The URL can be used to link to this page

EDA Agenda 03-12-2008AGENDA CITY OF MONTICELLO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Wednesday, March 12, 2008 - 6:00 p.m. Mississippi Room - 505 Walnut Street, Monticello, MN Commissioners: President Bill Demeules, Vice President Dan Frie, Treasurer Bill Tapper, Bill Fair, Bob Viering, and Council members Clint Herbst and Wayne Mayer. Staff: EDA Executive Director Ollie Koropchak, Secretary Angela Schumann, and Assistant Treasurer Tom Kelly. Call to Order. 2. Roll Call. Reading and approval of the February 13, 2008 City of Monticello EDA Minutes. 4. Approval of the EDA bills and communication. Report of the Executive Director. 6. Report of committees: Marketing and fiber optics. 7. Unfinished Business. A. Consideration to hear an update relative to the administrative cost shortfall associated with the Purchase and Development Contract between the EDA and WRE Properties LLC. B. Consideration to approve the January 21, 2008 WSB, Inc. Invoices. New Business: A. Consideration to call for a public hearing date to amend the Business Subsidy Criteria of the City of Monticello Economic Development Authority. B. Consideration to approve amending the EDA Preliminary Development Agreements. C. Consideration to discuss creating a supplement gap funding program to encourage purchase of unoccupied single-family homes and to authorize further direction. D. Consideration to review HRA Goals and proposed Comp Plan, Economic Development Strategies. Discuss development and process for establishment of EDA Objectives, Strategies, and Tasks (Work Plan). E. Consideration to review infrastructure construction costs associated with Phase I and Phase lI of Otter Creek Crossing. F. Consideration of an update on the request for information for CCD property. 9. Adjournment. • MINUTES CITY OF MONTICELLO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Wednesday, February 13th, 2008 6:00 PM 1. Call to order. Vice Chairman Frie called the meeting to order and declared a quorum. Vice Vice Chairman Frie noted he would be presiding in the absence of Chairman Demeueles. 2. Roll Call. On roll call, the following Commissioners were present: Vice President Dan Frie Treasurer Bill Tapper Commissioner Wayne Mayer Commissioner Bob Viering Commissioner Bill Fair Commissioner Clint Herbst Also present were Executive Director Ollie Koropchak and Secretary Angela Schumann. 3. Reading and approval of the Minutes of the January 16`h and January 30th meetings of the EDA. COMMISSIONER TAPPER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 16~, 2008. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HERBST. MOTION CARRIED, 6-0. Commissioner Tapper noted that Item 1 should be amended to reflect the title of "EDA" rather than "IDC" COMMISSIONER FAIR MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 20Tx, 2008 AS AMENDED. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TAPPER. MOTION CARRIED, 6-0. 4. Approval of the EDA bills and communications. Koropchak noted two additional invoices had been received and were provided for consideration of payment. Herbst inquired whether Koropchak had been able to resolve the issue of what the invoices were for. Koropchak responded that she had spoken with WSB & Associates EDA Minutes - 02/13/08 about the invoices and the expenses invoices were related to the final inspections on grading and as-builts. Koropchak noted that more invoices from WSB will come forward as the business park continues to develop. Viering asked if there was an estimate for phase two of the project. Koropchak explained that there will be an accounting of infrastructure expenses as part of the project. She stated that the revenues from selling property, plus TIF, make the payment on the contract for deed and the assessment payments levied for infrastructure improvements. Viering stated that it would be helpful to have engineers provide an estimate under a particular contract. Koropchak responded that had been completed last year. She indicated that as phases one and two are complete, the EDA will be able to compare to see how expenses compare to estimates. Koropchak explained that Ehlers had prepared a projection of cash flow based on the estimated expenses for the project, which is how the $1.00 per square foot land price was arrived at. She stated that the comparison of estimate versus actual will be one of the items that will be outlined in the annual meeting. Tapper inquired what the budget for the project was and how much has been spent so far. Koropchak stated that she was unable to provide an immediate answer on that question without having the reports on projected cash flow and expense analysis. Herbst noted that stated that the HR.A had dealt with the review of the ro'ected ex enses p J P and estimates, but with the transition the EDA is trying to understand these items. Koropchak noted that she hadn't seen some of the previous billings related to the project, as they had been coded by the City Administrator and went right to the Council. With the new structure, it will be important to look at these issues at the annual meeting. Viering commented that the invoices that come through Kennedy and Graven are nicely detailed. Herbst agreed, stating that the auditors had addressed this same issue. He suggested that the City make a renewed request for consultants to improve their invoice details, perhaps considering sending them back to ask for sufficient detail. Fair noted that there were also unanticipated expenses for the project related to grading and excess dirt, which had to be addressed by the HR.A. Koropchak noted that only EDA can expend TIF, and in the past the HRA. Frie asked what month the annual meeting is scheduled. Koropchak reported that the annual meeting will be held in April. Frie suggested that the total expenses might require adjusting the cost per square foot. Mayer agreed that the WSB invoices need more detail. 2 EDA Minutes - 02/13/08 COMMISSIONER TAPPER MOTIONED TO WITHHOLD PAYMENT ON THE TWO WSB INVOICES UNTIL FURTHER DETAILED ITEMIZATION FROM WSB IS PROVIDED AND INFORMATION ON EXPENSES IN COMPARISON TO PROJECTIONS IS PROVIDED. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIERING. MOTION CARRIED, 6-0. COMMISSIONER FAIR MOTIONED TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF INVOICES PRESENTED FOR PAYMENT. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HERBST. Tapper asked if Koropchak had reviewed and approved of the invoices from Kennedy and Graven. Koropchak indicated that she had contacted them about the extra expenses associated with the consolidation, because some of the information had to be redone. Koropchak reported that she had asked the firm to remove the additional duplicate expenses. Those amounts have been subtracted and the invoices reflect the final amount. Tapper asked if it consistent with what was anticipated. Koropchak confirmed that Kennedy and Graven had estimated between $3,000 to $4,000 in expenses for the consolidation, and now totals approximately $5,000. Tapper commented that it seems like there is an endless amount of expenditures that the EDA is unable to account for. Tapper stated that when the EDA agrees to estimates, that those estimates need to be adhered to. Koropchak stated that she had asked Steve Bubul to give proposal in terms of flat rates for TIF projects. However, each project is unique, but nonetheless, she has asked them to provide fee information. MOTIONED CARRIED, 6-0. 5. Report of the Executive Director. Koropchak added as item 8D a certificate of completion for FSI. Koropchak reviewed her report, stating that all semi-annual TIF payments were made. She also noted that she had included for the EDA's reference a letter from Campbell Knutson regarding a pending legal case on a transformation home loan. Viering inquired what the case was regarding. Koropchak responded that a subcontractor hadn't been paid, and as the HRA is a subordinate lender, was included in the information related to the pending suit. Koropchak mentioned that she had visited industrial business looking to do expansion, and had provided them with information on the revolving loan program and that City staff will also be meeting with another local business that is looking to expand. Koropchak reported that UMC has asked about the option to extend the date for their MIF balloon loan payment. That would be a EDA and City Council decision, but based on the stated criteria, it is unlikely that they would qualify for an extension. 3 EDA Minutes - 02/13/08 Koropchak stated that the Higher Education Committee had a productive meeting with representatives from Cargill Kitchens, UMC, Xce1 and MBL Community Hospital Viering referenced the State's seed program for entrepreneurial businesses the inclusion of Wright County. He suggested that as the legislation goes forward, the EDA should keep an eye on the program as Wright County could be a target for exclusion. Koropchak stated that based on conversations with DEED Commissioner Carol Pressley Olson, she believed Wright County was not included. Viering stated that the program includes provisions to help small businesses, which make up largest number of businesses in the state. Frie asked who determines who is in and who is not. Viering responded that the legislature has the ultimate decision on that item. Mayer agreed that it would be an asset, similar to the JOBZ designation. Tapper inquired whether any EDA action was needed related to the change of the name of the bank for the bond sale. Koropchak stated no action is needed. 6. Report of committees: Marketing, continuing education, and fiber optics. Marketing Frie reported that the marketing committee did not meet. Fiber O tics p Mayer reported on the progress of the fiber optics project, stating that radio frequencies for the project are currently being taken in Monticello. Frie asked about a timetable for whole system to be up and operating. Mayer responded that the information being going to the committee is that it will be early 2009. Tapper asked if an engineering firm had been selected. Mayer replied that one had been selected from three very qualified candidate firms who were interviewed. 7. Unfinished Business. a. Consideration of Request for Pre-Approval for recording service by a Community Center Employee. Koropchak explained that this item is regarding the EDA's request for taping services. In order to achieve the taping and broadcast, an employee of the Community Center payroll is needed due to scheduling conflicts with other taping employees. Due to timing of payroll and check runs, the EDA is asked to pre- approve recording services to coincide with the City's payroll. 4 EDA Minutes - 02/13/08 Herbst questioned why the EDA is being charged for the position. Koropchak stated that it is to be able to accurately reflect where expenses should be coded to. Fair commented that although ultimately all expenses come out of general fund, it is a measure to keep track of where money is being spend. Koropchak agreed, stating that unlike the Planning Commission, EDA has revenues to offset the expense. COMMISSIONER VIERING MOTIONED TO PRE-APPROVE EXPENDITURES FOR SERVICES ASSOCAITED WITH RECORDING OF EDA MEETIGNS BY AN EMPLOYEE OF THE COMMUNITY CENTER AND/OR FOR CONTRACT SERVICE. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FAIR. MOTION CARRIED, 6- 0. Mayer asked if actual expenditures will be constant or will depend on who is doing the taping. Koropchak responded that they will be consistent as to wages and fees for the taper. Tapper commented that although this is a minot expense, it again it feels like expenses are open book. Fair responded that by controlling the length of the meeting, the EDA controls cost. 8. New Business: a. Consideration to review response to administrative shortfall associated with the Purchase and Development Contract between the EDA and WRE Enterprises, LLC and to consider alternative actions. Koropchak reported that she had sent a letter to Walker regarding the deposit shortfall. As reported, Brian Walker had called and was not pleased about cost shortfall. The Ehlers flat fee was 50% over the deposit amount. Walker had indicated that he felt that administrative costs were mishandled and did not feel that was the intent of the contract. Koropchak stated that the contract stated that the developer would be provided periodic reports at developer's request, but no more often than monthly the HRA could provide a written report of invoices. Koropchak stated that Walker was told periodically that total costs for setting up the district were between $15,000 - $17,000. Koropchak stated that she also provided information on other costs overruns. • Fair stated that he thought some of the terminology is misleading. The contract is reflective of what the actual costs maybe. For example, the contract states that a $10,000 deposit is required, and the obligation of the developer is to handle all administrative costs beyond that. Fair stated that the term cost overrun seems like the 5 EDA Minutes - 02/13/08 EDA lets costs go over. In fact, in some cases developer changes result in these costs. It isn't as if administrative costs went over. Frie stated that he believes the contract was very clear and very specific. Mayer commented that was a good clarification and an important distinction. Viering asked if under staff recommendation, Ehlers would be willing to give a fee reduction. Koropchak stated that she had not entered that as an alternative because she does not feel that in this case it is justified; their flat fee was adequate compared to other TIF districts. They do the same amount of work regardless of project size. Their flat fee is $8000 for economic districts. Viering indicated that from reading the documents, the responsibility of the developer seems fairly clear. He stated that his thought was that if Ehlers would give small concession, it would be passed on to the company as a gesture of good faith. Fair stated that the problem is that these are public dollar, and by forgiving a portion, it is more than a subsidy than a contract. It becomes a grey area of what is permissiable. Viering commented that it Ehlers reduces their invoiced amount, we are not talking about public dollars Frie asked for Tapper's opinion as an industrial business owner. Tapper asked Koropchak if it absolutely clear in her mind that Walker was told that typical fees were between $15,000 and $17,000. Koropchak responded that she knew that specific conversation happened more than once. Koropchak stated that the other consideration is the interpretation, of the monthly reporting as it seems to imply that they need to request reports. Tapper stated that his recommendation is to be consistent. Fair noted that the EDA has to be cognizant of setting precedent and needs to be consistent for all parties. Fair noted that providing the monthly reports also may just adds to the costs. Frie noted that this will come up again and that he would like to see us come up with some solution. Mayer noted that section 3.9 of the contract is clear in the responsibility to cover all of the costs associated with setting up the district. Tapper responded that he thinks the gentlemen entered into the obligation, but believes he was charged for things he had no control over. Fair commented that no two transactions are the same and all of the changes he may have requested added cost. Tapper suggested that the EDA be more upfront about the costs and noted that the deposit has to be paid up front, before you have the financing. Herbst indicated that in this case, Walker was also only charged for 1 acre, but in fact has a site over 5 acres. Some of the changes related to the project relate to the way they wanted to put their building on the site. He also noted that when the HRA and City purchased the land, it didn't get any breaks and had to understand what the 6 EDA Minutes - 02/13/08 possible costs were. He stated that he agrees that this contract is fair. Herbst noted that Walker's attorneys also reviewed the document and could have cautioned him on that point. Frie asked if Brian Walker was asked to come to the meeting. Koropchak stated that he indicated that he preferred to work through her. Frie stated that he would like to eliminate this problem as it isn't good policy to create these hard issues. Tapper recommended breaking the decision into two, deal with Walker and then how to address this for the future. Fair again noted being careful in setting precedent. COMMISSIONER FAIR MOTIONED TO AFFIRM THE ADMINISTRATIVE SHORTFALL IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,875.45 FOR WRE PROPERTIES, LLC, SUBMISSION OF PAYMENT IN TWO ANNUAL EQUAL INSTALLMENTS. Mayer asked if the EDA is going to incorporate this kind of structure on a case by case, or set a criteria of financial hardship. Commissioner Fair amended his motion to include that each case of administrative shortfall would be evaluated independently. Amended motion SECONDed by Mayer. Tapper stated that the EDA maybe going down a slippery slope. Herbst recommended that the EDA develop a solution to make this clearer. MOTION CARRIED, 5-1, WITH COMMISSIONER TAPPER IN DISSENT. Fair asked if perhaps the EDA could have the consultants to look the contract over and provide guidance. Viering stated that banks run into similar issues on loan transactions with closing costs. Typically, banks provide in writing an itemized estimate so that there is no question. Koropchak stated that Walker wasn't necessarily questioning the amount, but questioned being given an accounting of costs. Better communication may be key. Koropchak also noted that City staff hours have not been accounted for in this case, even though that is stated in the contract. Fair suggested this item be added at another meeting for discussion and that everyone read the contract language. Tapper suggested coming up with a fixed price based off of estimates. Herbst responded that every situation is different. Fair noted that is true, especially with unplatted land. 7 EDA Minutes - 02/13/08 Viering recommended that staff come back with two to three alternatives for the workshop. Mayer stated that Ehlers should be able to bring that forward. Viering cautioned that asking Ehlers to do so would create another bill. Tapper agreed and suggested bringing forward to City leadership the idea of covering administrative costs. Herbst stated that when talking about this kind of economic development, there is a question whether to charge staff time. b. Consideration of continued use of programs and to review Polices and Guidelines for possible amendment. i. Transformation Home Loan Package Koropchak provided a brief overview of the program and stated that her intention in bringing forward is to determine whether the EDA would like to continue the program. Frie stated from his standpoint is the only unfortunate thing about the program is that it hasn't been used more often. It has transformed some homes. Viering stated that he was very familiar with the program and experience in using it. He commented on the stated of the local economy and foreclosure rate and suggested that the program be reviewed for ways to increase use in relationship to these issues. Fair commented that funding for the program comes from the Central Community TIF district, so there are some standards that have to be met. For example, a home needs to be substandard to fit legal criteria to use the funds. Viering stated this is an excellent program, but what he is suggesting is looking at additional programs to do more. He suggested considering a housing seminar to get those involved together to develop solutions. Frie stated that he agrees, although it would be separate from this program. Herbst concurred, stating that this program deals specifically with older homes in the downtown area. Fair commented that the objective is to prevent rental and encourage home ownership. Tapper suggested adding an agenda item and discussing Viering's comments as item 8E. Tapper asked those familiar with program if they have any ideas on how to be more proactive in seeking out property owners. Fair stated that the HRA did direct mail to every property that qualified. 8 EDA Minutes - 02/13!08 Mayer asked Koropchak if the program is restricted to any particular geographic area. Koropchak described the geographic area bounded by I-94 on the south, the river to the North and the east and west limits. Additionally, she noted that the program is only for owner occupied homes within core City. She noted that the program is intended to bring vitality back to downtown area. Koropchak indicated that the EDA may also want to look at the market value criteria. In response to Viering's idea, the EDA would create an entirely different set of criteria, and would need to determine funding sources. Tapper stated he did not want to reduce the $150,000 in market value allotted. Frie inquired if the Buildign Official determine whether a home qualifies as sub-standard. He requested that Anderson be available to provide information on this. COMMISSIONER HERBST MOTIONED TO CONTINUE THE TRANSFORMATION HOME LOAN PROGRAM FOR YEAR 2008. MOTION SECOND BY COMMISSIONER VIERING. Tapper suggested that the EDA consider expanding the program to entire city limits. Herbst responded that the balance of the City could be addressed later with a separate program. Fair and Frie noted that Anderson could provide a better understanding at a future meeting of what qualifies a home as sub-standard and whether homes beyond the CCD would be good candidates for this type of program. Herbst commented that while he belives in improving the overall housing stock, there is a question of where public dollars stop and the market begins. Fair agreed, and noted the goal of the project was to look at the core city and stop deterioration and incentive for downtown. MOTION CARRIED, 6-0. ii. Preferred Package Criteria for Monticello Business Center Koropchak reviewed the program and opened the discussion for questions. Frie asked how the actual cost of $3.00 per square foot had been arrived at. Koropchak answered that the number had been developed through initial information from Ehlers. Mayer inquired about the wage criteria, which was set at $16.00 per hour excluding benefits. He asked $16.00 if that should be revisited and lowered. He noted that while everyone wants to see career jobs, had that been an impediment, or should it perhaps be higher. 9 EDA Minutes - 02/13/08 Koropchak stated that some communities have set their levels lower, but she agrees with the previous HRA that Monticello needs to market amenities and keep wages higher. She stated that she hasn't found anyone who had filled out applications where wage level has been an issue. Herbst commented that part of the reason that the City is bringing fiber is to create higher end jobs, and he would not want to see the number reduced. He stated that he is hoping one of the positive results of fiber, is creation of higher-end jobs. Koropchak stated that the criteria references an average, so there may be a range of wages and it does give a company some flexibility. Frie indicated that the average makes it easier for small companies to meet that average. Viering asked if building market value are a necessary requirement, with the restrictive covenants are in place. Koropchak replied that as the EDA is providing up-front money, the amount of TIF generated, is tied to the size and value of the building. Tapper asked if Koropchak considers the program successful Koropchak replied that she does, but would ideally like more businesses in the park. Tapper stated that he asks because it seems as though there is more economic development in other communities than here and as such, do we have the right program. Koropchak stated that in answer to that, anyone can use TIF, but perhaps the EDA wants to address its standards rather than the overall program. For example, the covenants allow no metal buildings, and no outdoor storage. At this point, Koropchak stated that she is asking the EDA to review and affirm what the HRA had put into place. Fair stated that City has to make a decision on what it wants back for return on investment. Tapper asked Koropchak if she is recommending any changes. Koropchak stated that she believes the criteria is fine, but she will bring back whether cash flow supports the $1 per square foot. Koropchak stated that she is comfortable with preferred measures. Fair asked if commissioners had any changes they would like to make. None of the commissioners requested changes. COMMISSIONER VIERING AFFIRMED THE CURRENT PREFERRED MEASURES FOR OTTER CREEK CROSSING. MOTIONED SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAYER. MOTION CARRIED, 6-0. • 10 EDA Minutes - 02/13/08 iii. Declaration of Protective Covenants, Conditions and Protections for Otter Creek Crossing (information onlv.) Herbst commented that in relationship to relaxation of any standards, he believes that to be responsible to the buildings already on site, the EDA needs to stand firm on what is in place. Tapper confirmed that the covenants had been recorded against phases one and two, but not three. Koropchak confirmed, as phase three is not yet owned by the City. c. Consideration to call for an EDA workshop following the regular meeting of March 17, 2008 for purpose of reviewing Business Subsidy Criteria and Preliminary Development Agreement. COMMISSIONER FAIR MOTIONED TO CALL FOR AN EDA WORKSHOP FOLLOWING THE REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 12TH, 2008 FOR THE PURPOSE TO REVIEW THE BUSINESS SUBSIDY CRITERIA AND PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. Viering asked if it is just better to just do it with the meeting. The Commissioners held a brief discussion on the proposed date and time. COMMISSIONER FAIR AMENDED HIS MOTION TO CALL FOR AN EDA WORKSHOP AT AT 4:00 PM ON MARCH 12TH, 2008 FOR THE PURPOSE TO REVIEW THE BUSINESS SUBSIDY CRITERIA AND PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TAPPER. MOTION CARRIED. d. Certificate of completion for FSI. Koropchak stated that she has been contacted that FSI is being sold. It was discovered that a certificate of completion was not issued for the project. To clear the title, it needs to be issued. She indicated that the district was started in 1983 and decertified, there is currently no increment being collection and no expenditures. COMMISSIONER TAPPER MOTIONED TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION FOR FSI. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HERBST. MOTION CARRIED, 6- 0. 11 EDA Minutes - 02/13/08 e. Housing Programs Tapper stated that m response to earlier conversations, the market problem presents an opportunity. If the EDA can find a way to jump start and attract more citizens in relationship to housing, it may jump start other activities. Tapper stated that he did have discussions with consultants on this subject and they indicated that there are funding mechanisms for this purpose. He stated that something needs to be done to address the empty homes before they become rental properties. Viering agreed, stating that by being proactive, it speaks well of the community and positive for development. Mayer suggested following up on researching the financing available for economic stimulus. Viering stated that it will be important to encourage owner-occupation. Tapper stated that one suggestions is to provide gap financing to get people qualified for conventional lending. The Commissioners agreed that more research should be done about that it should be provided at the next meeting for discussion. 9. Adjournment COMMISSIONER FAIR MOTIONED TO ADJOURN. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAYER. MOTION CARRIED, 6-0. President • Secretary 12 • 4. Approval of the EDA bills and communication. A. Reference and background: EDA Agenda - 03/l~2/08 The first two invoices are associated with establishing the reconstituted EDA as they apply to the public hearing notice publication for Ordinance No. 172 ($241.29 EXHIBIT A) and nameplates for the commissioners ($111.10 EXHIBIT B). The next three invoices are associated with the Cedar Street Garden Center. The: first associated with the public hearing notice advertising for bids, cost split between City and EDA (EDA cost $125.96 EXHIBIT C), the second for hazardous waste survey, cost split between Ciry and EDA (EDA cost $1,250.00 EXHIBIT D), and the third door keys (EDA cost $3.80 EXHIBIT E). B. Alternative Actions: 1. A motion to approve payment of invoices EXHIBIT A, B, C, D, AND E. • 2. A motion to deny approval of payment for voices EXHIBIT A, B, C, D A.ND E. 3. A motion approving or denial of individual payment of voices. 4. A motion to table. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 as invoices appear consistent with services rendered. D. Supporting Data. Copy of Invoices. • MONTICELLO TIMES 10917 VALLEY VIEW ROAD EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55344 (952) 392-6890 Fax(763) 295-3080 Advertising Memo Bill CITY OF MONTICELLO ATTN: ACCOUNTS PAYABLE STE 1 505 WALNUT ST MONTICELLO MN 55362 Amount Paid: Comments: Ad ## : 810327 MONTICELLO TIMES (952)392-6890 ' UNAPPLIED AMOUNTS ARE INCLUDED IN TOTAL AMOUNT DUE r M.w.i;uLlo • ~in~e~ AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPEN ) Bruce Treichler, being duly sworn on an oath, states or af- firms that he is the Publisher of the newspaper known as Monticello Times and has full knowledge of the facts which are stated below. (A) The newspaper has complied with all of the require- ments constituting qualification as a qualifjed newspa- per as provided by Minn. Stat. § 331 A.02, § 331A.07, and other applicable laws as amended. (B) The printed public notice that is attached was pub- lished in the newspaper once each week for one successive week(s); it was first published on Thursday, the 14 day of February , 2008, and was thereafter printed and published on every Thursday to and including Thursday, the day of , 2008; and printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both inclusive, which is hereby acknowledged as being the size and kind of type used in the composi- tion and publication of the notice: abcdefghijklmnopgr§tuvwxyz . /~ !~"~ / jt~ gy. 1~ Title: Publisher Subscribed and sworn to or affirmed before me on this 14 day of February , 2008. Notar ubli MARY ANN CARLSON NOTARY PUBLIC -MINNESOTA MY COMMISSION EXPIRES t~t-09 • City of Monticello (Official Publication) ORDNANCE N0.469A ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE DIVISION OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, REDEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING POWERS BETWEEN THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ANDTHE HOUSING AND REOEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY; AMENDING CITY CODE, TITLE ll, CHAPTER 3 THE CITY OF MONTICELLO DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Recitals. It is hereby de- termined that: (a) pursuantto Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047 and pred- ecessor statutes ("HRA Act"), the City previously established the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Monticello ("HRA") far the pur- pose of carrying out housing and rede- velopment activities in the City; and (b) pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.090 to 469.1081 ("EDA Act"), the City Council established the City of Monticello Economic Develop- ment Authority ("EDA") by Ordinance No. 172, approved April 10, 1989 (the "Enabling Ordinance"), codified as Title II, Chapter 3 of the City Code; and (c) on October 22, 2007, the City approved an amended and restated Enabling Resolution intended to super- sede the original provisions of Title II, Chapter 3 of the City Code; and (d) the City is authorized by Min- nesota Statutes, Section 469.094, sub- division 1 to divide the economic devel- opment, redevelopment, and housing powers between EDA and the HRA; and (e) the City has determined a need to allocate all development, redevelop- ment andhousirig powers td the EDA; and to clarify that the EDA is governed by the terms of the Enabling Resolu- tion. Section 2. Powers Allocated to EDA. Except as limited by this ordi- nance or the Enabling Resolution, as either may be amended from time to time, the City allocates to the EDA all of the following powers: (a) all powers of an economic de- velopment authority under the EDA Act. (b) all powers of a housing and re- development authority under the HRA Act. (c) all powers of a city under Min- nesota Statutes, Section 469.124 to 469.134. (d) all powers and duties of a rede- velopment agency under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.152 to 469.165 for a purpose in the HRA Act or the EDA Act, and all powers and duties in the HRA Act and the EDA Act for a purpose in Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.152 to 469.165. (e) the authority to issue bonds in accordance with the EDA Act and the HRA Act. (f} the authority to levy special ben- efit taxes in accordance with Section 469.033, subdivision 6 of the HRA Act in order to pay or finance public rede- velopmentcosts (as defined in the HRA Act), subject to approval by the City Council in accordance with Section 469.033, subdivision 6. (g) all powers under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.474 to 469.179, subject to all approvals required by the City under those provisions. (h} any other powers related to de- velopment, redevelopment or housing authorized under Minnesota Statutes, to the extent such allocation to the EDA is consistent with such statutes. Section 3. No Powers Allocated to ~. The City allocates no powers to the HRA, it being the intent of this ordi- nance that all development, redevelop- mentand housing powers under law be allocated to the EDA. Section 4. Powers Retained by ~. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, the City retains the powers of a city under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469. i 24 to 469.134, which powers the City may exercise concurrently with the EDA. Nothing in this ordinance is intended to limit or af- fectpowers, rights, duties or obligations that are specifically assigned to the City under the Enabling Resolution, the EDA Act, the HRA Act, or any other law. Section 5. Amendment. Nothing in this ordinance is intended to limit or prevent the City from (a) modifying this ordinance to revise the respective pow- ers of the HRA and the EDA, or (b) modifying the Enabling Resolution to impose new or different limitations on EDA as authorized by the EDA Act. Section 6. Codification. Title II, Chapter 3 of the City Code is replaced in its entirety by this ordinance. Section 7. Effective Date. This ordi- nance is in effect upon its publication in accordance with law. Offered By: Brian Stumpf Seconded By: Wayne Mayer Roll Call: Clint Herbst, Wayne Mayer, Tom. Perrault, f3rian_Stumpf.and Susie Wojchouski voted in favor thereof and none voted against. Date of Passage: December 10, 2007 Mayor City Administrator (Feb. 14, 2008) mt-ord 469 EDA-HRA ~ ~ h~. l~ ,~ ~3 '~° Q"I"" Eko Backen Awards Plus Inc. P.O. Box 187 Alexandria, MN 56308 Bill To City of Monticello 505 Walnut St Suite l Monticello, MN 56362 invoice Date Invoice # !/7/2008 3557 P.O. No. Rep KMH Quantity Item Description Rate Amount 7 2 x l0 Nameplate 2 x 10 Nameplate BIacWWhite l 1.50 80.SOT 7 Engraving. additional line on nameplate 3.00 21.OOT l Postage & Handli... 3.00 3.00 NAMEPLATES FOR: DAN FRIE ROBERT V[ERING WII.LIAM-FAIR WILLIAM DEMEULES pK TO P CUNT HERBST Y~ ~~_. WAYNE MAYER . `. =t`~'` /~ WILLIAM TAPPER Code. ~-~ Initial: ~ ~~ ~1 `~ ~ ~ F~~ 1134 2098 Interest will be applied at l.5% after 30 days. $aieS T8X (6.5%~ $6.60 Total $l l -.-0 Payments/Credits $o.oo Phone # 320-763-3504 Balance Due $II1.10 C7 MONTICE4L0 TIMES 10917 VALLEY VIEW ROAD EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55344 (~2-6890 Fax(783)295-3080 4dvertisina Memo Bill CITY OF MONTICELLO Amount Pafd: ATTN: ACCOUNTS PAYABLE STE 1 omments: 505 WALNUT ST MONTICELLO MN 55362 Ad #: 798864 _ _ _ Plau° R°tum UDOa Portion VYlth Pivm°nt .. 12/20/07 798864 DEMO FARM~CEDAR ST ~ 1X 6.7 3 LEG H GREEN, PW 6.75 2.51.9 12/20, 27, 01/03 ~t71to. S1~ MTI/MO +0I ~ '(SOS ~~. c ENTER'~}~ ~~ - ~~ _ ~ 63 ~~ ~.Y 3 JAN 7 2008 CI OF~~~ ~.S(.q- 251.91 251.91 ~~3 ~.,oo"t t(a X008 ~!L So0`i'SOG t1z -cL,~ ~'~5~~. ~> 05 ~ Z07133 o.oo~ o.oo ( a.oo ~ o.oo ~ ~'~~ 251.91 ~[~ELLO TIMES (952} 392-6890 • UNAPPLIED AMOUNTS ARE INCLUDED IN TOTAL AMOUNT DUE ~ ~ City of Monticello Public Works (Official Publication- INVITATION FOR PROPOSALS FOR A. BUILDING DEMOLITION AND SITE PREPARATION OF A TWO- STORY HOME, POLE BARN WITH LIVING QUARTERS, A MACHINE SHED AND APPURTENANCES AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION INCLUDING HAZARDOUS MATERIAL REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL STATE OF MINNESOTA ) 8617 EDMONSON AVENUE NE SS. MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPlN aND B. BUILDING DEMOLITION AND SITE PREPARATION OFTHE CEDAR STREET GARDEN Bruce Treichler, being duly sworn an an oath, States or af- CENTER AND APPURTENANCES INCLUDING HAZARDOUS firms that he is the Publisher of the newspaper known as MATERIAL REMOVAL AND Monticello Times and has full knowledge of the facts which DISPA SAL are Stated beIOW. 201 EAST BROADWAY (A) The newspaper has complied with all of the require- MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA FoR THE clnr of MQNncELLO, ments constituting qualification as a qualified newspa- MINNESOTA per as provided by Minn. Stat. § 331 A.02 The City of Monticello will receive pro- . , § 331A.07, and other applicable laws as amended m~ wa nui s ree MSuiee11o ~ iotl el . a l t t, t t (B) The printed public notice that is attached was Ub- f 2008. All pro- Thur~dav Ja~ry O l itt lished in the newspaper once each week for three p posa s W be ublic o ened and read .. aloud. ' successive week(s); it was first published on AtfproposalsshallbeinkedortypewriC- Thursday, the 20 day of December ten on forms to be supplied by the City. 2007, and was thereafter printed and published on Copies of the Plans and Specifications every Thursday to and including Thursday, the may be obtained from the Office of 3 day of January , 2008; and printed Montt cue to M nne~sota 55362rse Raad, below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both inclusive, which is hereby acknowledged as A bid bond is not required. The suc- cessful contractor will be required to being the size and kind of type used in the composi- furnish and pay for a satisfactory con- tion and publication of the notice: tract performance bona. abcdefghijklmnopgrstuvwxya -- Proposals will be considered by the City-of RAonticello Councihon Monday ~ ~ ~ evening, January 14, 2008. The City reserves the right to reject any or alt /U~~~ ~ proposals or to waive any informalities ~,~. By. in the proposals. Title: Publisher BY ORDER OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO Subscribed and sworn to or affirmed before me Jeff O'Neill, City Administrator Published in the Monticello Times on this 3 day of January , 2008. tz/2oi2oo7, tzr27i2oo7, ovosi2oo7 (Dec. 20, 27, 2007 8 Jan. 3, 2008)mt- Demo-Farm-Cedar St bids-BG Notary Publ MARY ANN CARLSON NOTARY PUBLIC -MINNESOTA MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 11-08 RATE INFORMATION (1) Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users $ 2.85 er line for comparable space (2) Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter $ 6.20 r line (3) Rate actually charged for the above matter $ 2.1.3 er line ~~o ~` • • • E~~'~ 1- John Simola City of Monticello Public Works Department 909 Golf Course Raad Monticello, MN. 55362 invoice Qate : 1/4/2008 Invoice # : 289109 Project # : SC-07-05283 Client # : M06994 Client Ref w~-k C~t~ ~o~ ktll~~~~ ~~~~ pit ,r,.J°,<< iD rto~ S.~p.•.v~-~'~ t.tks ~~ s~~'i . Cedar Garden Center ~snd resi entiai property at ~ ~!>h ~~ ~ TSF o s ~' Monticello, M f"-""1 For Professional Services Rendered through: 1 ~L/t,~a~ Total Project Fee Authorized 2,500.00 Percent Complete as of 12!2812007 100.00 Amount Due this. Invoice _2, ~ ~" ~..~. ff t;~ l~b~ ~yZ. 1l3 se~~t so~so b.~w +~a t~~.~~ ~~ ~C~C~ ~ ~ (~ ~,,~~ AY Dtt~e, D OK TO P ?_____ F E B - 4 ?_008 ~ ~ ~~ Gode: ~;. ~wsos . 3t gg -nFos _ .. ~ ~ ~,;~-moo, f;~i"Y t~F "~~~~t~~iG~~~.O in~t~ai: ___~___.._...__..____~ E ,~ ~ P pay from this Invoice. V® ~ T Due on receipt, t 1129'° per month after 30 days, i8% annual percentage rate. We accept .• .: PROVIDING, ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SO1U110NS SINCE x957. \ \ ` ~ ` ` ~ ~ I Hardware ~~~~ ~ -~ PEE ~ 1 212 3itD STREET b1E5T PAST QFFICE ~X 367 j hN]NTICfl1.0, hNV S.53E~ PF~IE: (763) c95-c 52 t ~~. ~ ~ONTTCELLQ CITY Cti5T ~ 12F~18 1FN fI I94319;: GITTN ACCO(AJTS PAYABLE TEFJ~: fIET fOTH DATf_ : 2/1.3/kk~ `~35 WALFRIT STF;E:El' Sk1ITE 1 Ci.ERK: JY, hIONTICEl.L1 i~~ 55.362 TEkM ~ 5`~6 REF. H 41(tTER T INV6 ~;. ~o/• ~Q~~o. 2199 ~~ i ~X ~~ PAID IN Ft1LL :~* I=4~t~L'tlft0 P(~YMENT ~~~~: =m NQM-TAXAhLE SIJ[~-TOT(~_ %, f 1 'fAX ApIUUNT TO"fRL IFF,~IIC,E w. as , ,;.,',; ~~~ EDA Agenda - 03/l2/08 5. Economic Development Resort. a) The EDA $6,180,000 Public Project Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2008A, closed February 20, 2008. EXHIBIT A. b) Higher Education Subcommittee -With the addition of representatives from Cargill Kitchen Solutions, Xcel Energy (Monticello Nuclear Plant), Monticello-Big Lake Hospital District, and UMC; the Monticello businesses were energized and appeared interested in the possibility of a Higher Education Center in Monticello. Here's the potential: Develop a partnership of the higher education team (SCSU, Anoka-Ramsey Community College, and others) and local businesses. Develop a curriculum starting at a small scale (to ensure success). Create an awareness of the Higher Education Center through the hiring of a part-time facilitator located in Monticello. Funding ideas were discussed. Expand and become regional center. (This is in the development stage so please retain confidentiality). This is a great economic development opportunity for the community including businesses, residents, and students (and supports the Comp Plan). I have met with the Chamber Director and Assistant who will join other local representatives at the next meeting March 7, 1:00 p.m. There will be a comparison of educational curriculum needs as identified and prioritized by the four individual local businesses to establish commonalities and perhaps trends. I've requested Anoka-Ramsey to provide more information as to space needs, etc. and estimated wages for part-time facilitator. b) Two local manufacturing businesses plan expansions in 2008. I have visited with both of them about our revolving loan fund. With the mandatory job creation provision of the EDA program and given businesses expand their facilities to accommodate additional large machinery and equipment for automatization purposes and not to create jobs as a means to remain globally competitive, our EDA program becomes less attractive for BRE. This is actually guided by the' Business Subsidy Act; however, the EDA will be taking a look at this. The other company is still working on the actual size and cost of the expansion prior to moving forwarci and will decide later if interested in the EDA program. c) Marketing Committee is scheduled to meet on March 7 at 7:30 a.m. The I-94 billboard is up at the same location and will remain through end of March. This was a 2007 expenditure. d) It is my understanding from the Public Works Director, that the EDA-owned (:edar Street Garden Center will be demolished after demolition of the city-owned farm south of Klein Farm which is scheduled to begin around March 10. I received a call today (March 4G) from a lady in the St. Cloud area as to the status of the Garden Center property. Slhe and her mother were interested in starting a business (antiques/garden center) and expressed interest in the property. They do not have a business plan nor seen a lender for financing. I told her the EDA has a contract for demolition to commence demolition mid-March. All utilities disconnected. Is the EDA interested in a change of plans? • EDA Agenda - 03/12/08 e) UMC made their balloon payment on the original $200,000 GMEF Loan on February 19, 2008 EXHIBIT B. The balloon payment on the $290,000 Minnesota Investment Fund loan is due April 1, 2008. fj It is planned that the IDC will host an open house and tour of the new Walker In-Store facility as soon as this can be accommodated. g) The Economic Development Director will be out-of-the-office (vacation) beginning March 13 and back March 31. h) I talked with the Chamber Director and Assistant about the possibility of a joint IDC, Chamber, EDA, and City business retention and expansion survey through either the University of Minnesota Extension Program or the Minnesota Chamber Growth Program. This could be one of the task to support the development strategies in the Comp Plan. I plan to talk to Jim Thazes, my counter part in Big Lake, to gage the merits of the program Big Lake used. If this becomes a task, it would be good to hear presentation of each program to decide if it fills our needs and which program. There is a cost associated with either program and also could be partially funded by a grant. i) EDA rental revenue from billboard located on Country Club Manor Outlot A. EXHIBIT C. j) All EDA documents recorded at the County Recorder's Office on February 21. k) The next EDA meeting on Wednesday, April 9, will be the annual meeting. Year-end financial and activity reports are due. 1) At a meeting with MNDOT representatives sponsored by I-94 West Chamber of Commerce on Februazy 28 in Albertville, MNDOT District 3 representative noted the following: Replacement of the I-94 bridge east side Monticello scheduled for 2009 to 2010. I-94 concrete rehab on I-94 in Wright County, 2011. Addition of an I-94 west bound lane between County Road 18 and Highway 25, 2012. Projected time for I-94 six lanes from Crow River to Monticello 2024-2030, not until completion of additional lanes from Fish Lake Interchange to Rogers. MNDOT Metro representatives reported on the scheduled projects on I-494/Hwy 55 west, the Fish Lake Interchange, 610, proposed I-94 interchanges and upgrades in Hennepin County. Purpose of meeting to establish a Coalition as advocates for I-94 Northwest Corridor Improvements. m) At the City Council meeting of February 11, the council members adopted a resolution recognizing. the Industrial Development Committee and appointed members on staggering three-year terms. The intent of the resolution was to formalize or legitimize the linkage between the IDC and City providing documentation for compliance with the Office of the State Auditor. EXHIBIT D. n) March TIF Newsletter EXHIBIT E. o) Transformation Home Loan -Antoinette Breiwick/HRA. I talked with Attorney Tom Scott the other day about the Court Filing which HRA was named as a defendant by a subcontractor. Scott reported the Claim is closed. I requested a letter of such for HRA Loan file. 2 ~x ~ CLOSING MEMORANDUM $s,~so,ooo PUBLIC PROJECT REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS, , SERIES 2008A CITY OF MONTICELLO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MINNESOTA Bonds Dated: February 20, 2008 __ FREERS LEADERS !N PUBLIC FINANCE . CLOSING MEMORANDUM TO: Ollie Koropchak, Monticello EDA FROM: Mark Ruff and Debbie Holmes DATE: February 20, 2008 SUBJECT: City of Monticello Economic Development Authority, Minnesota $6,180,000 Public Project Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2008A Date of Bonds: February 20, 2008 CLOSING DATE: February 20, 2008 WIRE INSTRUCTIONS In connection with the above closing, proceeds will be wired by the purchaser, Banc of America Public Capital Corp., as follows: Wire Instructions Amount Wired 1) U.S. Bank, N.A., 601 2nd Ave S; Minneapolis; MN 55402; ABA#: 6.180;000.00 091000022, FBO: U.S. Bank Trust N.A., Acct: 180121167365, FFC: 120859000, Ref: Monticello EDA Adv Ref (OOAO Esc 08A, Attn: CDR Laura Saunders651-495-3892 Closing titemorandunz for City of iVlonticello Economic Development Authority, Minnesota X6,180,000 Public Project Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series Z008A Page Z c:A~cu~-TION OF NET PROCEEDS Net Proceeds Par Amount of the Bonds Less: Costs of Issuance' Ehlers & Associates, Inc. (Financial Advisor) $29,255.00 Kennedy & Graven, Chartered (Bond Counsel) 14 000.00 Moody's Investors Service, Inc. (Rating Agency) 6,850.00 U.S. Bank National Association (Document Review) 500.00 U.S. Bank National Association (Escrow Agent) 950.00 Grant Thornton (Escrow Verification) 2.500.00 Total Costs of Issuance Net Proceeds Distribution of Net Proceeds Deposit to the Escrow Fund Deposit to Debt Service Account'` Excess Bond Proceeds (contingency) Distribution of Net Proceeds $6,180,000.00 (54.055.001 $6.12 $6,124,432.06 • 1.512.94 $6.12~~ • U. S. Bank, N.A. will pay the costs of issuance from the proceeds wired to them as noted on Page 1. Excess bond proceeds (contingency) in the amount of $1,512.94 should be deposited into the Debt Service Account for the Series 2008A Bonds. Closing Me»:orandum for City of Monticello Eeonon:ie ©eve[opn:ent Authority, ~tilinnesota $6,180,000 Public Project Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2008A Page 3 • DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS FOR THE $7,555,000 PUBLIC PROJECT REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2000A An escrow account will be established with the proceeds of the Series 2008A Bonds, from which principal and interest payments due August 1, 2008 through February 1, 2010 will be made on the Series 2000A Bonds. The callable portion of the Series 2000A Bonds, (bonds maturing in the years 2011 through 2015} will be redeemed and paid by the Escrow Account on February 1, 2010. DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS FOR THE $6,180,000 PUBLIC PROJECT REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2008A Source of Payment The Bonds are valid and binding special, limited obligations of the Authority payable solely from and secured by a pledge of lease payments to be made to the Authority by the City pursuant to the Lease. The Bonds do not constitute a general obligation of the Authority or the City and are not a charge against the general credit of the Authority and shall not constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property of the Authority, except the interest of the Authority in the Lease. The City's obligation to make rental payments under the Lease is subject to its annual right to terminate the Lease at the end of any fiscal year by failure to appropriate the funds. It is the intent of the City to levy ad valorem taxes in an amount sufficient to make rental payments required under the Lease. The levy for this purpose is currently not subject to any statutory limit as to rate or amount, but it is subject to the City's general obligation debt limit. In the event the annual appropriation is not made, the Trustee is entitled to repossession and the right to re-lease the buildings and the Authority's interest in the land, who on behalf of the owners of the Bonds will attempt to sell or sublease and operate the Facilities. There is no assurance that the Trustee will be able to re-lease the interest in the building(s) and land, or to do so for amounts that would pay all interest and principal on the Bonds. A copy of the Bond Resolution will be included in the Bond Issue Summary Book which will be provided to you after the closing. Schedule of Principal and Interest Payments The Schedule of Principal and Interest Payments follows this memorandum. Closing tt~lentorandu»t for City of ~Ylonticello Economic Developn:ent Authority, Minnesota 56,180,000 Public Project Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2008A Page 4 PAYMENT INSTRUCTIONS FOR OBLIGATIONS PURCHASED BY JPMORGAN CHASE, tNC. These Bonds have NOT been registered or assigned CUSIP numbers as requested by the purchaser. The purchase has agreed to hold the Bonds for the life of the issue. Therefore, the Bond Registrar/Paying Agent/Transfer Agent for the Bonds will be the City Administrator. On asemi-annual basis the Ciry will pay the interest on the Bonds, and on an annual basis will pay the principal coming due on the Bonds. Principal and Interest payments should be wired to: Bank of America ABA No. 0260-0959-3 Bank Address: 100 N.Tryon St., Charlotte, NC Beneficiary Name: Banc of America Leasing & Capital, LLC Account # 12334-01992 Beneficiary Address: 2059 Northlake Pkwy, Tucker, GA for credit to CUSTOMER NO. 1798700 PLEASE HAVEBANKOFAMERICA CALL FREERS BASSOCIATES DIRECTLYIF THEYEVER HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS ISSUE. IN ADDITION, lF YOU EVER HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT PAYMENT AMOUNTS OR PAYMENT INSTRUCTIONS YOU RECEIVE FROM THEM, PLEASE CALL FREERS 8 ASSOCIATES FIRST. C7 If you have any questions regarding the ctosing, the calculation and use of proceeds, or debt service payments, please call Mark Ruff at (651.) 697-8500. Closing ~Lteneorandu~n for City of ~t~Io~rticello Economic Development Autlsority, iYlinnesota 56,180,000 Public Project Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2008A Page S ~RINCIPAL AND INTEREST PAYMENT SCHEDULE Monticello Economic Development Authority, Minnesota Dated Date: 2/20/2008 $6,180,000 Public Project Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2008A Call Date: Non-Callable CUSIP No. Payment Payment Total Fiscal Base: Due Date Principal Rate Interest Notations P & I Totai NONE 08/01/08 - - 88,442.67 88,442.67 02/01/09 625,000.00 3.200 98,880.00 723,880.00 812,322.67 * 08!01/09 - - 88,880.00 88,880.00 02/01!10 635,000.00 3.200 88,880.00 723,880.00 812,760.00 08/01/10 - - 78,720.00 78,720.00 02/01/11 960,000.00 3.200 78,720.00 1,038,720.00 1,117,440.00 08/01/11 - - 63,360.00 63,360.00 02/01/12 990,000.00 3.200 63,360.00 1,053,360.00 1,116,720.00 * 08/01/12 - - 47,520.00 47,520.00 02/01/13 995,000.00 3.200 47,520.00 1,042,520.00 1,090,040.00 08/01/13 - - 31,600.00 31,600.00 02/01/14 990,000.00 3.200 31,600.00 1,021,600.00 1,053,200.00 * 08!01/14 - - 15,760.00 15,760.00 02/01/15 985,000.00 3.200 15,760.00 1,000,760.00 1,016,520.00 * 6,180,000.00 839,002.67 7,019,002.67 7,019,002.67 Excess bond proceeds in the amount of $1,512.94 (contingency) will be deposited into the Debt Service Fund for the Series 2008A Bonds. EHLERS a ~~loei~r[3-Ne C #i+~#;~kiT.;#ifA1F##. 4k~r.#~f1~'f~if~~k~kiF:f ### F f ~oslwpcF°r ~'°}vrrcE~ca ff~~ ~a~ricEC~a"~N'U ~ ~1 t1C,~ L'v^r 1E~~ i ~ 9, ~~~e ~ aua ,: aril ~,~~~~~ ~ECEiG i ~~ pp ~' F~EPR:`NTEG ~~ ~:.~8:T1E' ~~CaU~{, ~~a"~ FINq~Cr ~ /•x.1,3' 1~~1?J rR C.INfPr ~4ece.p4p: c i'~;7 G~`IEF 0E2 ~ F~fllaaN L.~an pp ghlr: i 59, 784.56 ~CCaUN~~~ei,El ~. 31316 Fitdl~,yCE.fiec;;; r~ ~ i;~Eq; ? Pf#: ?195; (it~EF ~E~ ~ 6t~LtOF,' r~~~der?d APIi ; CHECi;; 1194 c 4~. y,~ U;'~C i..IjA,~I F'AYUFfi 1 £0, ~2~~, 36 CHt1~4GE; " F;4Ya~~ rEkf,~Y ri31~lANN .0H T~ rAl ; 1 b~ ,^_- r -~u.1f; ,\ • ~\ _ ((~ ~ ----.----_____._._._._._-----------------__.__.._-...-------_°--°___.._------- SECURITY MICROPRINT BORDER ---------------____.------~ -- \.J ,~ MAGIC M~D~.~ ~~,,~. ~, , . ~ _ - ~ ~, u L LEAS `AG 7~ t~rdr~y~~ chase ' ~P ~~~?;.t F.,r' ~~~T ' ~ll~~ibisa arket .j ~. 420-~. S. Fi~t~'~' $T ~ ~b o~"~;~„ a~hington Sued ,, , ; , . ~' ~ , Tndfana~b~is,'IN~462~1~ BANGOR, PA ~180~3 ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ (6101588-6700 X 130 ' ~ ~; - '~_.-,~_` ~ ~ ~ Four Hundred Farry Four-Dollars and 49 ents ~~~ PAY TO THE ORDER OF ~ DATE " AMOjJNT ~ February 15, 20Q8 ~~.~ City of Monticello Housiri Au~hori me w~ i .'d. ry' ~ , MAGIC MEDIA, INC. To: City of Monticello Houainq Authority (LP104123) Invoice No. Date Description 0000032405 2/13/2008 L501876, Annual 0000032406 2/13/2008 L501877, Annual TOTALS: ~~ ~,Ilb • ~ ~, 3~aao Check Number: 037110 Data: February 15, 2008 Amount Discount Paid Amount 5282.80 5.00 $282.80 5161:60. .- 5.00 5161.60 $444.40 $.00 $444.40 D F E B 2 2 2048 C1TV OF MONTiCELLO `~ • C ~ ~,~ ~ CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. zoos-i 6 RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COIVIlVIITTEE WHEREAS, the City Council is authorized to create advisory boadds for the City as deemed necessary for the proper management and operation of the City by Minnesota Statutes Section 412.1 11, and; WHEREAS, in 1982 an Industrial Development Committee was formed to operate as an independent organization serving as an advocate to influence and assist industrial development in and for the City of Monticello, and; WHEREAS, the mission of the IDC has been and remains to increase the industrial tax base, to create jobs at liveable wage-levels, and to maintain a favorable and desirable industrial environment in the City of Monticello, and; WHEREAS, the City Council and the Industrial Development Committee have determined it mutually beneficial to more formally recognize the IDC's importance and role in promoting and maintaining industrial development and job creation within the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Monticello: 1. The existence and continuation of the IDC is hereby recognized by the City Council. 2. The IDC as an independent organization shall make recommendations, advise, and assist the City Council, the Economic Development Authority, and other City boards and commissions on matters relating_.ta industrial development and job creation and retention. 3. The IDC shall select and confirm all committee members by a majority of vote of its membership for recommendation to the City Council for Council appointment. 4. The City Council shall appoint the Mayor and a Council Member to the IDC as non-voting members and shall appoint the Economic Development Director as the Executive Director of the IDC as anon-voting member. The Executive Director is under the direction of the City Administrator and the City Administrator may assign other support staff to the IDC as needed. 5. The IDC shall hold regulaz meetings the first Tuesday of each month at 7:00 a.m. in the Monticello Community Center. Special meetings maybe called by the Chairperson and Executive Director. 6. The IDC committee size, make-up of the committee, officers, length of membership term, and attendance shall be governed in accordance with. the Monticello Industrial Committee Organizational and Membership Guidelines. ADOPTED this ~ ~~ day of February, 2008, by the City Council of the City of Monticello. Clint Herbst, ayor ATTEST: .mss , Dawn Grossinger, Deputy Ci Clerk 2 Council Minutes: 2/1 t/08 and $11,662.00 respectively excluding sales tax; and to authorize the accessories listed in the cost detail at a total cast of $49,209.75 including all sales tax. Consideration of adopting resolution recognizing the Industrial Development Committee. Recommendation: Approve the proposed agreement and associated resolution recognizing the role of the Industrial Development Committee. O Consideration to approve appointment of members to the Industrial Development Committee. Recommendation: Move to appoint members to the Industrial Development Committee as recommended by the IDC as follows: MEMBERS PROFESSION TERM Bill Tapper Industrial, Manufacturer December 2008 Jim Johnson Education December 2008 Patrick Thompson Service, Utility December 2008 Barb Schwientek Member-At-Large December 2008 Don Tomann Industrial, Manufacturer December 2008 Rich Harris Industrial, Manufacturer December 2009 Dick Van Allen Industrial, Manufacturer December 2009 Dan Olson Service, Insurance December 2009 Marshall Smith Health Care (Eff 4/2008) December 2009 Zona Gutzwiller Service, Lender December 2010 Wayne Elam Service, Contractor December 2010 Don Roberts Industrial, Manufacturer December 2010 Lynne Dahl-Fleming Service, Print/Marketing December 2010 Mike Benedetto Member-At-Large December 2010 Sandy Suchy Chamber of Commerce Standing Member BRIAN STUMPF MOVED THE APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGEND WITH THE REMOVAL OF ITEMS #SH, #SI AND #SJ. WAYNE MAYER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. Consideration of items removed from the consent agenda for discussion. #SI Letter supporting Wright County's efforts to obtain $1,000,000 in LCCMR fu~iding for the Y~YICA property. Clint Herhst explained that the funds generated from the lottery go to various environmental uses and the City/County has been approved for $1,000,000 for the possible purchase of the YMCA property. Tom Perrault stated he pulled this item because he is in opposition to the acquisition of the land. BRIAN STUMPF MOVED TO APPROVE THE SUBMITTAL OF A LETTER T'O THE DNR SUPPORTING A GRANT APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE WRIGHT COUNTY PARKS DEPARTMENT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES LOCAL GRANTS PROGRAM FOR THE PROPOSED ACQUISITION OF THE BERTRAM CHAIN OF LAKES REGIONAL PARK. WAYNE MAYER SECONDED THE MOTION. Wayne Ma er stated he understood that Tom Perrault was not su ortina the ro osal to ac uire y PP a P p q the YMCA property but by voting no Tom Perrault was in opposition to someone else other than ~l ~~ an 1 TIF stag Arlin Waelti (651) 296-7979 Arlin. Waeltira?state.nm.us Pattison (651) 296-4716 Zisa McGuire (65I) 296-9255 Lisa.;y[cGuireri~state mn us Kurt Mueller (65I) 297-3680 Kurt.Muelleninstate mn us Suk Shah (651)296-7001 Suk.Shah~~state mn us Travis McGlothlen (651) 297-8342 Tmvis.McGlothlen/~ustate Iml us Michael Kolles (651} 284-3543 MichaeLKolles(a~state mn us Leanne Pfeninger (651) 282-2386 Leanne.Pfenin~ernctate mn us What are Administrative Expenses Administrative expenses include amounts paid for services provided by legal counsel, fiscal consultants, planning or economic development consultants, and authority staff members. Tax increment revenues can be used to pay these admin- istrative expenses. Not included in administrative expenses are amounts paid for the physical development of the project, including the purchase of land, relocation benefits, services of contractors or others providing material and services (including engineering and architectural services), and amounts paid for principal and interest on TIF bonds or other financial obligations. Minn. Stat. § 469.174, subd. 14. How does an Authority Determine Administrative Expense Limits? The administrative expense limit has changed over the years so it is important to know the certification request date of the TIF district, as it determines what the appropriate expense limit is. A table identifying the administrative expense limits is included on the next page. Minn. Stat. § 469.176, subd. 3. Do Administrative Expenses Need to be Documented Yes. An authority must document administrative expenses if the costs are to be reimbursed with tax increment revenues. The administrative expense limitation provisions cannot simply authorize an authority to retain ten or five percent of all tax increment revenues received for administrative expenses, regardless of actual expenditures. To obtain payment with tax increment revenues, administrative ex- penditures must be authorized in the TIF plan budget. Can Counties Charge for their TIF Administrative Expenses Yes. A county may require payment of TIF related administrative expenses by Office of the State Auditor Februa 15 of the year following the year in which it incurred the expenses. Tax Tax Increment Financing Division ~' 525 Park St., suite soo increment revenues may be used to pay these expenses. County administration st. Paut, MIV 55103 costs are not required to be set forth in the TIF plan budget. To obtain payment, Phone: (6>I}296-4716 the county auditor must submit to the authority a record of actual administrative Fax: (651) 297-3689 expenses incurred. County expenses billed to the authority are subject to the same tlfdlVltilOR~[~'illdlt0f STafC Rlil lLS rules applicable to other administrative expenses. Minn. Stat. § 469.176, subd. 4h. ~W.3LICIIMr cram mn nc OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR March 2008 TIF Staff Arlin Waefti (651) 296-7979 Arlin. Waelti~~r)state.mn.us Marsha Pattison (651) 296-4716 t McGuire (651) 296-9255 Lisa. ivlcGuiret<<tstate.mn.us I Kurt Mueller (651) 297-3680 Kurt.Muel(erri~stnte.mn.us Suk Shah (651)296-7001 S uk. S iah~r~~state. m n. us Travis McGlothlen (651) 297-8342 Travis.lVlcGlothlenri~state.mn, us Michael Kolles (651) 284-3543 M ichaeL Kollesi estate. rmt. us Leanne Pfeninger (651) 282-2386 Leanne. Pfeni n ~~er~c~s tate.mn_ us Office of the State Auditor Tax Increment Financing Division >25 Pazk St., Suite 500 St. Paul, biV 55103 Phone: (651)296-4716 Fae: (651) 297-3689 ti Ydivisionnauditorstate.mn_us ~~ bV.dLIC~lIOt',S1d18.t71R.US In general, the administrative expense limits are as follows: Administrative Expense Limit The lesser of: 10% of the total estimated tax in- crement expenditures authorized by the TIF plan, OR 10% of the total tax increment ex- penditures for the project 8/1/79 < CRD < The lesser of: 7/1/82 5% of the total estimated tax in- crement expenditures authorized by the TIF plan, OR 5% of the total tax increment ex- penditures for the district 7/1/82 < CRD < The lesser of: 8/1/01 10% of the total estimated tax in- crement expenditures authorized by the TIF plan, OR l 0% of the total tax increment ex- penditures for the project CRD > 8/1/01 The lesser of: 10% of the total estimated tax in- crement expenditures authorized by the TIF plan, OR 10% of the total tax increments received by the district PAGE 2 176, subd. 3(a) § 273.75, subd. 3 (Supp. 1979) Statutory cite changed in the 1987 recodification.J /§ 273.75, subd. 3 11982); ~Statl[tOYy cite changed in the 1987 recodification.J § 469.1'76, subd. 3 (Supp. 1987) § 469.176, subd. 3(c) (Supp. 200 t ) Statutory Cite OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR March 2008 • EDA Agenda - 03/]'.2/08 7. Unfinished Business. A. Consideration to hear an update relative to the administrative cost slhortfall associated with the Purchase and Development Contract between the EDA and WRE Properties LLC A. Reference and background• At the February EDA meeting, the commissioners made a motion to affirm the administrative shortfall in the amount of $5,875.45 for WItE Properties LLC, submission of payment in two annual equal installments. Decision based on a case by case basis. Based on the EDA's discussion and motion of February 13, a follow-up letter (E:KHIBIT A) was drafted and mailed to Mr. Walker. In a follow-up telephone conversation on. February 20th, Mr. Walker again informed me given our previous conversations relative toy the accountability of administrative costs and the fact that the $8,000 flat fee from Ehlers & Associates was over 50% the amount of the deposit or administrative costs, there was no responsibility on the part of government. Although he saw the deferral payment as a nice jester, he did not agree with the costs shortfall and was having his attorney reviev~r. The greatest concern of the EDA and staff is the potential of an unhappy developer. Commissioners Tapper and Viering volunteered to visit with Mr. Walker. In preparation of the visit, Commissioner Tapper requested some additional information. See EXHIBIT B. At the time of writing this agenda item, Commissioner Viering has been unable to conne;ct with Mr. Walker to schedule a visit. EDA Attorney Bubul verified the Contract is straight forward about administrative costs and the developer's obligation to pay such shortfall. If there is an update from Commissioner Viering and/or Tapper, please do so. The first annual installment of $2,937.725 was due 15 days after receipt of written notice of February 15, 2008. The EDA has not received the installment payment; therefore, the developer is in default of the Contract. What direction does the EDA want to take? Is it a wait and see approach? • ~ ~~~. ~ February 15, 2008 MONTICELLO Mr. Brian Walker WRE Properties, LLC 3161 Dalton Court Monticello, MN 55362 RE: Certificate of Completion and Administrative Costs Shortfall. Dear Mr. Wallcer. This is a follow-up to our telephone conversation of January 28, 2008, relative to your concerns of the $5,875.45 administrative costs shortfall notification of January 15, 2008. Within our conversation, you raised the fallowing concerns: Given previous conversations relative to accountability of administrative costs and the fact that the $8,000 flat fee from Ehlers & Associates was 50% over the amount of the $10,000 deposit; the developer felt the cost shortfall was clearly unacceptable, the administrative costs were mishandled, and was not the intent of the Contract. The commissioners of the City of Monticello Economic Development Authority (EDA) addressed your concerns at their regular meeting. of February 13, 2008.. The EDA. commissioners understood your concerns and agreed to the need to improve the means of communication and to redefine the total administrative costs in snot-to-exceed amount. The commissioners compazed costs shortfall and payment by other developers within the Monticello Business Center, noted the importance of consistent public policy, and reviewed the incentive package offered. Thereafter, the commissioners passed a motion on a five to one vote to affirm the administrative costs shortfall in the amount of $5,875.45 for WRE Properties, LLC, with submission of payment in two annual equal installments. Installments of $2,937.725 due 15 days after receipt of written notice of February 15, 2008, and February I5, 2009. Although the motion does not eliminate the amount of the shortfall nor the manner the administrative costs were handled, your concerns brought to the EDA and the Executive Director's attention the need to redefine snot-to-exceed amount for administrative costs and to identify up-front those costs in writing to developers. We apologize for the over-sight and the commissioners and myself look forwazd to visiting your facility in Monticello. Please do not hesitate to call me at 763-271-3208 should you wish to further discuss. Respectfully, CITY OF MONTICELLO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY t~~~ v~~~~ ~~~ Ollre Koropchak Executive Director iVtonticello City Hall, 50~ Walnut Street, Suite I, Monticello, NIN X5362-8831 • (763) 295-27 t I • Fax (763) 295-4404 Office of Public Works, 909 Golf Course Rd., Nlonticelto, iv(N 55362 • (763) 295-3170 • Fax (763) 27L-3272 ~~~~~~ ~ Recap of dates for WRE Properties, LLC (Walker In-Store} Preliminary Development Agreement dated January 31, 2007 Agreement effective through May 31, 2007. Deposit check of $10,000 dated February 2, 2007. February 5, 2007 -Ehlers authorized to prepaze documents and process associated with establishment of TIF District No. 1-38 and Kennedy & Graven authorized to prepaze Purchase and Redevelopment Contract. Purchase and Redevelopment Contract dated April 1 1, 2007 (Date HRA adopted resolution approving the contract.) HRA signed June 25, 2007 and Mr. Walker signed July 7, 2007. Earnest money check of $10,000 dated July 3, 2007. Ehlers Invoice dated May 10, 2007 $8,000. Kennedy & Graven Invoices dated March 21 through December 7, 2007. Total $7,875.45 Land closing date -July 31, 2007. Message Ollie Koropchak Page 1 of 1 ~~ Q From: Ingram, Martha N. [Mingram@Kennedy-Graven.comj Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 3:49 PM To: Ollie Koropchak Cc: Bubul, Stephen J. Subject: Walker contract Ollie - I just got off the phone with Steve Thorson, Brian Walker's attorney. He is realty pushing on two of his proposed changes: Section 3.6(b} indemnification for soils conditions, and Secti 3.9 administrative expenses. P a~ cq Section 3.6(b): Walker would like indemnification of the City and RA to take effect only after closing oin the conveyance of the property, and requested that you ask the HRA to allow this. I did explain that this was a standard contract term for the Otter Creek redevelopment sites, but he was pretty adamant that WRE should not be required to indemnify the City and HRA before it owns the property. QQ~, 1~ Section 3.9: alker is concerned about the extent to which admin costs will exceed the $10,000 already paid. He wanted to know how often the application fee amount is exceeded and what the worst case scenario has been. I told him I was not able to answer these questions and that he should speak directly with you. It sounded like he was mainly concerned about understanding his likely maximum obligation. I told him you could raise the question of a cap with the HRA, but that it was extremely unlikely the HRA would be willing to grant a cap in this case when it has not done so for anyone else. J These are the only two points that seem as though they might be sticky. Martha Ingram Kennedy & Graven, Chartered 470 U.S. Bank Plaza 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: 612.337.9231 Fax: 612.337.9310 mingram~kennedy-graven com This notice is required by IRS CircuIaz 230, which regulates written communications about federal tax matters between tax advisors and their clients. To the extent the preceding correspondence and or any attachment is a written tax advice communication, it is not a full "covered opinion." Accordingly, this advice is not intended and cannot be used for the purpose of (I) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or (2) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any matters addressed herein. This message (including any attachments) is from a law firm and may contain confidential client information or an attomey- clientcommunication that is confidential and privileged by law. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not the addressee or the employee or agent responsible to deliver this a-mail to its intended recipient, please delete this message (and any attachments) without any review, distribution, or copying and notify the sender of the inadvertent transmission. 4111 /2007 4,=11 - O Andrews stated that reseazch on the option needed to be done in the interim. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FRIE. MOTION CARRIED, 3 YEYS - 0 NEYS. 5. Consideration to approve a resolution adopting a modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No 1 and establishing TIF District No. I-38 therein and adoptine a TIF Plan therefore Applicant• Walker In- Store. Koropchak reported that the resolution the HRA is being asked to consider establishes a TIF district fora 5 acre, 1.5 acre developable site. Koropchak explained that all statutory requirements have been met and that the Planning Commission had approved their resolution. supporting the land use as consistent with the plan. Koropchak stated that Ehlers' projections indicate that the district should generate $75,000 in increment. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ANDREWS TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR CENTERAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 AND ESTABLISHING TIF DISTRICT NO. 1-38 THEREIN AND THE ADOPTION OF THE TIF PLAN THEREFORE. MOTIONED SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FRIE. MOTION CARRIED, 3 YEYS - 0 NEYS. Public Hearing on the Business Subsid~greement and Land Sale ._ a. ~ Consideration to adopt a resolution approving the Purchase and v Redevelopment Contract between the HRA and WRE, LLC including the business subsidy agreement and land sale. Koropchak stated that she had talked with the HRA attorney, who had spoken with WRE about the proposed changes. Koropchak reviewed the proposed changes. In section 3.6 referencing indemnification, Walker does not want to indenuufy the City and HRA until after closing. Walker's attorney was adamant on this item. Frie asked if this was an disagreement between two attorneys. Frie noted that it is hard to get insurance on something you don't own. Koropchak stated that the HRA attorney didn't seem to have a good reason to keep it in. Andrews stated that perhaps the HRA could acquiesce on that item. Koropchak also explained that Walker's attorney had requested a change regarding capping the amount of expenses for creation of the district and 3 Ciry project fees. The HRA Commissioners agreed that Walker should be required to pay actual costs. Koropchak explained that she had also further defined employment items to the applicant. That being that two part times jobs must equal 37.5 hours, and that a permanent employee is not temporary or seasonal. Koropchak noted that the applicant is purchasing 1.5 acres for $43,560.. The balance of 4.6 acres Walker is getting at no cost due to power Iines and ponding. Vice Chair Andrews opened the public hearing. Hearing no comment, Vice Chair Andrews closed the public hearing. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FAIR TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PURCHASE AND REDEVELOPMETN CONTRACT BETWEEN THE HRA IN AND FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO AND WRE, LLC, INCLUDING THE BUSINESS SUBSIDY AND LAND SALE, WITH A CHANGE TO SECTION 3.6 OF THE CONTRACT, REGARDING INDEMNIFICATION REQUIREMENTS. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ANDREWS. MOTION CARRIED, 3 YEYS - 0 NEYS. b. Consideration to approve a resolution authorizing Interfund Loan for Advance of certain costs in connection with TIF District No. 1-38. Koropchak stated that the HRA is being asked to consider a resolution which approves a loan for certain costs for the district. The loan authorizing the HRA to advance funds of $152,460 with 8% interest rate. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FAIR TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INTERFUND LOAN FOR ADVANCE OF CERTAIN COSTS IN CONNESTION WITH TIF DISTRICT NO. 1-38. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ANDREWS. MOTION CARRIED, 3 YEYS - 0 NEYS. 7. Consideration to approve the election of HRA officers and approve appointment of commissioner to subcommittees. Fair questioned whether Frie still intended to refrain from acting as chair in the coming year. Frie asked who would be chair in the rotation, should be choose to 4 EDA Agenda - 03/x2/08 7. Unfinished Business: B. Consideration to approve the January 21 2008 WSB Inc Invoices A. Reference and background• At the February EDA meeting, the commissioners made a motion to hold payrne:nt of the $2,278.50 and $190.75 WSB invoices for engineering services associated with Otter Creek Crossing. The commissioners requested aline-item description of the service provided. WSB has responded to the EDA request. See the supporting data attached. B. Alternative Action: 1. A motion to approve payment of $2,278.50 and $190.75 for WSB engineering services associated with Otter Creek Crossing. 2. A motion to table for additional information. C. Recommendation: Recommendation is for Alternative No. 1. D. ~ op rting Data: Copy of initial invoices and response from WSB. • MHK 05 2t~0t3 11 ~ 36 City of Monticello Attn: Tom Kelly 505 Walnut Street. Suite 1 Monticello, MN 55362-8831 March 5, 2008 Project No: 0148&920 Invoice No: 35 P.02i03 Otter Creek Industrial Campus t Preliminary Plat !Final Grading Plan CP# 2006-18C r - ~- b r 00 to ~~wm6er P Phase 3 Construction Professional Porsonnel Hours Rate Amount Project Menagement/Cpordination 0 ~ 117.00 58.50 Sisson, Shibani 12/4107 construction items Review project quantities for final payment and discussed rematntng to be completed with construction observ 00 117.00 117.00 Bison, Shibani 1215/07 Review final pay voucher and submit to contractor foz review Discussion with contractor to confirn~ actual quantltles completed. Pay Voucher 0 25 61.00 15.25 Buckley, Susan 1215/07 prepare final pay voucher documents and fax transmittal to contractor. 1.75 190.75 Totals 190.75 Total Labor Total this Phase 6190.75 Total this Invoice $190.75 Billings to Date Current Prior Total 190.75 101,256.50 101,447.25 Labor 0.00 4,450.00 4,450.00 Consultant 0.00 450.00 450.00 Expense 00 0 14,020.50 14,020.50 Fieid Services . 190.75 120,177.00 120,367.75 Totals Comments: Approved by: Reviewed by: Bret Weiss Project Manager: Shibani Sisson MRR-05-2008 11 37 Ciry of Monticello Attn: Tom Kelly 505 Walnut Street, Suite 1 Monticello. MN 55362-8831 r.es~es March 5, 2008 01627-570 Project No: Invoice No: 18 Dalton Ave & Westerly Road Extension (Dalton Court) CP# 2006-15C - -- ~___,,,,ha~ 1.204714.G Phase 3 Construction Professional Personnel Hours As-builts 12/5/07 7'~ Gruber, Gary 12/07 8.00 Hackman, Doug 1215107 12!6107 ~ J~ `~~ yam` ~ Totals Total Labor ~.,~ Yr.O-.~1~ '> `~ °~+ Billings to Date Labor Consultant Expense Field Services Tnf~le Approved by: Current 2,278.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,278.30 7.50 2.00 24,50 Prior 76,118.75 2,429.19 440.00 47,238.00 126,225.94 Rate Amount 93.00 651.00 93.00 7~'~ 93.Q0 697.50 93.00 186.00 2,278.50 2,278.50 Total this Phase 52,278.50 Total this Invoice 52,278.50 Total 78.397.25 2,429.19 440.00 47,238.00 128,504.44 Reviewed by: Bret Weiss Project Manager: Shibani gisson TOTAL P.03 ~~~ & .4s~- Infrastructure 1 Engineering 1 Planning /Construction City of Monticello Attn: Tom Kelly 505 Walnut Street, Suite 1 Monticello, MN 55362-8831 January 21, 2008 Project No: 01488-920 Invoice No: 35 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: 763-541-4800 Fax: 763-541-1700 Otter Crook la ~ ' . Grading f~Farr ~3 ~,;o ~, ;030 CP# 2006-18C Professional Services from December 1 2007 to December 31 2007 Phase 3 Construction Professional Personnel Hours Rate Amount Project Management/Coordination Bisson, Shibani 1.50 117.00 175.50 Pay Voucher Buckley, Susan .25 61.00 15.25 Totals 1.75 190.75 Total Labor 190.75 Tota l this Phase $190.75 Total this Invoice $190.75 _ _ ._ Billings to Date Current Prior Total ~`~ Labor 190.75 101,256.50 101,447.25 Consultant 0.00 4,450.00 4,450.00 Expense 0.00 450.00 450.00 Field Services 0.00 14,020.50 14,020.50 Totals 190.75 120,177.00 120,367.75 Comments: Approved by: ~}~,~~- ~~ Reviewed by: Bret Weiss Project Manager: Shibani Bisson Minneapolis 1St. Cloud Equal Opportunity Employer OK TO PAY? o_ Code: Initial: WSB & Assoclares. lnc. Infrastructure 1 Engineering f Planning I Construction 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 City of Monticello January 21, 2008 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Attn: Tom Kelly Project No: 01627-570 Tel: 763-541-4800 505 Walnut Street, Suite 1 Invoice No: 18 Fax: 763-54t-t7oo Monticello, MN 55362-8831 Dalton Ave 8~-tAEester~y-f~ead-Extension (Baftan-E-oartr ~~ 3 . -~ 6 301. 30 ~O CP# 2006-15C Professional Services from December 1 2007 to December 31 2007 Phase 3 Construction Professional Personnel Hours Rate Amount As-bu Its er, Gary 15.00 93.00 1,395.00 Hackman, Doug 9.50 93.00 883.50 Totals 24.50 2,278.50 Total Labor 2,278.50 Total this Phase $2,278.50 Total this Invoice $2,278.50 Billings to Date Current Prior Total Labor 2,278.50 76,118.75 78,397.25 Consultant 0.00 2,429.19 2,429.19 Expense 0.00 440.00 440.00 Field Services 0.00 47,238.00 47,238.00 Totals 2,278.50 126,225.94 128,504.44 Comments: r~ Approved by: 4J/~ll.,~~- (A,~Q Reviewed by: Bret Weiss Project Manager: Shibani Bisson OTC TO PAY? ~(~~ Gode: f ni~ia4; Minneapolis ! St. Cloud Equal Opportunity Employer EDA Agenda - 03/:(2/08 8. New Business• A. Consideration to call for a public hearing date to amend the Business Subsidy Criteria of the City of Monticello Economic Development Authority; A. Reference and background• At the EDA workshop prior to the regular EDA meeting, the commissioners reviewed the combined HRA and EDA Business Subsidy Criteria. Due to the consolidation of the HRA and EDA, the two documents were combined into one document. Using the original EDA Criteria, the major change was to intergrade the Tax Increment Financing Criteria into the; EDA Criteria. Due to those changes and a few other minor changes and in accordance with the Minnesota Statutes, any amendments to the Business Subsidy Criteria are subject to a public hearing. Therefore, the EDA is asked to call for a public hearing date of Wednesday, Apri19, 2008, at 6:00 p.m. B. Alternative Action: 1. A motion to call for a public hearing date of Wednesday, April 9, 2008, at 6:00 p.m. to amend the Business Subsidy Criteria for the City of Monticello EDA. 2. A motion to deny calling for a public hearing date of Wednesday, Apri19, 2008, at 6:00 p.m. to amend the Business Subsidy Criteria for the City of Monticello EDA. 3. A motion to table any action. C. Recommendation: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 for compliance of the Minnesota Statutes. D. Su ortin Data: Except from the Business Subsidy Criteria. • EDA Business Subsidy Criteria NIO~"fICELLO CITY OF MONTICELLO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Business Subsidy Criteria Public Hearing and Adoption the day of PURPOSE 1:01 The purpose of this document is to establish the City of Monticello Economic Development Authority's criteria for granting of business subsidies, as defined in Minnesota Statutes 116J.993, Subdivision 3, for private development. This criteria shall be used as a guide in processing and reviewing applications requesting business subsidies. 1:02 The criteria set forth in this document are guidelines only. The Economic Development Authority reserves the right in its discretion to approve business subsidies that vary from the criteria stated herein if the Economic Development Authority determines that the subsidy nevertheless serves a public purpose. The Authority will file evidence of any deviation from these criteria with the Department of Trade and Economic Development in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, section 116J.994, Subd. Z. 1:03 The Economic Development Authority may amend the business subsidy criteria at any time. Amendments to these criteria are subject to public hearing requirements pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 116J.993 through 116J.994. 2. STATUTORY LIMITATIONS 2:01 In accordance with the Business Subsidy Criteria, Business Subsidy requests must comply with applicable State Statutes. The Economic Development Authority's ability to grant business subsidies is governed by the limitations established in Minnesota Statutes 116J.993 through 116J.994. 3. PUBLIC POLICY REQUIREMENT 3:01 All business subsidies must meet a public purpose in addition to increasing the tax base. Job retention may only be used as a public purpose in cases where job loss is specific, imminent and demonstrable. DAwN/W O RD/POLCIES : 2/20!08 EDA Agenda - 03/12/08 8. New Business. C. Consideration to discuss creating a supplement gad funding program to encourage purchase of unoccuaied single-family homes and to authorize further direction. A. Reference and background: At the last couple of EDA meetings, there has been discussion about the current housing market in Monticello and the overall impact to the community and the commissioners requested the topic be on the March agenda. Attached as supporting data is: EXHIBIT A. (Excerpts from Ehlers Conference)„ EXHIBIT B. Monticello foreclosures (For EDA use only). EXHIBIT C. Auction Announcement. This information is provided as background information to demonstrate the downturn. in the housing market in Minnesota and Monticello. Does the data support or demonstrate the need for the EDA to consider development of a funding program? Secondly, EXHIBIT D. is a couple of funding ideas from Commissioner Viering. Mr. Viering will go over his ideas with the commissioners. Lastl an r y, y p ogram established by the EDA must have a funding source. Any public dollars must be tied to a public purpose. At the Ehlers Conference, I checked with EDA. Attorney Bubul to see if the EDA could legally use tax increment from the four existing Housing Districts. There is no pooling limit for Housing TIF Districts. Tax Increment maybe used within the project area, but must be used for affordable housing pursuant to Minnesota Statutes. For owner occupied housing 95% of units must be sold to persons at 100% (for 2 or less persons in the household) to 115% (3 or more persons) median income (2007 Wright County median income $77,600 EXHIBIT E.) In 2006, Ehlers prepared a fund balance analysis (current projected uncommitted revenues) for each active TIF District. The subtotal of the four housing districts over the life duration of each district was $1,431.000. The total cash balance of the four housing districts year-•end 2006 was approximately $77,000. In order to utilize these funds a couple of things nee;d to be completed: 1. Request Ehlers to update fund balance analysis (Optional). 2. Modification to enlarge the Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1 boundaries (EXHIBIT F) to include residential areas and include Housing Development. (Requires public hearing) ~J EDA Agenda - 03/12/08 3. Modification of the TIF Plan for each housing district. Requires public hearing. It is important for the EDA commissioners to fully discuss the public purpose and clearly define a policy/criteria for use of the uncommitted TIF revenues. What would happen to the uncommitted TIF revenues if not committed? Upon meeting the debt obligations and/or upon decertification of each TIF District, the uncommitted revenues are returned to the County and the County redistributes the tax increment among the applicable taxing jurisdictions. In the past, the city's portion of the redistributed tax increment has been deposited in the HRA General Fund. The reason I raise the question: There maybe individuals who will question the city's use of tax payer's dollars for foreclosure purposes or view it as a bail-out. I clearly see a difference between using tax increment dollars for unoccupied single-family homes verus homes in foreclosure. If the EDA is interested is using tax increment funds for foreclosure purpose, a suggestion is to tie the criteria to those with uncontrollable situations such as job loss or health issues. Purchase of unoccupied single-family homes encourages population growth stimulating or maintaining the community's over-all economy (retail and commercial vitality and school enrollment), prevents the potential of declining values or substandard neighborhoods, and encourages a safety and healthy environment. This is on the agenda for the EDA commissioners to discuss for further direction or authorization. B. Alternative Action: A motion of interest to move forward with a supplement gap funding program: 1.) Authorizing Kennedy/Graven to prepare criterialpolicybased on EDA input, 2.) Authorizing Ehlers to update the fund balance analysis, and/or 3.) Authorizing Ehlers to begin modifications of the Project No. 1 area and TIF Plans call for a public hearing date. 2. A motion of no interest to move forward with a supplement gap funding program. 3. A motion to continue or table for purpose of gathering more information and/or research other funding sources. 2 • EDA Agenda - 03/]l2/08 C. Recommendation: Staff recommends the EDA closely evaluate the public purpose and policy/criteria before creating a supplement gap funding program utilizing tax increment revenues. The program could be viewed as being proactive or as a misuse of public funds depending how its structured. D. Supporting Data• EXHIBITS A, B, C, D, AND E. • • ~' ._ ~, :~ ~. ~~~~ '~ W .~ :E ~ .~ -~ ~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ -~~ ~~ ~ ~~ L3 ` ..J Ill J ~ ~ ~ yes.. ~.^ 'AaAYi.'8.11HC`.h~k5 .. - - - _ - _ ... t ,...~.t - ._ - .... __~l>Sia/3'+~41.k ~~~~ ~ r~~~~r ~~~~l~~~~t~ T~~~x~c~c~~t~r~ I~~t~:~ "~~'r~j~~~~~1 ~~~~ ~ Ths ac~u~' r+urslbsr cal ~~rgrifi~'~ ~s i~ irx~~st b~o~'c~•~•~ ~fclch ~au~~ n~m~ 4 ~«_:a~ . R~"~d4k _ ~- li~rt-ai -f , ;; d + ,, ~ ; r ~ .., ., P ~ y ~ _,. .. c ~ ,. 1 ~~ 1 -~~ .. ~~ ~ ~ -~ sue" 1_- i V ~, n " t ~ ~' j y h ' i`L, k 'c+ ~ S I ~{ ~ _ie~'"C_`~.~ M ,~vi'.a: Ye e. nw~r~µ~. •rr1 ~~". `" 'st # _,,. ~ •~'~ ~ Y.~ r ~~; ~~ ~+ mid ._~~+.ti~• 1y ... ~ ~.= li'~1' ~],lt~ it«i Ufa i:.' ~' . i tt~s3it"~ i~TUit fir'"; rt tt Housinglink L s ~ t i i t~ 1 farceSv+rur ~ ~ ~naa'_~e: c~Fuaez:e+~tan s• a ?e:cs~ «^: ~ a~,.cbphd~ F Pireja~:-irk :uK.!' r r~ . ~ ic=.ar'~s~~d !fir tsau:.:.+~ ~'; x,~r~°;, ,,r~~x.1 fig ~: ~_ :4~~',~x,: ,~! F,6txe rtJ+~j .~1,°ta~al Y~!~ .o S3 ; u~ +~~-_~a~ c~ c vax~:~cvs as rr ~s tsasszssrlrs ~a~ '!:r S rzr Riicpsc~gci 'Irtaar ~e C r~*src ; :•:. tL.euar;.a1! ,stir: , - ~ , C ~ni +.'~ii ~e,-x-i ~ J ~t3 s'..~~~+w auk ~ Sri 4k I}t~ t~tk+a~t ~.' e~`~-~R y. 3 '~ f, .C ! ~ 4 ~~ s, r ~ ~~ s~ Y ~ s R` ~ ~ ~ Kd ~ n iR ~ ~ n ^n ~' ~ ~ ~ * ~i !S e'~i *' ~ ~- ~i ~- ~ e- ~ •~ iy n n n i~ r~ ~ A /1 r 4y V ±~ ~. ~~~~~ i~~ ~f l~tir~r~~~p~~6~ ~~ ~t~r~! L~~~t1 Fr~,~~t~~~r` ~~~ -,. °~^ei , c~ .~ _rr-s.Y =r, ~'_r~ :• ,; .c=l t •x.: L~F~-tr r-cf. r.x~as s."vtG~e"Fa•° I~.~r=d::.~.r".`r "~Nrrr~.;'m t.r ~~ ~ ~" `~' ~- J: ~ ~ p' ,~ ~' ~ ~, Cp cw•, ~ ~ ^! ~ ,~"7 J ~ ~ 3 ~~ ,~ =' ~~~ r' ~+ r ~ '_ ~ >~ E ~ 'rte l9 ^~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l~ ~ 'C ~ ~.~ ~ ~~ ~! +~ '~ ~ ~ ~ Sri ~~ •~~ -.Y ~, ~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~c ae~tt ~ {~ :i ~~ ~ r~11 •~ ~ ~ '~ ~ 7 ~• ~ ~~~~ ~ ;a .' .~ ~ ~ ` ~ ~_. ;~ ~ ., ~ ~ .!~e ~~ ~ ~ • . '~' F".. ~~d fiTJ ~1 ~- C~ ~ r T ~~ :!i.~ P-_ ~• ~+.-. '° `~ ~ 1 ley, 1:J" "~` ~ 7.., ~~ j ~i ~iy ~$ ~ ~ iT-~ f~% ?~ ~J? . r~ 6 ~!!• t '';;;#~~#~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~rypry_ r ~ ~ r •J ~} i'~J F-+ .r r r.. n .y ~ ~{ ~1 T ~~ ~ _ T ~= ~:~ T' •~ ~~ '~ .~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~; ~ ~~~~r~ ~~~A C. Move in to your new home this spring ..~~ Sa#urday, March 29, 2048 t'~ RtT~HIE 6R0S. Minneapolis Convention Center nacn«Ken r 5 Room 211 A•D,1301 Second Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota ~ , '°~, _~~~a M., .~ _~~ ~ ~ .. \ C ~' ~ _ ~.~ ~' _i ' ' ~ ~~ ~ r ~~~ ~ ~--~ 26 brand new homes f~~! ~, • ~ "~"~~ / ® These newly constructed homes, located in desirable Family neighborhoods throughout Minnesota and Wisconsin, ~_; ~' will be sold by unreserved auction to the highest bidders on __ ;~ ~~ ~•1_^,_ Saturday, March 29, 2008. This is a great opportunity to buy ~~" f~+~,~ the home ou want at the nce ou're willin to a y P Y g P Y• ~ s~ , ~ ~, y _`'`~`~ ~' ~ Sells to the highest bidders, regardless of price ®,~„~~, a., ~,.,~~ no minimum bids, no reserve prices s r ,l . Steven L. Speer MN (Resident) Broker #20443682, WI Broker #54785-90 • Motor Vehicle Dealer license #DLR23501 . Auctioneer Eddie R. Graham #2237 Irl~l~~l~l~rtlltrll....LIIrlrrrt~IllLr~~rIJIrL~~ll~rrrlrll R~~treo •"SCN 5-D!r-!T 58338 FIRST CLASS MAIL MS OuVE M KOROPCHAK u.s. WosrAO~aao t96 JERRY uEFERT DR etatve, wa MON~ICELLO MN 55362102 ~wulr No. to 1fr tf ~~~ s~ ~ ~ Mortgage & Housing Situation -The Next Phase There has been a lot of good work and good ideas to help some home owners save their homes. But, the sad fact is that this will not help everyone. Nor is everyone savable. The next big issue is: how do we fill the empty homes? Right now there are about 175 homes for sale within Monticello. According to some local realtors 25 to 30% of those homes are empty. If this is correct, this would be 40 to 50 empty homes. Empty real estate is an invitation for crime and without those home owners a drain on the local economy. There have been many creative offers that sellers have made to sell their homes and often monetary concessions but, that still does not help the real issue: how do they get financed? With the change in the mortgage business, it is more difficult to qualify borrowers to buy homes with minimal down payments. Here's one idea for a partial solution: 1. Bank financing for 80 to 85% of the purchase price at current market rates and terms; 2. State (or locally) funded or guaranteed loan for the balance of the purchase price; a. The purchase price must be less than $300,000 b. The purchaser must complete a financial literacy course such as the FDIC's "Money Smart" 3. Seller pays a 1 to 2% guaranty/origination fee; Another idea: 1. Bank financing for 90% of the purchase price at current market terms and rates; 2. State (or locally) funded, or guaranteed, loan for 5% of the purchase price; 3. State (or local) grant for 5% that is non-repayable by the purchaser if they live in the house for five years; a. The purchase price must be under $225,000; b. The purchaser must complete a financial literacy course; 4. Seller pays a 1 to 2% guaranty/origination fee; Both of these ideas are for empty homes only. This may push buyers toward empty homes from occupied homes for sale but, I believe it is in the publics' best interest to fill the empty homes first. This will do more to bring values of homes back up faster as it will require less price cutting by the owners of empty homes to sell them. The sellers' fee can help offset the costs of the program and set up a reserve for any losses. Bob Viering 1128 W River St. Monticello, MN 55362 (763) 226-5710 Bobv 1973(~yahoo.com M w C =L r ~.. c E ai ~ a~ ~ ~ °p E ~ ~ o N ~ O m ~ ~ r- ~, ~ E ~ w ~ > Y v ~ N t!~ d O U 7 ~ ); (II a ~ Y L U Q. ° Y O ~ O O N _~' w r- ~ N y a U Q N O ~ 0 Y ~ ~ ~ ~, d L N L O L a O ^~ W N ^~ ~~ ^~ ~/ V 0 0 ^.~ .~ J+ W •O V ~~ 0 0 N N _~ J O _C N LL L... LS, ~ ~ ~' ti C .~ C U Q Z C O ... m C .~ O O m R a d c _c a~ L f'-' Q L 3 z c 0 m c .~ 0 0 00 3 R a w v~ ~o a R C O a .N c 0 U L w O Z 0 0 N ~~; _~_~~- ~ ~ ;~~ ~ ..~~ I ~ i ~ _ ~'__ ~~ - - _ y'-"- `mo -- ` "_-- _ _. ~c I --- -~ ~ r j. i I _. _ ~ r, Y ~i ' ~'. +~- I ~ ~ ~ ~~ I i \ ~~: \ C..lti. ~`Y` .~.-~ { , ~ ~ I ~, f'. ~.rJV' Yr-a ~~~ ~ ~ \. _ _ a i' ~I L~, ~ \~ J i '~~ ~ iir l ~ ~. ~ ` :a. . 5 ,, ~ ~, ~1 ~~ ~ . `~ ? ~~ - ,~ ~ ~" _ -~ ~ MM /~I i ~ ` ~' \ _ _ --;,~ ~ ,~ = ~ _ -' ~ am -~ ` y p C " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~~~~ _ O ° .. -_ ~ z z ~,ri ~ z ~ ~ ~ ? I ~ ~ ~ y h ,: o r ~ r ~.~~ ~, o ~~V f ,~ ~ o ~ z~~- ~~, _ -_r~... _ ..._ ,_ _.... . EDA Agenda - 03/12/08 8. New Business: D. Consideration to review HRA Goals and proposed Comp Plan, Economic Development Strategies. Discuss development and process for estabblishment of EDA Objectives Strategies and Tasks (Work Plan) First, the EDA members are asked to review the HItA Goals which are attached. Secondly and for your information, on March 4, the Planning Commission is expected to call for a public hearing date of April 18, 2008, for recommendation to adopt the Comp Plan. Utilizing the Economic Development Chapter of the proposed Comp Plan, I sununarized the Land Use -Places to Work into the two objectives: Attracting Jobs and Expanding the Tax Base and listed the benefits of each. The last part of the summary is the Development Strategies identified for Places to Work You will note the HRA Goals were similar to the proposed strategies; however, the HRA never established a work plan. Previously, the EDA did not establish annual goals or a work plan. Based on the Development Strategies for Places to Work, the EDA needs to discuss development and a process for establishment of an EDA Work Plan. Previously, the commissioners requested clarification of the roles of the IDC and EDA in order 1`o prevent overlapping. The Economic Development Chapter also identifies Enhancing Downtown and redevelopment which is clearly the role of the EDA, not the IDC. These items a~-e not addressed at this time. In the past, the IDC and HRA which provided the funding; tools, worked together on the marketing and the industrial land goals (To provide increased employment opportunities through permanent businesses located in the area and to establish and to promote development incentives to facilitate new industrial construction on vacant land). Of the eight strategies in the Economic Development Chapter, Strategies I through IV support the objective: Expanding the Tax Base which perhaps is more suited to be the role of the EDA. While Strategies V through VIII supports the objective: Attracting Jobs which historically have been initiated and the role of the IDC. The purpose of this exercise is to clarify roles although interrelated and to suggest a process for the IDC and EDA. At the March 4 meetiing of the IDC, the members were presented the same agenda item and the outcome of their decision or dicussions will be reported to the EDA. 1. Clarify role of IDC and EDA by objective and strategies. IDC and EDA agree:. 2. Each commission then develop a Work Plan which supports each objective and strategy by identifying tasks, prioritizing the tasks, establishing a time frame (annual, five-year, 10-year or short and long term), assignment (whom to carry out), and budget. Ask members to volunteer 1 EDA Agenda - 03/12/08 on a subcommittee of their expertise or interest for development and accountability of the work plan. It is not the intent to fully discuss or complete this exercise at this meeting; however, the EDA may wish to identify their preferred objective and development strategies given the feedback from the IDC. In other words, is their an agreement between the EDA and IDC as to the role each will play in the development an Economic Development Work Plan. Some of the Development Strategies are currently being carried out through tasks of the Marketing, Fiber Optics, and Higher Education Subcommittees. SUPPORTING DATA. Existing HRA Goals. Summary of the Economic Development Chapter -Land Use -Places to Work. 2 • • HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ~ IN AND FOR THE CITY OF MOIVZ'ICELLO Mission Statement To increase the tax base, to create jobs at a sustainable wage-level, and to maintain a spectrum of housing mix within the City of Monticello, Minnesota. P ose To coordinate, facilitate, and implement proposals and commitments to undertake development and redevelopment consistent with the objectives set forth in the Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1 Plan and the Comprehensive PIan of the City of Monticello. Goals To provide a service to developers that is user-friendly and professional. 2. To maximize the opportunity for development and redevelopment by private enterprise. To provide increased employment opportunities through permanent businesses located in the area. 4. To acquire and remove buildings that are structurally substandard and/or buildings that are economically or functionally obsolete and infeasible of being rehabilitated. 5. To strive to accomplish the optimum quality of development for the project through site planning and landscape architecture, the treatment of open space, building design, the use of materials, scale, appropriateness, and functional utility. 6. To accomplish convenient and adequate parking to serve the needs of the area. 7. To establish and to promote development incentives to facilitate new industrial construction on vacant land. 8. To develop high density housing in immediate proximity to public and commercial facilities. 9. To provide adequate streets, utilities, and other public improvements and facilities to enhance the area for both existing and new development. 10. To establish and to promote renovation/redevelopment incentives to foster a vibrant core city. 2008 MONTICELLO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN is a tool for guiding the growth, redevelopment and improvement of the City into 2030. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER LAND USE -PLACES TO WORK OBJECTIVE OF PLACES TO WORK: I. Attracting Jobs. II. Expanding the Tax Base. ATTRACTING JOBS. I. Benefits of Attractin Jobs• A. Jobs attract residents to the community. Jobs will play a critical role in creating the type of "move up" housing sought by the City. B. Jobs provide the income needed to support local business and government services. C. Retention of businesses promote community stability by keeping jobs and growing jobs and residents in Monticello. II. Types of Jobs: A. Jobs created by attracting new business development. 1. Bioscience, technology, research and development, corporate headquarters, business office, wholesale showrooms, and related uses. 2. Other general industrial development in the areas of manufacturing, processing, warehousing, distribution, and related businesses. 3. Non-industrial businesses that provide necessary support to the underlying development objectives of this land use. Examples of supporting land uses include lodging, office supplies and repair services. B. Jobs created by the retention and growth of existing business development. III. Wage Levels: A. Emphasis on jobs at higher wage levels that allow more people to live and work in Monticello. B. Promote wage levels that provide incomes needed to purchase decent housing, support local businesses and support local government services. EXPANDING THE TAX BASE. I. Benefits of Ex andin~ the Tax Base• A. Property taxes are the largest source of city revenue. B. While Xcel Energy creates almost 40% of the city's tax base which is a unique asset, it is essential that the tax base become more diversified. C. Promotion of a business campus setting that provides a high level of amenities, including architectural controls, landscaping, preservation of natural features, storage enclosed within buildings, and other features. DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES: I. Use Comprehensive Plan to provide adequate locations for future job-producing development. (Preserve sufficient land for Places to Work over the next twenty-five years.) ~l~ ~ II. Adhere to the Comprehensive Plan to encourage stable business setting and promote ~ investment and expansion of facilities. III. Coordinate utility planning and manage other development to ensure that expansion areas are capable of supporting new development in a timely manner. IV. Evaluate the need and feasibility of additional city-owned business parks as a means attracting the desired businesses. V. Establish a plan to evaluate the feasibility of implementing the recommendation of the SCSU study and if feasible to take necessary action to attract bioscience businesses to Monticello. VI. Continue to work with existing businesses to maintain an excellent business environment, retain ~ jobs, and facilitate expansions. VII. Work with the Monticello-Big Lake Hospital to ensure the retention and to promote the expansion of health care services in Monticello. VIII. Use the Comprehensive Plan to maintain and enhance the quality of life in Monticello as a tool for attracting businesses and jobs. 2 EDA Agenda - 03/12/08 8. New Business: E. Consideration to review infrastructure construction costs associated with Phase I and Phase II of Otter Creek Crossin A. Reference and background• At the last EDA meeting and as part of the discussion about the Preferred Package Criteria for the Monticello Business Center offering of land for $1.00 per sq ft with no assessments and no trunk fees, the question was: Does the EDA need to increase the offer of $1.00? This figure was arrived at through the initial proforma based on estimated infrastructure construction costs, land acquisition costs, projected land sales, and projected tax iincrement revenues. The commissioners requested a financial printout of actual infrastructu~xe construction costs to compare to budget costs. I requested such print-outs from the Finance Department and also revenues from land sales in the Monticello Business Center. The EDA Assistance Treasurer did a summary of revenues and expenditures for Chelsea Road (Phase I), Otter Creek Grading, and Dalton Extension (Phase II). Chadwick is assessed 79% and the City 21 % for Chelsea Road which was part of the land purchase negotiations. Revenues from EDA land sales and tax increment revenues do not appear on these print-outs. More information at the annual meeting in April. • City of Monticello, Minnesota Chelsea Rd/School Blvd Ext Statement of Revenues and Expenditures From Inception to March 5, 2008 Project 2005-11 C 2007 2006 2005 2004 INCEPTION YEAR TO YEAR TO YEAR TO & PRIOR TO DATE DATE DATE DATE TO DATE BALANCE REVENUES: Bond Proceeds 4,832,416.47 4,832,416.47 Interest Income 0.00 Miscellaneous Revenue 151.94 151.94 Sale of Property 5,727.00 5,727.00 Escrow Deposit 0.00 Operating Transfer Fund 0.00 Transfer From Trunk Fees 9,800.00 32,040.00 41,840.00 Operating Transfer Fund 0.00 0.00 TOTAL REVENUES 0.00 9,800.00 4,870,335.41 0.00 4,880,135.41 EXPENDITURES: Engineering Fees 10,859.56 64,281.75 312,858.39 35,323.14 423,322.84 Legal Fees 4,196.64 4,196.64 Bond/Consultant Fees 0.00 Legal Notices 1,534.96 1,534.96 Other Professional Services 1,489.22 8,289.56 14,865.50 24,644.28 Inspection Costs 40.99 138.98 46.97 226.94 Generator 262.25 33,538.50 33,800.75 Bond Fees 41,868.67 41,868.67 Public Works Admin Fee 4,557.79 52,175.00 56,732.79 Construction 162,522.79 6,600.83 2,608,774.93 2,777,898.55 Transfers to Other Funds 9,800.00 32,040.00 41,840.00 Interest Expense 0.00 Miscellaneous 113.98 57.46 171.44 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 173,799.57 120,407.07 3,061,842.58 50,188.64 3,406,237.86 REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES (173,799.57) (110,607.07) 1,808,492.83 (50,188.64) 1,473,897.55 FUND BALANCE BEGINNING OF PERIOD 0.00 END OF PERIOD (173,799.57) (110,607.07) 1,808,492.83 (50,188.64) 1,473,897.55 ~~°Io C-+~ x'11 S.~tD REVENUES: Bond Proceeds Interest Income Miscellaneous Revenue Sale of Property Escrow Deposit Operating Transfer Fund Transfer From Trunk Fees Operating Transfer Fund TOTAL REVENUES EXPENDITURES: Engineering Fees Legal Fees Bond/Consultant Fees Legal Notices Other Professional Services Inspection Costs Generator Bond Fees Public Works Admin Fee Construction Transfers to Other Funds Interest Expense Miscellaneous TOTAL EXPENDITURES REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES FUND BALANCE BEGINNING OF PERIOD END OF PERIOD City of Monticello, Minnesota Otter Creek Statement of Revenues and Expenditures From Inception to March 5, 2008 Project 2006-18C 2007 2006 2005 2004 YEAR TO YEAR TO YEAR TO ~ PRIOR DATE DATE DATE TO DATE O.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo 6,272.50 80,815.91 616.60 46.00 6,188.05 8,558.86 337,980.44 6,318.50 434,159.86 0.00 0.00 (6,318.50) (434,159.86) 0.00 0.00 (6,318.50) (434,159.86) 0.00 0.00 INCEPTION TO DATE BALANCE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 o.oo 87,088.41 0.00 0.00 616.60 6,234.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 8,558.86 337,980.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 440,478.36 (440,478.36) 0.00 (440,478.36) City of Monticello, Minnesota Dalton Avenue Extension Statement of Revenues and Expenditures From Inception to March 5, 2008 Project 2006-15C 2007 2006 2005 2004 INCEPTION YEAR TO YEAR TO YEAR TO & PRIOR TO DATE DATE DATE DATE TO DATE BALANCE REVENUES: Bond Proceeds 0.00 Interest Income 0.00 Miscellaneous Revenue 0.00 State Hwy Aid 0.00 Escrow Deposit 0.00 Operating Transfer Fund 0.00 Transfer From Trunk Fees 0.00 Operating Transfer Fund 0.00 0.00 TOTAL REVENUES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 EXPENDITURES: Engineering Fees 82,490.25 90,411.25 172,901.50 Legal Fees 196.00 196.00 Bond/Consultant Fees 0.00 Legal Notices 869.70 869.70 Other Professional Services 554.11 2,945.89 3,500.00 Inspection Costs 513.00 513.00 Supplies 0.00 Publishing Costs 0.00 Public Works Admin Fee 4,045.08 15,904.02 19,949.10 Construction 343,810.70 698,319.30 1,042,130.00 Transfers to Other Funds 0.00 Interest Expense 40,506.00 3,892.73 44,398.73 Miscellaneous 0.00 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 471,406.14 813,051.89 0.00 0.00 1,284,458.03 REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES (471,406.14) ($13,051.89) 0.00 0.00 (1,284,458.03) FUND BALANCE BEGINNING OF PERIOD 0.00 END OF PERIOD _ (471,406.14) (813,051.89) 0.00 0.00 (1,284,458.03) EDA Agenda - 03/:LZ/08 8. Consideration of an u date on the re uest for information for CCD ro r ~ r r~ ~ F. Reference and background: The Community Development Office has received a request for information to condo out the existing building at 103 Pine Street (Froslie property). She has asked for guidance to condo the main floor into three units and for extra parking on the River Street side. She hopes to sell- off two of the three units. She also asks: Does the City have any matching funds, for downtown revitalization? In late 2006 and early 2007, the HRA attempted to purchase this property from Froslie. After several attempted negotiations via Attorney Conroy, the HRA in Apri12007 witr~drew any further negotiations with Froslie. The last offer by the HRA to Froslie was $327.,789 and use of the property for 2 to 3 years after the sale rent-free. Froslie's offer was $500,000 and use for 3 years, they pay no taxes but utilities. Total sq ft of parcels. 22,679. The HRA purchased the Cedar Street Garden Center for $450,000 -total sq ft of 48,787. Two questions for the EDA: 1) Are you interested in another attempt to purchase? 2) Should the City encourage investment of properties in the downtown district? If the building is brought up to code, it will be difficult to meet the structurally substandard test for a Redevelopment TIF District. This item is for informational purposes and to gather input. •