EDA Agenda 12-10-2008 AGENDA
• CITY OF MONTICELLO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, December 10, 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 Megan Barnett
1. Call to Order.
2. Approve Minutes: November 12, 2008
3. Consideration of additional agenda items
4. Approval of the EDA Invoices
5. Public Hearing and approval to amend EDA Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund
Business Subsidy Criteria
6. Proposed Marketing Budget for 2009
7. Reassignment of Developer's Agreement for Prairie West
• 8. Elect officers for 2009
9. Report of committees: Higher Education Committee, Marketing, Housing, Fiber Optics
10. Report of the Executive Director
General
IEDC Update
Business Retention
Business Initiative
Housing Initiatives
Informational handouts
Future Agenda items
11. Adjournment.
•
Minutes
• CITY OF MONTICELLO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
6:OOpm
1. Call to Order:
Chairman Demeueles called the meeting to order and declared a quorum at 6:OOpm.
Roll Call:
The following Commissioners were present:
Chair Bill Demeules
Vice President Dan Frie
Treasurer Bill Tapper
Commissioner Bill Fair
Commissioner Bob Viering
Mayor Herbst
Council Member Mayer (arrived
Also present Executive Director Megan Barnett
2. Approve minutes:
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER TAPPER SECONDED BY FAIR TO APPROVE THE OCTOBER 8, 2008
MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. 6-0 (Commissioner Mayer was absent)
3. Consideration of additional agenda items: none were added
4. Approval of the EDA Invoices:
Commissioner Bob Viering questioned whether the EDA has been presented with prior invoices
related to Dalton Avenue. Executive Director Barnett stated they EDA has reviewed and
approved five prior invoices. Chairperson Demeules questioned why the City has not signed the
invoice.
Executive Director Barnett reviewed the invoice with the EDA. Barnett stated it was for work
completed related to signing, stripping, and a small portion of wear course. The City Engineer
has signed off on the invoice and City staff will sign it upon EDA approval.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FAIR SECONDED BY TAPPER TO APPROVE THE EDA INVOICES.
MOTION CARRIED. 6-0 (Commissioner Mayer was absent)
5. Public Hearing and approval to amend EDA Tax Increment Financing Business Subsidy Criteria
and continue public hearing related to GMEF Business Subsidy Criteria.
Director Barnett requested that the EDA open and continue the public hearing for the GMEF criteria
in order to allow staff time to complete further research on the Small Cities Loan fund and how it
relates to the GMEF.
MOTION BY HERBST SECONDED BY VIERLING TO OPEN AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING REACTED
TO THE GREATER MONTICELLO ENTERPRISE FUND BUSINESS SUBSIDY CRTIERA. MOTION CARRIED. 7-0.
Director Barnett went through the proposed formatting and language changes related to the Tax
Increment Financing Business Subsidy Criteria. Barnett noted that the criteria and content of the
document stayed the same. A majority of the changes were simply grammar corrections to make the
statements more understandable and the document was reformatted to provide a better flow. Director
Barnett stated that reference made to $9.00 minimum wage was deleted and was simply referenced as
the rate set forth by the establishment of the federal minimum wage rate.
Barnett also commented that TIF consulting firm Ehlers and Associates advised that reference made to
the amount of subsidy given should not correlate to the number of jobs required to be created. The
established TIF subsidy should be based on the merit of the project and how it relates to meeting the
policy guidelines.
Commission Tapper commented that he would like to change 4.03 C to simply state "business subsidy
should create jobs when appropriate" and should not relate to date of occupancy.
Commissioner Frie stated he thought there was significant discussion related to requiring businesses to
be on the accountable at time of occupancy for creation ofjobs.
The consensus of the EDA was to keep the statement as proposed.
Commissioner Tapper questioned section 5.04 A. He stated he thought the language should reflect the
proposed language given by Ehlers. Director Barnett read the proposed language.
The consensus of the EDA was to change the document to reflect Ehlers proposed language.
Commissioner Fair stated section 4.02 was confusing. Barnett suggested taking out the word
"required."
Commissioner Fair noted a typo on 3.01 "included" should be "include."
Chairperson Demeules opened the public hearing. No citizen input was received.
MOTION BY VIERLING SECONDED BY TAPPER TO APPROVED THE BUSINESS SUBSIDY CRITERIA AS
AMENDED: MOTION CARRIED. 7-0.
6. TIF Management Analysis:
Barnett reviewed the staff report. Staff is recommending awarding the proposal to Ehlers. She stated
her reasons based on their knowledge of the City, the fact that they are completing the records
retention program, and they are the Cities financial consultant positions them well to complete the
. project.
Herbst stated the bid process is an important process. He is uncomfortable going with the a higher
bidder when the lowest bidder is qualified to complete the project. He also stated he felt Ehlers should
have come in as the lowest bidder and it is good for the City to diversify in who they use for consultants.
Mayer stated that Rusty was very well received and had extensive knowledge about Monticello due to
the fact he assisted in completing City's Comprehensive Plan. He echoed Herbst's comments that it is
good to get other consultants completing work in the City.
Commissioner Fair stated that going with Elhers would be a good option as it would most likely be less
staff time intensive considering the history Ehlers has in the City. Ehlers has the history and the
experience to make them a good consultant to complete the project.
Commissioner Frie sated he was in favor of going with Northland to get a different perspective.
Commissioner Viering stated he was in favor of hiring Ehlers to assist with staff transition.
MOTION BY MAYER SECONDED BY FRIE TO SOLICIT NORTHLAND SECURITIES TO COMPLETE THE TIF
ANALYSIS PROJECT. MOTION CARRIED. 4-2. COMMISSIONER TAPER ABSTAINED.
7. Report of Committees
Executive Director Barnett reviewed foreclosure prevention and funding options through the state and
county. Barnett stated there was interest to create a Monticello Open House event.
Barnett discussed the efforts steps taken to make the Cities website more site selector friendly.
Director Barnett reviewed the Transformation Loan pilot period is coming to an end in 2008. She
requested that the EDA hold off on initiated the program another year until completion of the TIF
Analysis is completed.
MOTION BY FAIR SECONDED BY HERBST TO ADJORN THE MEETING.
Meeting adjourned at 7:20pm.
•
4. Auproval of EDA Invoices.
Lamar: Attached is the invoice for the monthly charge pertaining to the billboard. The
monthly contract amount is $1,100. Also attached is an invoice for the production of a
second message. Due to an error by Lamar companies, the City will receive the month of
January free to keep the message on the billboard.
Monticello Times: Attached is the invoice from Monticello Times to publish the public
hearing to amend the Business Subsidy Criteria.
MN Real Estate Journal: Payment for the ad placed in the MN Real Estate Journal is
included. It should be noted that Xcel Energy paid for half of the ad.
WSB: Attached is an invoice for WSB staff time associated with the Otter Creek
Industrial Park and Dalton Ave & Dalton Court projects.
•
• 1
~~
OTC TO PAY?---
Cade:
Initial:
HRA FUND, ***•*******•***
:
-. /
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTH .
::....... .
-ti
LAMAR COMPANIES/THE - '
10'6X36 VINYL PRODUCTION 729.32 MARKETING 213.46301.3460 148106 11734803 P 936 00183
LAW BULLETIN PUBLISHING
MN R.E. JOURNAL AD (1/2) 1,250.00 MARKETING 213.46301.3460 148041 1099137 P 936 00185
MONTICELLO TIMES
PH GMEF 9/25,10/2 92.12 LEGAL NOTICE PUBLICATION 213.46301.3510 148144 870804 P 936 00225
2,071.44 ............... -
HRA FUND 2,07144 **FUND TOTAL** '~-"`-
~
• I '
2941
ADVERTISER: CITY OF MONTICELLO
DESIGN:
CONTRACT NO:
LAMAR ID NO: 756447
t ~ V ®~ ~ ~ P.O. BOX 96030, BATON ROUGE, LA 70896
800-777-4896 OR225-926-1000
INV NO: 1173480.3
ACCOUNT N0: 305703 000 INVOICE DATE: 10/25/2008 "
BILLING PERIOD: 10/25/2008
I57-DSL68
• • •
MONTICELLO, MN
10/25/2008
PRODUCTION OF 10'6X36 VINYL
FREIGHT 720.00
9.32.
2 - ~ , ~l~v~l ~ 3
a~
~-~
~ ~~ ~~
~~~ ~ ~
~~~~
.n..µ.
E~~~ ¢f~~ tt~~ -~~ ~~ ~ t
a~
t. ~ _~..~
i~ ~ __.
~~
_
~
~_
~~~~
~~i~~,#G i BBB 11~61~~~Z.1
~~ ~~ ~~'~
~
t
.,..
COMPANY ~ ~. RD ~-.--.-.-..::
AM?~U4~T
157
ST. CLOUD, MN --
729.32
PLEASE SEE REVERSE FO R IMPORTANT INFORMATION! DUE DATE : 11 / 2 5 / 2 0 0 8
VISA ^
Credit Card Information:
Name as it appears on your credit card:
Account #
Bill to Address as it appears on your credit card bill:
Expiration Date:
Signature:
By signing this you agree to all terms of our contract.
02942 016
~i~t~n~i~ui~~n~~n~t~i~~t~~t~tt~nt~~nnE~~~nn~t~u~i~~~
CITY OF MONTICELLO
505 Walnut St Ste 1
Monticello, MN .55362-8831
MASTERCARD ^ AMERICAN EXPRESS ^ Check/Money Order ^
CITY OF MONTICELLO 157-DSL6867
Date:
THIS AMOUNT DUE
15730570300
TERMS: 0011734803000072932
NET 30 DAYS 729 .32
REMITTANCE STUB: PAGE 1
MAIL THE LAMAR COMPANIES
PAYMENT ~ P.O. BOX 96030
TO BATON ROUGE, LA 70896
Law Bulletin t~
Publishing Company
415 NORTH STATE STREET
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60654
312.644.7800
BILL T0: 113723-00
CITY OF MONTICELLO
505 Walnut St Ste 1
Monticello MN 55362
Attn: ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
REAL ESTATE COMMUNICATIONS GROUP
INDEX PUBLISHING CORPORATION
SULLIVAN'S LAW DIRECTORIES
INVOICE
Invoice Date: 11/07/08
Invoice Number: 1099137
Salesperson: KODYTEK
Due Date: Upon Receipt
Fein: 3 - 8690
SOLD T0: 113723-00
CITY OF MONTICELLO
505 Walnut St Ste 1
Monticello MN 55362
Cust PO: None Order: 702654 Qty Price Inv Amt
11/06/08 MN Real Estate Journal 1/4 Pg 4C 1 EA
Note: Attn: Megan Barnett
Leading the way with technology
November 2008 Issue
1,250.00
1,25U.UU
~l.f , ~~; ~_~~~
TOTAL INVOICE AMOUNT
A Late Charge of 1.5% Per Month will be Added to All Open Balances on the 31st Day After the Invoice Date
Original Copy -For Your Records
1,250..00
Page 1 of 1
Payee
CITY OF MONT I CELLO
~~
' Vendor ID Employee # Check No. Date
0000106015 0000800964 10/17/08
Payment Ref Invoice No. y PO/Contract Disc/Wth Pay Amo
718501000009 101408 .00 $625
Pymt Comments: Real Estate Journal Ad
~~,~, Nl . zz e
~.
~- i ; ,
~t****e**~~~*e*e*e**~* **~*~**~*e*e*
CITY OF f90HTICELL0
505 WALHUT 5T SUiTE 1
~ ~ ~ {90HTICELLO, ~1N 553b2
~-v ~-~ ~~/ ~~ TR# 8 REGA 81 OPq 1 18/23/208
~~ C,~~ C~._~r m,.~ ~, 18/23/2808 09:02:58
~~~..,. Misce anevus
~ ~ T 2 z 20108 ACCO~TA: 213.4b301.3468
FIMAHCE RereiptN: 23396
,~~ JOIHT AD CI1Y/XCEL
PAYOR: XGEL EHERGY
,, ~;. ~ ~ x 9 ~ AI9T : 625.80
~~~~ ~.~~ ~ xi~.~~ g~a~~~.,,® Tendered
-~--- -~-• •••-------•-•--•--°~° CHE\ECK: b809b4 625.00
' CHANGE: t,:,~x.,;, ~~fi
TOTAL: 605.80
-- THAMK YOU --
*e*e***e****~~***e*e~***~*e**********
~~ •
MONTICELLO TIMES
10917 VALLEY VIEW ROAD
N PRAIRIE MN 55344
'1)392-6890
Fax(763) 295-3080
Advertisins~ Memo Bill
CITY OF MONTICELLO
ATTN: ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
505 WALNUT ST STE 1
MONTICELLO MN 55362
r'
Comments:
Ad #: 870804
`` ,r~,» , -Y r
10~~. D~t9 y~lrs
,..
. .~
r'z-^T^..:.
s ~ fi.~ K'~` ~ 4
~J) New6pepgrRefarehce
..,
•, Please Return upper romon
.. ~ .t, >
~ _ t~ ;a G* rZti:'~ nR_c
121i3~'I4(~ pe6c~ip~Gp~p~that onliP~dr'ita~l,~
.. ~
:.,. mm ra mn ~
r,.,..,
.~ :F Q~.~IxW
~~ t
.,, IladUitit8
B ~'.
.k ~Y' t a. r.~
X71 STlrnes,Fiun
(,.
key
1B_~ Ra,.
F ??~r ~ . ~~i l~ r .tD3 ~ c~' ~' ~`^'•
GfP86 Am~ nk: rN k a(20(~ Net'AraPUnt?
~ i r
§~
¢~, r~ ~W~ti.i~°,.
., , ... .. '
,
~
X9/25/,08 ,
..
8
04 GMEF MEGAN BARNETT
PH 1X 3.5 2
LEG 09/25,10/02 3.50 92.12 92.12 92.12
MTI/MO ,
1 2
~, ~ ~ ~~ I I ~ ~~M
CT - 3 2Q08 U
/~q{( /"~ R, f , 1... t ~ fie,.
CI~~~~~ 1
~~
Il~
RfNTICEC40 TIMES
(952) 392-8890 ' UNAPPLIED AMOUNTS ARE INCLUDED IN TOTAL AMOUNT DUE
w ,~ 3 L u ,..tie,.. ,, ~.
Amount Paid:
.... ~,.
~ , -~:
,i ,.
6 A rjr...
= se ~ ._, ar' % 2 ~,*'. rtise CI °N + s <. ~ . ','rr .~
09/2008 133 133 CITY OF MONTICELLO
-- ~
MOAITICELLO TIMES
10917 VALLEY VIEW ROAD
EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55344
(952) 392-6690
Fan(763}295-8080
Advertising Memo Bill
LO/30/08 879070 PH11-12-08 BUS CRITERI 1X 3.2 1
LEG MEGAN BARNETT 3.25 49.79 49.79 49.79
10/30
MTI/MO
1030 '
II
~
.~~~
~
~ !;
N 7V - 5 20~fi
;sway::'. ~'
.x:;~' ' g a. o
Q'•.~sg•' a%.
$
•'$ ~• ~
~~ a•;~ ~. ;>;, -~ :~.,~..•- ~.. -~- .y'..~
.. ':~• w: k a~ ~ y ~.. °°..iS°~:
., e.$.ar Q e ke,h J~.. ~: `•$3+t•, ..
y~p ~ ~e
•.'9:y~" .~T h ~.~ .;,,, .ve. •}
.'.L~.':.:
` .,.e;~3' ;ya~~c`'~$~-'"
..g.: •
. :~:' Fro .~
1.
ii
'i`5 •~F>~'~°,:'~.~'{::ia°~~g~~ r•~.~-.~x•2 .
a`g.~~C:s .
~,p•.e,'. .d•ka
,~ •y s{ 'o. ~, ~~. ?"VYeY.
¢
$,~
i_R
. iP'a'i.r.. v .wg;
~. xxg$~y
' Yr< p &. ,
. 3......._
v~ ob..`'- r4,. '%~: 'r.4 ..x ~$•
ry :d'.. ~.~. ~~' ..'. <Y';a's .y .
c"'•5' $yg•: hc°F ,g .. 3. + e"a C..g: '•:'~ f i°$ 43.:< 3. •/l:,s.'°N.O::Y'
:w
s :$••~sq,.~ ~'aa
t ::~ ss : %r
'~:
% k§9~ ~gs'
:Sy
~3
'
•
~
~~~.
~~ .bk`
.~
~~ _ ,pH ~ d
R'.:'
~y 'K
i4
~y '~ v'a~ ~'.,$,ti?<..
'. h'~'t~$: ~ .<
~ > "C ..sal: ~k'^,
. ~ .
.4•$• .i n~y. ~ •
~ ' :hsr... ~~ r~¢$,w$eh • •`E,°
y
~ '~'ae: w` ~ ' ~ ~. .,. '<k
$
•
~Qt Q~:
8-t
e}~~
•
j6y ,
;~
o-
.
s
§
.
e~a.:~.'
..':.~., y . ! e<3
J`y ,
y.,c'SaY. r.~::"%i.. q~
• . L .!^a'~,,
' a;ir•;;?~;~oia•3...Ve:... :<w.'s
#a. 'T3'% R`
,~g~d,1T:, -<~ ;F°~~'Ka' 'x;;,i•xa•' g:. ..~3D';::~:'<:y;: k~:
~v. :..SdX. 4 w::~-0'd~~y-"`~ .. ~n~ .4: ~: :.k
1L
.~u
,{y, :i ~ ..yky^ :r;; #,` $,,..~.4•::i2•':' $~ ~-~.;~;r.
,:Q~''~~
-
••`
x'4 $
N
~
• ~ :Z'.r, 'b
$
~x.
a~
:~g~•S ~'i ,~ ~':
~S'.
.iL.sk^. ~,3?e~•~ ?~
•}
W
e~• . ?.ga.x ~
y
' ~ '
{
d>r~~,~... ,2 _
~.',.
'2
S~' .Cdr.::jyx^`,?'Y_:; y. $}
L
Z;.'
< •3.
>'
.
~
~•X'.4'~g'ss.?~FFF - ..9~~x}.s yf{^> ..$YM. .,."k`+~ ~~•. . ~ j.~
~ k s 2 k
~L' Y"6!
. ,
.:
•:~'`.c-S.' `T.~~S~ . ;_$^- N 7V .'$}<~~• ..~*. sxc;°i~q':'~
.x?N_
... ru '
^!;lvts°-.~
f
ama" ~~:t"u>'ASi;.,,~,~.~,v
sYn
• - • •~a~'
-~ '
~x• .~k.'ii,•_a~;
~~~~ , i~~F?s ~c~'9:so-: -
- .. k~
,
.
,
.
i
• Nn..v......
MONTICEL~40 TIMES
(852} 592.6890 " UNAPPLIED AMOUNTS ARE INCLUDED [N TOTAL AAiIOUNT DUE
10/2008 133 133 CITY OF MONTICELLO
~~~
~~
& Associates, Inc.
Infrastructure 1 Engineering 1 Planning 1 Construction
City of Monticello
Attn: Tom Kelly
505 Walnut Street, Suite 1
Monticello, MN 55362-8831
October 16, 2008
Project No: 01488-920
Invoice No: 38
701 Xenia Avenue South
Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Tel!3-541-4800
Fax: 763- -1700
?,
213. 4~;01.3c 56 ,
Otter Creek Industrial Campus /Preliminary Plat /Final Grading Plan a,
CP# 2006-18C
Professional Services from September 1 2008 to September 30, 2008
Phase 3 Construction
Professional Personnel
General
•
•
Totals
Total Labor
Buckley, Susan 9/10/08 .50 62.00
Fnl PV #4 and final. Prep Itr to CTR. Fax to CTR per S KB.
Project Management/Coordination
Bisson, Shibani 9/15/08 .50 121.00
prepare agenda item
Bisson, Shibani 9/17/08 1.00 121.00
prepare agenda item/review as-built grading plan
Bisson, Shibani 9/18/08 .50 121.00
finalize agenda item
Bisson, Shibani 9/23/08 .50 121.00
coordinate final as-built survey
Ische, Steven 9/29/08 .50 126.00
survey coordination
Ische, Steven 9/30/08 .50 126.00
survey coordination
Pay Voucher
Bisson, Shibani 9/15/08 .50 121.00
Buckley, Susan 9/17/08 .25 62.00
Prep LTR VO 4 FNL CTY for SKB review and sign.
Buckley, Susan 9/18/08 .50 62.00
Review/edit final payment agenda item. Fnl supporting data
and prep PDF file.
As-builts
Jewell, Merlin
Field Services Billing
3-Person Survey Crew
Hours Rate
9/18/08 3.00 112.00
8.25
Total Field Services
8.0 Hours @ 167.00
Amount
31.00
60.50
121.00
60.50
60.50
63.00
63.00
60.50
15.50
31.00
336.00
902.50
902.50
1,336.00
1,336.00 1,336.00
Total this Phase $2,238.50
Minneapolis ~ St. Cloud
Equal Opportunity Employer
Project 01488-920 MONT -Otter Creek Industrial Campus Invoice 38
Total this Invoice
Billings to Date
Labor
Consultant
Expense
Field Services
Totals
Comments:
Approved by: ~ VV~"
Reviewed by: Bret Weiss
Project Manager: Shibani Bisson
•
•
Current Prior Total
902.50 101,680.25 102,582.75
0.00 4,450.00 4,450.00
0.00 450.00 450.00
1,336.00 14,020.50 15,356.50
2,238.50 120,600.75 122,839.25
~c,csaav
's ,
s. ~~
Page 2
f
WSB
-~ Infrastructure 1 Engineering 1 Planning 1 Construction 701 Xenia Avenue South
~& Associates, Inc.. $u ite 300
City of Monticello October 16, 2008 Minneapolis, MN 55416
Attn: Tom Kelly Project No: 01627-570 Tel: 763-541-4800
505 Walnut Street, Suite 1 Invoice No: 25 Fax: 763-541-1700
-.,,:,~
Monticello, MN 55362-8831
~ ~~
Dal ve ~ rly Road Extension (Dalton Court) ,113 ~4 ~ a t , 3n 30 ~~ _~r
C 2006-15C "~--
Pr sion ices from Se tember 1 2008 to Se tember 30 2008
Phase 3 Construction
Professional Personnel
Hours Rate Amount
Project Management/Coordination
Sisson, Shibani 9/10/08 .50 121.00 60.50
review contractor request for extra payment
Sisson, Shibani 9/16/08 1.00 121.00 121.00
review final quantities
Sisson, Shibani 9/17/08 1.00 121.00 121.00
discuss curb/pavement items with contractor
Sisson, Shibani 9/23/08 .50 121.00 60.50
emails to contractor summarizing final quantities/remaining
work
Totals 3.00 363.00
Total Labor 363.00
Field Services Billing
Construction Observation
0.5 Hours @ 96.00 48.00
Total Field Services 48.00 48.00
Total this Phase $411.00
Total this Invoice $411.00
Billings to Date r ~ ~ I "+ `~
su ;. ~ tl d~ vc.~ 6 s '~.
Current Prior Total
Labor 363.00 86,281.25 86,644.25
Consultant 0.00 3,104.19 3,104.19
Expense 0.00 617.64 617.64
Field Services 48.00 50,897.00 50,945.00
Totals 411.00 140,900.08 141,311.08
•
Minneapolis E St. Cloud
Equal Opportunity Employer
Project 01627-570 MONT -Dalton Ave and Westerly. Road Invoice25
Exte
Comments:
Approved by: cl ~IVJ1 /~ lA~6W
Reviewed by: Bret Weiss
Project Manager: Shibani Sisson
•r- ti
•
•
Page 2
. EDA 11.12.08
5. Public Hearing and approval to amend Greater Monticello Enterprises Fund
Business Subsidy Criteria.
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Economic Development Authority (EDA) continued the public hearing for
the Greater Monticello Enterprises Fund (GMEF) at their November meeting.
Staff had requested more time to research missing information and attempt to
reformat the document.
Due to busy schedules and higher priority projects on the Finance Director's desk,
i.e. budget, Capital Improvement Plan, and software transition, the Economic
Development Director has not been able to verify GMEF standings. Further
follow up will need to occur to verify the fund balance.
The GMEF contains additional criteria related to loans that have and can be
obtained through the Small Cities Economic Development Set-Aside Grant Fund.
In order to obtain funding through the State or Federal government, the language
is required to be included in the local business subsidy criteria. It appears that
grant money has been repaid and closed out per the State's information. Staff
understands that the captured funds from the grant have not been redistributed.
The captured funds can be re-disbursed, however the first time the funds are re-
issued they are required to abide by the small cities criteria. Once this occurs the
city will have the ability to remove any criteria related to the small cities grant.
The attached amended GMEF document has been reformatted to provide a
systematic outlined document. A few minor word chances were completed, i.e.
reference made to $9.00 was removed. The biggest change relates to adding a
numbering system and moving sections in more applicable places.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
L Motion to approve the amended Greater Monticello Enterprises Fund Business
Subsidy Criteria.
2. Motion to deny the amended Greater Monticello Enterprises Fund Business
Subsidy Criteria.
3. Motion to table any action on the amended Greater Monticello Enterprises Fund
Business Subsidy Criteria.
1
EDA 10.8.08
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff did not want to edit the criteria in great depth. The document reads fairly
well and is understandable in most sections. Staff recommends holding the public
hearing and approving the document as amended.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Proposed amended Greater Monticello Enterprises Fund Business Subsidy
Criteria is attached.
•
•
•
GMEF Business Subsidy Criteria
M0~'IICI:LLO
~~
CITY OF MONTICELLO
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Business Subsidy Criteria
GREATER MONTICELLO ENTERPRISE FUND GUIDELINES
•
CITY OF MONTICELLO
505 WALNUT STREET, SUITE #1
MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA 55362
(763)271-3208
1. PURPOSE
The purpose of the Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund (GMEF) is to encourage economic development
by supplementing conventional financing sources available to existing and new businesses. Through
this program administered by the Economic Development Authority and participating lending
institution(s), loans are made to businesses to help them meet a portion of their financing needs. All
loans must serve a public purpose by complying with four or more of the criteria noted in the next
section. In all cases, it is mandatory that criteria #1 be satisfied, which requires the creation of new jobs.
It is the responsibility of the EDA to assure that loans meet the public purpose standard and comply with
all other GMEF policies as defined in this document. Along with establishing the definition of public
purpose, this document is designed to outline the process involved in obtaining GMEF financing.
2. DEFINITION OF PUBLIC PURPOSE
2.01 To provide loans for credit worthy businesses that create new jobs.
(a) One job is equivalent to a total of 37.5 hours per week.
(b) At lest 90% of the jobs created must pay ~ •, at
least 160% of the federal minimum wage, exclusive of benefits, for individuals over the
age of 20 during the term of assistance. Annual written reports are required until
termination date. Failure to meet the job and wage level goals require partial or frill
repayment of the assistance with interest.
•
•
GMEF Business Subsidy Criteria
2.02 To provide loans for credit worthy businesses that would increase the community tax base.
2.03 To assist new or existing industrial or commercial businesses to improve or expand their
operations. Considerations for loans shall take into account factors including, but not limited ta;
a. the nature and extent of the business; ~- - -{ Formatted: Indent First line: 0.5"
h/ the product or service involved;
c. the present availability of the product or service within the City of Monticello-
d. the compatibility of the proposed business as it relates to the comprehensive plan ands - - Formatted: Indent: i_eft: is°, first line: o"
existing zoning policies,
e. and the potential for adverse environmental effects of the business, if any. ~ - - Formatted: Indent First une: os°
2.04 To provide loans to be used as a secondary source of financing that is intended to supplement
conventional financing (bank financing).
2.05 To provide loans in situations in which a funding gap exists.
2.06 To provide funds for economic development that could be used to assist in obtaining other funds
such as Smail Business Administration loans, federal and state grants, eta
3. THE GREATER MONTICELLO ENTERPRISES REVOLVING LOAN FUND POLICIES
3.01 BUSINESS ELIGIBILITY
a. Industrial businesses.
b. Non-competitive commercial businesses which enhance the community.
c. Businesses located within the City of Monticello.
d. Credit worth existing businesses.
e. Non-credit worthy start-up businesses with worthy feasibility studies Gall historical
non-credit worthy businesses will. he denied).
f_
~- - For No bullets ornumberfng
' ~ "~ ~ " ' ' ~ ~ - Formatted: Indent: L.eR: 0.5", No bullets or
. ~ numbering
.,a:,.a, h .i, >
3.02 FINANCING METHODS
a. COMPANION DIRECT LOAN: Example: Equity 20%, RLF 30% and bank 50%. (All such
loans may be subordinated to the primary lender(s) if requested by the primary lender(s). The
RLF loan is leveraged and the lower interest rate of the RLF lowers the effective interest rate on
the entire project.)
b. PARTICIPATION LOAN: RLF buys a portion of the loan (the RLF is not in a subordinate
position, no collateral is required by the RLF and the loan provides alower interest rate).
c. GUARANTEE LOANS : RLF guarantees a portion of the bank loan: (Personal and real estate
guarantees handled separately.)
3.03 USE OF PROCEEDS
2
•
•
GMEF Business Subsidy Criteria
a. Real property acquisition and development
b. Real property rehabilitation (expansion or improvements)
Real Property Acquisition. and Improvement Costs
Land Acquisition
Engineer/Desien Inspection Fees
Building Permit Fees
Architect Fees
Building Materials
Soil Borings
Construction Labor
Appt~aisal Fees
Landsca~inQ
Legal Fees
Grading
Environmental Study
Curbing/Parking Lot
Recording Fees
Title Insurance
c. Machinery and equipment
13. Machinery and Ec~pment Costs
sonal pro ert used as an into ral art of the manufacturin or commercial business with a useful life of at
;t three ears. Acquisition costs would include frei ht and sales taxes aid. Asa eneral Wile office
etc uipment would not qualify.
4. TERMS AND CONDITIONS
a_LOAN SIZE: Minimum of $25,000 and maximum not. to exceed 50% of the Remaining revolving
loan fund balance; for example, if the remaining revolving loan cash fund balance is $50,000, the
maximum loan issuance is $25,000.
b $ l0 000 loan per each job created or $5 000 per every $20 000 increase in property market
valuation or $5 000 per every $20 000 increase in personal nropertY used for business purposes,
whichever is higher.
mac.
krd. LEVERAGING: Minimum 60% private/public non-GMEF Maximum 30% public (GMEF)
Minimum 10% equity EDA loan
~c._LOAN TERM: Personal property term not to exceed life of equipment (generally 5-7 years). Real
estate property maximum of 5-year maturity amortized up to 30 years. Balloon payment at 5 years.
c#: E INTEREST RATE: Fixed rate not less than 2% below prime rate as published in the Wall Street
Journal on date of EDA loan approval.
~,~LOAN FEE: Minimum of $200 but not to exceed 1.5% of the total loan ••~~°^' "° " ^'""' Fvc ~f
~?98-Fees are to be documented and no duplication of fees between the lending institution and the
3
•
GMEF Business Subsidy Criteria
RLF. Loan fee may be incorporated into project cost. EDA retains the right to reduce or waive loan
fee or portion of loan fee. Fee to be paid by applicant to the EDA within 5 working days after City
Council approval of GMEF loan. The fee is l~non-refundable.
~h. PREPAYMENT POLICY: No penalty for prepayment.
g:i_DEFERRAL OF PAYMENTS:
1. Must be approved by a majority vote. Approval of the EDA membership by majority vote.
2. Extend the balloon if unable to refinance, verification letter from two lending institutions
subject to Board approval.
Irj_LATE PAYMENT POLICY:
1. Failure to pay principal or interest when due may result in the loan being immediately called.
2. In addition to any other amounts due on any loan, and without waiving any right of the
Economic Development Authority under any applicable documents, a late fee of $250 will be
imposed on any borrower for any payment not received in full by the Authority within 30
calendaz days of the date on which it is due. Furthermore, interest will continue to accrue on
any amount due until the date on which it is paid to the Authority, and all such interest will
be due and payable at the same time as the amount on which it has accrued.
+ k. INTEREST LIMITATION ON GUARANTEED LOANS:
1. Subject to security and/or reviewal by EDA.
tl_ASSUMABILITY OF LOAN: None.
•
le-m. BUSINESS EQUITY REQUIREMENTS:
-1--Subject to type of loan,; Board of Directors will determine case by case, analysis under
normal lending guidelines.
F - - rrormatted: Numbered + Level: 2 +
Numbering Style: I, 2, 3, ... + Start at: 1 +
Alignment: LeR + Aligned at: 1" + Indent at:
l~n. COLLATERAL: `~ L25^
1. Liens on real property in project (mortgage deed). Formatted: Indent: Lett: o"
2. Liens on real property in business (mortgage deed).
3. Liens on real property held personally (subject to Board of Directors -homestead exempt).
4. Machinery and equipment liens (except equipment exempt from bankruptcy).
5. Personal and/or corporate guarantees (requires unlimited personal guarantees).
rn-o. NON-PERFORMANCE:
1. An approved GMEF loan shall be null and void if funds are not drawn upon or disbursed
within 180 days from date of EDA approval.
rr.~_NON-PERFORMANCE EXTENSION:
1. The 180-day non-performance date can be extended up to an additional 120 days.
a. A written request is received 30 days prior to expiration of the 180-day non-
performance date.
b. Approval of the EDA membership by majority vote.
4
•
GMEF Business Subsidy Criteria
5.
•
a:c,~_LEGAL FEE:
1. Responsibility of the GMEF applicant.
l~r. The Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund is operated as an equal opportunity program. All applicants
shall have equal access to GMEF fixnds regardless of race, sex, age, marital status, or other personal
characteristics
ADDITIONAL CRITERIA FOR LOANS ORIGINATING THROUGH SMALL CITIES ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT SET-ASIDE GRANT FUNDS
Compliance with federal labor standards laws, including:
a. The Davis-Bacon Act, which requires that workers receive no less than the prevailing
wages being paid for similar work in the locality when the contract, financed in whole or
part with federal funds, exceeds $2,000.
b. The Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act, which requiresthat workers receive
overtime compensation at a rate of 1-1(2 times their regular wage after they have worked
40 hours in one week.
c. The Copeland "Anti-Kickback" Act, which requires that workers be paid at least once a
week without any deductions or rebates except permissible deductions which include
taxes, deductions the worker authorizes and those required by court processes.
d. Compliance with federal fair housing and civil/human rights laws and with the Minnesota
Human Rights law, which forbids discrimination in credit, employment, housing, public
accommodations, public service and education on the basis of race, color, creed, religion,
national origin, sex marital status, disability, sexual orientation, public assistance or
familial status.
e. Compliance with the Low and Moderate Income (LMI) Benefit National Objective,
which, in the economic development context, has as its goal the creation and retention of
jobs, of which a minimum of 51 % must be held by LMI persons, defined as a member of
a family having an income less than or equal to the Section 8 low-income limit
established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
f. Compliance with requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of
1969, as amended, and preparation of an Environmental Review Record.
g. Compliance with Section 104(d) of the federal Housing and Community Development
Act of 1974, as amended, which requires that any reduction in LMI dwelling units in the
community must be offset by the creation of similar affordable units and relocation
assistance to displaced LMI families; and with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and
Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, which mandates procedures
to ensure fair and equitable treatment for persons displaced by projects designed for the
public good.
h. Terms and conditions for federal money:
1. Interest Rate: 0% with balloon payment in three years or fixed rate not less
than 3% below prime rate as published in the Wall Street Journal on date of
EDA loan approval with balloon payment in five years.
2. All other terms and conditions are as outlined in The Grater Monticello
Enterprises Revolving Loan Fund Policies, Section IV, above.
6. ORGANIZATION
5
•
GMEF Business Subsidy Criteria
The Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund is administered by the City of Monticello EDA, which is a seven-
memberboard consisting of two Council members and five appointed members. EDA members are
appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council. Regular meetings are held on a monthly basis.
Please see the by-laws of the EDA for more information on the structure of the organization that administers
the Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund.
7. PARTICIPATING LENDING INSTITUTION(S)
a. Participating lending institution(s) shall be determined by the GMEF applicant.
b. Participating lending institution(s) shall cooperate with the EDA and assist in carrying out the
policies of the GMEF as approved by the City Council.
c. Participating lending institution(s) shall analyze the formal application and indicate to
the EDA the level at which the lending institution will participate in the finance package.
8. LOAN APPLICATION/ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES
The EDA desires to make the GMEF loan application process as simple as possible. However, certain
procedures must be followed prior to EDA consideration of a loan request. Information regarding the program
and procedures for obtaining a loan are as follows:
a. City Staff Duties: The Economic Development Director, working in conjunction with the City
Administrator, shall carry out GMEF operating procedures as approved by the EDA and Council.
Staff is responsible for assisting businesses in the loan application process and will work closely
with applicants in developing the necessary information, _ _ _ - Formatted: underline
B: ' - Formatted: Indent: Left: 1", No bullets or
b. Application Process: numbering
1. Applicant shall complete a preliminary loan application. Staff will ieview application for
consistency with the policies set forth in the Greater Monticello Fund Guidelines. Staff
consideration of the preliminary loan application should take approximately one week.
2. Staff will ask applicant to .contact a lending institution regarding financing needs and indicate
to applicant that further action by the EDA on the potential loan will require indication of
support from a lending institution.
3. If applicant gains initial support from lending institution and if the preliminary loan
application is approved, applicant is then asked to complete a formal application. If the
preliminary loan application is not approved by staff, the applicant may request that the EDA
consider approval of the preliminary application at the next regularly scheduled meeting of
the EDA.
4. If the preliminary loan application is approved, applicant shall complete a formal application.
Formal application shall include a business plan which will include its management structure,
market analysis, and financial statement. Like documentation necessary for obtaining the
bank loan associated with the proposal is acceptable. Attached with each formal application
is a written release of information executed by the loan applicant
6
•
GMEF Business Subsidy Criteria
5. City staff will meet with applicant and other participating lender(s) to refine the plan for
financing the proposed enterprise.
6. City staff shall analyze the formal application and financial statements contained therein to
determine if the proposed business and finance plan is viable. Staff may, at its discretion,
accept the findings of a bank institution regarding applicant credit and financial viability of
act the project. After analysis is complete, City staff shall submit a written recommendation
to the EDA. A decision regarding the application shall be made by the EDA within 60 days
of the submittal of a completed formal application.
7. The EDA shall have authority to approve or deny loans; however, within 21 days of EDA
approval, the City Council may reverse a decision by the EDA to approve a loan if it is
determined by Council that such loan was issued in violation of GMEF guidelines.
8. Prior to issuance of an approved loan, the City Attorney shall review and/or prepare all
contracts, legal documents, and intercreditor agreements. After such review is complete, the
City shall issue said loan.
9. REPORTING
Staff shall submit quarterly summaries and/or annual report detailing the status of the Greater Monticello
Enterprise Fund.
FUND GUIDELINES MODIFICATION
t a minimum, the EDA shall review the Fund Guidelines on an annual basis. No changes to the GMEF
guidelines shall be instituted without prior approval of the City Council
11. LOAN ADMINISTRATION
a. City staff shall service City loan, shall monitor City position with regard to the
loan, and shall assure City compliance with inter creditor agreement.
b. All loan documents shall include an intercreditor agreement which must include
the following:
1. Definition of loan default, agreements regarding notification of default.
2. Agreements between lending institution and City regarding reproduction
of pertinent information regarding the loan.
c. All loan documentation shall include agreements between borrower and lenders
regarding release of privacy regarding the status of the loan.
•
GMEF Business Subsidy Criteria
b .. b.
~"
n ..,~~~, c
~
-cr-cnr.,r
FYFc `~'
c ....:..
o~,.,..
«,~.. c
ravt~
.........
.,r,..,, ~t~i~ fees
is
~T:,
A13-~t1~3^.
- -- -
....,1 c..,,t.,
coop
T:}io t ..... .........a
1 2 AA ,.L.: ,1 G. ..t !'mac.}n .
.. t, b
,. t
~,,..:,..«.,~..t ...,. ,I,d ..,,, ~„~nliFar
9I
Public Hearing and adoption the 31 day of August, 1999
Public Hearing and Adoption of Amendments the 8th day of November 2000
Public Hearing and Adoption of Amendments the 24th day of Apri12001
Public Hearing and Adoption of Amendments the 13th day of December 2005
Public Hearing and Adoption the day of , 2008
8
•
•
6. Prouosed Marketing Budget for 2009
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The marketing committee met in October and November to discuss marketing initiatives and
budget for 2009. Approximately $20,000 dollars has been identified for marketing efforts
within the EDA/HRA TIF Fund. However, various expenses throughout the year may also
need to be coded to this fund, which means an exact $20,000 may not be available. This
budget will also need to contribute towards a portion of the business retention efforts (annual
banquet, business newsletter, networking breakfast meetings, etc.).
Attached is the marketing committee's proposed 2009 budget for marketing efforts related to
industrial land and business retention. The idea behind the proposed marketing initiatives and
budget is to provide a continual and consistent message to "targeted" business/industry
sectors.
Staff would like to discuss the website budget line item with the EDA. Staff has had several
• conversations with site selectors, realtors, and developers regarding how they obtain
information regarding available land. While staff believes the monticelloland.com website has
merit and does appear on google's number one spot if a person specifically searches "land in
Monticello," staff is still under the opinion that the City's website can be just as effective in
providing site selector information. Many site selectors and businesses looking for land will
either, contact the city directly, look on the MNCAR listing, or search the MLS listings. The
proposed $1,000.00 in the budget for an additional website could be utilized for other
marketing initiatives (i.e. networking events or marketing pieces directed to site selectors and
targeted industries).
Recommendation:
The marketing committee is proposing the EDA approve the attached 2009 marketing budget.
Staff would like to further discuss the website item with the EDA to determine if the
monticelloland website should continue to be active or if the website should be phased out.
Supporting Data:
Proposed 2009 Marketing Budget
•
2009 Marketing Budget
Bud et Year 2009
Total Budget 20,000
Description Estimated Cost
Website Start Up 700
Website Hosting for year 300
Marketing Flyers (2 follow up pieces) 1500
Wright County 400
Insert flyer Fee $50
Flyer Printing Cost (2x150)
Directory pages 300
•
Marketing Folders (100) 400
Newspaper/Journals
MN Real Estate Journal 5000 ~ _
NAIOP (3 mon. run) 1,300
EDAM (half page/1 time) 288
Postage
Bus. Newsletter ($130x4) 134
Direct Mailers (1.00x500) 500
Business Newsletter (4 publications) 2,000
Booth/Vendor @ conferences 2500
Annual IEDC/EDA Banquet 2,000
Breakfast Networking Mtgs 1000
($8.00/40/2)
Promotional Giveways 1200
Total 19, 522
•
~ ~. ,
EDA 12.10.08
• 7. REASSIGNMENT OF DEVELOPERS AGREEMENT FOR PRAIRIE
WEST:
Reference and Background:
The City entered into an agreement with John Komarek, .the principal developer of
Cedrus Creek Craftsman Inc., on May 3, 1996. The development agreement addressed
conditions and terms for the development of Prairie West. The development consisted of
townhomes and received tax increment financing.
On August 20, 2008, John Komarek did untimely decease. The EDA is being asked to
reassign the development agreement into Linda A. Smith's name, the sole heir of John
Komarek's property and investments.
Alternate Actions:
1. Motion to assign the Developers Agreement for Prairie West into Linda A. Smith.
Supporting Data:
• Amended Developers Agreement for Prairie West.
•
ASSIGNMENT OF DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT
FOR PRAIRIE WEST
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of , 2008 by
and between the City of Monticello, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of
the State of Minnesota (the "City"), and Cedrus Creek Craftsman, Inc. (the "Developer")
and Linda A. Smith (the "Assignee").
RECITALS:
WHEREAS, the City and Developer entered into a Developer's Agreement dated
May 3, 1996 for the promotion and development of that certain platted property within
the City now known as Prairie West First Addition planned unit development which
subdivision has been fully improved and built out with townhomes;
WHEREAS, all of the City's and Developer's obligations set forth under said
Developer's Agreement dated May 3, 1996 have been complied with by Developer and a
Certificate of Completion as to the development was issued by the City and recorded
with the Wright County Recorder on August 7, 2001 as Document No. 752076;
That under the terms of the Developer's Agreement and the Certificate of
Completion there continues to be an income stream of tax increment financing benefits
due Developer;
That on the 20th day of August, 2008, the sole shareholder and principal of the
Developer, John Komarek, did untimely decease;
That Linda A. Smith has been duly qualified and appointed as the personal
representative of the Estate of John Komarek, Wright County District Court File No. 86-
PR-08-7869 for which Letters Testamentary have been issued to her, a copy of which is
attached hereto;
That said Linda A. Smith is the sole heir of John Komarek;
That the only asset of Developer is the tax increment benefit income stream
referred to above;
That the Personal Representative of the Estate of John Komarek desires that the
Agreement and benefits be assigned to Linda A. Smith, a single person;
•
That the City by signature herein does hereby consent to said assignment to Linda
A. Smith, single;
That Linda A. Smith as Assignee of the Agreements does hereby agree to be bound
by the terms and conditions thereof if any exist;
That the City agrees to issue future tax increment financing payments to Assignee,
Linda A. Smith.
Date: CITY OF MONTICELLO, a Minnesota
municipal corporation
By: .Clint Herbst
Its: Mayor
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
ss.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing was acknowledged before me this _ day of , 20_,
by Clint Herbst, the Mayor of the City of Monticello, a municipal corporation under the
laws of the State of Minnesota, on behalf of the corporation.
Notary Public
Date: CITY OF MONTICELLO, a Minnesota
municipal corporation
By: Jeff O'Neill
Its: Administrator
z ~
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
ss.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing was acknowledged before me this _ day of , 2~_,
by Jeff O'Neill, the Administrator of the City of Monticello, a municipal corporation
under the laws of the State of Minnesota, on behalf of the corporation.
Notary Public
Date:
•
CEDRUS CREEK CRAFTSMAN, INC., a
Minnesota corporation
By: Linda A. Smith, Personal Representative
of the Estate of John Komarek on behalf of
John Komarek, President, on behalf of the
corporation
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
ss.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing was acknowledged before me this _ day of , 20_,
by Linda A. Smith, Personal Representative of the Estate of John Komarek on behalf of
John Komarek, the President of Cedrus Creek Craftsman, Inc. , a corporation under the
laws of the State of Minnesota, on behalf of the corporation.
Notary Public
Date:
•
Linda A. Smith, Individually as Assignee
3
STATE OF MINNESOTA) •
ss.
COUNTY OF )
On this day of , 20_, before me appeared Linda A. Smith, , to
me personally known to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing
instrument and acknowledged that she executed the same as her free act and deed.
Notary Public
Economic Development Authority
By: William Demeules
Its: President
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
ss.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing was acknowledged before me this _ day of , 20_,
by William Demeules, the President of the Economic Development Authority in and for
the City of Monticello, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota,
on behalf of the corporation.
Notary Public
Economic Development Authority
By: Megan Barnett
Its: Executive Director
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
ss.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing was acknowledged before me this ^ day of , 20_,
by Megan Barnett, the Executive Director of the Economic Development Authority in and
for the City of Monticello, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of
Minnesota, on behalf of the corporation.
Notary Public
•
Drafted by:
Bradley V. Larson (#60379)
Metcalf, Larson & Muth, P.C.
313 West Broadway
P.O. Box 446
Monticello, MN 55362-0446
•
4 ~ '~520'7~
a~rlcr• of c;,~'urr Nr•ccart:R
71ta.;f~f CUJ,:;" ;1hIti~50f,1
0 ~ ~i~~ --7 fdfi ~!: ~?
_ ~ / ~ ,5 Z~ c,~~ g s~ ~ .S~J
... _.......... .
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION ~ , ~~ ~ Q'~ ~
{Minimum Improvements)
•
The undersigned hereby certifies that Cedrus Creek Craftsman, Inc, (the "Redeveloper") has fiilly
complied wish its obligations under Articles III and IV of that document titled "Contract for Pi-ivaie
Development," dated July 3, 1996 and amended June 23, 1997, among the City of Monticello, Minnesota,
the Housing and Redevelopment authority in and for the City of Monticello, Minnesota, and the
Redeveloper, with respect to construction of the Minimum Improvements on the property described in
Exhibit A hereto in accordance with the Construction Plans, and that the Redeveloper is released and
forever discharged from its obligations to constrict the Minimum Improvements under Articles III anal IV.
_,,,~,: .
Date: - Ma}l;?.3001`,
,~~ ~ : S . ~,: r-., ,
,,.
~~~~ r;•
- ~:'
•,•
~~,,
STA1``1/~'~Il,;a~~II1LtNESOTA )
COUNTY OF WRIGHT )
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE
CITY OF 1vi0NTIC1/LLO, MINNESOTA
By:~ ~ ~ t9./ y
/Executive Director
•
The foregoing instrument was acknowledge before this ~_ day J>.ule. 2401 by Olive
Koropchak, Executive Director ofthe ):-lousing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of
Monticello, Mi~ulesota on behalf o F the Authority.
a ary ublic
THIS DOCUMENT DRAFTED BY:
Ke>.u~edy ~. Graven, Chartered
470 Pillsbury Center
200 South Sitith Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
(612) 337-9300
° `"`~• LOR! J. KRAEPrtEk
~:
• ; NOTARY PUBLIC • MINNESOTA
°
~` `~ MY COMM. EXA, 01/3112005
/fit MN4-
w/.+A~w.4.~+r~ V.~avHM+• n.
•
'~52{}'~f
. + `
TIF DISTRICT 1-20 CEDRUS CREEK CRAFTSMAN, INC.
MARKET VALUES AND COMPLETION REPORT
pHASE I PER CONTRACT
TIF DISTRICT BOUNDARY -BLOCK 1, PRAIRIE WEST SECOND ADDITION January 2041
300
$186
JANUARY 2, 2000 LOTI $171,600
600
$171 ,
$186,300
LOT 2
LOT 3 ,
$171,600 $18b,300
LOT 4 $171,600 $186,300
LOT 13 $158,400* $164,300
..LOT I4 $149,300* S162,800 _
LOT 15 $ 29,100* $166,400
LOT 16 $ 29,100* $166,400
LOT 17 $ 18,000* $157,100
LOT i8 $ I8,000* $157,100
TOTAL JANUARY Z, 2000 $1,088,300 S1,719,300
000 ($1,050,000)
$ 600
AGREEMENT JANUARY 2, 1999 ,
000 ($1,
120
$1 088,300)**
AGREEMENT JANUARY 2, 2000 ,
,
000
380
$1 $1,719,3110
AGREEMENT JANUARY 2, 2001 ,
,
CO1vIPLETION DECEMBER 31, 2000
PHASE, II PER CONTRACT
BLOCK 1, PRAIRIE WEST SECOIv'D ADDITION $171
600 $186,300
JANUARY 2, 2000 LOT 5
LOT 6 ,
$171,700
$186,300
LOT 7 $175,300 $190,400
_
LOT 8 $174,400. $189,400
LOT 9 $ 97,100 $19Q400
LOT 10 $ 96,700 $195,800
LOT 11 $ 32,100 $142,000
LOT 12 $ 32,100
D00*
$ 18 $200,100
$ 71,700 partial
LOT 19
LOT 20 ,
$ 18,000* $ 71,70 partial
BLOCK 1, PRAIRIE WEST FIRST ADDITION 300
$125 $137,000
LOT 1
JANUARY 2, 2000
LOT 2 ,
$129,000 $140,800
• LOT 3 $177,000 $190,600
LOT4 $177,000 $190,500
LOT 5 $171,700 $184,900
LOT 6 5171,800 $185,000
LOT 7 $175,300 $188,600
LOT 8 $142,200 $153,700
LOT 9 $172,800 $187,400
LOT 10 $171,900 $186,500
TOTAL JANUARY 2, 2000 $2,601,000 $3,419,100
COMPLETION VALUE DEC 31, 2002 $2,960,000
* four-plex
*" See attached letter $860,000
Each twinhome value $150,000 and each fourplex unit $130,000 $3
300
689
GRAND TOTAL, JANUARY 2, 2000 ,
,
$4
000
340 55,138,400
OVERALL CONTRACT DECEMBER 31, 2002 ,
,
•
~~~'~~~
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS-
1. Redevelopment Property
All of the following described property:
First Addition
All property within Prairie West 1st Addition.,• aocordiug to the recorded plat
thereof . _ _ _
Hana~~lt Property
' " That part of Lot B of the Southeast Quarter at the Southwest Quarter and the
Sauthwe~t Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 3, Township 121,
F.ange 25, Wright County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the
northeast corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence
crest along the north line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter,
a distance of 410,9 feet to the southerly right of way Line of Wright County
1`Iighway No. 75; thence southeasterly deflecting 155 degrees 08 minutes Left
along said right of way line, s distance of 798.00 feet to the point of beginning
of the laud to be described; thence southwest deflecting 90 degrees right, a
distance of 126.32 feet; thence southeast deflecting 90 degrees left, a distance
of 95.00 Peet; thence northeast defIectixtg 90 degrees left, s distance of 126.32
feet to said southerly right of way line of Wright County Highway No. 79;
thence northwest deflecting 90 degrees left along said southerly right of way
line, a distance of 95.00 feet to the point of beginning.
Banyai Property
That part of Lot B of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter and Lat
E of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter oP Section 3, Township
21, Range 25, described as follows : Commence at the intersection of the North
line of said Lot B with the Southerly Iine of Trunk Highway #152; thence
Southeast along said southerly line of Trunk Highway #132, a distance of 598
feet to the point of beginning of the tract to be conveyed; thence Southeast
slang said Southerly line of said Trunk Highway #15Z a distance of 198 feet;
thence deflect 90°00' right, 297.5 feet to the North line of the Great Northern _
Railroad right-of-way; thence Northwesterly along the said railroad right-of-
way, 202 feet; thence North parallel to the East Iine of the tract herein
describedE, 260.5 feet to the point of beginning, Wright County, Minnesota,
except that tract described in Book 239 of Deeds, pages 437-438.
CYty Property
PARCEL OrNE: #155500-033400
A •tract of land in Lot B of South Half oP Section 3, Township 121, Range 25
deseribecl as follows: Begin at the point of intersection of the South line of
Trunk Highway No. 252 and the North line of said Lot $; thence Southeasterly
along the South Lice of said Trunk Highway No. 152 a distance 315 feet for the
point of beg3xining of the tract to be described herein; thence continue
LJG106B49
lual9o-sa
A-I
•
1 JlG+~ / V
,,
Southeasterly along the Soutb line of said Highways f et to the North line of
feet; thence deflect right 90° for a distance of 260.
the Great Northern Railway right of way'; thence Northwesterly along said
railway right of way line a distance of 287.8 feet; thence North parallel to the
East line of the tract herein described a distance of 205.7 feet to the point oP
beginning, containing 1.53 acres more or less .
~ PARCEL TWO: X155500-033402
That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter and the
Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter o£ Section 3, Township 121,
Range 25, described as follows: Comtneneirig at the Northeast Corner of the
.said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest. Quarter; thence West along the North
line of the said Southeast Quarter of the. Southwest Quarter a Number
366.70 feet to point on the South right-of-way hne of Trunk High Y
152; thence Southeasterly along the South rihetn-c~'C4n ~ e Southey terlY
• ~ 598.00 feet to the actual point of beginning;
along the said South right~af-way line a distance of 40.00 feet; thence
Southwesterly deflecting 90° right a distance of 258.47 feet to the Northerly
right-of'-way Zinc of the Great Northern Rai3,road; thence Northwesterly slang
the said Northerly right-of-~vay line a distance of 40.76 feet to a line drawn
Southwesterly at a right angle from the South then of Northeasterly along
• Highway Number 152 from the point of beginning; Wing
• the said Line a distance of 280.50 feet to the point of begzxi
ga-izn~arek property
A tract of land in Lot B of the South Half of Section 3, Township 121, Range
25, Wright County, Minnesota, described as follows : Begin at the intersection
of the southerly line of Trunk Hi ehssaid southerly line of Trun Highway 152
B; thence southeasterly along th
a distance of 315 feet; thence deflect right 90° for a di~an CeoNorthwe terly
the north line Great Northern railway right of way;
,Tong said railway right of way, a distance of 834.9 Peet; thence Easterly to
• the point of beginning
~ 2. Tax Increment financing District No. 1-20
TIF District No. 1-20 consists of the following property:
. a. The Hanawalt Froperty
' ~ b. The Banyai Property art PiD No. 155500-033402)
~ c . Parcel Two of the City Prop Y ~
~`~_•. .
-.-..
'~--
~~f~~~s L~~~.~
~G rl/
r~ tfa~ ~" i-~6.~ ~
r~~N ~~~~
~aloa~as A_2 tyJ~~;yCLGCo
l6p19a-5S
~sza~s
•
•
8. NOMINATE OFFICERS FOR 2009:
EDA 12.10.08
Reference and Background:
The EDA Bylaws state officers shall be elected at the annual meeting. Staff would
like to begin nominating officers at the December meeting to become effective in
January of the following year.
Alternate Actions:
1. Motion to elect:
2. Motion to elect:
3. Motion to elect:
4. Motion to elect:
to serve as the 2009 President.
to serve as the 2009 Vice-President.
to serve as the 2009 Treasurer.
to serve as the 2009 Secretary.
•
•
EDA 12.10.08
10. Report from Executive Director.
General:
The Transportation Workshop held on November 19, 2008 was well attended and received. WSB
provided an overview of components that will be included in the Transportation Plan. Staff is
anticipating the Transportation Plan public hearing will be held at the February Planning Commission
meeting.
Staff was contacted by Wally from Edina Realty stating the bank accepted the City's offer to purchase
the property located at 413 4~' Street at a sale price of $52,000. The purchase agreement states the
parties are to close on December 19, 2008. The Finance Director is proposing to fund the purchase
through the EDA/HRA TIF Fund. Staff will be requesting direction and insight from the EDA at -the
January meeting, as to what the overall plan and next steps are for the purchased property.
IEDC: Attached is the IEDC December agenda.
Business Retention: The Business Newsletter is almost complete. Staff is working with the Chamber to
promote the Chamber/IEDC Networking Business Lunch. The event will occur on Tuesday, March 17,
2008. All businesses will be invited and anyone interested could set up a booth to showcase their
service or product. The cost will be $10.00 per person, held at the Community Center, and catered by
Crostini Grille. The businesses will be welcomed by the Mayor and City staff will provide an overall
City update.
Business Initiative: The direct marketing piece is underway. Staff anticipates the piece should be
completed this month and ready to be mailed and personally distributed to potential viable businesses a
the beginning of 2009.
Housing Initiatives:
It recently came to staff's attention that the MN Housing Finance Agency is proposing to allocate
$523,923 dollars to Monticello for the purposes of addressing the foreclosure situation. Attached is the
City Council staff report that will be presented on December 8, 2008.
Informational Handouts: Nothing included.
Future Agenda Items: The next EDA meeting will be Wednesday, January 14, 2009.
Upcoming agenda topics (not necessary on the next agenda) will include: 1. Discussion regarding
next steps for 413 4~' Street. 2. Consideration to review Development Agreement /Private Contact
administrative costs and fees/deposits (discussion after TIF analysis is completed). 4. Joint
EDA/IEDC meeting in January 2009:
•
The following dates are proposed for a joint IEDC/EDA meeting: •
Tuesday, January 6, 2009 -lam
Wednesday, January 7, 2009 -lam
Tuesday, January 13, 2009 - 6pm
Wednesday, January 14, 2009 - Spm
•
_ •
AGENDA
MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CONIlVIITTEE
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
7:00 a.m., Bridge Room
IEDC Mission Statement:
To increase the tax base and the number of liveable wage-level jobs in Monticello by promoting
industrial. and economic growth and working to maintain a desirable business environment.
MEMBERS: Chair Mike Benedetto (resigned effective Dec. 31, 2008), Vice Chair Bill Tapper, Dick
Van Allen, Don Roberts, Dan Olson, Barb Schwientek, Lynne Dahl-Fleming, Don
Tomann, Jim Johnson, Zona Gutzwiller, Patrick Thompson, Rich Harris, Wayne Elam,
and Marshall Smith.
1. Call to Order
2. Vote to approve the November 5, 2008 IEDC minutes
3. Reports:
a. City Update
b. Fiber Optic
c. Chamber
4. Economic Development Director Update:
5. Nominate Officers for 2009
6. IEDC Planning Session & Establishing of Objectives
a. IEDC Visioning Breakout Session
7. City Engineer -briefly review material presented at Transportation Workshop (8:OOam)
8. Adjournment. (8:30am)
•
IEDC 11.5.08
4. Economic Development Director Updates:
a. General:
1. Noel LaBine from Wright County Economic Partnership is in the process of
obtaining feedback from .Cities within Wright County regarding the interest level
to initiate a Commuter Transit Study. Attached is a basic Q&A on reasons why a
Commuter Transit Study for Wright County Communities should be initiated from
the Wright County Economic Partnership perspective. It is unclear at this point in
time as to what the partnership is asking from each City. Staff is working with Mr.
LaBine to obtain further information.
2. The City Council held a Transportation Workshop on November 19, 2008 to
review a draft version of the Transportation Plan. The City Engineer will be at the
IEDC meeting to briefly review information presented at the workshop. Attached
is a copy of the power point presented at the workshop.
3. The new Public Works Director will be stopping in during the meeting to formally
meet IEDC members.
b. EDA:
1. The EDA approved the TIF Business Subsidy Criteria at their November meeting.
They will hold a public hearing and review any minor grammar changes needed to the
Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund Business Subsidy Criteria at their December
meeting.
c. Planning Commission:
1. The Planning Commission will be reviewing a draft revised Sign Ordinance at
their December meeting. Attached is a copy of the most recent draft sign
ordinance.
2. Staff is in the process of releasing RFP's to qualified consultants to complete a re-
write of the City's Zoning Code. This initiative is slated to begin in early 2009.
d. Marketing Committee:
1. Attached is the draft 2009 Marketing Budget. The EDA will be reviewing the
proposed budget at their December meeting.
2. Staff meet with Nelson Realty to discuss joint marketing ventures. It is possible
that the City and Nelson Realty could cost share some of the proposed business
journal ads, booth fee's, direct marketing mailers, and install a joint sign along I-
94. Staff will continue discussions with Nelson Realty to begin working on a more
defined joint marketing plan.
•
' e. Higher Education Committee: The City Council was presented with the Higher Education
Committee's vision, mission, and objectives at the November 24, 2008 meeting. Attached
please find a copy of the staff report presented to the Council. The Committee will begin
working with St. Cloud State to complete a survey and needs assessment of the
community that will hopefully be initiated in January of 2009.
f. Business Communications:
1. Business Newsletter: As a reminder articles or any information the IEDC feels
would be of value to include in the Monticello Business Insider is due to staff by
December 1, 2008.
g. Related newsletters/articles: None are included.
h. Next Meeting: Tuesday, January 6, 2008
i. Potential dates for joint IEDC/EDA:
Tuesday, January 6, 2009 - 7:00 am (regular IEDC meeting date)
Wednesday, January 7, 2009 -lam
Tuesday, January 13, 2009 - 6pm
Wednesday, January 14, 2009 - Spm (regular EDA meeting date)
•
•
•
Council Agenda: November 24, 2008
8. Higher Education Committee: Update and request for feedback regarding the
established vision and objectives.
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Higher Education Committee was formed to address the results and recommendations that
came out of the Bioscience Park Study completed by students from St. Cloud State in 2007. The
committee has evolved over the last year to address the higher education gaps and needs within
the community at large.
The committee established a vision, mission, and drafted a few objectives. It should be noted that
the committee will build upon their longer term objectives when the needs assessment study is
complete.
Vision Statement:
To promote higher education to better develop our economy, community, and people.
Mission Statement:
The. Higher Education Committee will listen to and meet the needs of our stakeholders,
adapt to the changing environment, and strengthen the bonds between our economy and
its people. We will create learning opportunities by building partnerships and be right
sized.
Objectives:
1. Complete a needs assessment for the community.
a. Survey the existing educational programs and training services
b. Determine what the gaps are in the community and what training will
need to be provided in the future
2. Determine if Monticello is in need of a Higher Education Center
3. Establish a Higher Education Center. This will include obtaining partnerships,
funding .sources, and determining what type of educational classes and
training will be offered.
The Committee believes it is important to complete a needs assessment of the community. In
order to understand the needs of the community at large and the business community, a
comprehensive survey will need. to be completed to determine what educational classes,
programs, and training opportunities currently exist. The committee is not interested in
duplicating existing programs and/or workforce training. The committee desires to establish a
Higher Education Center that will serve as a place to bridge the gaps between the educational
stakeholders, community, and businesses.
It is anticipated that the center would include a compiling of local resources, flexible training
opportunities, skill development classes, and workforce training.
The Higher Ed Committee received a proposal from Anoka Ramsey Community College to
provide a Higher Education Center Coordinator as a pilot project for four months. The proposal
included four main objectives in piloting a Higher Education Center: 1.Public Relations
2.Marketing 3.Sales 4.Project Management. The cost associated with this proposal is $15,750.
The proposal by Anoka Ramsey Community Committee is very comprehensive and provides
great opportunities. However, the committee struggled with the proposal for several reasons. The
cost associated with completing a pilot project seemed on the high side and it was uncertain as to
where funding could be obtained. The committee also raised some concern as to what would
occur once the four month pilot project was completed.
Alternatives to completing a survey and needs assessment of the community were explored.
Contact was made with Barry Kirchoff, the Director of the Small Business Development Center
at St. Cloud State. The question was asked whether performing a survey and needs assessment of
the community could be completed as a student project. Mr. Kirchoff was very receptive and
enthusiastic about this opportunity. The student project could be launched in early January and
be completed by May.
St. Cloud State students would complete the following objectives:
1. Survey the community (including Big Lake, Buffalo, Becker, St. Michael, and
Albertville). to establish current education and workforce training programs that are
being offered by local schools, colleges, and the business community.
2. Determine current and forecasted market needs using methods such as research, focus
and end user groups, survey's and analysis of social, technological, educational and
business trends in order to assist in keeping the workforce competitive.
3. Determine if the demographics of the community would be able to support a Higher
Education Center and what resources should it include.
The committee determined that working with St. Cloud State made the most sense. The
committee felt that in order to determine if a Higher Education Center would be successful in the
community, a survey and needs assessment needed to be completed first. The community has
had a great working relationship with St. Cloud State. They have the resources and competence
to complete the project. Also noteworthy is the fact that St. Cloud State completed several
studies in the community (bioscience study and completing work for the school district) and
therefore presents themselves well in their ability to complete the objectives set forth by the
committee.
The vision and mission statement established by the Higher Education Committee supports
several goals and guidelines established in the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan
states one of the most important objectives is the need to create and retain jobs, particularly jobs
with an income level capable of supporting a family. The Comprehensive Plan also calls for
further efforts to be made in attracting bioscience or high technology industries and jobs.
Completing a needs assessment of the community will allow the City to determine the
importance of establishing a Higher Education Center in Monticello. Statics are showing that
organizations will need to provide their workforce with additional education and training
programs, specifically citing computer skills, leadership, management training, .customer service
training, and emerging technologies, in order to stay competitive in the market.
r vide Monticello with resources to attract and
Establishing a Higher Education Center would p o
retain residents and local workforce that will be able to meet the market demands and position
themselves to advance their income levels. The center could also be an attraction for companies
to locate in Monticello. Companies -will look to locate in areas that can provide a well trained
workforce. Providing local training opportunities will no doubt be a positive view to the existing
business community and in attracting new businesses. All of these efforts and benefits relate
back to the objectives and goals established in the City's Comprehensive Plan.
BUDGET IMPACTS:
Budget impacts have only included staff time, which has been quite minimal at this point. It is
anticipated that at some point in the future the City will be asked to consider being a partner in
the establishment of a Higher Education Center. In order for any educational center to succeed,
many supporters and financial partners will need to be obtained. Partnerships could include the
business community, educational institutions, City, and other non-profit organization.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
1. Staff and the Higher Education Committee would like to obtain feedback from the City
Council regarding the efforts and direction the committee is taking.
2. If the Cit Council is su ortive of the vision and work lan established by the
Y pp p
Committee, the next step will be to proceed with the survey and needs assessment study.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Higher Education Centers currently exists in other communities, such as Chaska and Apple
Valley. These centers are currently locating closer to the Twins Cities area. It appears Higher
Education Centers do not currently exist in the greater Monticello community; therefore steps are
being proposed to fulfill the anticipated educational gap in the City.
Establishing a Higher Education Center has many benefits to the community and most
importantly supports the City's Comprehensive Plan. The first step in creating a successful
center is to know what currently exists, to avoid duplication, and determine what is needed.
Therefore, Staff is recommending that the Higher Education Committee and the City Council
proceed in working with St. Cloud State to obtain information that will help determine how a
successful Higher Education Center can be created.
•
•
Council Agenda: December 8, 2008
14. Update on Foreclosure Prevention and Recovery Opportunities (MB/JO).
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The reality and domino effects of foreclosures occurring in the State and more specifically in
Wright County, continues to be a high priority discussion for state agencies, county officials, and
local municipalities. In an attempt to research options and opportunities to locally address
foreclosure issues, Staff attended seminars offered by the MN Financing Agency, met with
lenders & realtors, and obtained prevention information from the Home Ownership Agency.
A variety of loans and grant programs exist to help residents and communities prevent
foreclosures and rehabilitate substandard homes. The state offers low interest loans to "fix-up"
homes and opportunities for first time home buyer's to receive down payment assistance. Staff is
taking steps to communicate these opportunities to residents through website and direct mail
pieces.
Monticello .also has an opportunity to obtain grant monies through the MN Housing Finance
Agency (MHFA) to help facilitate a community wide neighborhood foreclosure recovery plan.
MHFA completed a comprehensive study of zip codes in the State to determine where the
greatest need to address foreclosures exists. Monticello has been identified as one of the
communities with a high concentration of foreclosed homes. Based on the number of Sheriff's
sales from 2007 through the 2°d quarter of 2008, Wright County is ranked sixth in the state for
highest concentration of foreclosures. As a result of the statistics obtained by the State, MHFA
has allocated approximately $523,923 non-competitive dollars to Monticello through the
Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP). It should be noted, while the dollars have been
tagged as "non-competitive" dollars, the City will be required to complete an extensive grant
application and will mostly likely be required to partner with anon-profit agency to administer
funding transactions. NSP dollars are being allocated through Community Development Block
Grant guidelines, which require extensive reporting and follow up.
The City will have a few options in how the grant funds can be expended. NSP funding can be
utilized for purchasing foreclosed homes, demolishing blighted homes, and rehabilitating
substandard/vacant homes. Minnesota's NSP Action Plan outlines three main goals in finalizing
which zip codes will receive funding:
1) To maximize the revitalization and stabilization impact on neighborhoods;
2) To complement and coordinate with other federal, state and local investment in the
targeted neighborhoods;
3) To preserve affordable housing opportunities in the targeted neighborhoods.
Representation from MHFA have made it clear that Cities need to look at addressing
"neighborhoods" and must exhibit a community wide plan to address both prevention and
recovery when submitting a grant application. Attached is a draft flow chart establishing efforts
the City is currently completing and identifies three main areas where dollars could be allocated:
Purchase, Rehabilitation (Transformation .Loan) and Buyer Assistance Programs. In reviewing r
Sheriff sales data it appears Carlisle Village and Sunset Ponds neighborhoods have the highest
concentration of foreclosed homes. However, these neighborhoods may not exhibit the most .
blighted homes. This leads to the idea of working with local lenders and residents to provide
down payment assistance programs to help facilitate purchasing power for these homes. The
"core" City limits lends to a higher concentration of blighted properties or the need to
rehabilitate homes. This would lead to options for purchasing or providing Transformation Loan
dollars. MHFA will require detailed analysis of each neighbor the City identifies as a
stabilization area. The Building Department is in the process of completing a windshield survey
of certain identified properties to verify the condition of each home. Establishing a variety of
methods to expend .grant dollars will be viewed favorably to the state and will help address
several foreclosure issues in Monticello.
A.1 BUDGET IMPACTS:
There are no budget impacts at this time, except for staff time needed to acquire and implement
grant program.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
This item does not require any action.
1. Staff would like to obtain feedback from the City Council regarding staff efforts in this
area. The attached draft flow chart outlines how grant dollars could be expended (i.e.
purchase, rehabilitation, and buyer assistance).
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is presumed given the current situation that it is a priority for staff to be seeking funding
sources and prevention resources to mitigate foreclosure related challenges in order to protect the
Cities neighborhood integrity. The City of Monticello has a great opportunity to capitalize on
available dollars to help address the rise of foreclosures within the City. The City will be
required to submit a comprehensive application by January 28, 2009. Staff is in the process of
meeting with representatives from Central Minnesota Housing Partnership to determine if there
is a partnership that could be formed to administer the buyer assistance portion of the grant
monies. As previously stated, these funds are being allocated through Community Development
Block Grant rules that required extensive monitoring and follow up.
The state has a very. aggressive schedule to expend these dollars. If the City were to receive all
$523,923 dollars, these funds will be required to be allocated within 18 months to a specific
resident or household and completely expended within four years. The state realizes this is an
aggressive schedule and therefore will be looking favorably on grant applications that have
included partnerships between Cities and non-profit organizations. The Central Minnesota
Housing Partnership specializes in administering community block funds and could serve as a
backbone to achieve the goals of the NSP Action Plan, resulting in the state ranking Monticello
as a top candidate to receive the non-competitive funds.
Staff would like to continue to work with the state and the Central Minnesota Housing
Partnership to align the City in good standings to receive grant money to fund a comprehensive
foreclosure recovery and prevention plan.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
• a. Proposed Foreclosure prevention and recovery plan
•
•