HRA Agenda 12-03-2003
.
L
2.
3.
4.
. 5.
AGENDA
MONTICELLO HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, December 3, 2003 - 6:00 p.m.
505 Walnut Street - Bridge Room
Comm issioners:
Chair Steve Andrews, Vice Chair Bill Fair, Darrin Lahr, Dan Frie, and Brad
ilarger.
Council Liaison:
Roger Carlson.
Staff: Rick Wolf'iteller and Ollie Koropchak.
Guests: Steve Johnson, illock 52
Bruce Hamond, Block 36
Mike Cyr, LMC Building and Remodeling
Brad Johnson, Lotus Realty Services
Call to Order.
Consideration to approve the November 5,2003 HRA minutes.
Consideration or adding or removing items from the agenda.
Consent Agenda.
Consideration to review and approve the Contract for Private Development between Masters
Fifth Avenue and the HRA for Landmark Square Phase II and to authorize execution of the
Contract.
6. Continued - Consideration to hear updates on potential 1'IF District No. 1-22 projects:
A. Redevelopment of a portion of Block 52 - Steve Johnson.
Update on Planning Commission meeting for Comp Plan Amendment.
B. Redevelopment of a portion of Block 36 - Bruce Hamond.
C. Discussion and action whether to lobby for extension of the 5-year activity rule for
District No. 1-22.
7. Considcration to discuss concept for development of Ruff Auto parccl. Requested by Mike Cyr.
8. Consideration to authorize payment of HRA bills.
9. Consideration of Executive Director's Report.
10. Committee Reports.
A. Industrial Development Group - Dan Frie
B. Marketing Subcommittee - Brad Barger/Darrin Lahr.
11. Other Business.
-
-
12.
Adjournment.
.
.
.
MINUTES
MONTICELLO HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, November 5, 2003 - 6:00 p.m.
505 Walnut Street - Bridge Room
Comm issioners Present:
Chair Steve Andrews, Vice Chair Bill Fair, Darrin Lahr, and Dan Frie.
Commissioner Absent: Brad Barger
Council Liaison Present:
Roger Carlson.
Staff Present: Rick Wolfsteller and Ollie Koropchak.
Guest: Steve Johnson, Block 52
1. Call to Order.
Chair Steve Andrews called the HRA meeting to order at 6:05 p.m.
2.
Consideration to approve the October 1,2003 HRA minutes.
BILL FAIR MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE OCTOBER 1,2003 HRA MINUTES.
SECONDED BY DAN FRIE AND WITH NO CORRECTIONS OR ADDITIONS, THE
MINUTES WERE APPROVED AS WRITTEN. VOTE 4-0. BARGER ABSENT.
3.
Consideration of adding or removing items from the agenda.
Item NO.4 was removed from the agenda, as Barry Fluth and Brad Johnson informed the I IRA
Office they would not attend. With 1;'luth in Arizona through December; Kennedy & Graven,
Fluth and Koropchak will converse via a conference call to begin preparation of the draft copy of
the Contract for Private Redevelopment for Landmark Square Phase II.
4. Consent Agenda.
None.
5. Consideration to review revised uses/sources statement after receivin~ bids and TIF assistance
for redevelopment or Landmark Square Phase II.
Removed.
6.
Continued - Consideration to hear updates:
A. Redevelopment of a portion of Block 52.
Steve Johnson, property owner of Block 52, updated the HRA stating he and Bill Gorton,
McComb Group, met with Ehlers & Associates today and it appears there are available dollars.
The proposed lay-out of Option A, lIRA's preference of September, with zero lot-line setbacks is
not economically feasible. The alternative is a national retailer, Walgreens, looking to construct
a 14,300 sq ft bui Iding located more or less in the center of the most southerly part of Block 52.
.
.
.
HRA Minutes - 11/05/03
The Walgreens' people have been in downtown and a preliminary approval letter is in place
based on the following: 1. Meeting with staff indicated Option 13. (submitted sketch) is in non-
compliance of the Comp Plan. 2. Planning COllllnission called for Public Hearing of Dceember
2 for consideration to amend the Comp Plan. 3. Walgreens' likes the downtown site, only site,
because Monticello in growing area of MN. 4. Would screen corner of Broadway (County 75)
and Pine Street (Hwy 25). 5. Projcct within time schedule and scope of redevclopment plan. 6.
Attelnptcd to or talked to all but two property owners. Upcoming meeting scheduled with
Froslie. Johnson continued stating they hope to keep moving forward with public hearing in
December and then more accuratc numbers. Pieces arc Inoving slowing together. Mctro Plains
is looking to build 28-34 townhouse, for-sale units on the northerly half of the block. Parking is
projected to excecd current stalls of 78 off.-street and 50 Walnut. Off street surfacc parking of
134 (57 for Walgreens) and 57 Walnut. The only thing sure at this point is the need to modify
the Plan. Redman, thc dcvelopcr, has constructed up to 10 ncw storcs pcr ycar for Walgreens.
With lots of loose ends, plans are for an early or late 2004 start. Johnson explained studies by
Walgreens indicate zero-lot lines reduce revenues and the need for drive-up pharmacy and
ingress/cgress. -fhe proposed non zero lot-line is compatible with the Theater/MN Workforce
Center corner across the street as well as the Platinum Realty building. Unlike the Town Square
project, the tratlic counts along Broadway arc 12,000 ADT and Pine 22,000 ADT which is not
compatible with pedestrian traffic. The Walgreens' project would serve as the north anchor
much as Cub, the south anchor. Comm issioner Lahr asked, why not what we want? Small town
- pcople want parking close for convenience while Ridgedale - will walk for selection. Johnson
indicated Walgreens will move closer to Broadway if diagonal parking were allowed by the
County Inuch like the proposed Jamcs & Grubcr projcct. Walgreens is a convcnience storc like a
gas station with a pharmacy but without pumps. Commissioner Andrews stated so the city gets
the Ford instead of the Cadillac with a created artificial intersection. We're asked to spend
dollars on a project which doesn't fit the plan because this proposal is economical today and is
something we'd have to live with for years to come. Johnson stated Walgreens is the driver and
the project appears fcasiblc with an estimated annual $85,000 of tax increment. We've waitcd
scven years and only Walgreens has come forward and has a strong balance sheet. Frieasked, is
the Walgreens and Mctro Plains projccts dcpcndcd on cach othcr? Morc or less respondcd
Johnson. Fair said he was opposed today unless the comp plan is amcnded. Scott Douglas and
Keith Kjellberg voiccd opposition to sclling. Pat Sawatzkc said he and his wife purchased the
housc ncxt door to their salon two weeks ago for a planned $3.5 million projcct and will nced to
study thc ilnpact of this projcct on thcir proposcd projcct. Chair Andrcws noted at this point thc
H RA has not approved any TI F assistance. Johnson subm itted a concept site plan and a design
from a Mukwonago, WI projcct. Thc conunissioncrs also rcccivcd a copy of the traffic study by
WSB, Inc. hased on thc vcry first concept, the study indicatcd the need to open Walnut Street at
River Street.
B. Other retlUest for financial assistance.
Commissioners were given a copy of the TIF information submitted to James and Gruber and
Bruce I lamond per HRA direction in October.
7.
Consideration to approvc a rccommcndation fix City Council consideration to authorize
preparation of a purchase agreement fix acquisition of said property for industrial dcvclopment.
Koropchak madc a prcscntation using ovcr-hcads of thc proccss and information gathered by thc
2
.
.
.
HRA Minutes - 11/05/03
Subcomm ittee of HRA Comm issioner Dan Frie, I DC members Mary Barger and Dick Van
Allen, Administrator Wolf"teller and herself. Through the rescarched information, the group
was able to narrow a site for recommendation to acquire for industrial development consistent
with the I DC/I IRA goal to provide a continuous stream of available industrial land with
infrastrueture potential. With the recommended site being the Otter Crcek Crossing 114+- acres
at a cost of approximatcly $70,000 per aere for land acquisition, street and utility infrastructure
improvements, and trunk fees; Ehlers and Assoeiates ran a cost analysis using TI F revenues over
20 years with an annual 50,000 sq ft building and five acre build-out. Expenditures included 5%
interest rate for internal loan (land), 4.5% interest rate for bonds (infrastructure), and 3%
intlation rate for trunk fees. Given this analysis, the City would need to sell or market thc land
for at least $33,000 per acre or .7575 per square foot. Next, the HRA rcviewed a comparison of
the eurrent lIF finance method and the proposed TIF finance method wherein the devcloper's
investlnent of up-front monies is less, the city retains all of its trunk fees, and is wiser use of
marketing funds. Lastly, the eommissioners reviewed the recommendation and rational of the
subcomm ittee. W olfstellcr suggested the use of city reserves for a cash buy-out as th is a better
investment (interest rate) than what hc eould currently get on any other investment. Thc
HRA/City have a combincd $931,000 in reserve funds.
DARRlN LAIIR MADE A MOTION RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER
AND APPROVE AUTHORIZING TilE PREPARATION OF A PURCHASE AGREEMENT
FOR ACQUISITION OF APPROXIMATELY 114-120 ACRES OF OTTER CREEK
CROSSING FOR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT TO "TERMS AND
CONDITIONS OF THE CITY COUNCIL. SUGGESTED TERMS AND CONDITIONS:
COUNTER-OFFER OF 10% DISCOUNT FOR CASH (.55 CENTS PER SQUARE FOOT),
COUNTER-OFFER EXPIRES NOVEMBER 30, 2003, CLOSING DATE OF NOVEMBER
2004, MINING TERMINATES NO LATER TI IAN MA Y 1,2005, SUBJECT TO SOIL TESTS,
TOPOGRAPI lIES, DEFINE BOUNDARIES, AND SUCH ITEMS DESCRIBED BY CITY
COUNCIL AND 1'1 IE CITY ATTORNEY. COUNTER-OFFER BASED ON HIGH COST TO
DEVELOP INFRASTRUCTURE. SECONDED BY STEVE ANDREWS. Rill Fair asked if
some monies from thc sale of land by the city would be set aside for futurc industrial land rather
than again come from a tax levy. Koropchak noted that was a good question and statcd at
economic development conference's that is encouraged. WITH NO FURTHER DISCUSSION,
THE MOTION CARRIED ON A 4-0 VOTE. BARGER ABSENT. The eommissioners were
encouraged to attend the City Council Workshop on Monday, November 10,2003, at 6:00 p.m.
8.
Consideration to hear follow-up of O'Connor's request for status of husiness reloeation claim.
The commissioners wcre given a eopy of the October 14,2003, letter from Mike O'Connor's
attorney, John Peterson, relative to the status of business relocation claim at the former 218 Front
Street address and a copy of the October 21,2003, response letter from the HRA as prepared by
Attorney Bob Lindall. No action was required of the HRA.
9.
Consideration to authorize payment of /-IRA bills.
DAN FRIE MADE A MOTION TO AUTHORIZE PAYMENT OF IHE OCTOBER lIRA
BILLS. SECONDED BY DARRIN LAHR AND WITH NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, THE
MOTION CARRIED ON A 4-0 VOTE. BARGER ABSENT.
3
.
.
.
HRA Minutes - 11/05/03
10.
Consideration of Executive Director's Report.
The eomlnissioners accepted the Executive Director's Report as written with no questions or
additions.
11. Committee Reports.
None.
12. Other Business.
The lIRA briefly discussed the request and need for ajoint lneeting between members ofthe
City Council, Planning Commission, and lIRA.
13. Adiournment.
The HRA meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m. by a consensus ofthe commissioners.
liRA Chair
Executive Director
4
.
.
.
liRA Agenda - 12/03/03
5.
Consideration to review and approve Contract for Private Development between
Masters Fifth Avenue and the HRA and to authorize exeeution of the Contract.
A. Referenee and back1!round:
Attached are excerpts from the Contract for Private Development as prepared by
Kennedy & Graven. I received the first draft late Friday, November 21 and e-mailed
comments and corrections on Monday, November 24. The attached excerpts are from the
second draft and include my comments and corrections and thereafter the document was
e-mailed to Fluth in AZ.
During our (Fluth, Bubul and Koropchak) conference call of November 7, 2003, I1ubul
had concerns that the developer would not meet the June 30, 2004, date to expend the
eligible $125,000 costs as outlined in the HRA minutes. He suggested the HRA amend
the October motion to add the acquisition of substandard homes.
The areas of importance to the HRA are highlighted by an *. With the finance method
being up-front monies, security becomes more of a concern. Upon sale of each unit, the
Authority will release any incumbrance created by the Assessment Agreement.
Assessment Agreement effective January 2,2005, at a minimum market value of
$1,850,000, total of all units. This was the value Ehlers used i()f the TIF Cashllows
which generated the $157,500 NPV of tax increment. The developer is asked to pay the
difference if any between the payment schedule and the actual tax increment received.
This security for only the $157,500.
The second disbursement ($125,000) is like a grant from other district projects. Tn Phase
I, the $75,000 or grant like monies was disbursed after completion of the improvements.
However, again because of the expenditure timing issue, the monies will be disbursed
upon near completion of the duplex only and is why the HRA is requesting a Letter of
Credit. During the conference call, the developer was hesitate to the Letter of Credit
request.
A public hearing requesting a conditional use permit to allow first floor residential units
and concept stage PUD approval is on the Planning Commission Agenda for December 2,
2003. The liRA will review the Contract at the meeting and perhaps the developer will
have made comments.
H RA Agenda -12/03/03
.
B.
Alternative Actions:
FIRST MOTION
1. A motion to amend the October 1,2003, motion to read: To offer TTF assistance
in an amount not-to-exceed $125,000 for costs associated with acquisition, demo,
electric pole relocation, and utility and parking lot construction associated with
Phase II of Landmark Square. Dollars to be expended from the TIF District No.
1-22 Fund.
2. A motion to deny amending the October 1,2003, motion.
SECOND MOTION
I. A motion to approve the Contract for Private Development between Masters Fifth
A venue and the HRA as prepared and to authorize execution of the said Contact.
2. A motion to approve the Contract for Private Development between Masters Fifth
Avenue and the HRA with the following adjustments and to authorize execution
of the Contract with the adjustments.
.
3.
A motion to deny approval of the Contract for Private Development between
Masters Fifth Avenue and the HRA.
4. A motion to table any action.
C. Recommendation:
fIRST MOTION: The City Administrator and Executive Director recommend
Alternative No. 1 for consistency between the HRA motion and Contract.
SECOND MOTION: The City Administrator and Executive Director recommend
Alternative No.1. This provides the HRA will some security for both the $157,500 and
$125,000.
D. Supporting Data:
Excerpts from the Contract with highlighted areas. Copy of proposed facade and copy as
presented to Planning Commission.
.
2
.
.
.
SD.
ARTICLE I
Definitions
Section 1.1. Definitions. In this Agreement, unless a dilTerent meaning clearly appears
from the context:
"Act" means Minnes01~ Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047, as amended.
"Agreement" means this Agreement, as the samc may be from time to time modified,
amcnded, or supplementcd.
"Authority" mcans thc Housing and Rcdevelopment Authority in and for the City of
Monticello, Minnesota.
"City" means the City of Monticello, Minnesota.
"Certificate of Completion" mcans the certification provided to the Dcvelopcr pursuant to
Section 4.4 of this Agreement.
"Construction Plans" means the plans, specifications, drawings and related documents on
the construction work to be performed by the Developer on the Development Property which (a)
shall be as detailed as the plans, spccifications, drawings and related documents which are
submitted to the appropriate building officials of the Authority, and (b) shall include at least the
following: (I) site plan; (2) foundation plan; (3) basement plans; (4) Hoor plan for each floor;
(5) cross sections of each (length and width); (6) elevations (all sides); (7) landseape plan; and
(8) such other plans or supplements to the foregoing plans as thc Authority may reasonably
request to allow it to ascertain the nature and quality of the proposed construction work.
"County" means the County of Wright, Minncsota.
"Devcloper" mcans Masters Fifth Avenuc, Inc., a Minncsota corporation, or its permitted
successors and assigns.
"Development Property" means the propcrty legally described at Exhibit A. After the
construction of the Minimum Improvemcnts, thc term shall mcan the Development Property as
improvcd.
"Event of Default" means an action by the Dcveloper listed Il1 Article IX of this
Agreemcnt.
"First Disburscment" has the mcaning provided in Section 3.4(a).
"Holdcr" means the owner of a Mortgagc.
FMT-240630v 1
MN190-111
"
,J
.
.
.
"Land Acquisition Costs" has the meaning provided in Section 3.4.
"Material" means any effect or change which significantly alters the intended use of the
Development Property, or increases or decreases the costs of any individual item of the
Minimum I mprovements by more than $100,000.
"Maturity Date" means the date on which the Principal Amount and accrued interest on
the First Disbursement has been paid in full or defeased in accordance with the terms of Section
3.4( d) hereof.
k "Minimum Improvements" means the construction on the Development Property of II
housing units, ineluding one duplex and nine owner-occupied single-family homes.
"Mortgage" means any mortgage made by the Developer which is secured, in whole or in
part, with the Development Property and which is a permitted encumhrance pursuant to the
provisions of Article V II I of this Agreement.
"Project" means Redevelopment Project No. I.
"Project Area" means the real property located within the boundaries of the Project.
"Redevelopment Plan" means the Authority's Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment
Project No.1, as it may be modified.
"Second Disbursement" has the meaning provided in Section 3.4(b).
"State" means the State of Minnesota.
"Tax Increment" means that portion of the real property taxes which is paid with respect
to the Development Property and which is remitted to the Authority as tax increment pursuant to
the Tax Increment Act.
"Tax Increment Act" or "TIF Act" means the Tax Increment Financing Aet, Min!).esota
Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.1799, as amended.
"Tax Increment District" or "TIF District" means Tax Increment Financing District No.
1-22.
"Tax Increment Plan" or "TIF Plan" means the tax increment financing plan for Tax
Increment Financing District No. 1-22, as approved March 10, 1997, and as it has been and may
be further amended.
"Tax Official" means any County assessor; County auditor; County or State board of
equalization, the commissioner of revenue of the State, or any State or federal district court, the
tax court of the State, or the State Supreme Court.
LMT-2401i]Ov I
MN190-111
4
"lIF Bonds" means the City's $2,150,000 Taxable General Obligation Temporary Tax
. Increment Bonds, Series 2001, and any bonds issued to refund those bonds.
"Unavoidable Delays" means delays beyond the reasonable control of the party seeking
to be excused as a result thereof which are the direct result of strikes, other labor troubles,
prolonged advcrsc wcather or acts of God, tire or other casualty to the Minimum Improvements,
litigation commenced by third parties which, hy injunction or other similar judicial action,
directly rcsults in delays, or acts of any federal, state, or local governmental unit (other than the
Authority in exercising its rights under this Agreement) which directly result in delays.
Unavoidable Delays shall not include delays in the Developer's obtaining of permits or
governmental approvals necessary to enable construction of the Minimum Improvements by the
dates such construction is required under Section 4.3 of this Agreement.
.
.
LMT-240li30v I
MN190-111
5
.
.
.
ARTICLE HI
Acquisition of Property; Financial Assistance
Section 3.]. Status of the Develop~ent Property. As of the date of this Agreement, the
Developer has either purchased or entered into a purchase agreement with a third party for all of
the parcels comprising the Development Property. The Authority shall have no obligation to
purchase the Development Property or any portion thereof. The Developer shall, at its cost,
obtain approval by the City of any plat and planned unit development required by the City in
connection with development of the Development Property in accordance with this Agreement.
Section 3.2. Soil Conditio,!s. (a) The Developer acknowledges that the Authority makes
no representations or warranties as to the condition of the soils on the Development Property or
its fitness for construction of the Minimum Improvements or any other purpose for which the
Developer may make use of such property. The Developer further agrees that it will protect,
indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the Authority, the City, and their governing body
members, officers, agents, and employees, from any claims or actions arising out of: (i) the
presence, if any, of hazardous wastes or pollutants on the Development Property, including but
not limited to toxic or hazardous substances or wastes, pollutants, or contaminants (including,
without limitation, asbestos, urea formaldehyde, the group of organic compounds known as
polychlorinated biphenyls, petroleum products including gasoline, fuel oil, crude oil and various
constituents of such products, and any hazardous substances as defined in the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 ("CERCLA") 42 U.S.C. ~~
960] -9657, as amended); (ii) the status of the Development Property as a treatment, storage, or
disposal facility within the meaning of, or other status of the Development Property within the
ambit of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 ("RCRA"), 42 U.S.C. S 6901 ~1
~~., or any similar federal or state law or regulation, or local ordinance; (iii) a release or
threatened release of toxic or hazardous wastes or substances, pollutants or contaminants, from
the Development Property within the meaning of, or other status of the Development Property
within the ambit of CERCLA, or any similar federal or state law or local ordinance, (iv) the
discharge of pollutants or effluents into any water source or system or the dredging or filling of
any waters or the discharge into the air of any emissions, that, as the case may be, would require
a permit under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.c. S 125] et seq., or the Clean
Air Act, 42 U.S.c. S 7401 et seq., or any similar federal or state law or local ordinance; (v) any
other elaim or cause of action under RCRA, CERCLA, or any other federal, state, or local
environmental statute, regulation, ordinance, or other environmental regulatory requirement,
including but not limited to the Minnesota Environmental Response and Liability Act, Minn~sota
Statute~, Chapter 1158 ("MERLA") and the Minnesota Petroleum and Release Cleanup Act,
Minnesota ~!atutes, Chapter IlsC.
(b) The Developer's obligations under this Section 3.2 shall survive termination of
this Agreement for any reason, including but not limited to by reason of lilY failure by either
party to satisfy the conditions precedent set forth in Section 3.8.
EMT-240630v I
MN190-111
8
.
Section 3.3. Payment of Administrative C00t~. The Developer agrces that it will pay
upon demand by the Authority, Administrative Costs (as hcreafter defined). For thc purposes of
this Agrcement, the tcrm "Administrative Costs" means out-of-pocket costs incurred by the
Authority and attributablc to or incurred in connection with the ncgotiation and preparation of
this Agreement and other documcnts and agreements in connection with thc development
contemplated hereunder. Out-of..pocket Administrative Costs shall be evidenced by invoices,
statements, or other reasonable written evidcnce of the costs incurrcd by the Authority. As of the
datc of this Agrccment, the Developer has depositcd $5,000 with the Authority ($2,000 being the
amount remaining from a prior dcposit in connection with a previous redevelopmcnt and $3,000
deposited under thc Preliminary Agreement) to bc applied toward Administrative Costs. If the
Authority's actual Administrative Costs exceed thc amount on deposit, Rcdeveloper remains
obligated to pay such additional amounts upon demand by the Authority. If thc Authority's
actual Administrativc Costs are less than the amount on dcposit, the Authority shall, upon
dcmand by the Dcveloper, returncd such excess to thc Developer, but no earlicr than the date on
which the Developer rcceives a Certificate of Completion for all the Minimum Improvcments
...[" pursuant to Scction 4.4 of this Agreement. As of the date of this Agreement, Administrative
..{; Costs arc estimated to total approximately $5,000 but the Authority makes no warranty
that actual Administrative Costs will not be more or less than this amount. This Section 3.3 shall
survivc any termination of this Agreement for any reason.
.
Section 3.4. Land Acquj~ition Costs. In ordcr to make developmcnt of the Minimum
;r I.m~.~(~:cments_ econ?mically feasib~e, thc A~thori~y. :vill ,reimburse t~le Developer for up to
$2K"J)00282,)()() ot the Developcr s cost of acquIsItIon tor any portIOn of the Development
Property acquired by Rcdeveloper after the date of this Agreemcnt (the "Land Acquisition
Costs"). The parties acknowledge that the Authority will finance such reimburscment with
proceeds of the TIF Bonds, all in accordancc with the following terms:
'f< (a), The .A,uth.ority will disbu~se $157~(~iJ(}157 ,500 (the "First Disbursement") upon the
Developer s sattstactIOn of the followmg condItIOns:
(i) receipt and approval by the Authority's executive dircctor of a copy of
purchase agreements for the parcels of the Developmcnt Property to be reimburscd and a
copy of thc certificate of value from closing on that acquisition, showing Land
Acquisition Cost in at Icast the amount to be disbursed;
(ii) the Authority having approved Developer's financing for the Minimum
Improvements in accordance with Article VII;
(iii) thc Authority having approved construction plans for the Minimum
Improvements in accordance with Articlc IV, and the City having approved any plat and
planned unit developmcnt necessary to construct the Minimum Improvemcnts;
(iv) the Developcr having demolished all existing structures on the Development
Property, cleared the site, and commenced construction of at least the duplex portion of
the Minimum Improvements (for the purposes of this Scction, "commencement" means
.
FMT-24063Uv I
MNI<)O-lll
9
.
installation of footings, foundations or other visible improvements beyond excavation
and grading);
[(v) The Developer must have obtained approval from the Authority and the City
of a parking and traHic plan satisfactory in the sole respective judgment of the Authority
and the City, such plan to provide for at least adequate unrestricted parking spaces on the
block on which the Development Property is located and fully cxecuted easements and
other agreemcnts allowing for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the
parking spaces and egresses and ingresses to the block on which thc Devclopment
Property is located; ] and
(vi) there is no uncured Event of Default.
""-v (b) The Authority will disburse $125,000 (the "Second Disbursement") upon the
-""J' Developer's satisfaction ofthe following conditions:
(i) the conditions set forth in (a) were and continue to be met;
(ii) receipt and approval by the Authority's executive director of a copy of
purchase agrcements for the parcels of the Development Propcrty to be rcimbursed and a
copy of the certificate of value from closing on that acquisition, showing Land
Acquisition Costs in at least the amount to be disbursed, and in excess of the amount
disbursed under paragraph (a), and
.
(iii) the relocation of the utility pole on the Development Property has occurred
to the satisfaction of the City;
(iv) the duplex portion of the Minimum Improvements has been substantially
completed, as determined in accordance with Article IV,;nfj4
(v )(he Rcdeycl(lp~r. h~lS. (lcP()~itcd\NjthJbeAlJtllority alljrrevQcab I cmb<lllkJ.Gttef()f
crecUt in .tht; aIn9~!n.t..or$...J2~,()..00 inn t~)rfl"dcceptablt;Jo thGAlIthority,gr<lIt~flltltivc
.... ..".
~ecurity <lccgpt<lblc to .the Aqth()rity,whic;h. Iegt;l'o(credit ~~c;urcs Rcdeyelop~r'~
obi igt1Jion t()completcC()ll~trLlGtiqn()f <11 LJh~Mjl1imllm IITlProvt;ll1cnt~mas rcquircdlln~ler
Article I V]1creoC
(c) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, no disbursements will be made
under this Section after June 30, 2004, and if the conditions for making either the First
Disbursement or the Second Disbursement are not met by that date, the Authority has nOH1{)
further obligation to reimburse Developer for any undisbursed amounts under this Section.
(d) The total principal amount of the First Disbursement (the "Principal Amount") shall
be treated as a loan, repayable to the Authority in accordance with the following terms and
conditions:
.
EMT-240630v I
MN190-111
]0
t
(i) The Principal Amount shall be repaid, together with interest thereon on at then
rate of intGrGstthat is thGgrcater of rate of 6.5% per annum QrtllcrntGrejJ(;ctingthcJl"lIe
i nterestmcQst of long:tcnn bondsmis~lJedt()rcf\ll1(ltll(;tclnPQI'<lry.."11];'13(lnds,JleGXlled from
the date of the First Disbursement ("First Disbursemcnt Date"), in semi-annual
installments payable on each August I and February ], commencing r;'ebruaryAugll~l I,
:~0072()()6 and continuing through /-\ugustl.'t;hruary 1, 20212022 (each a "Payment
Datc"). \',,11f('1-1. 'I'be paymcnts shall be in the amounts set forth in Exhibit 13 hcrcto,
proy idcd tj1atupq n .. is?~I(llleG.. ()f tj1t;Ipng: teI'1T1'1'IFBon~1?,...ExhilJi~ .~..... wi 11m1)(;reyised. to
rc 11 eGt . the adjustmentmillin terc~J rate if thGJr~~(;millterc~t cost ()ntl1(;) 'I FJ3gr14~i?g rGcllcJ
than/1,5%.
.
(ii) Payments shall be applied first to accrued intercst and then to unpaid
principal. Interest accruing from the first Disburscment Datc to the first payment datc
will be compounded semiannually on cach February ] and August 1 and added to the
Principal Amount.
(iii) The partics agree and understand that the amount of Available Tax
Increment received by the Authority as of any Paymcnt Datc shall bc credited as a
paymcnt by and on behalf of the Developer under this Section. The tcrm "A vailablc Tax
Incrcment" mcans 90% of the Tax Increment with respect to the Development Property
as caIculatcd by the County and paid to the Authority during thc six months preceding
any Payment Date.
.
(iv) If on any Paymcnt Date the amount of Available Tax Increment is
insufficient to pay the amount due on that Payment Datc, the Devcloper shall pay to the
f Authority, within ]0 days of written demand by the Authority, an amount equal to the
. diffcrcnce betwecn the amount payable under Exhibit B and the Available Tax Incrcment
actually receivcd by the Authority as of that Payment Date. Thc Developcr hereby
acknowledges that the amount of Available Tax Increment is subject to change in State
law and calculation by the State and County and that any such variation shall not impair
the Authority's rights or the Developer's obligations hereunder. The Dcveloper agrccs
and understands that Available Tax Increment is subject to calculation by the County and
change in State law. The Devcloper further agrees and undcrstands that estimates of
A vailable Tax Increment provided by the Authority and its agcnts, officers, or employees
are estimates only and not intended for the Developer's reliance.
(v) The Authority may, at its option, treat any Available Tax Incremcnt rcceived
in excess of the amount due on any Payment Date as a prepayment of the Principal
Amount and interest thcreon, provided that such prepayment shall not altcr the timing or
amounts otherwise due as set forth in Exhibit B. The Authority will notify the Developer
in writing promptly after clecting any such prepayment.
(vi) The Authority makes no warranties or representations that Available Tax
Increment will be sufficient to pay the Principal Amount.
.
LMT-240630v I
MN190-111
11
.
.
.
Section 3.5. !Jse of Tax Increme,nt. Except as set forth herein, the Authority shall have
no obligation to the Dcveloper with regard to its use of Tax Increment and may use Tax
Increment and for any lawful purposes, whether set forth herein or otherwise.
EMT-24U630v I
MN190-111
12
.
.f
.
ARTICLE IV
Construction of Minimum.Improvements
Section 4.1. Construction ofImpro~ents. The Developer agrees that it will construct
the Minimum Improvements on the Development Property in accordance with the approved
Construction Plans and will operate and maintain, preserve and keep the Minimum
Improvements or cause them to be maintained, preserved and kept with the appurtenances and
every part and parcel thereoC in good repair and condition. The Authority shall not have any
obligation to operate or maintain the Minimum Improvements.
Section 4.2. Construction Plans. (a) Before the First Disbursement of Land Acquisition
Costs under Section 3.4 hereof, the Developer shall submit to the Authority Construction Plans.
The Construction Plans shall provide for the construction of the Minimum Improvements and
shall be in conformity with the Redevelopment Plan, this Agreement, and all applicable State and
local laws and regulations. The Authority will approve the Construction Plans in writing if: (i)
the Construction Plans conform to tlletcm1.s and conditions of this Agreement; (ii) the
Construction Plans conform to the goals and objectives of the Redevelopment Plan; (iii) the
Construction Plans conform to all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules and
regulations; (iv) the Construction Plans arc adequate to provide for construction of the Minimum
I mprovements; (v) the Construction Plans do not provide for expenditures in excess of the funds
available to the Developer from all sources for construction of the Minimum Improvements; and
(vi) no Evcnt of Default has occurred. Approv~ way be based upon a review by the City's
Building Official of the Construction Plans. No a.l?Eroval by the Authority shall relieve the
Developer of the obI igation to comply with the terms of this Agreement or of the Redevelopment
Plan, applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules and regulations, or to construct
the Minimum Improvements in accordance therewith. No approval by the Authority shall
constitute a waiver of an Event of Default. If approval of the ConStiUctlon Plans is requested by
the Developer in writing at the time of submission, such Construction Plans shall be deemed
approved unless rejected in writing by the Authority, in whole or in part. Such rejections shall
set forth in detail the reasons therefore, and shall be made within 10 days after the date of their
receipt by the Authority. If the Authority rejects any Construction Plans in whole or in part, the
Developer shall submit new or corrected Construction Plans within 10 days after written
notification to the Developer of the rejection. The provisions of this Scction relating to approval,
rejection and resubmission of corrected Construction Plans shall continue to apply until the
Construction Plans have been approved by the Authority. The Authority's approval shall not be
unreasonably withheld. Said approval shall constitute a conelusive determination that the
Construction Plans (and the Minimum Improvements constructed in accordance with said plans)
comply to the Authority's satisfaction with the provisions of this Agreement relating thereto.
(b) If the Developer desires to make any Material change in the Construction Plans
aftcr their approval by the Authority, the Developer shall submit the proposed change to the
Authority for its approval. If the Construction Plans, as modified by the proposed change,
conform to the requirements of this Section 4.2 of this Agreement with respect to such
previously approved Construction Plans, the Authority shall approve the proposed change and
EMT-240630v I
MN190-lll
13
.
notify the Developer in writing of its approval. Such changc in the Construction Plans shall, in
any event, be deemed approved by the Authority unless rejected, in whole or in part, by written
notice by thc Authority to the Developer, setting forth in detail the reasons therefor. Such
rejcction shall be made within ten (10) days after receipt of the notice of such changc. The
Authority's approval of any such change in the Construction Plans will not be unrcasonably
withheld.
~
Scction 4.3. Commencement and Cgmplctjon of Construs:tion. Subject to Unavoidable
Delays, the Developer shall commence construction of the duplex portion of the Minimum
Improvcments by May 1, 2004, and shall substantially complete the construction of all the
Minimum Improvements by October I, 2006. All work with respect to the Minimum
Improvements to be constructcd or provided by thc Devcloper on the Development Property
shall be in conformity with the Construction Plans as submitted by the Dcvelopcr and approved
by the Authority.
.
Thc Developer agrecs for itself, its successors and assigns, and every successor in intercst
to the Dcvelopmcnt Propcrty, or any part thereof, that the Dcvelopcr, and such successors and
assigns, shall promptly begin and diligcntly prosecutc to completion the development of the
Development Property through the construction of thc Minimum Improvements thereon, and that
such construction shall in any event be commenced and completed within the period specified in
this Section 4.3 of this Agreement. The obligation to construct the Minimum Improvements in
accordance with this Section touches and conccrns the land, and shall run with the property and
be binding upon all successors and assigns to the Devclopmcnt Property. After the date of this
Agrcement and until construction of the Minimum Improvemcnts has becn complcted, thc
Dcveloper shall make reports, in such detail and at such times as may reasonably bc requestcd by
the Authority, as to the actual progress of the Dcveloper with respect to such construction.
Section 4.4. Certjficate of Completion. (a) Promptly after completion of the Minimum
Improvements (or any individual unit thercof, at Developer's request) in accordancc with thosc
)f'\~'- ' provisions of the Agreemcnt relating solely to thc obligations of the Developer to construct the
_ Minimum Improvemcnts (including the dates for beginning and completion thereof), the
\' Authority wi1l furnish the Developer with a Certificate shown as Exhibit C. Such certification
and such detcrmination shall not constitute evidence of compliance with or satisfaction of any
obligation of the Dcveloper to any Holder of a Mortgagc, or any insurer of a Mortgage, sccuring
money loaned to finance the Minimum Improvements, or any part thcreof.
(b) If the Authority shall refuse or fail to provide any certification in accordance with
the provisions of this Section 4.4 of this Agreement, the Authority shall, within thirty (30) days
after written rcquest by the Developer, provide the Dcvelopcr with a written statement,
indicating in adequatc detail in what respects the Developcr has failed to complete thc Minimum
Improvemcnts in accordance with the provisions of thc Agrccment, or is otherwise in dcfault,
and what mcasurcs or acts it will be necessary, in the opinion of the Authority, for the Dcveloper
to take or pcrf()rm in order to obtain such certification.
(c) The construction of any unit of the Minimum Improvcments will dccmed to be
. substantially completc upon issuance of a ccrtificate of occupancy by the City for that unit, and
EMT-240630v I
MN190-lll
14
.
.
.
the entire Minimum Improvements will he deemed to be substantially complete upon issuance of
a certificate of occupancy for all units, and determination by the Authority that all site
improvement and landscaping have been completed to the reasonable satisfaction of the
Authority.
Section 4.5. Records. The Authority and the City through any authorized
representatives, shall have the right at all reasonable times after reasonable notice to inspect,
examine and copy all books and records of Redeveloper relating to the Minimum Improvements.
Redeveloper shall also use best efforts to cause the contractor or contractors, all suh-contractors
and their agents, and lenders to make their books and records relating to the Project to the
Authority and City, upon reasonable notice, for inspection, examination and audit. Such records
shall be kept and maintained by Redeveloper through the Maturity Date.
LMT-2406JOv I
MN190.lll
15
ARTICLE VI
.
Tax Incrcmt:pt; Taxes
Section 6.1. Right to ~,~ollect Delinqu"~.nt Taxes. The Developer acknowledges that the
Authority is providing substantial aid and assistance in furtherance of the development. The
Developer understands that the tax increment intended to pay expenses of the Authority and the
Developer are derived from real estate taxes on the Development Property, which taxes must be
promptly and timely paid. To that end, the Developer agrees for itself, its successors and
assigns, in addition to the obligation pursuant to statute to pay real estate taxes, that it is also
obligated by reason of this Agreement to pay before delinquency all real estate taxes assessed
against the Development Property and the Minimum Improvements. The Developer
acknowledges that this obi igation creates a contractual right on behalf of the Authority to sue the
Developer or its successors and assigns to collect delinquent real estate taxes and any penalty or
interest thereon and to pay over the same as a tax payment to the County auditor. In any such
suit, the Authority shall also be entitled to recover its costs, expenses, and attorney fees.
.
Section 6.2. Revie_w of Taxes. The Developer agrees that prior to the Maturity Date it
will not cause a reduction in the real property taxes paid in respeet of the Development Property
through: (A) willful destruction of the Development Property or any part thereof; or (8) willful
refusal to reconstruct damaged or destroyed property pursuant to Section 5.1 of this Agreement,
except as provided in Section 5.1 (e). The Developer also agrees that it wi II not, prior to the
Maturity Date, seek exemption from property tax for the Development Property or any portion
thereof or transfer or permit the transfer of the Development Property to any entity that is exempt
from real property taxes and state law (other than any portion thereof dedicated or conveyed to
the City in accordance with platting of the Development Property), or apply for a deferral of
property tax on the Development Property pursuant to any law.
Section 6.3. Assessn}~nt Agreemerg. (a) Upon of this Agreement, the Developer shall,
* with the Authority, exe~l~t~ an Assessme,' nt Agr~~ment pursuant to Minneso~,a ~t~tutes, Section
469.177, subd. 8, speclfymg an assessor's m1l11mum market value (the M1I11mum Market
Value") for the Development Property and the Minimum Improvements constructed thereon.
The amount of the Minimum Market Value shall be $m__J,850,OO() as of January 2,
2005 and each January 2 thereafter through the Maturity Date.
(b) The Assessment Agreement shall be substantially in the form attached hereto as
Exhibit C. Nothing in the Assessment Agreement shall limit the discretion of the assessor to
assign a market value to the property in excess of the Minimum Market Value. The Assessment
Agreement shall remain in force for the period specified in the Assessment Agreement. The
Developer shall cause the Assessment Agreement to be consented to by any Holder of a
Mortgage.
~ Section 6.4. Qualifications. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, the parties
acknowledge and agree that the provisions of Sections 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 hereof shall not apply to a
. residential unit within the Minimum Improvements from and after the date that such unit is
FMT-240630vl
MN190-111
18
.
.
.
substantially completed and sold to an owner-occupant. The Assessment Agreement shall
include a termination provision substantially rdlecting the terms of this paragraph.
EMT-240630vl
MN190-111
19
ARTICLE VII
.
Finan<:ing
Section 7.1. Mortgage Financing. (a) Before the first Disbursement of Land Acquisition
Costs under Section 3.4 hereof, the Developer shall submit to the Authority evidence of one or
more commitments for mortgage financing which, together with committed equity for such
construction, is sufficient for the acquisition of the Development Property and constructing the
~inimum Improvements. Such commitments may be submitted as short term financing, long
tcrm mortgage financing, a bridge loan with a long term take-out financing commitment, or any
. combination of ~he foregoing. ~uch commitment or ~l:mmitments for short term or long. term
mortgage financmg shall be subject only to sueh condItIOns as are normal and customary 111 the
" mortgage banking industry.
.
(b) If the Authority tinds that the mortgage financing is sufficiently committed and
adequate in amount to provide fl)f acquiring the Development Property and constructing the
Minimum I mprovements then the Authority shall notify the Developer in writing of its approval.
Such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld and either approval or rejection shall be given
within thirty (30) days from the date when the Authority is provided the evidence of mortgage
financing. A failure by the Authority to respond to such evidence of mortgage financing shall be
deemed to constitute an approval hereunder. If the Authority rejects the evidence of mortgage
financing as inadequate, it shall do so in writing specifying the basis for the rejection. In any
event the Developer shall submit adequate evidence of mortgage financing within thirty (30)
days after sllch rejection.
Section 7.2. Auth_ority's Option_ to Cu~e Defa"ult on Mortgage. In the event that there
occurs a default under any Mortgage authorized pursuant to this Agreement, the Developer shall
cause the Authority to receive copies of any notice of default received by the Developer from the
holder of such Mortgage. Thereafter, thc Authority shall have the right, but not the obligation, to
cure any such default on behalf of the Developer within such cure periods as are available to the
Developer under the Mortgage documents.
.
EMT-240630v I
MNI9(J.lll
20
.
.
.
ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT
~
THIS AGREEMENT, made on or as of the _._ day of ,2003, and
between the HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTIIORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY
OF MONTICELLO, a public body corporate and politic (the "Authority") and MASTER'S
FIfTH AVENUE, INC., a Minnesota corporation (the "Developer").
WITNESSETH, that
WHEREAS, the Authority and the Developer entered into a Contract for Private
Development dated ..__' 2003 (the "Contract"), pursuant to which the Authority is to
facilitate development of certain property in the City of Monticello hereinafter referred to as the
"Property" and legally described in Exhibit A hereto; and
WIIEREAS, pursuant to the Contract the Developer will construct certain improvements
upon the Development Property (the "Minimum Improvcments"); and
WIIEREAS, the Authority and the Developer desire to establish a minimum market value
for thc Property and the improvements constructed thereon, pursuant to Minnesota~tatutes,
Section 469.177, Subdivision 8; and
WHEREAS, the Authority and the Assessor for Wright County (the "Assessor") have
reviewed the plans and specifications for the improvements and have inspected such
improvements;
NOW, TIIEREfORE, the parties to this Agreement, in consideration of the promises,
covenants and agreements made by each to the other, do hereby agree as fl)llows:
1 . The minimum market value which shall be assessed for ad valorem tax purposes
for the Property described in Exhibit A, together with the Minimum Improvements
constructed thereon, shall be $ ,\, 'b S~ ,0 ~ D as of January 2, 2005 notwithstanding the
progress of construction by such date, and as of each January 2 thereafter until termination of
this Agreement; .l1rovided, however, that upon initial sale of any residential unit to an owner-
occupant, the minimum market value herein established shall be of no further forcc or effect
as to thc unit so transferred, and the minimum market value for the remaining Property shall
be dcemed to have been reduced by the estimated market valuc (as determined by the
Assessor) of the unit transfcrred. Upon such sale, the Authority will deliver to the
Redeveloper or unit purchaser an instrument in recordable form that releases the unit from
any encumbrance creatcd by this Agreement.
? The minimum market value herein established shall be of no further force and
effect and this Agreement shall terminate on the Maturity Date as defined in Contract.
3. This Agreement shall be promptly rccorded by the Authority. The Redeveloper
shall pay all costs of recording.
FMT.240630v I
MNI'iO-lll
.
.
.
4. Neither the prcambles nor provisions of this Agreement are intended to, nor shall
they be construed as, modifying the terms of the Redevelopment Contract between the Authority
and the Redeveloper.
5. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the successors
and assigns of the parties.
6. Each of the parties has authority to enter into this Agreement and to take all
actions required of it, and has taken all actions necessary to authorize the execution and delivery
of this Agreement.
7. In the event any provIsIOn of this Agreement shall be held invalid and
unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not invalidate or render
unenforceable any other provision hereof.
8. The parties hereto agree that they will, from timc to time, execute, acknowledgc
and deliver, or cause to be executed, acknowledged and delivered, such supplements,
amendments and modifications hereto, and such further instruments as may reasonably be
requircd fix correcting any inadequate, or incorrect, or amcnded description of the Property or
the Minimum Improvements or for carrying out the expressed intcntion of this Agreement,
including, without limitation, any further instruments required to delete from the description of
the Propcrty such part or parts as may be included within a separatc assessment agreement.
9. Except as provided in Section 8 of this Agreemcnt, this Agrecment may not be
amended nor any of its terms modificd cxcept by a writing authorized and executed by all parties
hereto.
10. This Agreement may be simultaneously executed in several countcrparts, each of
which shall be an original and all of which shall constitute but one and the same instrument.
11. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws
of the State of Minnesota.
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY IN AND FOR TilE
CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
By:
EMT-240630v I
MN 190-111
.
.
.
Its Chair
By:
- ..
Its Exccutive Director
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUN'rY OF WRIGHT )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~_ day of ,
2003, by _. .. .__ and Olive Koropchak, the Chair and Exccutive
Director of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Monticello,
Minnesota, on behalf of the Authority.
Notary Public
LMT -240630v I
MNI9().111
.
.
.
MASTER'S FIFTH AVENUE, INC.
By:
Its:
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF WRIGHT )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _._ day of
____, 2003, by _______,-' the __ of
Master's Fi fth A venue, Inc. a Minnesota corporation, on behalf of the corporation.
Notary Public
FMT.2406,Ov 1
MNl'iO-lll
.
.
.
CONSENT AND SllBORDINA TION
The undcrsigned, as holder of that ccrtain Mortgagc, Sccurity Agrcemcnt and Fixture
Financing Statement given by thc Dcveloper dated _.___-- and filed
_ .__.___ in thc office of the Wright County Recordcr as Document
No. __ (the "Mortgage") hereby consents to thc forgoing Assessment Agrcement
bctween the Authority and the Developer, and agrees that the Mortgage is in all respects subject
and subordinate to the terms of the Asscssment Agreement.
By:
Its:
"-_.,'-_._.~-~_.-'-
By:
Its:
_._.~~.~~
STATE OF MINNESOTA
)
) SS.
)
COUNTY OF
Thc foregoing instrument
__---' 2003 by
was acknowledged before me
and
this
day of
, the
, on
of
~,~~~-~.,.
and
behalf of the bank.
--
Notary Publie
FMT-240630v I
MNI'i()-lll
.
.
.
CERTIFICATION BY COUNTY ASSESSOR
The undersigned, having reviewed the plans and specifications for the improvements to
be constructed and the market value assigned to the land upon which the improvements are to be
constructed, hereby certifies as follows: The undersigned Assessor, being legally responsible for
the assessment of the above described property, hereby certifies that the values assigned to the
land and improvements are reasonable.
County Assessor for the County of Wright
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss
COUNTY OF WRIGHT )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of ___
2003 by __.__' the County Assessor of the County of Wright.
_."_....,-,.._-^._~'.'-,.__..."_.
Notary Public
LMT-2401i30v I
MN190-lll
.
i-
---"'--
I. .
.
,..ii"....., -
-f!;' "~~'>
'~" , ",~,,:"
,f
,.it,.
:r:~
*
;t
"
,~,
.
';ADDWG\1 0319LS2\Study2\A03.1.DWG, 24x36-CLR, 11/07/200: ,55:57 PM, sta26a
f~
, I
~
<<:-
r-
U)
~
:.::0
rTl
rTl
~
UNIT)
02
o
I
-.J
..J:>.ICN
[
~
CN
1
Cl....
j
U)
~
::::0
fTl
ITl
~
r-- .. ~-
'l'
'"
~ ~I ~I ~
Ii
1; ~
O"UJ
~ ~~
!IO''''' {j\
;-n
""...,.
-,
~n
~
~n
~
{j\
:-n
1lO'..,'
!IO'''''
Jri..r ~
~
;1 ~
!IO''''' ~
-r
-
t
~II
Ii
tl
Ii
-r
t\4CO"
r------,
t
.
.
.
HRA Agenda -12/03/03
6.
Continued - Consideration to hear updates on potential TIF District No. 1-22
pro i ects:
A. Redevelopment of a portion of Block 52 - Steve Johnson.
It was reported at the last HRA meeting that all Block 52 property owners were contacted
or an attempt was made. Kathy froslie did call the office of the HRA to check on her
options for redevelopment or funding. She was informed the progress starts by bringing a
proposed project before the HRA, the date of the next HRA meeting, and advised of the
June 30, 2004 date for expenditures within TIF District No. 1-22.
I have not heard from Steve Johnson, McComb Group, or Metro Plains since the last
HRA meeting. I will attend the Planning Commission meeting of December 2 as the
Public Hearing for Comp Plan amendment is on the agenda as well as Landmark Square
Phase" project. If received in time, the agenda supplement for the Planning
Commission as prepared by Planner Steve Grittman will be attached.
Again, as a reminder, is the time frame for projects within TIF District No. 1-22.
Following the meeting at Ehlers in Novemher, Ehlers suggested if the Block 52 project
moves forward: I. Purchase price of the City/HRA lots be of equal ratio as the Johnson
property. 2. Assist project with tax increment generated by the project if need
demonstrated.
lIRA options:
I. Agree or not agree to sell the HRA lot.
2. Authorize or not authorize use of tax increment generated by the project.
3. Offer to buyout Johnson and later solicit RFP. (HRA obligated to relocation
benefits.)
4. No additional projects, payoff district bonds early. Perhaps new district can be
established in the future.
5. Lobby for extension of five-year activity rule for TIF District No. 1-22.
B. Redevelooment of a portion of Block 36.
Rruce Hamond has requested to appear before the HRA. Last month, I reported he was
mailed information relative to qualifying for 'I'll' assistance. Ifhe can make the finding
his existing huilding is "structurally substandard" as defined by the MN Statutes and
provides evidence for the "hut for" test, the HRA could consider assisting with costs
associated with redevelopment portion not the new construction.
HRA Agenda - 12/03/03
.
Attached facade concept fCJr existing and new structure along West Broadway and
Redcvclopment District qualifications.
C. Discussion and action whether to lobby for extension of the 5-year activity
rule for TIF District No. 1-22.
As you recall, the Monticello Chamber of Commcrce is a non-profit organization with
lobbying powcr and assisted the HRA/City with its cfforts to cxtend thc S-year activity
rule for 1'1 F District No. 1-22 in 2003. As the liaison mcmbcr bctwccn the City (IDC)
and Chamber, the board mcmbers asked if the HRA would again introduce this bill. My
response to theChamber board was: It was doubtful the HRA would introduce the bill
again in 2004 for the fc)lIowing rcasons: 1. The environment of our local legislators and
local downtown property owners has not changed. 2. Since TIF bills get attached to thc
Tax Bill which is gcncrally the last to be approved by the House/Senate, there is no
guarantcc an cnacted bill would meet the HRA dcadlinc datc. 3. Thc lIRA spend nearly
$6,000 in lobbying efforts in 2003. The Chamber board rcqucstcd thc lIRA discuss and
take action whether it plans to introduce the S-year activity rule bill in 2004.
1. A motion to introduce a bill in 2004 requesting the extension the 5-year
activity rule for TIF Distriet No. 1-22.
.
2.
A motion to no interest to introduce a hill in 2004 requesting the extension
the 5-year aetivity rule for TIF District No. 1-22.
.
2
.
.
.
\,~.
SCHEDULF: BLOCK 52
REDEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE
December 3 lIRA meeting - Finance Plan submitted.
January 7 HRA meeting -
March 3 HRA meeting -
April 7 I-IRA meeting -
!\1ay 5 HRA meeting -
June 30. 2004 -
Site Plan submitted.
Site control.
Developer demonstrates financing commitments.
Contract for Private Redevelopment between developer(s) and
HRA executed.
HRA authorizes issuance of Permanent Bonds.
All eligible TIF expenditures must be spent.
Ct> \2 ('.e- S
~o
G CYvk
~
~ <Yvyytn '-. c::L
\y~-'
.
Subsection 23-4. Redevelopment Plan Overview
1. Property to be Acquired - Selected propeny located within District No. 1-22 may be
acquired by the City or HRA and is further described this Plan.
.., Relocation - Complete relocation services are available pursuant to Minnesota Statutes.
Chapter 117 and other relevant state and federal laws.
3. Upon approval of the developer's plan relating to the project and completion of the
necessary legal requirements. the City or HRA may sell to the developer selected
properties that they may acquire within District No. 1-22 or may lease land or facilities to
the developer.
4. The City or HRA may perform or provide for some or all necessary acquisition,
construction. reloc;:ltion. demolition. and required utilities and public streets work within
District :-.io. 1-22.
Subsection 23-5.
District No. 1-22 encompasses all property and adjacent rights-of-way identified by the parcels as illustrated
on the map in Appendix A and listed in Appendix B.
Subsection 23-6. Classification of Tax Increment Financine District No. 1-22
The City and HRA. in detennining the need to create a tax increment financing district in accordance with
Minnesota Statutes, Sections -1.69.17-1. to 469.179. as amended, inclusive, find rhac Tax Increment Financing
District No. 1-22. to be esrablished, is a redevelopment district pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections
469.174. Subdivision 1 O(a)(]) as defined below:
.
'f- (a)
*(bJ
.
:1
Cily of Monnce"o
"Redevelopment district" means a type of tax increment financing district consisting of
a project, or ponions of a project. within which the authority finds by resollltion that one
of the fOllowing conditions. reasonably distributed throughout the district, exists:
( 1) parcels consisting of 70 percent of the area in the district are occupied by
bllildings. streets. utilities. or other improvements and more than 50 percent of the
buildings. not including outbuildings. are structurally substandard to a degree
requiring substantial renovation or clearance; or
(2) The property consists of vacant, unused. underl/sed, inappropriately used. or
infrequently used railyards. rail storage facilities or excessive or vacated railroad
rights.of-1my.
For purposes of this subdivision, "structurallv substandard" shall mean containing defects in
stTllctllral elements or a combination of deficiencies in essentialwilities and facilities. light and
ventilation. fire protection including adequate egress. la-:.'out and condition of interior partitions.
or similar factors. a'hich defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to JUStify
substantial renovation or clearance.
A building is not Str/lcturally 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 cost of less than /5
T;u Incremenl F,n;mcing PI;m for Tax Increment Fill:l.nc,ng Districl No. 1.22
2).2
.
.
.
percent of rhe cost of consrrucring a new srructure of th~ same square footage and ryp~ on the
site. The municipality may find rhat a building is not disqualified as structuraily substandard
ulZder the preceding sentence on rhe basis of reasonably available evidence. such as the size,
type. and age of the bui/ding. rhe average cost of plumbing, decrrical. or structural repairs or
orher similar reliable evidence. If rhe evidence suppons a reasonable conclusion that the
building is nor disqualified as stmcwraily mbsrandard. rhe municipality may make such a
determination \1:irhollt an interior inspection or an independent. expen appraisal of the cost of
repair and rehabiliwtion of rhe building...
(c)
For purposes of rhis subdivision, a parcel is not occupied by buildings. streets, utilities or other
improvements unril 15 percent of the area of rhe parcel contains improvements.
In m~eting the SL1tutory criteria described Jbove, the City and HRA rely on the following facts and findings:
. An inventory of the parcels shows that at least 70 percent of the parcels in District No. 1-22 are
occupied as defined in the TrF Act. An inspection of the buildings loc:lted within District No. 1-22
finds that more than 50 percent of the buildings ate structurally substandard as defined in the TIF Act
(See Appendix E for detailed findings).
Subsection 23-7. Orieinal Tax Capacity and Tax Rate
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174. Subdivision 7 and Sections 469.177. Subdivision 1. the
Original Net Tax Capacity (ONTC) as certified for District No. 1-22 is based on the market values placed on
the property by the assessor in 1996 for taxes payable 1997. Pursuant to Sections 469.177, Subds. 1 and 2,
of the TIF Act. the County Auditor shall certify in each year (beginning in the payment year 1999) the amount
by which the original value h:lS increased or decreased as a result of a change in tax-exempt prop~rty within
District No. 1-22, reduction or enlargement of District No. 1-22 or changes in connection with previously
issued building permits. In any year in which the current Net Tax Capacity value of District No. 1-22 declines
below the ONTC, no value will be captured and no tJ.'( increment will be payable to the City or HR.A..
The County Auditor shall certify in each year after the date the ONTC was certified (beginning in payment
year 1999), the amount the ONTC has increased or decreased as a result of:
l.
change in tJ.'( exempt status of property:
reduction or enlargem~nt of the geographic boundaries of the district:
change due to adjustments. negotiated or court-ordered abatements:
ch:mge in the use of the property J.nd classification: or
change in state law governing class rates.
-,
3.
-+.
5.
The original local tax rate for District ~o. 1-22 will be the locJI tax rate for taxes payable 1997.
Th~ OriginJ.1 Tn Cap::lcity Jnd the Original Local TJ.x Rate for District ~o. 1-22 ::lppear in the t::lbk below.
Original Tax Capacity Value
Percent Retained by Authority
Original Tax Rate
SI.293,033 (estimate)
100%
1.10581 (estimate)
CllY of \lonlICcllo
Tll In,n:menl Fin:m~lng Pl:m for Tll Incremenl FinanCing Dlstncl :-10 I <!:!
:!J.]
r.------ "--'--. --. .-' .....~.~--
~,~.._~--~ ,
,,0-,9 ,,8-,2: ~
,0-,
.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/
I
'-
o
o
l;::
'0
C
_uN.
I
.
.
I
,
'- '
81
li= ,
...... '
-~I
t~-'4~
, ,
"&-'l~
'-I I
, I 0, ,
, , 0' ,
I I u..1 1
, . "'0 . ,
, , c' ,
I I NI I ,,0-,6
, I , ,
, , I .
I I I I
, . , I
, , , ,
-.. I I I
I I I
~
~ 0
~
~IIDD
IT]
J
10
o
.'
~
II
~
CO
-..
-r-
C
o
1:)
Q)
C/)
~
w
~ >'Z -
12~:E
a.."U -
>,coo
ro e ~
== aJ '_
-
'U-c::
roU)o
~~:;
EO
,8~
en
:>
ZW I
ocr
:x:i=:J
C9>:4:t) ~~
:In::UJ ~~
i1iwt: t:iX
>-wJ: EZ
:5~o~ ~_~
ua..~_ c'5
U 1ii~
~I!!
~j
~1-
,
1
,
.
1
,
:
t- "lH L-,6 i'
'- '
8i si
q::: . q::: ,
-0' ......
~I ~I
, ,
. : .
o
-'
~
--. -JI
~
.,.-.
a
I
-
.,.-.
~I
CO
-..
~
MDO
~DD
c
o
.......
co
>
<1>
W
..c
.......
~
o
en
c
0
+:;
co "
>
Q)
W ,
'.
..c \
1:: ~
O'
Z
DO
__ WlI 1111111111111111111 1-__
I I In
November 7, 2003
MONTICELW
Mr. Bruce I-Jamond
1021 West River Street
Monticello, MN 55362
Dear Bruce:
Atthc HRA meeting in October, thc commissioners discussed your proposcd expansion and
revitalization project along West Broadway and were encouragcd to hear of the spin-off
redevelopmcnt for Block 36. They requested I forward information about tax increment
financing redevelopment districts to you to ensure a better understanding of the eligibility
requiremcnts. The attached is excerpts from the Downtown TIF District as it applies to the
. Minnesota Statutes and defines the meaning of "structurally substandard."
Should you have questions, please call me at 763-271-3208. The J-1RA meets the first
Wednesday of each month at 6:00 p.m. Should you \vish to bc on the agenda, please call me a
week to two weeks prior to the meeting. Thanks, Bruce.
Sincerely,
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
IN AND FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO
a~ \:.U\.'<.Jl~
Ollie Koropchak
Executive Director
Attachments
c: File
.
'---.-----.-'..."-- M~J;i-i~~II~;..CJ;yH;;]i~5()'5\v~-i~;\~t-Str~~t, Su i~-~ Ml;;;-;j~clJc;-' MN-5S3(;2~.R831-;-(763 )'295~2711 . F~~~' (7 6.))295~440-4---~--'-'---'
Office of Public Works, 909 Golf Course Rd., Monticello, MN '15362. (763) 295-3170. Fax: (763) 27] -3272
.
.
.
HRA Agenda - t 2/03/03
7.
Consideration to discuss concept for development of Ruff Auto parcel.
A. Reference and hackeround:
Mike Cyr, MLC Building and Remodeling, requested to be on the HRA agenda. In
preliminary discussion with staff at site review, Mr. Cyr inquired to street design and city
fees associated with development of the Ruff's Auto site to the east of Elm Street and
contiguous to his Vine Place Tl17 I-lousing District project. According to the Contract for
Private Development for the Vine Place project, the developer shall complete 12 town
houses by December 30,2003. A Certificate of Completion has been issued for 10 units
as of today.
Sometime ago Randy RufTinquired as to the availability ofTIF for re-mediation of the
Ruff's Auto property. Information was provided to meet the requirements ofa Soils TIF
District. Establishment ofa TIF District must occur prior to commencement of clean-up.
The City of Monticello applied for a Contamination Investigation Grant from MN DEED
for $49,575 which has been disbursed. A second grant for Contamination Cleanup in the
amount of $222,940 was awarded. Upon receiving 1/3 of the dollars from RufT, the
Contract will be executed and thereafter paid expenditures submitted to the State for
reimbursement.
Mr. Cyr may be requesting TIF assistance for acquisition and demolition of the Ruff
(green) house along Seventh Street. I have no further inf()[mation.
~
....
\
Monticello HRA
505 Walnut Avenue, Suite 1
Monticello, MN 55362
::;L00 o..-lYe-~
November 10, 2003
MC100-01
General
Invoice # 21486
Professional Services
Hours Amount
10/14/2003 MTR discussion Ollie 1-22
10/30/2003 TH Prepare analysis 0 Industrial Park
0.25
3.00
31.25
375.00
Total Due This Month:
3.25 $406.25
Status of Account:
Current
$406.25
30 Days .__. 60 Days
$0.00 $0.00
90 pays
$0.00
1~O+ Days
$0.00
Total
$406.25
.
?\'b
~\ C\ ~
L\ V ~O \ I
\0 c..
';).000-
r:-:-~ ~~)
~ J~tf~
~.
_......_;;~,.
PLEASE KEEP WHITE COPY FOR YOUR FILE AND REMIT PINK COPY WITH PA YMENT TO:
ri-~'-- ._~...... -., ",'" "'" "..... .......- "- .,..."._, c"-'--'.,
j~_lG ~:U_ it i
11 i I:, ' i I
H ~ :, 1'1: IV "1 ') ..
i'"'' .\" ,..
I r 1(::'T-'i':';~' :.-.......
L ,~".,J ~ t ,\ :,!. ;, 'i::
~._ ....._" "_,,........ .,'m" ""',.. ..'..>"., _._..;
.
EHLERS
& ASSOCIATES INC
3060 Centre Pointe Drive
Roseville, MN 55113.1105
651.697.8500
.
.
HRA Agenda - 12/03/03
9.
Economic Development Report:
a) Marketing Committee - Voted to partner with Chamber of Commerce for 1-94
billboard. Committee costs between $2,000-$3,000 for a three-month trial rental.
Chamber costs $1,350. The billboard will market the trumpeter swans as tourist
attraction.
Secondly, authorized one-year membership with US projects as a source for industrial
leads. Annual cost $675.
b) Otter Creek Crossing - Visited with cn Richard Ellis the other day. They are
marketi ng Ottcr Creek on behalf of Chadwick. Large grocer distribution user now
looking at Big Lake and Becker. Don't want freeway exposure, would purchase excess
land for berm. Time frame for decision: .lan, Feb, or March. No response to jobs, wages,
and trunk traffic.
c) Attached letter requesting close-out ofTIF Districts. At second thought, I would like
the HRA to authorize close-out of decertified TIF District Nos. 1-7, 1-8, 1-9, 1-11, I-
n, 1-16, and 1-18 and to recommend the reimbursed dollars from the County be
deposited in the Industrial Development Fund.
d) Wright County Economic Development Partnership - Mayor Thielen and
Administrator Wolfsteller attended the board meeting on November 21,2003, at UMe.
The Mayor gave an update of activities in Monticello.
e) 20,000 sq ft building - manufacturer of granite counter-tops looking to construct
between Albertville and Clearwater. This St. Cloud company decided to build outside
Waite Park per agent.
1) Community Development Assistant - An individual has accepted this position and will
start the first part of December.
g) Star Tribune Article - TCDe.
h) Big Lake Information as provided by Dick Van Allen.
i) Jeff and I met with a husband and wife development team looking at potential
redevelopment of a city block. This outside the TIr District No. 1-22 boundaries.
j) Copy of letter from Attorney Lindall relative to O'Connor business relocation benefits.
q,G
November 24, 2003
--
MONTICELLO
Rick Wolfstellcr, City Administrator
City of Monticello
505 Walnut Street, Suite 1
Monticello, MN 55362
Re: Close-out of decertified TlF Districts.
Dear Rick:
.
Per the recommendation of Mark Ruff, Ehlers & Associates, the I IRA request closing thc
f()llowing decertified TIf Districts in 2003. The Administration Expenses have been verified or
adjusted to meet 10(% of the actual incremcnt expenditures. Listed below arc each Tlf District,
decertification date, and tax increment balance to bc paid to the County of Wright prior to
Decembcr 31, 2003. Whcn the County reimburses thc City for its share, the HRA request the
funds be dcposited in the Industrial Development Reserve Fund. In the future, it is suggcsted to
allocate a portion ofHRA stalTtime for each TIF District as Administrative Expcnse, this to
maximize lOm;() of the allowable Administration Expense.
DECERTIfICA TION
DATE
TAX INCREMENT
BALANCE
TIF DISTRICT NO. (Countv)
1-7NAWCO(28)
03/27 /1997
$ 20,362
1-8 NSP (49)
05/12/1999
$ 22,097
1 ~9 Tappcr (59)
02/02/2000
$ 22,260
I-II Martie (60)
02/02/2000
$
63
1-12 Aroplax (65)
06/06/2001
$ 6,419
1-16 Polycast (77)
02/02/2000
$ 22,438
1-18 River Mill (618)
01/03/2001
$152,363
TOTAL
$246,002
.
Monticello City Hall, 505 Walnut Street, Suite I, Monticello, MN 55362-8R31 . (763) 295-2711 . Fax: (763) 295-4404
Office of Public Works, 909 Golf Course Rd., Monticello, MN 55362 . (763) 295-3170 . Fax: (763) 271-3272
-
..
.
.
Mr. Wolfsteller
November 17,2003
Page 2
Should you have any questions, please see me. Thank you for your immediate attention to this
matter.
Sincerely,
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT' AUTHORITY
IN AND FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO
~~ ~V\~~~~
O\1ie Koropchak
Executive Director
c: File
.....
.....
Pawlenty, commerce secretary
witness manufacturing decline
By Conrad deF1ebre
Star Tribune Staff Writer
Touring a noisy Minneapo-
lis die-cast factory hard-hit by
job losses blamed on unfair
foreign competition, Gov. Tim
Pawlenty and U.S. Conunerce
Secretary Don Evans saw first-
hand Thursday a little-men-
tioned facet of the problem:
Casting machines from
Switzerland and Italy, robotics
from Sweden and Germany,
brand-new computerized
. milling devices from Japan.
~ Twin City Die Castings Co.,
the 84-year-old, family-owned
firm that played host to the
dignitaries, says buying state-
of-the-art manufacturing
equipment from other coun-
ties is the only way it can stem
the drain of its own parts-
making business to foreign
lands.
"We're not proud of the fact
that all of our machine tools
come from overseas," said
Steve Harmon, Twin City pres-
ident and CEO, after his high-
level visitors had left for a Min-
nesota Chamber of Conunerce
luncheon where Evans spoke
about the Bush administra-
tion's efforts to revitalize U.S.
manufacturing.
"We have to go someplace,"
Harmon added, noting that al-
most no U.S. makers of such
equipment remain in busi-
ness. "We're' wired to the
world, whether we want to be
or not:'
Twin City employs 240
workers at plants in Minne-
apolis, Monticello and Water-
town, S.D., but that is 100 few-
er than just two years ago.
Across Minnesota, 46,000
manufacturing jobs have dis-
appeared in the same period.
Many former Twin City cus-
tomers have turned to compa-
rable aluminum, magnesium
and zinc castings produced by
cheap labor in China, Malaysia
and Singapore, Harmon said.
Meanwhile, about half of the
remaining customers are for-
eign. Twin City rings up $40
million to $50 million sales an-
nually, Harmon said.
In trying to compete, the
company hasn't raised wages
in several years while investing
more than $16 million in
equipment, some of it as$isted
by President Bush's business
tax breaks. But Harmon isn't
sold on tax cuts as a way to
save U.S. factories.
"That just gives my cus-
tomers more money to go to
China," he said.
Harmon said his firm
would get more of a boost if
China were forced to let its cur-
.
rency float on the world mar-
ket, clean up envirorunentally
and set stronger labor stan-
dards.
Evans, in his half-hour ad-
dress to the chamber at the 51.
Paul Hotel, emphasized do-
mestic changes as a way to
prop up the U.S. manufactur-
ing sector: less onerous busi-
ness regulations; an end to
"junk lawsuits"; a rein on
health care costs, especially via
medical malpractice reform;
passage of Bush's energy bill
and permanent tax: relief.
He also denounced China's
"closed markets, trade barri-
ers, state subsidies and ram-
pant intellectual property
theft" as well as "a loss of mo-
mentum" in China's move-
ment toward compliance with
World Trade Organization
standards.
"Right now, China is not
competing on a level playing
field," he said. But threats in
Congress to impose tariffs on
Chinese imports and repeal its
favored-nation trade status are
not supported by the ad-
ministration "because free
trade is the best policy for
American workers in the long
run." he said.
Omrad deFlebre is at
cdefiebre@startribune.rom.
('
C\~~
\
Page 1 of 1
~
,..
Ollie Koropchak
From: bondhus28 [vanallen@bondhus.com]
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 8:08 PM
To: 'Mary & Brad Barger'
Cc: Ollie Koropchak
Subject: Cargill Kitchens
C\~,
2003-1 1-17
Mary Barger
c: Ollie Koropchak
Re: Tour of Cargill Kite/len plant
Sally (my wife) and I took while this tour and missed the IDC meeting.
Also among the tour attendees Tim Zipoy of the Minnesota Job Center ,Monticello,
MN.
Tour Purpose: To acquaint those interested with what goes on in the plant
Tour guide -Plant manager Kevin Loftonj
Product Development Manager Steve Grinnell
.
The plant was origina/~v scheduled to be built with a company in Marshall,
Mo., as the culmination ofa 3 year process. The original partner developed coldfeet
at the last minute because they did not have experience in the food preparation field.
Cargill Kitchens looked at Cockato and Monticello. One of the bidding
contractors, Mark Stang us asked if they had looked at Big Lake.
Early meetings with the city included Big Lake City Staff and other officials
giving the impression they pushed progress'lllld fwd a high degree of interest in the
company locating in Big Lake.
From the decision to go onward the city 'held special meetings to push the
project, solve problems and differences between design, planning commission and
the builders.
The project ran from 2002 Sept to 2003 May 10 when the first product was
shipped to customers and included requirements for refrigeration using ammonia
and FDA approval
Current FTE 47, 17-18 from Big Lake, 10 from Monticello.
Introduction of additional food
en tres
is planned and added room for expansion has been provided.
Dick Van Allen 2003 Nov 17
.
11/1811003
-
d,!j~it;
-"- "-<lI:i:ti;:!1,~
i
I
I
I
! .I.I!
.~ II
BIll __
Ii I
- ...
Big Lake Industrial Park East Projects
Business Name Lot Size Building Size
A.J. Machinery 3.10 Acres 16,000 square feet
ATABOY Manufacturing 2.20 Acres 20,000 square feet
Cargill Kitchens 7.00 Acres 41 ,200 square feet
Elk River Triple J Investments 2.30 Acres 30,000 square feet
LandCor Construction Phase I 4.10 Acres 48,000 square feet
John Weicht & Associates 4.00 Acres 40,000-80,000 square feet
Paragon Store Fixtures, Inc. I 3.44 Acres 32,000 square feet
Thompson Woodworking 2.00 Acres 11,300 square feet
Whirl-Air-Flow 5.50 Acres 48,500 square feet ,,--
Available Vacant Building) 2.03 Acres 13,500 square feet
Totals 35.67 320,500 square feet
.Custom Sheet Metal - Proposed 14,000 square foot building.
.
Performance Measure
Goals Established at the Onset of the Park
Jobs per acre: (5 acres)
Land to building ratio: (4:1 sq. ft.)
Developed Land Assessed Value: ($250,OOO/acre)
Open Storage: (Not allowed)
Years to pay back incentives: (5 to 6)
Percent of building coverage on lots: (50%)
Transportation Projects?: (None)
Return on investment: (approximately 17%)
Industrial Tax Base Trends
$20,000,000
$14,071,070
$15,000,000
$10,000,000
$6.074,100 $6,074,100
$5,986,500
$5,000,000
JJl JJ' JJ'
..~~. -~ ,'~ '
.
$0
1999
2000
1998
2001
ExcellEdallndu.1li81 P8rl<11lLIPE ProjeelS
Current Status of Goals
4.2 jobs/acre
4.6 sq. ft.
$320,435/acre
None
Not determined
21.40%
None
Not determined
$19,000,000
$18,243,471
2002 2003
PUBLIC INVESTMENTS
Business Land I Site Prep EDA
Name Value i Assessments Assistance Loans Total
A.J. Machinery TIF I $0 $27,000 $74,500 $101,500
AT ABOY Manufacturing TIF I $0 $35,000 $74,900 $109,900
Cargill Kitchens TIF I $98,899 $106,800 $0 $205,699
Elk River Triple J Investments TIF I $39,706 $27,500 $0 $67,206
LandCor Phase I I TIF I $0 $28,000 $0 $28,000
John Weicht & Assoc. TIF i $0 $0 $0 $0
Paragon Store Fixtures TIF i $56,000 $45,000 $66,000 $167,000
Thompson Woodworking TIF I $25,082 $25,000 $74,500 $124,582
I
Whirl-Air-Flow TIF i $62,591 $65,000 $0 $127,591
I(Available Vacant Bldg) TIF I $31,500 $0 $0 $31,500
Infastructure Expenses for TIF 2-1 Properties = $340,000.00 Total Investment $962,978
Increased Public Service Costs
$6,000.00
$0.00
$5,000.00
$10,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
Police
Fire
Roads/Streets
Sewer/Water/Wast Treatement
Education
Recreation
Average Annual Payroll
.....
~
$2,000,000
$1,500,000
$1,000,000
$500,000
$0
'='
Cl1
.c;
..., .-
<"5
'"
::i:
'" c; '" >- ~:g E ...
:: ~ o l!! Cl1 1l~ 2:5
~"5 00:; .0 Q)
!l!-;;: <:e. 0.0 1;; ...
u'" '" 11)._ '" '" E ~ 0> Q)J/
~ Il. u... ~u 08 ~w
a:: ~~
~
, ~
-.:: 0
:Eli:
~
>-
00>
aJ_
;:::i:
..:(
Number of Employees
Whirt-A1r-Flow
Westrum Electric
Thompson Woodworking
Rays Abbey Carpel
Paragon Store Fixtures
Cargill Kitchens
AT ABOY Manufacturing
A.J. Machinery
o
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
5
~
,.,.
ExoellEd8llnduIlI181 P8rklBLIPE Proj8C18
13
COo
0.0
E .
-0
l~
COM
Q..0'l
1iiEi
~
c:cn
CD CD
E ::l
CD Q)
>-c
o .-
- II)
0.:]
E.a
w=
_ III
CO-
-'(0
O'<t
......,...
\-oca' & Economic ''''Pitet
*Annual Purchases of Goods/Services: $86,500
"'Annual Natural Gas/Electricity: $24,200
*Annual Public Utilities: $22,000
TAX IMPACT FIGURES
Estimated Pro e Tax 2003
Estimated Pro ert Tax 2004
...... Estimated Pro ert Tax 2005
-
Private Sector Investment
A.J. Machinery $680,000.00
AT ABOY Manufacturing $780,000.00
Cargill Kitchens $2,250,000.00
ER Triple J Investments $1,100,000.00
Injection Mold Technologies $735,000.00
LandCor Construction Phase I $1,700,000.00
John Weicht & Associates $0
Paragon Store Fixtures $1,400,000.00
Thompson Woodworking $ 510,000.00
Whirl-Air-Flow $2,130,000.00
Total $ 11,285,000.00
OTHER BENEFITS
1) More Local Jobs = Stable Community
2) Improved Community Identity
3)
Larger Business Base = More support
for community groups/organizations
such as the Chamber, Lions, Jaycee's,
Knights of Columbus, etc.
......
-
ExC8UEd8llndusln81 P811<1eLIPE Proj8cls
$157,000.00
$259,000.00
$337,000.00
Nov-2r,"'03 14:58
From-K~nn~dy & Graven
+6123379310
T-025 P.002/003 F-299
Kellll{jly
, r Vi
H ART ~ ReD
470 Pi.!hbury Cencc:r
200 Soum Sixth 5tr1:et
Minneapolis MN 55402
(612) 337-9300 tdepbone
(612) 337-9310 fux
lmp://www.k.::l\n.dy-gc:l.ven.com
C\ J'
..a.
"'c
ROBERT J. LlNDAlL
Attorney ~t uw
Di=:tOJ:a1 (6 l2) 337-9219
Real Property Law Specialist,
Catitied by Minncsoo. Stale BIlI" As$n.
CONFIDENTIAl- A TTORNEY/CLIENT FPJVILEGED COMMUNICATION
Novembcr 25, 2003
Ms. Olive Koropchak
City ofMonricello
505 Waln:u.! Street., Suite 1
Monticello, MN 55362-8822
VIA FACSIMILE
763~295-4404
AND U.S.lVIAIL
Re:
Housing- Redeveloumem Amhority in and forrhe City of Monticello v. Michael 1.
0' Connor~ et a1.; Wright County District Court File No. C2-0 1-1924
218 Front Street, Monticello, 1V:CN
......
.....
Dear Ollie:
Enclosed. is a letter dared November 19,2003, to me from Julie M. Latzig, senior paralegal for John
Peterson, attorney for Michael O'Connor. She requests a complete copy of the CiIj' zoning
ordinance J.-eferred to in m.y letter of October 21, 2003. Please provide me '\.Vith a copy of the zoning
ordinance so that I can respond to the request as soon as possible. Thank you for your assistance.
~~='
Roben: J. Lin all
(~)
RJL:peb
Enclosure
cc; Steve Bubul
'<.JL-2J0817,. 1
\lfNl~.59
Nov-2~-03 14:SS
From-Kennedy & Graven
+6123379310
T-025 P.003/003 F-299
JOHNSON, LARSON, PETERSON & MATT, P.A.
ATrORNEYS AT LAW
908 COMMERCIAL DRIVE
BUFFALO, MINNESOTA 55313
(,763) 682-4550
FAX: (763) 1i82-4465
WEB: WWW.i1Dmlaw.com
JAN c. LARSONt
JOHN T. PETERSONt
ClNDI S. MATT
N.UCHAELG.HALVORSON
LlITSEN omCE
CLEARVIEW MALL #2, P.O. BOX 263
LUTSEN, MINNESOTA 55612
(218) 663-6006
OF COVNSZL
THOMAS W. RICHARDS
THOMAS W. SPENCE
. W A VF;RL Y OFFICE
By Appointment Only
t ReJll. P'Opl;ftj lAw Specitllist
L<irufir:tlliy JilinllL,,"';';q '::iiUloi j;,r.r ;;~)lId4iiuil
WALTER S. JOHNSON
J9J2-X{};
November 19,2003
Robert J. LindaU
Attorney at Law
470 PillsbUI}' Center
200 SouLb. Sixth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
-
Rc: Housing Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Monticello v.
Michael 1. O'Connor
Dear Mr. Lindall:
Please be advised, in response to your letter of October 21,2003, that we are presently in
the process of reviewing and considering an appeal of the Monticello HRA's failure to pay Mr.
O'Conner's business claim.
II:. order to prope.rly evalu2.te This ~~t!~r. wf'lu!d you Yindly provide "!.lS VlliIh a complete
copy of '.:he City Zoning Ordinance referenced in your letter. Please forward same to' my
attention at your earliest convenience. Thank you for your courtesies in that regard.
Yours very t:n1ly,
~6Yl.~
Julie M. Latzig
Senior Paralegal
JML/jal
cc: Michael O'Conner
1 t) R .
-
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT UPDATE
November 24, 2003
--
Council members - This is an update to the Council motion of November 10, relative to potential
purchase of Otter Creek Crossing. Request extension of Chadwick Letter of Intent and table
authorization to prepare a purchase agreement to February 9. 2004, and continue negotiations.
The Council tabled the agenda item to first review costs for proposed 1-94/County Rd 18
interchange.
The Small Industrial Group (HRA Commissioner Dan Frie. IDC Members Mary Barger and
Dick Van Allen. Rick Wolfsteller and Ollie Koropchak) met on Friday. November 14.2003, with
John Chadwick and Paul Bilotta. John Chadwick agreed to extend his Letter of Intent to
February 10,2004, with the right to continue marketing the property. We also discussed various
shared cost options and alignments for infrastructure improvements particular Chelsea Road.
Based on discussion and to continue negotiations. the City Administrator will prepare a non-
binding Letter of Intent responding to Chadwick' s original offer or Letter of Intent. The non-
binding Letter of Intent to be available to Chadwick prior to Thanksgiving or Wednesday,
November 27.2003. Wolfsteller and Koropchak met with Bret Weiss on Wednesday to further
discuss infrastructure costs and street alignments.
.
~
The Small Group will meet on Monday, November 24, at 9:00 a.m. to review the Letter ofIntent
prepared by Wolfsteller. As a means of keeping the City Council informed, the Small Group
request the Mayor or a Council Member attend the Small Group meetings. The meetings are
called as need be. The intent of the Small Group and potential seller is to complete negotiations
of terms and conditions via a non-binding Letter of Intent for Council action on February 9,
2004.
Ollie Koropchak. Economic Development Director Jty
.