Loading...
HRA Agenda 10-02-1996AGENDA MONTICELLO HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Wednesday, October 2,19% - 7:00 p-nL City Hall MEMBERS: Chairperson Al Larson, Vice-Chairperson Brad Barger, Tom St. Hilaire, Roger Carlson, and Steve Andrews. STAFF: Rick Wolfstelier, Jeff O'Neill, and 011ie Koropchak. GUEST: Eric Bondhus or Carl Botdhus, Lake Tool, Inc. Michael Schroeder, Hoisington Koegler, Inc. Brad Johnson. Lotus Realty Services Steve Bubul, HRA Attorney I. CALL TO ORDER. 2. CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE THE AUGUST 7 AND AUGUST 21. 1946 HRA MINUTES. 1. CONSIDERATION TO REVIEW THE LETTER FROM MORRELL'S ATTORNEY GIVING DIRECTION TO HRA ATTORNEY BUBUL. 4. CONSIDERATION TO AUTHORIZE PUBLICORP TO BEGIN PREPARATION FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF TIF DISTRICT NO. 1-21 FOR LAKE TOOL. 5. CONSIDERATION TO HEAR AN UPDATE ON THE REVITALIZATION PLAN INCLUDING THREE CONCEPTUAL OPTIONS. (Michael Schroeder. Hoisington) 6. CONSIDERATION TO HEAR A PROGRESS REPORT FOR THE POTENTIAL TO ESTABLISH A REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. (Brad Johnson, Project Manager) 7. CONSIDERATION OF SITE IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS FOR THE HRA LOT ON WEST BROADWAY. K. OTHER BUSINESS: e) Authorization to pay monthly bills: o) Hoisington b) Kemtedy & Graven and Ehlers. b) Other. C) Next regular scheduled HRA trceting is Wednesday. November 6. 1996, 70) p.m.. 9. ADJOURNMENT. YGi1n iNF0A.P,1 71CN MINUTES SPECIAL JOINT MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION, MONTICELLO PARKS COMMISSION, MONTICELLO HRA Tuesday, August 27,1996 - 7 p.m. Members Present - Planning Commission: Dick Frie, Rod Dragsten, Richard Carlson Members Absent - Planning Commission: Dick Martie, Jon Bogart Members Present - Parks Commission: Fran Fair, Larry Nolan, Earl Smith, Robbie Smith Members Absent - Parks Commission: Members Present - HRA: Members Absent - HRA: Bruce Thielen Al Larson, Steve Andrews, Roger Carlson Brad Barger, Tom St. Hilaire 1. Planning Commission Chair Dick Frie called the meeting to order. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY EARL SMITH AND SECONDED BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING HELD JANUARY 24, 1996. Motion carried unanimously. 3. rnnaidPration of nd ine items to thp my n n. No items were added. Y4, y Dick Frie reviewed the importance of these periodic joint meetings. He noted that the joint meetings improve communications and allow each commission to better focus on activities that complement the activities of the others. Assistant Administrator O Neill noted that major reason for the joint meeting is to establish consensus on the list of projects and activities that are needed to be done to help fiilfill goals and visions expressed in the Comprehensive Plan. O'Neill went on to note that the purpose of this meeting is to review specific work items and budget suggested by each commission which, if completed, are intended to contribute toward accomplishing the goals outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. Page 1 Special Joint Meeting Minutes • 8/27/96 Planning Commission, Parks Commission, HRA FOIA GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Al Larson, chairman of the HRA, noted that the HRA reviewed its goals and objectives at the previous meeting of the HRA and has determined that it needs to focus investment of pooled TIF funds in long-term development of future industrial areas. Funds available in the pooled TIF funds are proposed to be placed in a fund for future use in construction of utilities or possible acquisition of land. He also noted that a portion of the TIF funds are proposed to be earmarked for city projects to compensate for expected losses that the city will face due to the use of tax increment financing which has been used to attract new businesses. Assistant Administrator O'Neill remarked that development of industrial land in the southwest area of the community is one of the goals outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. Al Larson went on to note that the HRA is considering possible use of tax increment financing dollars generated from development of retail businesses. In the past, the City has been reluctant to use tax increment financing in conjunction with retail development because of issues relating to competition. Larson went on to note that times have changed and new circumstances exist which may require us to look again at this policy and, perhaps, use TIF dollars generated by retail development for redevelopment projects that support MCP/downtown planning objectives. Finally, Al Larson noted that there are various residential properties within the older part of the community that may be targeted for acquisition and redevelopment. Larson noted that some cities purchase delapidated homes, demolish them, then sell the cleared land to developers for redevelopment. The Assistant Administrator noted that the MCP recommendations will likely include a goal of improving and intensifying housing in areas adjacent to the downtown/riverfront area. This goal outlined by the HRA is consistent with this possible MCP goal. It was the general consensus of the group that the objectives and goals expressed by Al Larson complement and are consistent with the objectives of the Parks and Planning Commissions. Dick Frie, chairman of the Planning Commission, and Jeff O Neill reviewed the various projects proposed by the Planning Commission. They reviewed projects relating to amendments of agreements governing the Monticello Orderly Annexation Area. A number of potential zoning map and text amendments were discussed. It was determined that the list provided by the Planning Commission was comprehensive and the items contained therein need to be addressed in order for the goals of the Comprehensive Plan to be achieved. Frio also discussed the need to make a decision with regard to the ultimate design of Broadway as it enters Monticello. Al Larson noted that it was his view that traffic is bad, but maybe the best solution would be to remove only the truck traffic from Broadway. It was his view that the automobile traffic need not be reduced. Page 2 Special Joint Meeting Minutes - 8/27/96 Planning Commission, Parks Commission, HRA The group reviewed various administrative issues with regard to fee structure. There was a strong desire to develop a park dedication fee program and a pathway fee that will enable the City to build adequate parks and recover costs at the greatest extent possible. Staffing of the planning function was discussed. It was the recommendation of the group that additional planning resources should be hired positions rather than consultant -based duties. The group discussed the existing city subdivision regulations. It was the consensus of the group that the subdivision regulations that exist today need to be updated to reflect modern codes and design standards. Assistant Administrator O'Neill emphasized that the City has done very little with regard to development of financing plans that will enable us to complete important projects as the city grows. O'Neill noted the importance of the capital improvement plan and stressed that the City, when establishing its budget, needs to keep in mind some of these major projects that are down the line. PARRS COMMISSION COMPREHENSIVE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Larry Nolan reviewed park development projects planned for Meadow Oak outlet A at the freeway park, the Meadow Oak and Prairie Park cleanup and restoration, MCP park improvements, Lions Park and 7th Street West, lGein Farms park and trail, River Mill park development, and NSP ballfield development. Nolan noted that the pathway plan is being implemented with every new subdivision that is installed; however, there are three pathway segments that need to be constructed independent of subdivision development. Pathway development includes the Meadow Oak to Middle School segment, the Highway 75 to Middle School segment, which crosses the freeway, and the Mississippi River walk linking Ellison Park to Mississippi Drive. Nolan noted that they are programmed for 1997 at a total cost of $150,000. The group reviewed the Parks Commission recommendation that snow be removed from the pathway in the winter of 1997 and agreed with the concept of utilizing the $26,000 budgeted annually for pathway maintenance to be used toward purchase of snow removal equipment. The group also discussed the ongoing need for regular maintenance of city parks. Concern was expressed regarding dandelions, weeds, etc. There was also concern regarding outdated playground equipment and the presence of other fixtures at parks that are not in good repair. There was a concern that sufficient resources are not being applied to maintaining the parks in a safe and respectable manner. Page 3 Special Joint Meeting Minutes - 8/27/96 Planning Commission, Parks Commission, HRA The group discussed the possibility of reducing mowing in certain parks; specifically, the Meadow Oak park/drainage basin was a topic of discussion. It was suggested that perhaps a portion of this property could be converted to wedand/prairie land, which would reduce maintenance costs in this area. Larry Nolan noted that the items listed require a significant amount of effort and City resources to complete. He stated that it's the suggestion of the Parke Commission that additional staff support be provided for the parks function. To this end, the Parks Commission recommended increasing the parks budget by $25,000 to fund a portion of a salary of an individual to dedicate time to implementation of park projects and to park planning, etc. It was the general consensus of the group that the plans outlined by the Parks Commission were consistent with the overall goal of the comprehensive plan. Following are general items discussed relating to parks. The group was concerned about the fact that the park dedication fees relating to park development have not been placed in a separate fiord to be used for park land acquisition. It was suggested that park dedication revenue be inventoried and placed in a fund for use by the parka. It was noted, however, that if this is done, it is likely that the City Council budget contributing toward parka will be reduced in an amount equal to the revenue transferred from the general fund to the park fund. It was determined that the group would be attending the special Council meeting of September 9 at 6 p.m. for the purpose of supporting project ideas and budget items relating thereto. Finally, a tentative agenda was set for the next meeting, which was scheduled for the fust Wednesday of the month immediately prior to the HR:A meeting. Discuss overall staffing configurations and issues. Review a city-wide capital improvement plan. The next special joint meeting was scheduled for January 1997. Jeff O'Neil Assistant Administrator Page 4 MINUTES MONTICELLO HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Wednesday, August 21,19% - 7:00 p.m. City Han MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Al Larson, Vice Chairperson Brad Barger, Tom St. Hilaire (tardy), Roger Carlson. and Steve Andrews. STAFF PRESENT: Rick Wolfsteller and 011ie Koropchak. STAFF ABSENT: Jeff O'Neill. GUEST: Steve Bubul, HRA Attorney CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Larson called the HRA special meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE THE AUGUST 7 1996 HKA MINI Tabled, minutes not prepared. Koropchak suggested the HRA members review the list of potential projects and available revenue sources and then develop a list of prioritized projects for 1997. HRA members were reminded that the operational budget for the HRA is funded through a levy by the City and is pan of the City's annual budget. In other words, the HRA budget being prepared is project driven. Koropchak divided the HRA revenues into three potential sources: Creation of new TIF Districts, TIF and HRA General Fund Surplus, and I IRA levy. Members concentrated on the surplus dollars after noting they were not interested in exercising their power to levy and agreed to consider creation of new TIF Districts for projects which met both the local HRA and TIF policies and the State requirements. Based on the TIF and HRA General Fund Cash(low projections prepared by Mark Ruff and HRA expenditures for the Fluth parcel, Prairie West redevelopment, and H -Window; the beginning 1997 balance is SI 17,919. The annual minimum surplus revenue anticipated is S130.000 for a total revenue balance of $247,919. On the expenditure side, the HRA HRA hGNU`fES AUGUST 21, 1996 anticipates a City Loss of 555,000 due to HACA and a pay-as-you-go payment of 520,000 to the H-Window. Members then proceeded to discuss goal options. CCgmpensation of City Loss Attorney Bubul explained for audit purpose the HRA can not transfer surplus dollars into the City General Fund or pay the City directly for public improvements. If the designated public improvements are in the City's General Fund then the HRA can compensate the City for those designated public improvements through the establishment of an HRA Reserve Fund Until such time the designated public improvements are constructed and the HRA is unvoiced. does the HRA approve the expenditure and make payment. Therefore. HRA members felt it is important that the Council and HRA are in concert and are in agreement of the designated public improvements as offered or suggested by the HRA as compensation to the City for its loss of HACA. SLhsi Attorney Buhd further explained that the HRA's ability to continue to spend existing or future TIF Surplus dollars from old TIF Districts (pre-1990) will perhaps again be subject to change or further restriction in the next legislative session. Legislative action is retro- active to the beguming of the year. Two options to spend the money by end of 1996 are to tie up dollars in a bond or contract based on a general list of projections. This a risk for Monticello HRA because the surplus amount is not a high amount. If the surplus amount was larger the recommendation would be to sell bonds. If capital improvemems are in the City General Fund or the infrastructure is tied to a development project, tax exempt bonds are sold and 5% of the proceeds must be expended within 6 months and all the proceeds expended within 3 years. Taxable bonds are for development projects. Bubul suggested spending old monies for HRA redevelopment activities (spot redevelopment) or public improvements in the City General Fund. In either case, earmarked activities must be specific inorder for the HRA to act fast. In review of the capital improvements W. Wolfsteller estimated realignment of Chelsea Road to take place in I to 2 years at an approximate cost of 520000 for infrastructure construction. No design or slope study has been authorized by the City for the Fallon Avenue overpass. The big concern with development of the storm sewer system on the east side of town to the Mississippi River is'who's going to pay for it"" With potential de-regulation of the local power plant and since the merger of NSP and the Wisconsin company, it is heard that NSP plans to lobby for a reduction oftheir propeny valuation. Wolfsteller informed HRA members that the city would then receive state aid like other communities and also informed the HRA that the inventory of existing industrial HRA MINUTES AUGUST 21, 1996 land is good for 10 years. Barger left the new $5.000 per acre storm sewer charge would have an effect on industrial development. HRA members agreed the City needs tax revenues and good paying jobs, agreed with the IDC, and felt a good use of the surplus dollars was the purchase of land for a firture industrial park. Wolfsteller felt the Council would agree. HRA members noted the increased costs to rum utilities and provide access to the parcel proposed for industrial use within the Comprehensive Plan compared to costs for development of the northerly 80 -acre Klein parcel which the HRA offered to purchase a few years ago or development of the 60 -acre City panel (previous Remmele parcel). Bubul suggested earmarking the surplus dollars and identifying the parcel(s). Wolfsteller reported, although no guarantees about rezoning, the current zoning control has stopped the development of housing on the parcels identified in the Monticello Comprehensive Plan for industrial use. The City purchased the 250- acre Bohanon property for approximately $2,800 per acre. Recognizing budgets are not carved in stone. Tom St. Hilaire made a motion offering to compensate the City for its estimated $75.000 HACA Loss from the TIF and HRA General Furl Surplus. One-half or $37,500 earmarked for an Industrial Development Reserve Fund and one-half or $37,500 earmarked for improvement costs associated with the realignment of Chelsea Road and the development of the easterly storm sewer system. The HRA agreed to match the City's contribution of $37,500 earmarked for the Industrial Development Reserve Fund with a second contribution of $37,500 making an annual comribution of $75.100 to the Industrial Reserve Fund. Al Corson seconded the motion and with no fwther discussion, the nation passed unanimously. Tom St. Hilaire made a second motion earmarking the remaining surplus balance of approximately $115.000 for imprrovernemn costs associated with the realignment of Chelsea Road and the development of the easterly storm sewer systema Brad Barger seconded the motion and with no further discussion, the motion passed unanimously. In addition to adopting the 1997 TIF and HRA General Fund Budget, the HRA members discussed the importance of supporting the implementation of the Downtown and Riverfront Revitalization Plan, researching the HRA's ability to develop a program to eliminate spotted residential blight, and creating new TIF Districts which meet local policy and state requirements.. •(•1M1014XIIEu:rr•l:+:VAl:t:'rY:1x•inU.YIMMIJyi:422.0 ,whV65n1:1:1gq RELATING TO THE TAX INCREMENT SHORTFALL HPLA members mmiewed Mr. 1August HRA MINUTES AUGUST 21, 1996 52,948.79 for compensation of the $12.517.93 tax increment shortfall. The HRA had offered to split the shortfall and upon receipt of payment in the amount of $6,258.96 from Morrell, the HRA would release the two recorded documents. Morrell's counter-offer included $1,498.15 from Morrell. $1,000 from Morrell for legal compensation. and $450.64 collectable from John Plaisted. HRA members voiced various viewpoints and unanimously agreed the principle and intent of the agreement was clearly understood by all parties at the time the documents were executed. The intent of the agreement is an example of business ethics, the agreement was done in good faith and Morrell received approximately $35.000 in benefits with the reduction of the market value from $879.400 to $700,000 for both parcels or TIF District Nos. I-1 and 1-4 concluded members. The agreement included a $28,000 tax increment guarantee. Attorney Bubul informed the HRA members that the agreement had some serious problems. One, the agreement was with Plaisted, not Morrell and secondly, the two TIF Districts have independent parcel numbers with independent expiration dates. Bubul estimated defense costs to easily be $6,000 and if taken to court approximately $15,000 to $20,000. HRA members recognized their case was weak. however, they still agreed the issue was one of ethics and authorized Attorney Bubul to draft a letter to Mr. Morrell from the NRA restating the HRA's position, offer, and option to enforce their rights. Bubul to be creative and draft copy to be reviewed by the Chairperson and Executive Director prior to mailing. The HRA gave Bubul no direction to file a claim at this time. OTHER B 1S NESS - HRA members accepted the written report relating to why the special HRA meeting of August 13 was cancelled. Payment for completion of Task 11, Hoisington Koegler Group. Inc. - Koropchak reported at the MCP meeting of August 14. Chairperson Bowen verified that the work outlined in Task 11 had been completed by Hoisington. Hilaire requested an accountability of the work completed. I IRA members were invited to attend Workshop 11 scheduled for Tuesday. September 17.7:00 p.m at the High School Board Room Michael Schroeder will give an overview of the tasks completed and will present three conceptual options of focus for development. Additionally. Larson suggested Michael Schroeder attend an HRA meeting for direct accountability. HRA members authorized payment of the $6.798.99 invoice from Hoisington. AI Larson made a motion to pay all other monthly bills. Roger Carlson seconded the motion and with no ftuther discussion, the motion passed unanimously. HRA MINUTES AUGUST 21,1996 d) Other Business - Tom St. Hilaire expressed his concern regarding the calling and cancelation of special meetings. With business travel outside the immediate area, Hilaire has arranged his business schedule reserving the fast Wednesday of the month for HRA meetings. He generaDy is in Monticello on Monday and Thursday. Andrews agreed and hoped HRA meetings could be scheduled in the evenings. With St. Hilaire, Barger, and Kowpcbek unable to attend the rescheduled Joint meeting of August 27, HRA members agreed not to attend and recommended the joint mating be rescheduled to October 2, prior to the HRA regular meeting. The HRA meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. 011ie Koropchak, HRA Exavtive Director 1997 HRA BUDGET TIF and HRA General Fund Surplus Adopted August, 1996 Balance, August 18, 1996 REVENUE: Surplus Other Subtotal Total Revenue EXPENDITURE: Public Improvements* Chelsea Road Alignment and Storm Sewer Improvement Industrial Development Reserve Fund Matched Funds** Surplus/Public Improvments Chelsea Road Alignment and Storm Sewer Improvement H -Window Subtotal Total Expenditures Balance, December 31, 1997 S 130,000 S 130,000 S 37,500 37,500 $ 37,500 $ 115,000 S 20,000 $ 247,500 $117,919 $247,919 S 247,500 $ 419 • Purpose to compensate for City Loss. Can be used for HRA development or redevelopment and public improvments otherwise in City General Fund. TTte Chelsea Road Alignment, Storm Sewer Improvement, and Industrial Development Reserve Fund are suggested uses for the projected $75,01X1 loss. •• HRA Matched Funds for Industrial Development Reserve Furl HRA AGENDA OCTOBER 2, 1996 11 I Y1!. Ill I ly1 y. 1. YI Y 1{1111 11 IlY 1 +Illy '+1/ I' �':1 11 •�� :.l I Illy At the HRA meeting of August 21, the HRA authorized Bubul to draft a letter to Mr. Morrell from the HRA restating the HRA's position, offer, and option to enforce their rights. The HRA gave Bubul no direction to file a claim at that time. Enclosed is a copy of Attorney Bubul's letter of September 6 to Mr. Morrell, Attorney Milligan's letter of September 16 to Attorney Bubul, and Attorney Bubul's response of September 24. Although this is a matter of prirrciplc, you wig note the HRA's expenditure for legal fees relating to this matter as of August 31 is $451.50. September 17: I. Parties sit down and talc. (Attorneys, Morrell. and HRA) 2. Attorney Bubul to cal Attorney Milligan, 'The HRA is prepared to'?" 3. Accept offer of $2,949.79. 4. File claim: Conciliation Court maximum $7,500. HRA Chairperson and Executive Lector directed Attorney Bubul to write letter of September 24. Attorney Bubul is calling Attorney Milligan, September 30, to clarify if he urderstands the difference between tax inurement and taxes. C W Auw" M Ise 9MW A. ALSOP eLQ AL BATTUM Romw IL BArrr Brermw J. BUNG. JORM a. DRAII ..J. Gfta DAVW J. XL"WT Ca"LTa L IJFTT[BE '0101 M- LIF"LL JL ROBERT J. IDIOALL ROBERT C. IpMO JArn AL Bm10111m1 CONSM a. TnOYrOM September 6, 1996 Jay C. Morrell M&P Transports, Inc. 1401 Fallon Avenue Monticello, MN 55362 KENNEDY & GRAVEN CHARTPJIRD JAun J. THOHfOM M Mbary Cenw, Mlnnepo0l, Waoeaa 55M LARRT AL WKATHr1M (612) 737.9700 BOMMR L N1L[m+r los T. TAM Feaduaae (612) 317.9010 — pATmL QRAvaM IHn-11eq or CDLT1m. WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL RORRRT C. CARLeON ROBOT L DAMPOM WLLLANGTON R. VA nA)TD a. OLiOM CURTO A. PLARBOM T. JAT BALIm1 RE: Monticello HRA Tax Increment Deficiency Dear Mr. Morrell: The Monticello HRA has asked me to respond to your letter of August 14, 1996. In that letter, you confirm that you and the HRA agree that the May 30, 1989 agreement signed by your tomer partner, Mr. Plaisted, clearly states that the HRA will be paid a minimum of $28,000 in tax increment from the two pawls in question. You further acknowledge that the agreement guarantees these payments through 1994. Apparently, however, some confusion exists about the nature of tax increment as compared with the nature of the taxes paid on the parcels. As you know, there was a shortfall of tax increment of $1,545.06 in 1990 and an additional shortfall of $403.73 in 1991. You acknowledge a combined debt of $1,948.19 in your August 14, 1996 letter. (You allege that Mr. Plaisted is responsible for a portion of that debt. but in our view that is a matter between you and Mr. Plaisted.) In 1992 and 1993, the parcel located in Tax Increment Financing District No. I (No. 155-018- 003070) did not generate any tax increment because that district was decertified in 1991, having reached the end of its maximum allowable life under state law. 'ilius, the HRA received no I& increment from that parcel during those two years. The HRA does not dispute that you paid 2W on that parcel. However, the HRA did not "fail" to take that money as you suggested. Rather, it was prohibited by state law from capturing that money, and it was instead paid in as general property tax receipts to be split among the appropriate wring authorities. The tax money was not available to the HRA to meet its debt rctin:ment demands, which the agreement makes clear was the reason for the minimum tax increment guarantee. MMIOet06 101190.57 Mr. Jay C. Morrell September 6, 1996 Page 2 The May 30, 1989 agreement clearly states that the minimum guaranteed tax increment for the two parcels is $28,000 each year. That agreement is not satisfied by payment of orooerty taxes, if the HRA did not actually receive at least $28,000 in tax increment. Nor does the agreement specify which parcel is the source of the minimtun guarantee. The agreement says, plainly, that the Developer will ensure that the HRA receives $28,000 each year, from tax increment or by cash payment from the Developer if the increment is insufficient. If one of the parcels does not generate tax increment, the other parcel must generate the required amount or the Developer must pay the shortfall. The HRA received tax increment in 1992 and 1993 only from parcel No. 153-01&003071, the parcel located in Tax Increment Financing District No. 4. This meant that the HRA received $22,070.04 in tax increment in 1992 and $23.296.40 in 1993, which resulted in shortfalls of $5,929.96 in 1992 and $4,703.60 in 1993. When these amounts are added to your acknowledged debt of $1,948.79, the HRA is faced with a total shortfall of tax increment of $12,582.35, less $63.42 in excess collected for 1989, for a net deficiency of $12,516.93. Please bear in mind that during this sante period the HRA's agreement to release the assessment agreements resulted in a savings to you of more than $37,000 in taxes that would have been assessed against the property had the original minimum market value remained in effect. That savings represents $37,000 in tax increment revenues that the HRA agreed to forgo. If you pay the $12,316.93 deficiency, you still received a net benefit of more than $24,000. If you do not, you received the entire $37,000 benefit and the HRA lost both the $37,000 pnA the $12,516.93 shortfall, for a total loss approaching $50,000. Please also bear in mind that not paying the 1992 and 1993 shortfalls when they originally came due allowed you the use of that money for an extended period of time, in essence creating an interest free loan. Finally, please be advised that the statute of limitations for a breach of contract is six years from the date of the breach. As a result, any such statute would expire no sooner than December, 1999. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the HRA would, like you, prefer to avoid the expense and aggravation of litigation. The HRA is therefore willing to settle this matter for one-half of the net deficiency, or $6,258.47. This offer will expire on October 1, 1996. If you choose to accept it, please send to the HRA a check in the amount of 6.258.47 by that date. Upon receipt of that amount we will provide you with a release of these claims. If we do not hear from you by October 1, the HRA will be forced to take appropriate action to enforce its rights as to the entire deficiency. =10106 KNIOC-11 Mr. Jay C. Morrell September 6, 1496 Page 3 Thank you in advance for your consideration. Ve y yours, r Steph . Bubul oc: 011ie Koropchak Al Larson wa l"806 01190- 5, Re: Our File No. PC95494 Dear Mr. Bubul: This letter is written in response to the letter that you directed to my client, Jay Morrell, dated September 5, 1996 concerning certain property owned by Mr. Morrell in the City of Monticello. As you know, there appears to be a disagreement between the Monticello HRA and Mr. Morrell concerning an agreement that was signed on May 30, 1989 by and between the HRA and my client's former partner, John Plalsted. The agreement, by your client's own admission, seems to have some ambiguity in it. The document was drafted by the HRA and to the extent there is ambiguity, a Court will interrupt the terms most favorable to tho position of the non -drafter, my client and his former partner. The agreement is specific in that it negates the former tax incurment districts that had been established pursuant to agreements with the HRA and Dee Johnson. The new agreement covered one described "property" and called for tax incurment payments on the total parcel of $28,000. My client has made payments on both parcels which exceed $28,000 in the years 1992 and 1993. It is my understanding that you do not wish to give my client credit for those years based on some prior agreement between the HRA and Dee Johnson which was negated by the new agreement. ,••Irn fr �,n,n,l..rn QUINLIVAN l..•n J. .1 \''1­ Irrtlu •m t/ I�rn r.:JJ• K, K,nnrrh H Brnh.. Ne loH.f 3 F'r..J LA%,N F [ �:� [ Rath., fh,.mP.••n K. or , c'.✓P nr. •.. 1.+nnr 1- L r rn.. •Ir 11r. hwf F tli�InrrlF Frl, hH n.•rr Q, /,I,, 1,. .1HI go -11. Se I u.u'1 � I1:"..J•iR I:nn .V..rnR ,�4waman •• Q T1el/\/111. P.I. 1. JJ l_,r..rn t/r. 4w ll1 F.r/'.�un:Jrnr R••nalJ 11 flntnJ. nmrrc Barianl d liliRmmn Coeavl rIl /:•un..l /Jmr. P P : Established 1923 .Y. Chwd OBkr: 41- Lr e,wd rn .Sh—u li, Qoku Jr.l_1, f.r Sr. Srr. MMI ZD.L. /0" C-1— Crerrr P 11 &rr MMA, ,Gwh DYtLJa Mll l.:[nhrnr Ya.lw Jr .�r 0 d, A1lnnruaal.VO. Ulr rola ,t/mrrrrr/�Jl r, flmnrrrrw <<pl' .,en r�a r•.r y... an,� sol l�.JJv 5]rin F'J r. �!!Ur-._1-/JU .•,�,,,,,w rm ,...w Far •nl!nJJv.J lul E-mail Add,-: gm®cloudW.WM September 16, 1996 RSMY TO sT. CIA= MR STEPHEN BUBUL KENNEDY b GRAVEN CHID 470 PILLSBURY CENTER MINNEAPOLIS MN 55402 Re: Our File No. PC95494 Dear Mr. Bubul: This letter is written in response to the letter that you directed to my client, Jay Morrell, dated September 5, 1996 concerning certain property owned by Mr. Morrell in the City of Monticello. As you know, there appears to be a disagreement between the Monticello HRA and Mr. Morrell concerning an agreement that was signed on May 30, 1989 by and between the HRA and my client's former partner, John Plalsted. The agreement, by your client's own admission, seems to have some ambiguity in it. The document was drafted by the HRA and to the extent there is ambiguity, a Court will interrupt the terms most favorable to tho position of the non -drafter, my client and his former partner. The agreement is specific in that it negates the former tax incurment districts that had been established pursuant to agreements with the HRA and Dee Johnson. The new agreement covered one described "property" and called for tax incurment payments on the total parcel of $28,000. My client has made payments on both parcels which exceed $28,000 in the years 1992 and 1993. It is my understanding that you do not wish to give my client credit for those years based on some prior agreement between the HRA and Dee Johnson which was negated by the new agreement. Page Two I do not believe there is any question, but that the taxes paid on the parcels exceed the minimum payment. You appear to want to only view part of the taxes paid as tax incurment payments. The problem that you have with that is that the 1989 agreement envisions all payments made as tax incurment payments. There is no provision for any portion of the tax incurment payments to drop off concerning any individual portion of the "property" that was the subject of the agreement. My client has :t:vayr beer, willing -nake �:p an, sort fall between the total amounts paid for taxes on the "property" and the minimum payment of $28,000. Your position is not consistent with the agreement that the HRA entered into. My client does not disagree that he owes some money. It would appear that he owes approximately $2,400. However, my client has previously offered to pay $2,948.79. He still continues to be willing to pay that amount. He previously had directed the HRA to collect $450.64 of that from his former partner, but he will now pay that amount as well so that the total still remains $2,948.79, but he will pay the total amount. It would appear that if there is any dispute here it is actually between the HRA and the City as to how the tax dollars that were collected were allocated. The HRA appears to be going after the wrong person or entity. I would strongly suggest that the HRA talk to the assessor and to the City to get appropriate allocations of tax dollars collected. You should take this letter as a rejection of your demand as set forth in your letter of September 6, 1996. You should also talk to your clients and explain to them the problems they have with a document that they drafted. If the HRA has any complaints, it should be with themselves as well as the City. The HRA appears to have been trying to save money back in 1989 and I would assume that they drafted the agreement without the help of legal counsel. Now, when they realize that my client does not owe them the money they are demanding, they have to incur legal expenses. I would strongly suggest that the HRA accept the offer that has been made by Mr. Morrell. I assume that the HRA does not wish to continue to incur legal expenses, and I know Mr. Morrell does not wish to continue to incur those expenses. This is a time when attorneys should step to the side and allow common sense to govern. The staff documents prepared by the HRA staff indicate the ambiguity in the 1989 document. They also support my client's position entirely. Finally, it would appear that any statute of limitations concerning any payments duo in December of 1989 or 1990 have lapsed. The agreement specifically states the payments are duo no later than December 15th in the year in which the taxes are due and payable. Page Three Therefore, the statute of limitations began to run December 15th of each year and any cause of action for payments due in December 15, 1989 or December 15, 1990 has run. With those thoughts in mind, 1 would think that the HRA would be glad to accept my client's offer of settlement which exceeds what he owes. Please respond to my letter with an acceptance of my client's offer within ten (10) business days. Sincerely, Michael T. ltil igen MTM/rn CC: PEM02 AL a CONPIDBM?IALa CONPIDSM?IAL ATTN JAY MORRELL M 6 P TRANSPORT 1401 PALLON AVE P 0 BOX 477 MONTICELLO MN 55362 OLLIE KOROPCHAK EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR CITY OF MONTICELL0 250 EAST BROADWAY PO BOX 1147 MONTICELLO MN 55362 AL IrARSON HRA CHAIR PERSON CITY OF MONTICELLO 250 EAST BROADWAY PO BOX 1147 MONTICELLO MN 55362 40—P of Lw .SM a_ A O BRUCE M. arrrOMON RONALD 9. B4m sruml J. OOaUL JOa & Dam D4NM J. m�o CaaD DAvm J. NUMM. CRAI • L 1""C i J0101 RL sJasysc n Roam J. mous Rover e. Inw Juin M. MOMME 1 Couma e. 7ROMaN September 24, 1996 Michael T. Milligan Quinlivan Law Firm 400 S. Ist St., Ste. 600 PO Box 1008 St. Cloud, MN 56302 KENNEDY & GRAVEN CHARTMUM J am J. rrn9nal 470 tmeo7 Cams.bRISMISPAN DOM seta a= LAUT M. Waara®1 (6W 117.9100 9OXXML romm Jos T. r.11O Fa6dul09(6U)337-9310 Davin L Cava (19141911) OPP COUNSEL Y/Rffn'8 DmECr DIAL Roam C. Ci1a1J101) ROaRr L DavIONION VFEL 0107011 a. LAW N.090 L OUoll 337-9228 A ` VU `1`i1"0R T. Jnr RE: Monticello HRA Matter Dear Mr. Milligan: 1 received your letter of September 16, 1996 concerning the Monticello HRA's claim under the May 30, 1989 agreement between the HRA and your client's former partner, John Plaisted. 1 understand that your client has rejected the HRA's offer of 56,248.47, and has renewed his offer to pay 52,948.79 (including a portion he previously alleged was payable by Mr. Plaisted). The HRA will meet next on October 2, 1996, at which time it will consider a response to your client's offer. We will contact you thereafter. If you have further questions or comments before then, please contact me. Very yours, Stephen J. Bubul cc: 011ie Koropchak B"110669 101190.67 HRA AGENDA OCTOBER 2. 1996 On July 3, 1996, the HRA gave a green fight to proceed with the utilization of TIF for the Lake Tool project, level of TIF assistance to be approved later. The estimated real estate and equipment project is approximately 5488,11(X). The company has a purchase agreement with the City for Lots I and 2. Block 1, OIP 2nd Addition for $61,9(14. The acreage of the two parcels is approximately 2.6 acres. They also have a three-year option agreement on Lot 3 for $27,232 with an annual option fee at 3%. The project has changed in that the building has increased from 8,(X1) sq ft to 9,0011 sq ft. It was originally thought the exterior of the building would be block but after comparative cost studies the exterior is acetal. The building will consist of 7011 sq ft manufacturing space and 2,(1)0 sq ft office. Here are the comparative costs for a 8.(1X) sq ft building: Metal. $245010; block with steel roof, $275,0(X►; block with panel roof, $29501), tip -up. $385091. According to Doug Gruber. County Assessor. the assessed value of the metal building is $25.00 per sq ft. This because of the need for heat/air condition system in both the manufacturing and office. The storm sewer charge is $5,(X11 per acre. The company now employs 5 people and expects to employ 5 additional people within two years. Wages range between $40,(XH)-$5(1,1111+, The new corporation, T. J. Martin, Inc., is an equal ownership between Eric. Carl, and Dermis Bondhus dba Lake Tool, Inc. Lake Tool is a ten-year old tool shop which builds plastic injection molds and employs design/toolmaker and rnoklmakers. The real estate is being financed by Marquette Bank. SBA, and TIF. Of the needed 59(1,(1X) equipment, it is anticipated the EDA will be requested to participate in the neighborhood of 535.(X11 -$41),(1X). The first TIF numbers ran showed maximum pay-as-you-go assistance of $370Hl la, 9.5% over nine years. Mark Ruff has been asked to rerun the numbers based on neve information. 'lice company requests the HRA consider'tip•fiont" assistance rather than "pay-as-you-go" assistance. Enclosed is a letter from Marquette Bank substantiating the need for TIF and the fromup monies. Upon receipt of the Preliminary Agreement for TIF and a $50X1 cashier check, the IIRA needs to consider the following: Does the project meet the local TIF policies? Does the project meet the "but for" test? Is TIF assistance the pay-as-you-go or up-ftont assistance? If upfront assistance. does the dollars come from the surplus funds? What is the level of assistance? HRA AGENDA OCTOBER 2. 1996 5. Will the City or HRA make the 10% local contribution match to avoid the City's 30% HACA Penalty? If TIF is authorized, it is hoped constriction can begin November. 13. Per Minnesota Statute, a building permit can not be issued until after City Council approval. November 12. B. Alternative Action - I. A motion authorizing Publicorp to begin preparation of TIF District No. 1-21 for T. J. Martin, Inc. (Lake Tool). 2. A motion denying authorization for Publicorp to begin preparation of a TIF District. 3. A motion to table any action. C. Recoff mdat*ofu Recommendation is alternative no. 1. Pros: Existing manufacturing tininem local ownership, excellent wages, ofd set storm sewer charge, 525.00 per sq R assessed value on building. Cons: Although 1-2 zoning allows for metal exterior constnutiom City Council and Administration does not encourage metal buildings. D. SL"artimt Data.- Letter om:Letter from Marquette Bank and TIF policies. C 2 JMarqueft Bank iF Me September 27, 1996 Dear HRA Board Members: 1 am writing on behalf of T. J. Martin, Inc. and their request for Tax Increment Financing (TIF)on Lot 1, Block I, Oakwood Industrial Park 2nd Addition, City of Monticello. Upon review of preliminary financial information, I believe the up front TIF assistance will provide substantial added viability to their building project Working Capital will be of paramount importance to pay the initial costs of hiring and training skilled employees in the 540460,000 range until they become productive to the company. This pained with moving costs, down time during moving, new employees leaming the new machinery, etc puts a strain on a limited amount of capital. The pay as you go TIF assistance is of value as well, but the assistance needed is in the initial process versus several years down the road. The need to preserve capital is also evident in the fact that the borrowers are cuing SBA financing requiring 101/o down payment rather than conventional financing requiring +2055 down payment If I can be of any assistance in discussing this project, please feel free to contact me at your convenience at 271-6120. Thank you. Sincerely, Kevin Doty Vice President Business ing KDrg 061ce Of MarOwM Ranh. N.A 108 Phe street 200 W. 6tn steel MOnooetb. MN 66J82 Montkeeo. MN 6m Phone (812) 295-2982 Phone (612) 29'2952 MaW V addren: P.O. Bora M. M wfteft, MN u= HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY City of Monticello TAX INCREMENT FINANCING POLICY Program Purpose: The Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority will utilize Tax Increment Financing to support the community's long-term economic and housing goals. Policy Considerations: The HRA will analyze and evaluate Tax Increment Financing proposals based upon the following policy considerations. Each project shall be measured against these considerations and the project's value shall be determined, based upon meeting these considerations. 1. The project shall be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. 2. The project shall demonstrate long-term economic and/or housing benefits to the community. 3. The project shall create and/or retain employment for Monticello residents. 4. The project shall increase moderate priced housing options for area residents. S. The project shall facilitate the redevelopment or elimination of "substandard" or "blighted" areas as determined by the HRA. 6. The project shall facilitate the "clean-up" of environmentally unsound property. 7. The project shall provide additional public funding for public improvements including utilities and/or park development which would not otherwise be available. 8. The project shall be deemed to promote additional desired "spin-off" development. 9. The project shall demonstrate - "community involvement" including demonstrated degrees of the various factors:' a) Local residency of the company's owners and employees,. or b) Local residency of the 'contractors involved in the project, or C) Membership in local business organizations, or d) Other similar factors. ' OCT 01 '% 11:42AM 04.ERS 8 PSSOCIATES P.2/4 October 1, 1996 TO: 011ie Koropchak FR: Mark Ruff RE: Martin Project Attached is a run for the V. Martin project which shows that at a 9% interest rate. the tax inmemna ftam the project could amount to $41,= after the 1056 HRA administrative fee. Pleas ante that the HRA would be required to make a I ft local contribution out of unrestricted funds (approximately =1.000 per year) to the project to avoid dw state aid penalty. It is our recommendation that the RRA pursue this project as a pay -es -you -go. If f u3ds wce provided up -Roan. I would recommend the same flmdittR amount of $41,200 with the HRA reimbursed at 9% tOAIAIB Cay of Monticello - Tar Inc Eaemates - T.J. Mahn tne. Page 1 �at T.LF. CASH FLOW ASSUMPTIONS triflaPsy- 0.0000% to -Rete: Pap.fu-vou-Go INoreal Rate: Tax Extension Rete: 8.00016 110.991% Pay 98 to F BASE VALUE INFORi"T1ON P 'o Grose Psecerd Net Payaw Who Used Paroal a 155-090.001010 original Markel Value 21,000 100.00% Vatue vest 21,000 Pay 99 p Estimals 0 0.0076 0 Tdd Original Market Value r 2,1 21.000 polr 98 Class Rate: CA Property -1100.000 4.9000% Pay N 4100,000 3.0000% w Oft" Tar Capwlty: 970 Pay 99 rROJECT VALOR M RM&PON 33 Typed Tax IncrernerA Diaricl: Emnomk Devo opmerd IManrlagyojo_—I Type ofDevdopmw* --` Msrmsr of Urlb: 0 Number d Seim Feet: 9.000 New Estknalod Markel Vdue On Jan. 2.1997: 225000 Pay M - Final Market Vale of lm1 and 13u0dYq: _225.,2! QO Pay 99 Pro)ed Ctan R1ata: CA PmPsIW .1100000 4.9000% 4100,000 3.0000% AddGmal Estimated Tax Capady an Jan. 2.1097: - _ _9,790- Pay 99 Total Pro jed To Capadry et ComplaWn: 9.790 Pay 99 Pmiod Taxa Per UrdUBWn Fool. 61.00 Aaasci's MwW Value Per UnBr01+ao Foci: {25.00 Pm Od Total Taxes for EWmab Purposes: 9.879 Pay 99 1 Annud Tax ateraaim Eapxled of Full Valva: 8.091 Pay 90 SUMMARY INFORMATION GmuT.l, city cry NotT.I, In vraleel Amin. Po01111 ftL" _ — Future value: 906913 (8491) 0?1,731 Ile Present Vale: 43.790 (4.979) 0 o MC10042 nr.p.ed by PuDaoerp on maim 10101196 C4Y or Momx:erro - Tu inu - -d ElUmdes - T J. Maron brc POW 2 TAX INCREMENT CASH FLOW - - - - - ^Send-Annual orig.- Pr*d Captured Admin- Semi-Annual city Pay-As- NPV o1 IPERIOD BEGINNING Tax Tax Tax I Grow Tax at Net Tax Pooling You-Go PAYG PERIOD ENDING m Yrs. Mth. Yr. _ Capacity_ Capacity- - _ _ Capacity _ InaemeN_ _ _ 1.00076 _Incre.im _ 0.00%_ _Nob _ _ _ 9.00% Yrs, W _ Yr 0.0 02-01 1087 830 630 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ 0 508-01 1997 I 0.5 OB-01 1987 630 630 0 OI 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0201 1998 1.0 02-01 1998 630 630 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 08-01 19981 1.5 08-01 1998 630 830 0 O I 0 0 0 0 0 0 2002-01 1999 1.002-01 1999 630 8,750 0 8,120 4,490 (449) 4,041 0 4,041 3,242 2.5 08-01 19991 a 2.5 08.01 1989 830 8,750 0 8,120 4,490 (449) 4,041 0 4,041 6,345 30 02,1 2000 3.0 02-01 2000 830 8,750 0 8,1201 4.410 p49) 4.041 0 4.041 9,314 35 D8.01 2000, 3.508-01 2000 630 8,750 0 8,120 4.490 (149) 4.041 0 4.041 12,156 4002-01 2001 4.0 02-01 2001 630 8.750 0 8,120 4,490 (449) 4,041 0 4,041 14,875 4508-01 2001 4.5 06-01 2001 830 4750 0 8,1201 4,490 (449) 4,041 0 4,041 17.477 5,0 02-01 2002 w 5.0 02.01 2002 630 8,750 0 4120 4,490 (449) 4,041 0 4,041 19,966 5.5 08.01 20021 5.5 08-01 2002 630 8,750 08,120 4,490 (449) 4,041 0 4,041 22.349 6002-01 2003 6,0 02-01 2003 630 6,750 0 8,1201 4,490 (449) 4,041 0 4,041 24,029 6.5 08-01 20011 6.5 08-01 2003 630 6.750 0 8,120 4,49D (449) 4,041 0 4,041 28,811 70 02.01 2004 7.0 02-01 2004 630 8,750 08.1201 4,490 (449) 4,041 0 4.041 28,899 75 DB•01 2004 D 7.5 06 -01 2004 830 8 ,780 D 8.120 4,490 (449) 4.041 0 4,041 30,897 8.0 02-01 2005 Ln 8.0 02-01 1 2005 1130 8.750 08,120 4,490 (449) 4,041 0 4,041 32,809 8.5 08-01 2005' 85 08-01 2005 630 8,750 0 8,1201 4,490 (449) 4,041 0 4,041 34.638 9002-01 20081 9.0 02-07 2008 630 8,760 0 8.120 4,490 (449) 4,041 0 4,041 36.389 9.5 O6-01 2006 9.5 08.01 2006 630 B.75D 08,120 4,490 (449) 4,041 0 4,041 38,064 100 02-01 2007 10.0 02-01 2007 030 8,750 0 8,1201 4,490 (448) 4,041 0 4,041 39.688 10.5 09-01 20071 1_10_5 08.01 2007 _ _630 6,750- _ 0_ _ 8,120_ _4,490 (449) _ _ 4,041 _ _ _ 0_ _ 1041 _ 41,102 _ 110 02-01 2008 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ TOMa _ _ _ _ _ _ BD,813_ _ (8,001) _ _71731 _ _ 0 72,731 Pretend Values _ _ _ ' _ 45,780 - (� 578) _ X1,202 _ - _ . 0_ _ 41,202 14CIOO42 Propmed 6y Public p In m lvm HRA AGENDA OCTOBER 2, 1996 Consideration to hear an update on the Revitalization Plan including three conceptual Qpllons- Michael Schroeder of Hosington Koegler, Inc. will give a progress update relating to the study underway for the RiverfrondDowmown Revitalization Plan which is being funded by the HRA The update will include a summary of the MCP's Workshop II which was held September 17. In the morning of the 2nd of October, Michael Schroeder, Mark Ruff and Rusty Fiffield, PublicorplEhlers, Inc., Jeff O'Neill and Koropchak will rneet to discuss concepts and potential funding options for implementation of the plan. Michael's update will provide insight for discuss of agenda items 6, 7, and 9(a). Consideration to hear a progspart for the pptential to establish a Redevelopment Brad Johnson, Lotus Realty Services, representing Barry F'luth, Monticello Mall owner, will give a progress report on the potential to redevelop the Monticello Mall. Attached is a letter from Amcon in response to the HRA's request for the redeveloper to substantiate findings to satisfy the substandard test for establishment of a Redevelopmem District. These are some questions listed to answer prior to establishing a Redevelopment District? I . Does the project qualify as a Redevelopment District? 1Po'S: Arncon letter. I �~ 2. Does the proposed concept meet the "but for' test? 3. Does the proposed concept generate sufficient tax increment? Yes. 4. Does the proposed concept meet the HRA -TIF policies? 5. Is the proposed concept consistent with the Comprehensive Plan'! 6. Does this proposed concept complement the RiverfronUDowntown Revitalization Plan? 7. What is the remaining balance of the original 53500)0 TIF District No. 1-6 bond? 12.31-96 $255AX) per Publicorp's projections. Monticello Downtown and Riverf ont Revitalization plan Concepts Draft 18 August 1996 A series of concepts have been created to explore the possibilities of Monticello's downtown and riverfront. and to set a course for the most appropriate direction for its tevitaliretion The concepts are intended to stretch our imaginations and consider ideas that range from what is obvious and necessary to those idem that might be dreams. But given the planning framework of this process, even dreams ate possible with time and commitment. All concepts envision some degree of redevelopment in the downtown and presume that preservation and enhancement of the neighborhoods that surround downtown is a goal. Each concept demonstratey a different boundary for downtown; each boundary has implications on existing commercial development, nearby neighborhoods and on the community itself. Once a concept (and therefore a boundary) is selected, planning and development efforts must adhere to that boundary or run the tisk of compromising the intentions of the plan. We want to understand the basic patterns and teladonships inberent in each concept and aUow that details will be added later In ways that follow the concept. The concepts might be seen a pure choices, but that Is not the intent. Rather, we can pursue any one of the concepts or choose the best aspects of each and create a new "blended" concept Whatever the direction we sekm it must be one that satisfies the guiding principles, achieves our vision and "lira" the Monticello community. Monticello Downtown ud Riverfront Revitalim ion Plan Concept, Page 2 Concept 'A' Monticello: A River Town Even as it is grew on the banks of the Mississippi River, Monticello never really focused attention on this great resou= The revitalization of downtown and the riverfront might logically start with the river, and in doing so, develop the river in downtown as a focal point for the entire community. Certainly, there is much that could be done to improve the ways in which the south bank of the river is used, and to bring to it uses that create activity and energy. But to make the most of this opportunity will require consideration of both banks of the river and the extension downtown Monticello to the north bank of the Mississippi. In this concept. Monticello's downtown truly embraces its rivez Key Ideas • Public access to the river is provided at both banks of the river in downtown. • Public facilities (parka and civic buildings) ate placed on the river's south bank. • Entertainment and hotel uses we located on the north bank with public spaces connecting them to the rivet • Existing buildings are renovated where feasible, with small retail shops and restaurants developed at street level and professional offices in the upper levels (and at street level in some cases). • New buildings are created where existing buildings no longer serves their intended purpose. In this case, the character of the old building establishes the pattern for the new one. • The street becomes a seamless blend of old and new, all fitting the character of a small town's downtown. • Buildings are developed with an orientation to the river or to Broadway. • Streets and walkways lead through downtown and make strong connections between Broadway and the riven • Public spaces aro developed with a character that relates to the river, reflecting Its unique pattems of vegetation and topography. • New downtown neighborhoods are created on available land on the north bank of the riven 9 Eyt1 lnirw�f/' ves�ir►• wig i •1 M c • � 4+ 'a M 1 M T 1 4 E b v A � v "W" Co" oov. amem ^ft.ogooww vw4ru it — ■� arm � F 1 vr. •t• _•. ....�,� .�. ..r.Moo � � priMY�IMi bAN�Rh{L. l �Fr��'�„! � p�M'r"'y'~ �rrlilrlrll■r� a� • 1 1+rr+' KPO Sri f~ '46 Monticello Downtown and Riverfroot Re.italiation Ran Concepts p2p3 Concept'B' Monticello: A Crossroads Historically. Monticello has been a crossroads -- socially, politically, and physically. Geographically. the intersection of two toads in downtown resulted in a vital and active commercial center for the community, and people came here because it was the place to cross the river. Over time, new transportation routes and modes evolved, and the downtown changed. Envisioning the downtown as a crossroads recognizes that people still arrive at this point. but might do so on their way to some other place. In this concept. Pine Street and Broadway are recognized as being distinct from each other and distinct from other streets in Monticello. and ate given a character that fits their purpose. Tho crossroads of these streets announce the downtown with development that reflects the best of Monticello and place a symbol of civic pride and activity in a location that represents the commueity's spirit and heritage. Key Ideas • The Intersection of Pine and Broadway is redeveloped, with one comer having a strong civic presence. • Significant buildings will be developed at each of the other comers, snaking the crossroads the focus of Monticello's downtown. • Pine and Broadway are developed with a character that builds intensity In the scale of development as one approaches downtown, so that downtown and the crossroads am the highlight of Monticello's commercial activities. • Arrival at the crossroads happens along one of the two major arteries of the community — Pine Street or Broadway — with each providing a diff mat introduction to the community. • Pine Street leads through a bustling commercial core, with shoppers, cars and trucks. streetlights and tta®c signals. • Broadway becomes a tree -Lined boulevard, with past well-maintained homes and trait that is quieter and moving at a slower pace. • Streets become the most important public spaces in downtown, providing balance between vehicles and pedestrians. • Small plazas am developed between some buildings to create connections to parking areas and to link downtown to the rivet: CS M i 1 1 i �♦ i t t t � : w. p. P. HMO pd �dpacrdaQLtq L! Cigar ..'�'; ' � . �' � r �`y ��� i f •t�t..it �ee�rs.w ••` •"` +� 1r � �0_ 4w q w t MINTi GQ4Y• rA o r+��• t+.oOk rr r4lur• MIW O� 0►wrofl dtr Monticello Dowto n and Rivedront Revitalization Plan Concepts .Page 4 Concept 'C' Monticello: A New Bridge As the Monticello community grows and changes, we have come to understand that downtown can never be what it once was. Commercial activities have migiated toward the Interstate and the traditional downtown lacks the life that it once had. The character and history of Monticello lies in the old downtown: the new commercial areas seem like so many other shopping centers and highway business areas. A way of breathing life into the downtown and instilling Monticello character is the new commercial uses is needed The key is Walnut Street asp new "main stmt" that links the Mall and the river, and the introduction of new uses along Wahwt Street to create a bridge between Monticello's old and new commercial districts. Key Ideas • The north end of downtown is anchored by the Mississippi River, with Walnut Street extended nearly to its banks. • The Mall becomes an anchor at the south end of downtown, with a sense that Walnut Street extends to its front door. Standing at the front door of the Mall, there is a strong sense that the river lies at the opposite end of Walnut Stan. • Pine Street becomes one of Monticello's new "main streets," with an orientation to the traffic on this street • Walnut Street becomes the other new "main street," with a focus on the creation of a great pedestrian enviroramt. • Civic and institutional uses ore concentrated at the center of walnut Sum's length, creating it third anchor representing the people of the community. • City Hall becomes an integral part of the civic anchor, with a presence on Pine Street and Walnut Street it might resemble a town square. • Pine Street is the primary "through street" in Monticello; traffic is encouraged to use this street to get through town and across the river. • Significant gathering spaces are seated at each of the three awbors. • The bridge at Interstate 94 is redeveloped to create a stronger connection to the south pan of Monticello and to provide an image that is a better reflection of the Monticello community. • A trolley on the existing railroad connects the east and west para of the community to its downtown; it provides a complement to the Heartland Express with an important hub at a City Hall plaza G 1 oily rw++• .. / Cea.MvlwYA. ' ; 1 ii,, sr. ALIrJ� Imrir...lee+e .� • M�MtI t 0 4a. ' A POW b *f 1 l 1 D1WMT.MN air�NrA� folio". I Aug -19-96.03:57P Brad Johnson 612-934-6472 P.02 ttw- i u --ft WN 14: b4 AMM CORP FAX N0. 6128900064 P. Ol A&AMC®N PCWp • OanwuCoen • GwOUCliee I b 00 nw+t Aoga 19.19% Loan Rcdq P. O. Hoa 773 ChardsitoMbGwAsmi 53117 Atm and Jokmoa RB: bdmdmb bLIl DearBm� ttpoa a me —lag bdm1iab bW it il oar COWN at a duipAmAd 3metal twomat for do ft coos to and ft ta0aurat. doc" Pte[. Vc m'laioci. Ne Pmoeedoa catch. bid" Lyow aee adw tsWRW imlEdes ted taQUUU m mea mmm Meet and mm would be in axon olYf30.000. The cm to cotimuct a ww sue of 20 nme KUM footate tud oa taa tis would be 31790,000. Tlta ttlimul taloa meat w uM be atom thus _ 23% oft he cm ofaew corm Um Phase caU tac .Sm tap Qtaadaaf trge:m� oua or toy ower muco. &no=*• AMzcb afto WA, Plojea Ddaaader C 3jm o:: Sam DO So W. wy. to • tom. arses to Ptwww 91041MIll 7 • PAM fit /e000eta attlaa N m Mieaodu • omomoea L I HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY City of Monticello TAX INCREMMM FINANCING POLICY Program Purpose: The Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority will utilize Tax Increment Financing to support the comnunity's long-term economic and housing goals. Policy Considerations: The HRA will analyze and evaluate Tax Increment Financing proposals based upon the following policy considerations. Each project shall be measured against these considerations and the project's value shall be determined, based upon meeting these considerations. X. The project shall be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. 2. The project shall demonstrate long-term economic and/or housing benefits to the community. 3. The project shall create and/or retain employment for Monticello residents. 4. The project shall increase moderate priced housing options for area residents. 5. The project shall facilitate the redevelopment or elimination of "substandard" or •blighted" areas as determined by the HRA. 6. The project shall facilitate the "clean-up" of environmentally unsound property. 7. The project shall provide additional public funding for public improvements including utilities and/or park development which would not otherwise be available. a. The project shall be deemed to promote additional desired "spin-off* development. 9. The project shall demonstrate •community involvement" including demonstrated degrees of the various factors:' a) Local residency of the company's owners and employees,. or b) Local residency of the contractors involved in the project, or c) Membership in local business organizations, or d) Other similar factors. ' Ll r XIS IIN( N IAA171 SIo17C ol 1-11i[IF ME DATA m..e L.Y4'T tl-f Jr yYY �.�t1 �r ^l M{�u IJI WI `1L ` — � 4 WMRSTATE HM 94 1" SD*) qi•. HRA AGENDA OCTOBER 2.1996 Sit A. This item is a continuation from the discussions and ideas presented by Michael Schroeder on the Riverfrom/Downtown Revitalization Plan. The HRA lot on West Broadway currently has a crushed aggregate surface. To avoid the sandy surface from blowing, the HRA in lune or July invested $919.12 for aggregate material at the request of the downtown businesses. It is my understanding that Michael will suggest options for the HRA to consider to improve the appearance of the site. The HRA is requested to consider the optima and to consider a form of action. ®© Hoisington Koe er Group Inc. 7300 Metro Blvd. ®� #525 Minneapolis, MN 55439 Ms. 011ie Koropchak Monticello HRA P0Box 1147 Monticello, MN 55362-9245 INVOICE September 6. 1996 Project 096-21 Attention: 011ie Rompchak, Executive Director For Professional Planning Services Authorized for preparation of a Downtown and Riverfront Revitalization Plan from August 1 through 31,1996 as follows: • Completion of "Task 1: Identify What E: iW according to Work Program (partial billing of subconsultant fees). Prim Travel Technical Expenses: S E H Inc. Maxfield Research TOTAL August 31 Billing BILLING 60.00 hrs Q 578Ru 10.00 hrs Q $40/hr 42.00 hrs Q $38/hr milear-1ptaicinB pig (copy attached) (copy anwh dlpartial fee) $4.680.00 400.00 1,596.00 64.80 30.00 94.80 631.35 3,300.00 $10,702.15 For: FONTICELLO TRANSPORTATION PLAN Professional Services for the period ending July 31, 1996 Professional Personnel - Hours Amount PROJECT MANAGER 5.0 573.93 WORD PROCESSOR 0.5 21.74 Totals 5.5 595.67 Total Labor 595.67 Reimbursable Expenses EMPLOYEE MILEAGE INVOICE Aw =VADW S CZYIER DRIVE. 707 SEM CENTER, ST PAUL W 33110 612490,= SO) 313.1033 AASEH AACMRECTLRE - EhGeCERM ENVIRONMENTAL TRANSPORTATION WORD PROCESSING August 26, 1996 3.75 Invoice No. 35724 Project No. AHOISI9601.00 HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP 35.68 ATTN:MICHAEL SCHROEDER 35.68 VICE PRESIDENT TOTAL NOW DUE 6 7300 METRO BLVD. SUITE 525 63--35 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55439 71 %0 For: FONTICELLO TRANSPORTATION PLAN Professional Services for the period ending July 31, 1996 Professional Personnel - Hours Amount PROJECT MANAGER 5.0 573.93 WORD PROCESSOR 0.5 21.74 Totals 5.5 595.67 Total Labor 595.67 Reimbursable Expenses EMPLOYEE MILEAGE 31.93 WORD PROCESSING 3.75 Total Reimbursables 35.68 35.68 TOTAL NOW DUE 6 ------------ PAYABLE..... 9 ..... 63--35 Cumulative Billings � Current Prior Pds To -date qp A0Labor 595. 67 746.11 1,341.78 Expenses 35.60 89.59 125.27 Totals 631.35 835.70 1,467.05 &4ogr ELW n 1¢hoRICKSON the hawwAPOLIS WV ST CLOLM W 00PEWA vote. w+ "0001V w1 LAO COUVTV w EOINL 0W0RTUNhEWLOKR ]unc 30, 1996 Client Number. 398/06 Invoice Number: 6154 Mr. Fred Hoisington Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. 7300 Metro Bolevard Suite 525 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 MAXFIELD RESEARCH GRIP Invoisc For research services provided on Monticello Downtown Redevelopment. Contract Amount Less Amount Previously Billed Amount this Billing $42,009.09 (01two 1.300.00 Amount Due1,300.00 fi1',tA ONO) p tly n Terms: Net 15 days. Finance Charge at the rate of :8 percent per annum will be charged on all balances outstanding at the end of the month. T� ^ 612.338-0012 620 KICKERNWJ,430 FIRST AVENUE NORTH 612.338-0659 FAX MINNEAP04 MINNESOTA 55401 i 4. April 30, 1996 Client Number. 398/06 Invoice Number. 6100 Mr. Fred Hoisington Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. 7300 Metro Rolevard suite 525 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 NWFIELD RESFARCH GROUP For research services provided on Monticello Downtown Redevelopment. cOIr Contract Amount s,}2;0p .W— (o,SDO Amount This Billing 2,000.00 �Ofn Amount Due 2.000.00 Tam: Net 15 days. Finance Charge at the mte of 18 percent per annum will be charged on all balances outatanding at the end of the month. 612.338.0012 620 KICKERNICK 430 FIRST AVENUE NORTH 612.338.0659 FAX M1NNk POUS, MINNESCJTA 33401 the project arca and surrounding neighborhoods 1.2 Tour study area with "local experts"; evaluate opportunities and constraints of the downtown and surrounding area 1.3 Meet with MCP Economic Restructuring Committee and City staff for input on the history and evolution of downtown, critical factors to consider in the creation of plans, potential for coordinating public improvements with possible downtown features, and other issues that may be relevant 1.4 Meet with MCP Design Committee to investigate and record physical opportunities, forces and resources land use development patterns traffic conditions and patterns infrastructure conditions natural features building conditions 1.5 Meet with MCP Economic Restructuring Committee to investigate and record market opportunities, forces and resources for retail, commercial and office components demographic analysis c community needs assessment site and location analysis trend analysis ``pd "iei retail, office and housinginventory 1.6 Meet with MCP Promotions Committee to investigate and record social opportunities, forces and resources public/gathering spaces cultural/historic features community traditions --Ik 1.7 Meet with MCP Economic Restructuring Committee to investigate and record economic opportunities, forces and resources 1.8 Meet with MCP Design Committee to investigate and record imagelidentity opportunities, forces and resources perm context spatial qualities community character landmarks and features 1.9 Summarize findings of investigations to provide a "snapshot" of downtown and riverfront conditions Anticipated Products analysis and evaluation of physical, market, economic and financial conditions of Monticello's downtown and riverfront in written and graphic form (opportunities and constraints of the downtown and riverfront environment, traffic analysis, demographic analysis, building condition and historic structure analysis, market analysis, promotion analysis, and imagelidentity analysis) 2.0 Understand what is desired... As we begin to understand the existing conditions of the downtown and riverfront area, we will begin to involve people from the community in setting directions for its Acture. This will occur before any plans are drawn, any commitments made, or any ideas discounted. City of Monticello/Contract for Professional Services Downtown and Riverfront Revitalisation Plan S a► KENNEDY at GRAVEN nateed 200 south LM Sorm Su1a 470 MhmeapoN MN 55402 (612) 337-9300 CLIENT SUMMARY September 10, 1996 City of Monticello PO Box 1147 Monticello, MN 55362-9245 Through August 31, 1996 MN190-00041: Redevelopment - General MN 190-00057: M & P Transport/Jay Morrell Matter Services Rendered: Disbursements: Balance Due: $ 697.60 $ 451.50 $ 1,148.10 S 1.00 CI,149.10 KENNEDY at GRAVEN aid 200 Said, sbm, Sn%% Sulo 470 M� MN 55402 (612)3379300 September 10, 1996 City of Monticello PO Box 1147 Monticello, MN 55362-9245 MN 190-00041: Redevelopment -General Invoice # 11234 Through August 31, 1996 For All Legal Services As Follows: 08/14/96 SJB Phone call with 0. Koropchak re HRA budget 0.60 77.40 issues and other ggeneral matters 08/15/96 SJB Phone call with O. Koropchak re HRA budget 0.50 64.50 issues 08/16/96 SJB Phone call with 0. Koropchak re HRA budget 0.30 38.70 issues 08/19/96 SJB Phone call with 0. Korpochak re special meeting; 0.75 96.75 research same; memo to O. Koropchak 08/21/96 SJB Attend HRA meeting 3.25 419.25 Total Services: $ 696.60 For All Disbursements As Follows: 08/19/96 Fax 1.00 Total Disbursements: $ 1.00 Total Services And Disbursements: $ 697.60 M. KENNEDY a GRAVEN area 200 Swih sum. Saes, Smc. 470 MW*Vok MN 55402 (612) 337-93M September 10, 1996 City of Monticello PO Box 1147 Monticello, MN 55362-9245 MN 190-00057: M & P Tmensport/Jay Morrell Matter Invoice # 11237 Through August 31, 1996 For All Legal Services As Follows: 08/19/96 SIB Review Morell memo; phone call with 0. 1.75 225.75 Koro➢chak re same; research enforcement isstres 08/21/96 SJB Meeting with HRA re Morell matter' 0.75 %.75 08/22/96 SJB Research stats. limits; review R Wolfstellcr tax 1.00 129.00 history; phone call re same Total Services: S 451.50 Total Services And Disbursements: S 451.50 Monticello HRA PO Box 1147 Monticello MN 55362-9245 September 18, 1996 MC100.01 GENERAL 811/96 MTR Tax Increment run for mail redevelopment Hours 0.75 Amount 78.75 817/96 MTR Work on HACA loss estimates 1.25 131.25 MTR Meeting at HRA on mail and HACA estimates 4.00 420.00 Total Due This Month: 6.00 $630.00 Previous Balance: $157.50 8/28/96- Payment - thank you ($157.50) Total Balance Due: $630.00 EHLERS AND ASSOCIATES, INCJPUBLICORP INC. 2950 NORWEST CENTER 90 SOUTH SEVENTH STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402 Zof the Additional Improvements and shall be in .tent Plan, this Agreement, and all applicable State iatnions. The City Building Official will approve the : (1) the Construction Plans conform to the terms and meat; (i)) the Construction Plans conform to the goals and ZdVaZvaflab1je elopment Plan; (iii) the Construction Plans conform to all and local laws, ordinances, rules and regulations; (iv) the adequate to provide for construction of the Additional onstruction Plane do not provide for expenditures in excess to the Redeveloper for construction of the Additional onto; and (vi) no Event of Default has occurred. No approval by the City Affilinir Official shall relieve the RedeveloWr of the obligation to comply with the of this Agreement or of the Redevelopment Plan, applicable federal, state and laws, ordinances, rules and regulations, or to construct the Additional Improvements in accordance therewith. No approval by the City Building Official shell constitute a waiver of an Event of Default. If approval of the Construction Plans is requested by the Redeveloper in writing at the time of submission, such Construction Plans shall be deemed approved unless rejected in writing by the City Building Official, in whole or In part. Such rejections shall set forth in detail the reasons therefore, and shall be made within 30 days after the date of their receipt by the City Building Official. If the City Building Official rejects any Construction Plans in whole or in part, the Redeveloper shall submit new or corrected Construction Plans within 30 days after written notification, to the Redeveloper of the rejection. The provisions of this Section relating to approval, rejection and resubmission of corrected Construction Plans shall continue to apply until the Construction Plans have been approved by the City Building Official. The City Building Official's approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Said approval shall constitutes conclusive determination that the Construction Plana (end the Additional Improvements constructed in accordance with said plans) comply to the Authority's satisfaction with the provisions of this Agreement relating thereto. Construction Plane shall be modified only in accordance with Section 4.2(b) of the Original Contract. (b) Subject to Unavoidable Delays, the Rodoveloper shall commence construction of the Additional Improvements by May 1, 1990 and shall complete construction by December 31, 1999. All other provisions of Sections 4.3 and 4.4 of the Original Contract apply by substituting the term "Additional Improvements" for the term "Minimum Improvements." 2. Authority Reimbursement for Certain Site Improvement Costs. In addition to the assistance provided under Section 3.7 of the Original Contract, the Authority agrees that It will reimburse the Redeveloper for a portion of the coat of preparing the Redevelopment Property for construction of the Additional Improvements. Specifically, the Authority will reimburse the Redeveloper for up to $25,000 of the cost of undertaking excavation, landscaping, and curb construction necessary in connection with development of the Additional Improvements. Prior to the Redeveloper's commencement of such alto improvement activities, the Redovelopur shall furnish to the Authority for its review and approval plans and specifications rotative to the construction of said site improvements. The Authority shell reimburse the Rodovolopor for up to $25,000 of the cost of such site Improvements at such time as the Redovoloper has completed 900 of the Additional Improvements, as certified by en independent architect retained by the Rodevelopor. Reimbursement by the Authority shall be conditioned on the Rodeveloper not being In material default under this Agreement at the time such 4""211 011. 2 Q� ,L Alglich September 30, 1996 Mr. Biu Tapper Tapper, Inc. 212 Chelsea Road Monticello, MN 55362 Reference: New Manufacturing Addition and Miscellaneous Remodeling, Tapper, Inc., 212 Chelsea Road, Monticello, MN 55362 Dear Mr. Tapper. In regards to your request, I am furnishing the following itemization of site work costs for your use: Grading and Excavation S 8,300.00 Curb and Gutter 4,329.00 Asphalt Paving 18,400.00 Concrete Slab -on -grade 3,500.00 Landscaping 2,150.00 Lawn Irrigation 773.00 Retaining Wall 1,875.00 Site Utilities 11.250.00 Total Site Work $ 50.979.00 If them is any additional information you require, or have any questions or comments, please give me a call. Yours truly, STIGLICH CONSTRUCTION, INC. 24Z'0�7 ;r� Richard Engstrom Project Manager 1260 HOWM A%VUA a Oakdala MN 55128 a (612) 731.2000 a Fax (612) 731.87% ` ��rtiglicr, September 30, 1996 Mr. Bill Tapper Tapper, Inc. 212 Chelsea Road Monticello, MN 55362 Reference: New Manufacturing Addition and Miscellaneous Remodeling, Tapper, Inc., 212 Chelsea Road, Monticello, MN 55362 Dear Mr. Tapper: In regards to your request, I am fiunishing the following itemization of site work costs for your use: ( Grading and Excavation f 8,300.00 Curb and Gutter 4,329.00 Asphalt Paving 18,400.00 Concrete Slab -an -grade 3,500.00 Landscaping 2,150.00 Lawn Irrigation 775.00 Retaining Wall 1,875.00 Site Utilities 11.230.00 Total Site Work S 50,679.00 If there is any additional information you require, or have any questions or comments, please give me a call. Yours truly, STIGLICH CONSTRUCTION, INC. Richard Engstrom Project Manager 1260 fl&m Avetwe • Oakdale. MN 55128 • (612)131.2000 0 Fax (612) 731.8799 I