings over the upper windows, reduced signage, and eliminating the backlit signs. • EDA AGENDA OCTOBER 21, 1997 4. Consideration to review for approvaUdisapvroval the DMRF application for 103 Pine tr t A. Reference and Background: The second application received is from Kathy Froslie, property owner of the former clinic and church building and business owner ofGoing-In-Style. This property was recently purchased by Kathy and is the home of Riverstreet Station Antiques. Please consider the following when reviewing this application. Purpose Does the proposed project seek to promote the revitalization of downtown Monticello? 1. Enchances storefronts and facades in accordance with the design guidelines in the Plan_ Yes ~_ No 2. Encourages the rehabilitation of building interiors to bring them into compliance with local codes and ordinances. Yes No ~~ ~ Q Q 5 i Cc~.~ ~ `~ uildin rehabilitation to rovide ace suitable for the proposed use. Yes 3. courages b g p sp No 4. Provides funding to close the "gap" between financing needed to undertake the k~roject ~~ G and the amount raised by equity and private loans. Yes No ~ G \ ~ ~ ~ ~`~ 5. Provides economic incentives to locate businesses in the downtown. Yes ~ No Tar eg~t Area Preference given to Blocks 35, 36, 51, and 52, Original Plat. This proposed project lies within the preferred area. Location Block 52. Facade Grants Matching grant of $2,500 for eligible improvements to the front facade and signage. Request $2,500 Projected cost of improvements $6,440 Equity $3,940 EDA AGENDA OCTOBER 21, 1997 Criteria to meet: 1. Do the improvements meet the applicable design guidelines and all codes and ordinances? ~ ~~~ t o ~ o ~ ~, ; ~.,,, ~, d ~ ~ ~ ~ , "c ~ 'ez,l, Yes X No 2. Does the amount of the grant match the amount of the private investment up to the stated limit? Yes X No Matching grant of up to $2,500 for eligible improvements to the rear facade. Request $2,500 Projected cost of improvements $6,630 Equity $4,130 1. Do the improvements meet the applicable design guidelines and all codes and ordinances? Yes ~ No S`~' 2. Does the amount f the grant match the amount of the private investment up to the stated limit? Yes ~ No Matchin ant of u to 2 500 for eli 'ble ' ovements to the side facade. g~ P $, ~ ~ Request $710 Projected cost of improvements $1,420 Equity $710. 1. Do the improvements meet the applicable design guidelines and all codes and orces? S Yes (~ No "`~r~ -" 2. Does the amo t f the grant match the amount of the private investmern up to the stated limit? Yes No Non-Performance The approved DMRF becomes null and void if funds are not drawn or disbursed within 270 days from date of EDA approval. July 21,1998 • 2 EDA AGENDA OCTOBER 21, 1997 B. Alternative Action: A motion to approve DMRF in the amount of $ ~ .5 ©6 for front facade and signage improvements, $ ~ . S o ~ for rear facade improvements, and $ '~1 n for side facade improvements at 103 Pine Street (Going-In-Style - Kathy Froslie). Terms and conditions as determined. 2. A motion to deny approval of DMRF in the amount of $2,500 for front facade and signage, $2,500 for rear facade, and $710 for the side improvements at 103 Pine Street. 3. A motion to table any action. C. Recommendation: Does the DMRF close the `gap' between the financing needed to undertake the project and the amount raised by equity and private loans? The improvements are improvements and not replacement of storm damage. Recommendation is to approve the request for a total of $5,710 DMRF Match Grant with disbusral of funds subject to receipt of Letter of Support and Conditions for Disbursal of Funds. D. Su~orting Data: Copy of the application for Going-In-Style. 3 • Ollie, ~r ~ b~ i~ a ~ ~~ c~,~ ~ ~ /~ ~ ~ J ~ _ ' J . ~r / j ~ { -. I~ DOWNTOWN MONTICELLO REVITALIZATION FUND Monticello Economic Development Authority - 271-3208 250 East Broadway, P O Boa 1147 Monticello, MN 55362 FIND APPLICATION I. Basic Information: ~. Name of Applicant/Property Owner ~ ~ ? Y 1 ~ ~ f' -•~ l7 hJ /' ~ ~ ~ S h) Address of App(icant/Property Owner ~~ ~ -~ !'!' C~' h~~ ~ . 2~ . ~, Telephone Number of Applicant/Property Owner ~ /J~ ' / ~ 7 ~ Social Security of Applicant/Property Owner 1 7 ~ - S~ ~ % 6 ~'~ Tax ID# of Applicant/Property Owner ~ 9J` ~7~~ q ~]~,(~ ~109~~ ~~2. ~~.~.~ II. Nature of Revitalization Fund Request: Street Address of Revitalization Property _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~J~ ~ n .u. PID Number of Revitalization Property ~ J 5 - 0 / 6 ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ j ~ Legal Description of Revitalization Property -Block ~ ~ Lot(s) ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ Revitalization Property is currently: Occupied ~ Unoccupied Prospective Occupant If applicable, Name of OcGup„~nt (Business) or Prospective Occupant (Business) _ If applicable, brief description of the nature of the business of the occupant: • ;, 1 r Downtown Monticello Revitalization Fund Fund Application III. Type of Revitalization Fund Request: • • A. Facade Grants 1. Front Facade and Signase Grant (Matching funds of up to $2,500) Amount of Request $ ~, Jr GG - G~ Projected Cost of Improvements $ ~ , ~ ~~ ' Q Q Amount of Equity $ ~j , q ~-~ G Amount of Private Loans $ Brief description of the improvements for which applicant is seeking funds: 2. Rear Facade Grant (Matching funds of up to $2,500) Amount of Request $ ~ Sc,~ . G~ Projected Cost of Improvements $ ~ ~ .3 ~ - ~ C) Amount of Equity $ ~ , ~ 3 ~ Amount of Private Loans $ Brief description of the improvements for which applicant is seeking funds: (~ N A+-~ 2 tC.-t ~J ~ ~ - ~~ o~ -Fv b ~- ~Z 2 r»~,a~eQ- ~ ~~Ila u-~~N~~s New u O a~zrSZ- ~ `~ ~ ti ~~ .,.~: ~, ~ ~ ~ c~ ~s cz.Q~Q- A `''' C:e ~~- '`'~-- 3. $ide Facade Grant (if a li 1 (Matching funds of up to $2,500) ~~ f} S7~ . ~ A~C ~ ti1~ ? 1 U. Gv ~t Amount of Request~$~ Projected Cost of Improvements $ ~ `l oS ~ - O ~ Amount of Equity $ %/ ~ . G 0 Amount of Private Loans $ Brief description of the improvements for which applicant is seeking fiords: {~ 1 {'~'~ (nv U2~ 1,o~K~~~ Ro~~ A2eA- A--(-~~Cfi u E, ~C~- ~~~~ 2 ~~ ~~ A~eh~~ Downtown Monticello Revitalization Fund Fund Application ~I~' B. Reha flit ti Loan (Max •~ Brief descriptio of the improvements improvements Amount of Request $. Amount of Equity $ , amount is the lesser of 25% of total cost of the Projected Cost of Improvements $_ Amount of Private Loans $ .which applicant is seeking funds: C. Fee Reimbursement (Reimbursement of City fees in an amount equivalent of 10% of the total cost of the improvements up to a maximum of $500) Amount of Request $ Projected Cost of City Fees $ Lender Information: Name of Participating Contact Person Telephone number Uwe certify that all information provided in this application is true and correct to the best of my/oar knowledge. - - 4- ~~ ~~ of Applicant/Property Owner _ 10 - I ~- ~ 7 Date ~~~ `7~Ivl ~ ~„~ry ~~~~ rl JS ~vC ~~~~ DATE: ~~~ 6 3 _-(, 6 3.3 ~ CUSTOMER'S ORDER NO.: ~~3-~1~~~~ ~ a, Z-r~6° NAME: ~~--'' / ~ "~q-' / T~'D~' / / (J O `~ ADORESS SOLD BY CASH COD CHARGE ON ACCT. MDSE. RET'D. PAID OUT QTY. DESCRIPTION PRICE AMOUNT ~ ~u~2 ~ c ~ 2 C7 C~Q o O S,'d~ ~ ~a i S~ia~ 5 ,~.:G~~i /~ 1235 ~~ o 0 ~3v ~ ~~ 55 it Cpe~la ~~~~~~i~~~t) 2/,Z$ v a ~~' ~ ~~ ° 5 ~ 30 ~C ,~ AN claims and returned goods MUST be accompanied by ttns out. RECEIVED [3Y } WitsonJones • cai9anl.p • MADE w u.sA. ~ 58847LL Diplkale • SB907CL Triplipn ~ •... p VAhoNoirs. 1889 ~ 7 i l/ \ ~ / tJ U M [S F tt _ -~,;~5 D 27175 i ~~~~~ ~ 1~~/~ ~ CUSTOMER'S ORDER NO.: NAME%.--0 / ~ O ADDRESS SOLD BY CASH COD CHARGE ON ACCT. MDSE. RET'D. PAID OUT QTY. DESCRIPTION PRICE AMOUNT y Z 3 6' U~7~~ /~v ~ /~ 4 ~~~ e~~QlSfj/~f / 5 / ~l~'L~ ~T~ ~ c e ~"~-~ c~~,GL~ ~i`O o c 8 //'' a ~G ~" ~~ ~ L` 9 nx ctatms and returnetl goods MUST be accompanied by this bill. RECEIVED BY V WilsonJOn9s • Grbadsss • MADE IN U.SA. 5880701 D~gBcab • S89RCl Tnplkals ® NBbonbro~. 1988 L I i l l LE DATE: f©'-~S-t CUSTOMER'S ORDER NO.: . NAME: - ~ `- ~ ~~ {''~ // ~ o ADDRESS SOLD BY CASH COD CHARGE ON ACCT. MDSE. RET'D. PAID OUT QTl(. DESCRIPTION t ~~ ~L ~'/~ f/ 2 / s C~PG~CCe`'0~ f!''ea7` 5 6 jr, 8 PRICE AMOUNT 2~S °o /G 6 J 975- ~ n o y ~~ • CEDAR BOARD ASPHALT AND BATTEN SHINGLES WOOD FASCIA METAL SOFFIT W/ CONT. VENTS T CONCRETE GAP • EXISTING BRICK EXISTING RAILING & RAMP EXISTING STEEL COLUMNS -PAINT ENCLOSE COLUMNS W/ SALVAGED BR[CK EXISTING STOOP 50UTH ~LEY~T[ON [~EMOD~L[NG F01~ °A'~~ ® ~CRTE~ K/~THYF[~05L(E 924/97 ARCHITECTS MONTICELLO, M1N NE50TA ~ _'~ ,ao6w. u~r,~ sT~r. ~. ^~-+ ~~ (612) 8236613 (612) 8247884 fAX • EXISTING COLUMN -PAINT ' CONC. CAP 3'-94 BRICK FIN WALL ENCLOSE COL.'S W/ SALVAGEC BRICK EXISTING STOOP---~ iZEMODELING F0~ KATHY F1~05LIE MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA WEST ELEY~TION DATE: ® OCRTEL 9/24!97 ARCHITECTS (61~ 8Z°S66L9 (6th 827884 FhY i• ROOF CRICKET- EXACT PLACEMENT TO BE YER1F[ED--i 12 8 ~~~ ~~ V `_ ~^ EXISTING BRICK NEW SLOPED ROOF WOOD FASCIA CECAR BOARD & BATTEN DEMO EXISTING FLAT ROOF & PORTION OF WALLS NEW FLAT ROOF- MATCH EAYE ELEVATIONS EXISTING DOORS DOWN SPOUTS OpT[ON '~' Ef~ST ELEYP~T[ON [ZEMODEL[NG FOf~ DAB= ® ^ E R T E ~ KATHY F[~05LIE 9/24/97 ARCHITECT S MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA ~_~ ,406w.wc~stx~s, a1rl.s,n~ ~fos (672) 8256613 (612) 8247884 FN( u ~ OPTION '~' E/~5T ELEYf~T(ON (~EMODEL(NG F01~ °ATE= ® ^ E R T E L_ KATHY F(~05L(E 9~24~97 ARCHITECT S MONTICELLO, MINNE50TA ~~3 +ao6w.wc~sn~r. MPLS.MH 56408 (612) 8236815 (612) 824-78b4 FNC NEW SLOPED ROOF WOOD FASCIA • ~--- EXISTING BR1CK~ DEMO EXISTING FLAT ROOF & PORTfON OF WALLS NEW FLAT ROOF- MATCH EAYE ELEVATIONS EXISTING DOORS DOWN SPOUTS O[~TION 'B' Ef~ST EL~Y~T[ON (~~MODEL[NG FO[~ DA~~ ® ^CRTEL KP~THY F [~05 L [ E 9~24~97 ARCHITECT S MONTICELLO, MINNE50TA ~_3 14o6w.~nr.~s>x~r, MPLS.MN 55408 (612) 825.6613 (612) 8247884 FN( • NEW SLOPED 1~0( INTERIOR CE(LIt~lG LINE CEDAR BOARD & BATTEN DEMO EX15T.- FLAT ROOF & PORTION OF WALLS NEW FIXED i CASEMENT WINDOWS 5 %,,--. EXISTING BR1GK~ EXISTING WINDOWS DEMO EXISTING WINC & 1NFILL W/ BRICK TO MATCH ADJACENT -~ WOOD FASCIA METAL SOFFIT W/ CONT. VENTS _o~, \\ Of~T10N ~-2 NOKTH ELE1/AT(ON i~EMOD~L(NG FOf~ °A~= ~ ~ E R T E L KATHY F X05 L l E 9!24/97 ARCHITECT S MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA ~_q.,~ ,•to6w ~scx>~r. -.,n.s.n~u, Ewa (612) 825.6613 (612) 8247884 FNf • Design Advisory Team Review Team Members Ron Hoglund Gail Cole Rita Ulrich Fred Patch Susie Wojchouski Pam Campbell Date October 15, 1997 Others present: Ollie Koropchak Property Owner Kathy Froslie Building Address 103 Pine Street Sketch of Proposed Improvements See attached • Improvements in conformance with Design Guidelines Improvements in non-conformance with Design Guidelines Design Advisory Team Recommendation Comments The Design Advisory Team needed more information and sent two representatives to view the property and to consult with the property owner. More information is coming. • • Design Advisory Team Review Team Members Ron Hoglund Gail Cole Rita Ulrich Fred Patch Susie Wojchouski Pam Campbell Property Owner Kathy Froslie Building Address 103 Pine Street Sketch of Proposed Improvements Date October 15, 1997 Others present: Ollie Koropchak See attached • Improvements in conformance with Design Guidelines The entry, roof line and window changes are planned to respect the era in which the building was constructed. (Late 60's -early 70's) The improvements are of quality materials. The building owner consulted with a preservation architect as suggested by the Design Advisory Team. Improvements in non-conformance with Design Guidelines The guidelines suggest generally flat roofs for commercial buildings in the Downtown area. However in this case a flat roof will be replaced by a gabled one. Both the architect and the Design Advisory Team agree that a gabled roof will respect the building integrity far more than the flat one. Design Advisory Team Recommendation To approve the application. Comments • EDA AGENDA OCTOBER 21, 1997 5. Consideration to review for approvalldisapproval the DMRF application for 121 West Br wa A. Reference and Background: The last application received is from Steve Johnson, property owner of the building occupied by Junction Antiques. Please consider the following when reviewing this application. Does the proposed project seek to promote the revitalization of downtown Monticello? 1. Ench ces storefronts and facades in accordance with the design guidelines in the Plan. Yes ~ No 2. Encourages the rehabilitation of building interiors to bring them into compliance with local codes and ordinances. Yes _ No 'NY~- 3. ncourages building rehabilitation to provide space suitable for the proposed use. Yes No 4. Provides funding to close the "gap" between financing needed to undertake ~ ,project and the amount raised by equity and private loans. Yes No ~`~c 5. Provides economic incentives to locate businesses in the downtown. Yes ~ No Target Area Preference given to Blocks 35, 36, 51, and 52, Original Plat. This proposed project lies within the preferred area. Location Block 52. Facade Grants Matching grant of $2,500 for eligible improvements to the front facade and signage. Request $2,500 Projected cost of improvements $15,000 Equity $12,500 • 1 EDA AGENDA OCTOBER 21, 1997 • • Criteria to meet: 1. Do the improvements meet the applicable design guidelines and all codes and ordinances? Yes ~ No S ~ ~ 2. Does the amour o the grant match the amount of the private investment up to the stated limit? Yes No Matching grant of up to $2,500 for eligible improvements to the rear facade. Request $2,500 Projected cost of improvements $6,000 Equity $3,500 1. Do the improvements meet the applicable design guidelines and all codes and or ces? Yea No S~ 2. Does the amount f the grant match the amount of the private investment up to the stated limit? Yes ~ No Matching grant of up to $2,500 for eligible improvements to the side facade. Request $1,000 Projected cost of improvements $2,000 Equity $1,000. Do the improvements meet the applicable design guidelines and all codes and ordinances? Yes ~ No s ~ `~~ 2. Does the amount of the grant match the amount of the private investment up to the stated limit? Yes ~ No Fee Reimbursement Reimbursement of City fees in an amount equivalent of 10% of the total cost of the improvements up to a maximum of $500. Request $200 Projected costs of city fees $200. 2 EDA AGENDA OCTOBER 21, 1997 Non-Performance The approved DMRF becomes null and void if funds are not drawn or disbursed within 270 days from date of EDA approval. July 21,1998 B. Alternative Action: 1. A motion to approve DMRF in the amount of $ ~ • s ~ o for front facade and signage, $ ~ ,S ~ o for rear facade, and $ t , o a ~ for side facade improvements and $ boo ~ for fee reimbursement at 121 West Broadway. Terms and conditions as determined. 2. A motion to deny approval of DMRF in the amount of $2,500 for front facade and signage, $2,500 for rear facade, and $1,000 for the side improvements and $200 for fee reimbursement at 121 West Broadway. 3. A motion to table any action. C. Recommendation: Does the DMRF close the ` a 'between the financing needed to undertake the project gP and the amount raised by equity and private loans? The improvements are improvements and not replacement of storm damage. This project is planned to be completed in two phases: Phase I this fall and Phase II in the spring. Recommendation is to approve the request for a total of $6,000 DMRF Match Grant and $200 Reimbursement Fees with disbursal of funds subject to receipt of Letter of Support and Conditions for Disbursal of Funds. D. Sunnortin,g~Data: Copy of the application from Steve Johnson. a 3 • • I. II. DOWNTOWN MONTICELLO REVITALIZATION FUND Monticello Economic Development Authority - 271-3208 250 East Broadway, P 4 Box 1147 Monticello, MN 55362 Bastic Ia[armation: l~tame of Applicant/Property Owner Steven C. Johnson Address of Applicant/Property Owner P.O. Box 598, Monticello, MN 55362 Telephone Number of Applicant/Property Owner 612-295-5588 Social Security of Appiicant/Property Owner 475-60-2395 Tax lD# of ApplicantlProperty Owner N/A Nature o(Revitalixation Fund Request: Strees Address of Revitalization Property 121 W. Broadway PID Number of Revitalization Property 155-010-052031 Legal Description of Revitalization Property - Bloclc 52 Lot(s) E 20 Ft. Lot 3. Lot 4. Lot 5 exce{lt E 18Ft 10 In of Lot 5 Revitalization Property is currently: Occupied X Unoccupied Prospective Occupant If applicable, Name of Occupant (Business} or Prospective Occupant (Business) Junction Antiques If applicable, brief description of the nature of the business of the occupam: Antique Store • Downtown Monticello Revitalization Fund Fund Application III. Type of RevitsliTation Fund Request: A. Facade Grants 1. Front Facade and $i$aa¢e Grp (Matching funds of up to $2,500) Amount of Request ~ 2,500 Projected Cost of Improvements S 15900 Amount of Equity $ 12,500 Amount of Private Loans $ 0 Brief description of the improvements for which applicant is seeking fiords: Revitalize and/or restore the brick exterior, improve windows. Install a fixed awning in the original period of building. Z. Rear Facade Grant {Matching fiends of up to $2,504) Amount of Request $ 2,500 Projected Cost of Improvements $ 6,000 Amount of Equity $ 3,500 Amount of Private Loans $ 0 Brief description of the improvements far which applicant is seeking funds: Remove covering and paint mural depicting 1900's river town. 3. Side Facade Grant (i~ppj~cable) (Matching funds of up to SZ,500) Amount of Request $ 1,000 Projected Cost of Improvements $ 2,000 Amount of Equity $ 1,000 Amount of Private Loans $ 0 Bricf dcstriptioa of the itnprovcmrnts for which applicant is socking funds: Paint side of building and place a period appropriate sign on the side. • • Downtown Monticello Revitalization Fund Fund Application B. Rehabilitation Loan (Maximum amount is the lesser of 25% of total cost of the improvements or 520,000) Amount of Request $ N/A Projected Cost of Improvements $ N/A Amount of Equity $. Brief description of the improvemenu for which applicant is seeking funds: N/A C. Fee Rcimburscmcnt (Reimbursement of City fccs in an amount equivalent of 10% of the total cost of the improvements up to a maximum of $500) Amount of Request $ 200 Projected Cost of City Fees $ 200 • IV. Leader ln(ormation: Name of Participating Lender Contact Person Telephone number Uwe cegify that all information provided in this application is true and correct to the best of my/our knowledge. /G~ 3 7 Signature of App perry owner Date N/A Amount of Private Loans $ N/A N/A • • C :_ • ,.__ -- __ - - -- r :~ _ . . , s} . ~ ~ ~~~ . _ ~~~ ~{;~ ~~, ~~,~ ,~ Design Advisory Team Review Team Members Ron Hoglund Rita Ulrich Gail Cole Susie Wojchouski Fred Patch Pam Campbell Property Owner -Steve Johnson Building Address - 121 W Broadway Sketch of Proposed Facade Improvements: See attached Date -October 15,1997 Others present: Ollie Koropchak Improvements in conformance with the Design Guidelines: Front: Removal of cladding Stabilization of brick facade Rebuilding of cornice Awnings over upper windows Awnings over storefront windows with lettering to identify Junction Antiques Staining of aluminum trim around all windows Side: Appropriate treatment of brick on second story -paint, not sandblasting to preserve surface. Sign painted on building side -appropriate for the building era (turn of the century). Rear: A mural, if appropriate Improvements in non-conformance with the Design Guidelines: Front: Fixed awnings, not operable Design Advisory Team Recommendation: To approve the design for the front and side of the building. To review sketches for the rear mural as they become available and report to the EDA. Comments: There are two options for cornice treatment. The Design Advisory Team would prefer the option that rebuilds the brick cornice, although either option would be acceptable. Both respect the integrity of the building. This project is in two phases. The stabilization of the front facade and awnings in 1997, then in 1998, the rebuilding of the cornices, side sign and rear mural, if mural design is approved. EDA AGENDA OCTOBER 21, 1997 6. ('onsideration of a request for funding~to provide cone-day training~session for members of the Design Advisory Team and others A. Reference and Back rg ound: At the July EDA meeting, the commissioners requested the MCP Design Committee obtain request for proposals including fees from architects to conduct cone-day training session for members of the Design Advisory Team and others for the EDA to review for possible funding of the session. The Design Committee has a proposal from Architect Bob Claybaugh at the costs of $1,500. The intent is to hold the session on November 12 and in addition to the Design Advisory Team, members of the EDA, Council, Planning Commission, and MCP Board of Directors will be invited. The Design Team is requesting $1,000 from the EDA and will request $500 from the MCP Board of Directors. This was not an expenditure in the 1997 MCP-Design Committee Budget. In conversation with the Attorney Bubul, it is suggested the EDA borrow the MCP- Design Committee the requested $1,000 as an interest-free loan payable in one year. This suggestion is based on the same principle of the HRA loan to the MCP for the initial workshops with Theresa Washburn and thereafter. Allocating monies to a non-profit ,~ organization for workshops/seminars could be viewed as an unethical use of EDA funds; however, it is not illegal. Another option for the EDA is to approve the $1,000 fitndmg request as the EDA did request the MCP-Design Committee obtain RFPs for the EDA to review. The $1,000 could be deducted from the $200,000 DMRF appropriation or disbursed from the GMEF loan fees. The Design Advisory Team is made up of Chair Pam Campbell, Rita Ulrich, Ron Hoglund, Susie Wojchouski, Gail Cole, Fred Patch, and Jeff O'Neill. In addition to the EDA allocating $200,000 for an incentive program for the revitalization of downtown, the HRA funded the MCP Downtown and Riverfront Revitalization Plan in an amount not-to-exceed $80,650, and the City allocated an annual $35,000 matching grant to the MCP for its operational budget. The MCP is a community non-profit organization with a fundraising committee. B. Alternative Action: A motion authorizing a $1,000 interest-free loan to the MCP-Design Committee repayment in one-year. 2. A motion authorizing the expenditure of $1,000 from the $200,000 DMRF appropriation. EDA AGENDA None. OCTOBER 21, 1997 3. A motion authorizing the expenditure of $1,000 from the collected GMEF loan fees to the MCP-Design Team. 4. A motion to deny request for funding of $1,000. C. Recommendation: It is important to support the efforts of the downtown revitalization. Recommendation is to authorizing funds under either alternative no. 1, 2, or 3. D. Su~~orting Data: 1'-~ ~J • 2 . EDA AGENDA OCTOBER 21, 1997 7. Consideration to review for discussion and to measure the interest-level to construct an industrial building; for lease. A. Reference and Background: With the City of Monticello Community Vision & Governing Policies adopted by the City Council and the Council Priority List established, the Office of Economic Development has begun to draft a plan which-supports these visions. The plan will include goals, working strategies, budget, and time frame for completion which then creates a form of measurement. One of the items on the priority list is to develop and encourage business retention and expansion. The IDC held a workshop with the Council, HRA, and Planning Commission members in late September to re-establish the awareness of the importance of industrial development to the City of Monticello. The importance of keeping a balance between revenues (industriaUcommercial growth) and expenditures of a growing community. Attachment A is an outline of projected EDA sources of funds available January 1998. The expected GMEF year-end 1997 cash flow assumes no GMEF loans are approved. The GMEF cash flow also includes Tapper's first loan balloon payment, Suburban's • balloon payment which is due in November, and the transfer of $200,000 to the DMRF. The payback to the City of Monticello from the SCREG to Aroplax was satisfied in January 1997 and the remaining payback now goes to the State of Minnesota. The payback to the City of Monticello from the UDAG to FSI is satisfied in January 2000. In 1998, the balloon payment for the Custom Canopy loan is due and the principal amount due is approximately $35,000. As a means to encourage business expansion and as a potential incentive, I had Ehlers & Associates prepare this letter to explain a couple of financing options if the EDA were to construct and lease out an industrial building (See Attachment B). In 1997, the EDA received no applications for GMEF; however, please note the lack of marketing the City of Monticello incentives programs. A marketing program will also be addressed in the plan under preparation. If the purpose of the EDA dollars is to create economic development (jobs and tax base) and the EDA has received no applications recently for the GMEF, perhaps the EDA should discuss other means of investing its money into the community. Be mindful this item is on the agenda for discussion only and to measure the level of interest. Something to keep in the hip-pocket. • MONTICELLO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SOURCES OF FUNDS Projected December 31,1997 GMEF Cash Balance $255,000 UDAG-FSI Cash Balance $ 96,850 SCREG-Aroplax Cash Balance $131,800 TOTAL AVAILABLE FOR 1998 (Projected) $483,650 DMRF Cash Balance $200,000 • edacash.a98 • Ehlers and Associates, Inc. LEADERS I N PUBLIC F I N A N C E September 24, 1997 TO: Ollie Koropchak, City of Monticello FR: Mark Ruff RE: EDA Owned Building Leased to Private Business It is my understanding that the I-IRA is intererested in exploring options for constructing and owning an industrial building in the City of Monticello. We have assisted a number of EDAs in this type of project. I-IRAs are empowered to own and lease buildings, but traditionally EDAs have broader statutory authority for issuing debt in this area. I will copy Steve Bubul on this memo and follow-up with a phone call with him. For these purposes, we are assuming that the EDA will own the building. Assumptions We are assuming that the building will be a 20,000 square foot building with a construction cost of $40 per square foot. The land cost would be approximately $30,000 for a total land and building cost of $830,000. Financing Options The EDA has two options for financing. The first would be to finance the issue with a bank through a private mortgage. In order to qualify, the bank woould require 20% to 25% equity. Assuming that $200,000 equity is necessary, the EDA could either fund this equity itself or request that the City provide the funds in exchange for a second mortgage and an interest rate return. The first mortgage, assuming a _ 15 year term and 9.00% interest rate, would have an annual payment of $78,000. Equity or a second mortgage, assuming a 15 year repayment an a 7% interest rate would have a payment of $22,000 for a total annual debt service cost of $99,000. The annual lease cost to a business occupying the building could be $4.95 per square foot, plus operating expenses and property taxes. The interest rate on the bank loan would probably be subject to a reset after 3 to 7 years. The second option would be to establish a tax increment district on the site and issue a general obligation tax increment bond for the building. This options would not require a referendum as long as 20% of the debt service came from tax increment. The remaining 80% of the issue would be paid by lease payments. The bonds would be taxable, unless the business were a manufacturing facility which was eligible for atax-exempt allocation from the State of Minnesota. A G.O. bond with taxable rates fixed over 15 years would carry rates of approximately 7.75%. No equity would be required. The annual debt service would be $95,500 for an annual lease rate of $4.77 per square foot. Atax-exempt allocation could lower the interest rates to 5.5% which, over 15 years would mean annual debt service of $82,600 or a lease rate of $4.13 per square foot. The tax increment could be used to further write down the lease or indirectly reimburse the EDA for other costs. Summary In all of these analyses, we did not assume that any "profit" or set aside for building repairs and replacement would be taken on an annual basis above the annual debt service. These amounts would increase the net lease costs. The bank option or the G.O. option would allow either for the EDA to own the building or to allow the business to buy the building for a predetermined price at the end of the term of the bonds. Please contact me with any other questions or comments. OFFICES IN MINNEAPOLIS, MN AND BROOKFIELD, WI 2950 Norwest Center . 90 South Seventh Street .Minneapolis, MN 55402-4100 Telephone 612-339-8291 . FAX 612-339-0854 ' .tEMARKS: ~yQQ ~- ~ ~ QV.:a-71~a~1/ 0 'I whp~n ~-S • _~ ~. i ~. ~ First iNationat dank of~~~h~onticello~;.. ~. ~ P.O.13ox 239 • Monticello, Minnesota 55362 ''') ~ ~ ~ ~ q ~1 DATE -1~ .Z LI TtME ~ ~Jv NUMBER Of PAGES ~AM. ^ P.M. (Including Cover Letter): NOTE H you did not reealve alt oI the pages of If you have a question, please ea11 the verHying number (heloa). TO: `(r ~ ~ FROM: qp, NµIE ` t ~+^ NAME ~ ~' AppRESS Su6dECT ATTENTION FAX ~ (612) 295-3773 FN(Np, ~dl ~~O VERIFYING NO. (612) 295-2290 FAx~. Traosm~ssio i0 'd £LL£56ZZi9 'ON X~d 07130I ZNOIa BN.~ GIB 5£ ~ i t 43M L6-£z-1(lf MONTICELLO DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION LOAN PROGRAM 1tZA?~viUM LOAN TO VALUE OF 7S% INTEREST RATE OF PRIl~2E-VARTART F TERM OF UP TO A 10 YEAR AMMORT-5 YEAR BAI,I.OON TITLE INSURANCE REQUIRED PROPERTY Il~?SURANCE REQUIRED SUBJECT TO NORMAL UNDERWRIZIl~G GUIDELINES NON-0WNER OCCUPIID MUST HAVE ASSIGNM~TT OF RENTS LIEN WAIVI~S REQUIlZED PRIOR TO DISBURSEMENTS NEED Wltl[TTEN APPROVAL FROM EDA FOR THE DMRF AD~ENCE TO GUIDELINES • • ZO 'd ~LL~SSZZis 'ou x~~ 011~OI1NOi1 8Nd i1~ 9£ ~ i i QOM L6-EZ-Zflf