HRA Agenda 01-10-1996AGENDA
MONTICELLO HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, January 11, 1995 - 7:00 p.m.
City Hall
MEMBERS: Chairperson Al Larson, Vice Chairperson Ben Smith,
Everette Ellison, Tom St. Hilaire, and Brad Barger.
STAFF: Rick Wolfsteller, Jeff O'Neill, and 011ie Koropchak.
GUEST: Rick and Bob Murray, Residential Development, Inc.
Brad Larson, Metcalf & Larson.
Gene Burdock, Region District Postal Representative.
1. CALL TO ORDER.
2. CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE THE DECEMBER 7, 1994 AND DECEMBER 15,
1994 HRA MINUTES.
3. CONSIDERATION TO ACKNOWLEDGE AND RECORD THE DISCLOSURE AND
ABSTENTION STATEMENTS FROM THE TWO AFFECTED HRA COMMISSIONERS.
4. CONSIDERATION TO READOPT THE PRELIMINARY CONCEPT APPROVAL FOR
USE OF TIF FOR THE SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT AND THE APPROVAL FOR
AUTHORIZATION FOR RE -IMBURSEMENT OF FEES ASSOCIATED WITH
SENIOR HOUSING MARKET ANALYSIS.
5. CONSIDERATION TO READOPT THE RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PRC TO
o PREPARE THE TIF PLAN RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF TIF
DISTRICT NO. 1-•19, A HOUSING DISTRICT.
6. CONSIDERATION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION MODIFYING THE PLAN
RELATING TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1, MODIFYING THE
PLANS RELATING TO TIF DISTRICTS NO. 1-1 THROUGH 1-18, AND
APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE PLAN RELATING TO TIF DISTRICT NO.
1-10.
7. CONSIDERATION TO REVIEW THE FIRST DRAFT OF THE PRIVATE
REDEVELOPMENT CONTRACT BETWEEN THE HRA A14D THE MONTICELLO
SENIOR HOUSING ALLIANCE, INC.
8. CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE A NOTE IN THE AMOUNT OF $40,500 FROM
THE HRA TO THE MONTICELLO SENIOR HOUSING ALLIANCE, INC.
9. CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE CHANCES TO THE PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT
CONTRACT BETWEEN THE HRA AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, INC.
10. CONSIDERATION TO REVIEW A REQUEST FROM BRAD LARSON.
Continued
Page 1
il. CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE ISSUANCE OF THE CERTIFICATE OF
COMPLETION FOR ROY AND TODD SCHULZ DBA POLYCAST SPECIALTIES,
INC.
a) H -Window Company
b) Custom Canopy, Inc.
12. OTHER BUSINESS.
a) IDC BRAINSTORM WORKSHOP, Thursday, January 19, 1995.
b) December PRG and Holmes & Graven billings.
13. ADJOURNMENT.
C Page 2
MINUTES
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, December 6, 1995 - 7:00 p.m., City Hall
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson AI Larson, Vice Chairperson Brad Barger, Tom St.
Hilaire. and Everette Ellison.
MEMBER ABSENT: Roger Carlson.
STAFF PRESENT: Rick Wolfsteller, Jeff O'Neill and 011ie Koropchak.
GUESTS: Steve Bubul, HRA Attorney
Rich Carlson
CALL TO ORDER_
Chairperson Larson called the HRA meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE THE OCTOBER 4. 19S
NnVFMRFR I 199S. HRA MIM rPES
Brad Barger made a motion to approve the October 4. 1995. HRA minutes.
Seconded by Everette Ellison and with no corrections or additions, the October
minutes were approved as written.
Al Larson made a motion to approve the November 1, 1995. HRA minutes.
Seconded by Brad Barger and with no corrections or additions, the November
minutes were approved as written.
CONSIDERATION TO CONTRACT WITH PUBLICOR_P_ INC. FOR SERVICES_
RELATING 1'0 TIF.
Through a general consensus of the HRA members, preparation for establishment
and modification of TIF related issues will be contracted through Publicorp. Inc.
Having experienced some problems with Public Resource Group, Inc. (PRG) in the
area of TIF Plan modification and creation, the HRA had previously interviewed
Mark Ruff and two others from Publicorp. Mark prepared the financial impact
analysis for the Katanarek and Olson properties. They appear knowledgeable in the
area of TIF and recent changes adopted by Legislation, and have a good working
relationship with Attorney Bubul. With the proposed riverfront/downtown
redevelopment project under consideration, the HRA felt it was a good time to
switch companies. PRG will continue to prepare financial packages (lues and
sources) and SBA. CMIF, and State loan applications. One HRA member felt PRG
had served the HRA well and was happy with their performance.
Page I
HRA MINUTES
DECEMBER 6.1995
FIT T
� YY; M • • Y. ; •
Based upon Attorney Bubul's review of the Central Monticello Redevelopment Plan,
the plan lacked authorization. Authorization to acquire properties within the
boundaries of the Project No. 1 but without the creation of a TIF District.
Additionally, the Plan (budget) did not clearly identify the TIF Penalty and amount
or method for reimbursement. Therefore, the preparation for condemnation of the
Katxmarek property has been delayed by a month or two. Properties for possible
acquisition, acquisition costs, and consulting fees will be identified within the
modification of the the Plan. The HRA will adopt the resolution for modification
on January 10 and the public hearing and adoption by the City Council is schuduled
for January 22. Thereafter will the condemnation process begin.
Attorney Bubul informed members that modification of the plan would broaden the
HRA's criteria for redevelopment. Additionally, he informed members of the two
approaches for condemnation. Quick -take approach is a 90 -day process which locks
the HRA into a condemnation price established by the commission. The settlement
approach is a six-month or longer process which allows the HRA the option to
backout. Estimated attorney fees above acquisition is approximately S20,000-
$25,000. HRA members anticipate "money" is not the issue with Katanarek.
CONSIDERATION OF AN UPDATE RELATING TO THE
DOWNTOWN/RIVERFRONT REVITALIZATION PRESENTATION BY
THERESA WASHBURN AND THE CONSIDERATION TO DISCUSS THE
POTENTIAL OF THE HRA LOAN TO FUND ONE-YEAR CONSULTING
EU&
Since the presentation of Theresa Washburn on November 16, the coalition group
met on November 28. Based on the time being right and upon hearing positive
comments, the coalition decided to move forward. Direction was given to continue
utilizing the consulting services of Theresa Washburn, to establish a second meeting
date in January with the consultant, for the HRA to research the potential of a loan
for the consultant's fees. and to research the availability of an intem from SCSU or
other qualified individuals for possible employment as a project manager. All
individuals in attendance at the November 16 meeting were to receive an update
relating to the move forward decision, and surveyed for the area of volunteer service
Page 2
HRA MINUTES
DECEMBER 6, 1995
of their desire and to suggest others who may be interested in the revitalization
project. The cost to date for Theresa's November 16 visit was $1,078.75. Bills from
the Monticello Times for advertisement and distribution of fliers have not been
received.
Attorney Bubul informed HRA members that the authority can hire a consultant for
a public purpose project located within the redevelopment project boundaries.
Consultant fees qualify as part of the available 10% administration cost from all TIF
Districts. Wolfsteller estimated the TIF Surplus at approximately $200.000.
Koropchak contacted the Cities of Pine Island and Waseca. Both communities had
utilized Theresa as a consultant. Both revitalization projects were tied to existing
structures (community reinvestments) and were funded by various public and private
dollars. Both coummumities agreed that Theresa's strengths were motivation, energy,
and an aggressive approach. "An outsider with a leadership ability to lay things out
from an objective viewpoint, non-political." The volunteer levels were high, then
fall, and rose again to a median constant.
Everette Ellison made a motion for the HRA to lend a not -to -exceed amount of
$10,000to a borrower (undetermined organization) for Theresa Washburn's one-year
consultant fee, this to encourage the continuation of the riverfrom/downtown
revitalization project. The loan has a one-year payback, is interest-free and
unsecured. The HRA will not hire the consultant, the interest-free loan is a loan to
the consultant's employer. Brad Barger seconded the motion and with no further
discussion, the motion passed unanimously. The one-year consulting proposal
includes five periodic workshops with unlimited telephone consulting service for a
total of $7,600 plus accommodations.
Secondly, the HRA considered the purchase of the "J" Corporation warehouse
facility behind the vacated Johnson Department Store. It was understood a private
individual offered 535,(K)(Ifor the facility with an EMV of $22,600. The cold storage
facility obstructs the view of the river reported O'Neill. With the potential of a
revitalization project which is outlined in the proposed comprehensive plan update.
an opportune time may exist for purchase and demolition. This to add value to the
downtown or riverfront redevelopment project, a good investment. St. Hilaire
objected to the City purchase of downtown property when a private individual is a
willing buyer or perhaps the coalition would be interested as a buyer. If an
economic benefit exists, developers would be here. Riverfront/downtown
redevelopment has not been defined as an HRA goal not does a plan exist for a
riverfront/downto%tt redevelopment project said St. Hilaire, Chairperson Larson
informed members of his repeated concern by citizens relating to the declining status
Page 3
HRA MINUTES
DECEMBER 6.1995
of the downtown area. People are interested in their community and Larson felt in
the past a greater emphasis was placed on housing and industrial development than
the downtown redevelopment. A community needs a mix of all three. The January
visioning workshop with Theresa will begin to establish the goals and objectives for
the revitalization project.
O'Neill stated one objective of an HRA is redevelopment. St. Hilaire agreed,
redevelopment with revenues, not with expenditures. It appears the focus of staff
is to spend rather than create revenues. O'Neill said the Comprehensive Plan
Update identifies the downtown as a problem area. Theresa being a follow-through
to address the identified problem area.
Brad Barger agreed that the HRA not expend dollars for redevelopment prior to
adoption of the Comprehensive Plan Update and establishment of goals by the
coalition group. O'Neill said the purchase price of the Johnson warehouse may go
ttp. Ellison felt the Johnson property would be part of a redevelopment plan now
or later and felt the HRA should purchase the warehouse and lease it out. St.
Hilaire felt without a plan, any revitalizationtredevelopment becomes a piece -meal
project. (Amended 1-10-96: Deletion.) Barger suggested Johnson be encouraged to
lease out the building for one-year, O'Neill responded that was not an option.
Although the HRA was concerned with the declining status of the downtown area,
the HRA recommended a shon-term rental of the Johnson warehouse and
recommended the Council consider hiring an individual to focus on redevelopment
of the riverfront/downtown. Additionally. Larson reiterated the comment by Bill
Demeules: Standard Iron looked at communities with a vital downtown.
!. • � Y. . • 1 at • y •. l
l• a .is]: l . • u p�Y
Without a plan for riverfront/downtown redevelopment, Brad Barger made a motion
to table any action for purchase on this property. Everette Ellison seconded the
motion. Further discussion revealed the HRA felt the property was not worth
$163.500. The motion passed unanimously.
Rich Carlson said time was of the essence from the prospective of the seller and
stated market prices are typically 20.25% greater than the tax value. This property's
marketing price is $190,000. This property has 330 A of river frontage and a typical
Page 4
HRA MINUTES
DECEMBER 6, 1995
of the downtown area. People are interested in their community and Larson felt in
the past a greater emphasis was placed on housing and industrial development than
the downtown redevelopment. A community needs a mix of all three. The January
visioning workshop with Theresa will begin to establish the goals and objectives for
the revitalization project.
O'Neill stated one objective of an HRA is redevelopment. St. Hilaire agreed,
redevelopment with revenues, not with expenditures. It appears the focus of staff
is to spend rather than create revenues. O'Neill said the Comprehensive Plan
Update identifies the downtown as a problem area. Theresa being a follow-through
to address the identified problem area.
Brad Barger agreed that the HRA not expend dollars for redevelopment prior to
adoption of the Comprehensive Plan Update and establishment of goals by the
coalition group. O'Neill said the purchase price of the Johnson warehouse may go
up. Ellison felt the Johnson property would be part of a redevelopment plan now
or later and felt the HRA should purchase the warehouse and lease it out. St.
Hilaire felt without a plan, any revitalization/redevelopment becomes a piece -meal
project. Larson suggested the Kjellberg building be a future agenda item for
consideration. Barger suggested Johnson be encouraged to lease out the building for
one-year, O'Neill responded that was not an option.
Although the HRA was concerned with the declining status of the downtown area,
the HRA recommended a short-term rental of the Johnson warehouse and
recommended the Council consider hiring an individual to focus on redevelopment
of the riverfront/downtown. Additionally. Larson reiterated the comment by Bill
Demeules: Standard Iron looked at communities with a vital downtown.
IMM •. .• r.1:62,111113 • ti • .s
t• rr. • - r • . • .r
Without a plan for riverfront/downtown redevelopment, Brad Barger made a motion
to table any action for purchase on this property. Everette Ellison seconded the
motion. Further discussion revealed the HRA felt the property was not worth
5163,500. The motion passed unanimously.
Rich Carlson said time was of the essence from the prospective of the seller and
stated market prices are typically 20-25 % greater than the tax value. This property's
marketing price is S180.000. This property has 310 It of river frontage and a typical
Page 4
HRA MINUTES
DECEMBER 6, 1995
river lot has 100 ft of river frontage. St. Hilaire felt the property was worth between
$50,000 to $55,000 minus demolition. Ellison felt the property was worth $129,000.
O'Neill repeated results from the focus group meetings and the need for the Parks.
Planning, and HRA to focus on the downtown, river, and blight.
St. Hilaire questioned if we had the money, it appears taxes are increasing by 20%.
We do not need more parks, we need revenues. Ellison supported some intangibles
with good planning and felt the extension of the Bridge Park to the west was good.
O'Neill grated with city growth comes recreational growth. Barger suggested
purchase of the non -buildable three easterly lots. St. Hilaire repeated the need for
a plan.
Chairperson Larson suggested the HRA consider hiring a planner who specializes in
riverfront/dowmown redevelopment for preparation of a plan and study. Attorney
Bubul informed members this expenditure qualified as a use of TIF Funds. The
completed plan/study would need approval of the Planning Commission and would
be an implementation of the Comprehensive Plan Update. Al Larson made a
motion to (Amended 1-10-96: to begin the interviewing process of consultants) with
expertise in the area of riverfront/downtown redevelopment for preparation of a
plan and study. The specialized planner is independent of Steve Grinman. The
plan/study is an implementation of the Comprehensive Plan Update and Theresa
Washburn's efforts; is to focus on traffic, road, and pedestrian circulations; and to
include but not limited to design/architect and a market feasibility analysis.
(Amended I-10-96: The plan/study to determine the northerly/southerly boundaries
and the easterly/westerly boundaries of the proposed project area for
redevelopment.) Brad Barger seconded the motion and with no further discussion,
the motion passed unanimously. Attorney Bubul and the Leaque of Minnesota
Cities will supply references. The planner must have the ability to give motivating
presentations. Estimated cost, less than $50AI0. Koropchak is to review this motion
with Theresa Washburn.
CONSIDERATION TO RATIFY THE EXECUTION OF THE SUBORDINATION
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE HRA AND FIRSTAR BANK AND THE
LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE HRA_ AND VECTOR TOOL.
Kompchak informed HRA members that since the original approval of the
Subordination Agreement, the lender requested two changes. Upon the advise of
the HRA Attorney and in order to avoid termination of the project, the Chair and
Director agreed to the request. Changes: First, the HRA terminates its right of
reversion relating to default of the mortgage; however, the mortgagee agrees to use
Page 5
HRA MINUTES
DECEMBER 6, 1995
river lot has 100 ft of river frontage. St. Hilaire felt the property was worth between
$50,000 to 555,000 minus demolition. Ellison felt the property was worth $129,000.
O'Neill repeated results from the focus group meetings and the need for the Paries,
Planning, and HRA to focus on the downtown, river, and blight.
St. Hilaire questioned if we had the money, it appears taxes are increasing by 20 %.
We do not need more parks, we need revenues. Ellison supported some intangibles
with good planning and felt the extension of the Bridge Part to the west was good.
O'Neill stated with city growth comes recreational growth. Barger suggested
purchase of the non -buildable three easterly lots. St. Hilaire repeated the need for
a plan.
Chairperson Larson suggested the HRA consider hiring a planner who specializes in
riverfront/downtown redevelopment for preparation of a plan and study. Attorney
Bubul informed members this expenditure qualified as a use of TIF Funds. The
completed plan/study would need approval of the Planning Commission and would
be an implementation of the Comprehensive Plan Update. All Larson made a
motion authorizing the HRA to hire a planner with expertise in the area of
riverfront/downtown redevelopment for preparation of a plan and study. The
specialized planner is independent of Steve Grittman. The plan/study is an
implementation of the Comprehensive Plan Update and Thema Washburn's efforts;
is to focus on traffic, road, and pedestrian circulations; and to include but not limited
to design/architect and a market feasibility analysis. Plan/study defined within the
northerly/southerly boundaries of the Mississippi River/I-94 and the
easterly/westerly boundaries of approximately the Senior High/Pinewood
Elementary. Brad Barger seconded the motion and with no further discussion, the
motion passed unanimously. Attorney Bubul and the Leaque of Minnesota Cities
will supply references. The planner must have the ability to give motivating
presentations. Estimated cost, less than $50,000. Koropchak is to review this motion
with Theresa Washburn.
Koropchak informed HRA members that since the original approval of the
Subordination Agreement, the lender requested two changes. Upon the advise of
the HRA Attorney and in order to avoid termination of the project, the Chair and
Director agreed to the request. Changes: First, the HRA terminates its right of
reversion relating to default of the mortgage. however, the mortgagee agrees to use
Page 5
HRA MINUTES
DECEMBER 6, 1995
reasonable efforts to provide the HRA with a copy of the notice of default.
Secondly, the HRA terminates its first right of refusal relating to foreclosure:
however, the mortgagee will consult with the HRA and make good faith efforts to
cooperate with the HRA is locating and selling the property to a third party.
Next, the HRA Chair and Director executed a License Agreement on November 9,
1995, between the HRA and Vector Tool which allowed the company to begin
construction prior to land conveyance and the closing. The closing was held
November 21, 1995.
Tom St. Hilaire made a motion ratifying the execution of the Subordination
Agreement of November 21, 1995, between the HRA and Firstar Bank and the
execution of the License Agreement of November 9, 1995, between the HRA and
Vector Tool & Manufacturing, Inc. Everette Ellison seconded the motion and with
no further discussion, the motion passed unanimously.
CONSIDERATION TO AUTHORIZE PAYMENT OF THE TIF PAY -AS -YOU -
00 REIMBURSEMENTS FOR MAREPS FARM SERVICE AND CUSTOM
CANOPY, INC
Tom St. Hiliare made a motion authorizing the 1995 reimbursement payment of
S2,500to Russ and Sharon Martie upon receipt of the $2,735.74from the county.
The motion also approved execution of the Certificate of Completion and authorized
the 1995 reimbursement payment of $7,426.59to Stephen and Joan Birkeland, Jr.
upon the City receiving S2,426.59for HACA Penalty less S1,065.96of the available
tax increment ($12,618,86). Brad Barg -r seconded the motion. Per an inspection by
the building official on December 5, 1995, Custom Canopy had completed the
requirements of the December 7,1994, HRA motion. However, the building official
noted that the company is now in violation of the outdoor storage ordinance as
vehicles are parked outside the screen -fenced area. Reimbursement payment to
Birkeland is for 1995 only, 1996 reimbursement is subject to compliance of the noted
outdoor storage violation. Birkeland should be advised of the HRA requirement for
1996 reimbursement. With no further discussion, the motion passed unanimously.
Attorney Bubul noted upon default of a contract, the developer receives a Notice of
Default with 30 days to cure.
Page 6
HRA MINUTES
DECEMBER 6, 1995
AI Larson made a motion authorizing reimbursement payment of $10,000 beginning
February 1996 to the Ii -Window Company subject to receipt of evidence for
completion of the site improvements as required. Parking, lighting, and fencing have
been completed as it relates to the expansion. Planting of bushes and installation
of curbing will be completed in the spring 1996. Cold weather prohibited completion
this fall. Tom St. Hilaire seconded the motion and with no further discussion, the
motion passed unanimously.
in Kr. tr . r IGNIM (Oil :INT/ A. e Y OWS 1.0)"ll"ItIm Eel. 0 Ili I WN III INCIIII to]
With the HRA's interest to increase the tax base and create new jobs, Tom St.
Hilaire made a motion that the HRA would welcome the opportunity to consider
additional TIF assistance for a proposed Fay -Mar expansion upon the company's
compliance of the city ordinance relating to out -door storage and upon resolving the
problem with Schluender Construction Company. Al Larson seconded the motion
and with no further discussion, the motion passed unanimously.
Chairperson Larson advised HRA members of the EDA recommendation relating
to consolidation of the HRA and EDA. The EDA recommended to the Council that
the existing two -organizational commission structure remain and that the Council
consider waiving the residency requirement for commissioners. Commission
members must have a vested interest in the community.
Everette Ellison made a motion of recommendation to the City Council endorsing
the re -appointment of Roger Carlson for a five-year HRA term, expiration date of
December, 2000, and re -instating the four remaining HRA members as follows:
Tom St. Hilaire
December 1996
Everette Ellison
December 1997
Al Larson
December 1998
Brad Barger
December 1999
Roger Carlson
December 2000
Page 7
HRA WNITPES
DECEMBER 6, 1995
Al Larson seconded the motion and with no further discussion, the motion passed
unanimously.
ur. : 1. .
a) By a consensus of the HRA members, the October and November bills from
Publicorp, PRG, and Kennedy & Graven were ok'd.
b) Other business - None.
The HRA meeting 4oumed at 9:30 p.m.
011ie Koropchak, HRA Executive Director
Page 9
HRA AGENDA
A- JANUARY 10, 1996
Enclosed as supporting data is a copy of the Central Monticello Redevelopment
Project No. I with highlighted areas of the proposed modifications. Please note the
properties identified by the HRA for future consideration to acquire and the
proposed budget associated with those acquisition-. The existing Project No. I did
not allow the HRA to acquire parcels outside created TIF Districts located within
the boundaries of Project No. I. After the City Council adopts the resolution for
modification on January 22, 1996, the HRA will adopt a resolution to proceed with
condemnation of the Katzmarek property.
For this purpose. Attorney Bubul and Publicorp have combined the budget for the
land acquisition and planning studies of each of the districts into a single budget
which is suffice for this modification. llowever, they recommend that the IIRA and
City update the cash flow for each district to determine their potential surpluses and
to outline what are eligible expenditures for each district given its type and the year
in which it was established. The HRA should then modify the budget again to
protect from any legislative changes and to apportion the master budget to each
district.
B. Altemative actions.
I. A motion to adopt the resolution modifying Central Monticello
Redevelopment Project No. 1; modifying TI District Nos. 1-1 through 1.18;
and approving the Central Monticello Redevelopemnt Plan and TIF Plans
relating thereto.
2. A motion to deny adoption of the enclosed resolution.
3. A motion to table any action.
C. Staff recommendation
Staff recommends alternative action no. I for continuation of the process to acquire
the Kaumarek parcel and for ILture consideration to acquire other blighted
properties.
Page I
NRA AGENDA
JANUARY 10, 1996
Copies of the TIF process schedule, excerpts of the Plan for modification, and
resolution for adoption.
Page 2
DEC 28 195 06:35PM DLERS & PSSOCIRTES P. 3,9
MONTICELLO HOUSING AND REDEVELOFMENT AUTHORITY
AND THE
MONTICELLO CTCV COUNCIL
MODIFICATION OF
CENTRAL MON710ELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1
AND THE
TAX INCREME14T FINANCING DISTRICTS NOS.
1-1,1-2,1-3,1-4,1-5,1-6,1-7,1,1-9,1-10,1-11, I-12,1-13,
1-14,1-13,1-16,1-17,1-18, and 1-19
rSdRdYL9
City Council calls for a public hearing to modify Redevdopmeut Project No.
U 1 and modify Tax louv Brit Financing Districts Nos. 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 1-5,
1-6,1.7,1.8, 1-9, 1-10, !•11, 1.12, I-13, I -I4,1-15, 1-16, 1-17,
1-18. and 1-19
December 21, 1995 Plain forwarded to School District and County Board (at least 30 days prior
to public hearing).
Planning Commission finds Plan to be in compliance with the Comprehensive
plan.
Jaiaury 5, 1996 Send public hearing notice and map to local paper.
January 11, 1996 Date of publication of having notice and [trap (at team 10 days but not more
Um 30 days prior to hearing).
January 10, 1996 HRA approves the Plans.
January 22, 1996 City Council holds public batwing on the modification of Redevelopment
Project No. 1 and Tu I=== District Financing Districts Nos. 1-1, 1.2,
1-18, and 1-19 and puscs resolutions approving tba Plait.
February. 1996 EYderv?ublicorp certifies Plans to county and cute.
DEC 21 '95 11:47AM EKDZS 8 ASSOCIATES p.4/9
MODIFICATIONS TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS
FOR
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISMCT NOS.
1-1,1-2.1-7, 14, 1-5, IA l -t0,1 -I1,1-12,1-13, 1-14,1-13, I-16, 1-17,1-18, . _- .- .
Modifketioos gpavo : January 22, 1996
City of Momic" mwmom
MootkeUo Homing and Redavebpment Authority
DEC 21 '95 11:47PM &LERS & ASSOCIATES P.
MODIFICATIONS TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS
FOR
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NOS.
1.2, 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, 1-6, 1-7, 1.8. 1.9, 1.10, 1.11, 1-12, 1-13, 1-14, I•I5, 1.16, 1.17, 1-18, and 1-19
Section 2.12 of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1,
Section 3.12 of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 2,
Section 4.12 of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 3,
Section 5.12 of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 4,
Section 6.12 of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 5,
Section 7.12 of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 6,
Section 8.12 of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 7,
Section 9.14 of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 8.
Section 10.17 of the Tax Inurement Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 9,
Section 11.17 of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 10,
Section 12.17 of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 11,
Section 13.17 of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 12,
Section 14.17 of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 13.
Section 15.17 of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 14,
Section 16.17 of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 15,
Section 17.17 of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 16,
Section 18.17 of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 17,
Section 19.17 of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 18, and
Section 20.17 of the Tex Increment Financing Plan for Tax I nerement Financing District No. 19, arc hereby
amended to included he following reference:
(AS AMENDED JANUARY 22, 1996)
Estimated Amount of Bonded Indebtedness: An estimated total amount of bonded indebtedness for all tax
increment financing districts is expected to be increased by no more than %w. nm in original principal
amount plus interest costs. The bonded indebtedness may take tho form of a general obligation tax increment
bond, limited revenue note, or other obligation of the HRA and/or City.
DEC 21 '95 11:4741 EFLERS & ASSOCIATES P.6/9
PID Number. 155-015-022-020
PID Number: 155-015-022-040
Also described as
Those parts of Lots 2, 3, 4, 10, 1 I, 12. Block 22 and Block 21 lying southeasterly of the center line of said
Lot 2 extended nortaewrdy to the shoreline of the Mississippi River and lying northwesterly of the
northeasterly extension of the southeasterly line of said Lot 10.
Also that part of Lot 5 of Auditors Subdivision No. One according to the recorded map thereof lying
westerly of the southwesterly extension of the southeasterly line of Lot 4, Block 22, LOWER
MONTICELLO according to the recorded plat thereof extended southwesterly to the southwest line of said
Lot 5 except that part lying southeasterly of a line parallel with and 12.5 feet northerly of a line described
as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the southwesterly extension of the southeasterly line of Lot 5 of
said Block 22 with the southeasterly extension of the southwest line of said Block 22, thence southwesterly
at a deflection angle of 132 degrees 46 minutes from the said southeasterly extension of the southwest line
of Block 22, a distance of 139.5 fat more or less to said southwest line of Lot 5 of Auditor's Subdivision
No. One and said line there terminating.
Also that part of Broadway Street of LOWER MONTICELLO according to the recorded plat thereof lying
southeasterly of the southwesterly extension of the anter line of Lot 2, Block 22 of said LOWER
MONTICELLO and northeasterly of the northwesterly extension of the southwest line of Lot 5 of the
Auditor's Subdivision No. Ono according to the recorded map thereof.
(AS MODDUD JANUARY 22,19%)
The HRAiweAAso ems
acquiro the folloct
wing parcels as described by address and parcel number.
1400 West Broadway 155-500.033101
225 Front Street 155-010.064010
525 East Broadway ISS -01S-003060
109 West Broadway 153-010.052131
109 Walnut 155410-052130
Each of these parcels is currently Inside the boundarks of the Central Monticello Redevelopment
Project No. I but outside of the boundaries of no axistiall tax increment flaancin; district. However,
at a future time one or more of ilia parcels may be included in a tai Increment flnaneing district.
The HRA or City may acquire property listed In this subsection of the Redevelopment Plan pursuant
to the Housing and Redevelopment Act. Including sequbiton of real or personal property or any
interest therein by gilts, grant. purchase, exchange, base, transfer, bequest. devise or otherwise, and
by the exercise of the power of eminent domain, in the manner provided by Mioncsom Sutumes,
Chapter 117.
Subsection 1.9. Public Improvements and Facilities Within Redevelopment Proiect No. 1. Publicly
1.16
DEC 21 '95 11:48AM ERDZ'5 8 ASSOCIATES P.7/9
Tax Tncrement Financina District No. 1.18
i
(As adopted November 28. 1994)
1. Soil Correction.
Tax increment Firuneing District No_ 1-19
(As adopted February 27,1995)
1. Demolition.
2. Site improvements.
3. Public improvements(sweat, sewer, water).
4. Site preparation.
S. Parkmg/laodscaping
(AS MODMED, JANUARY 32,19%)
For property acquired witbia the Redevelopment Project but outside of the boundaries of a current
tas ineremeat Anaaelog district, the following costs may be incurred:
1. Demolition.. ^ '
2. Lend Acquisition
3. Relocation
Subsection 1.10. Estimated Public Loju and C.mneeive Data. The estimated costs of the public
improvements to be made within Rodevelopme t Project No. 1 and financed by tax inasments derived
primarily from Tu lnaemew Financing Districts within Redevelopment Project No. l area follows:
Tax Increment Finmeinv District No. 1.1
(As adopted November 29, 1988)
The estimate of public costs associated witb this project, and to be recovered by tax in cut
financing aro as follows:
Lad Acquisition $58,600.00
Special Assessments 14,901.47
Subtotal $73.301.67
IU Oakwood Tax laerasom Financial District No. I.I will be established with respect to the can
190 feet of Lot 7, Block 3. Oakwood Industrial Pak, whib dee above figures reflect ants for all of Lot 7.
Based on that division of Wnd, the following figures apply to this project.
Land Acquisition $29.300.00
Special Assessments 7 4=
Subtotal $36.750.83
Interest (8%) 14.400.00
1-21
DEC 21 '95 11:48W EH -ERS 8 ASSOCIATES P.8/9
(AS MODIFIED JANUARY 22, 1996)
The budgets for the estimated politic costs for Tax Increment Financing Districts Nos. 1-1,1-2,1-3, 14,
1-5,1.6, 1-79 1-g, 1-9,1-10,1-11, 1-12,1-13, 1-14, 1-15, 1.16, I-17, 1-19, and 1-19 are hereby modified
as follows:
For various land acquisition activities and redevelopment and revitalization studies in the
Redevelopment Project the current expected costs include:
Land Acquisition 5500,000.00
Demotition/lWocation 200,000.00
Contingency 200.000.00
Subtotal $900,000.00
Administration ".00000
Total
Subject to restrictions as applicable to each individual to Increment fitsanciog district pursuant to
Mbmesota Statutues, Section 469.174 to 469.176 (including timludons as to the type of development
that may be assisted and geogrephk boundaries within which increment may be spent), tax increment
from &try existing and future tax ineremeat financing district may be used to pay for public costs. This
budget is In addition to existing public cost budgets for each tax increment financing district. Interest
on any bonds or other obligations incurred are also to be paid from increment in addition to the Una
items listed In the budget above.
Subsection 1.11. Land Use. All new and/or existing development on land identified on Exhibits 1•C
through I -F as "property to be acquired" or "possible acquisition" will be subject to the following uses and
requirements:
Uses Permitted in Designated Areas.
IL Industrial --All permitted, accessory and conditional uses as specified in Chapters 15 and
16, Monticello Zoning Ordinance, relating to 1.1 (Light Industry) and 1.2 (Heavy Industry)
zones. Planned Unit Developments, where applicable, will be considered.
b. HousinMsidcmiat -All permitted, accessory and conditional uses as specified in Chapter
a and 10, Monticello Zoning Ordinance, relating to R•3 (Medium Density Residential) and
R -B (Residential -Business) zones. Planned Unit Developments, where feasible, will be
encouraged.
Downtown/Commereial—All permitted. accetwry, and conditional uses in accordance with
the provisions governing all "B" zones and including R -B, providing however that any
commercial development in an R -B zone shill be coordinated with the goals and objectives
of the liousing Plan. Planned Unit Developments, especially in the B-3 zono (Highway
Business), will be encouraged.
2. Additional Provisions.
a. Scrsrnjnt--Becauso the overall appearance of a community contributes to the ability to
1.32
DEC 21 '95 11:48MD4_ERS 8 ASSOCIATES
P.9/9
9. PurMWa to the adoption of the Modified Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1, the
Redevelopment Plan is hereby modified to reflect inere sod Project costa, as given in Subsection
1.10 of the Modified Redevelopment Pim for Redevelopment Project No. 1.
(As modified April 12, 1993)
10. Pursuant to the adoption of rho Modified Reda elopmeat Plan for Redevelopment Project No. I, the
Redevelopment Plan is hereby modified to reflect increased Project costs as given in Subsection
1.10 of the Modified Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1.
(As modified September 27,1993)
11. Pursueot to the adoption of the Modified Redarlopment Plea for Redevelopment Project No. 1, the
Redevelopment Plan is hereby modified to reflect increood Project cm% as given in Subsection
1.10 of the Modified Redevelopment Plan, for Roilmlopmetn Project No. 1.
(As modified March 14, 1994)
12. Pursuant to the adoption of the Modified Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopman Projea No. 1, the
Redevelopment Plan is hereby modified to reflect increased Project costs, as given in Subsection
1.10 of the Modified Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1.
(As modified August 1. 1994)
13. Pursuant to die adoption of the Modified Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1, the
Redevelopment Plan is hereby modified to reflect incimtted Project costs, as given in Subsection
1.10 of the Modified Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1.
(As modified Novema 29.1994)
14. Pursuant to tho edoptioo of die Modified Redevelopment Phm for Redevelopment Prc jest No. 1, the
Redevelopment Plan is hereby modified to reflm increased PmJect costs and enlarged geogrshie
area, as given in Subsection I.10 of the Modified Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project
No. 1.
(As modified February 27, 1995)
IS. Pmum to the adoption of the Modified Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1, the
Redevelopment Plan is hereby modified to reflect inessed Project cost as given In Subsection
1.10 of the Modified Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1.
(As UN111 isd Jasavy 12.1996)
16. Puauast to the adopd= of the Modi8 d R .' ..., Plha W i1, ' • — Paojeet No.
1. the Radlwebpment Pias Is busby modified to ref3sit lac MW Project coati, u &M In
Subsection 1.10 of the ModlOed Rcdesgopinto Phu for Radevelopment Project No, 1.
1-37
DEC 28 195 06:35PM EFLERS 8 ASSOCIATES
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
IN AND FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO
RESOLUTION NO.,
RESOLUTION MODVMG CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT NO. l; MODIFMG TAX 1N1(RIBUN T DISTRICT NOS
1-1,1.2,1J. IJ,1.5,1 ,1-7,1-8,1-9,1-10,1-11,1-12,1-13,1-1b 1-L%
1-16, 1-17, and 1-18; AND APPROVING THE CENTRAL
MONTICELLO REDEVEIAPM M PLAN AND TAX
INMEMENT FINANCING PLANS RELATING THERETO.
WHEREAS. the City Council (the"CoumeiP") of the City of Monticello (the "City") has Proposed
to modify the Redevelopment Plan (the "Redevelopment Plan") for Central Monticello Redevelop rim
Project No. l (the "Redmlopmeat Project No. 1") and modify the Tax Increment Financing Pians for the
TalncrementDistrictNos. 1-1,1-2,1.3,1.4, 1 -S, 1 -C 1-7,1-8,1-9, 1-10, 1-11, 1-12, 1.13.1-14, 1-15, 1.
16,
-13,1-14,1-15,1-
16, 1-17, and 1-18 (the "the Tax Ineremem Distriw"� all pursuant to and in accordance with Minnesota
Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047 and Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.179, inclusive, as
amended; sod
WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Monticall (the
"Authority) has investigated the f = and have caused to be papered s modified Redevelopment Plea for
Redevelopment Project No. 1 and modified Tan Increment Finaocing Plan for the Tau Increment Districts
(� "Plans"X and
MIEREAS, Proposed dsvehhpmem as described in the Plans in the opinion of the Authority, would
not reasonably be expected to occur solely through Private investment within the reasonable form, le
htum and, therefor, the use of to inurement 5numing is domed nccassrl , and
WMEPEAS, the Authority and city have perfumed all actions required by law to be Performed prior
to the moditleation of Redevelopment Pmjeet No. 1 and the modification of the Tan Increment DisotM
including, but not limited to, notification of Wright County and School District No. 8!2 having taxing
jurisdiction over the property included in the Tax Inurement Distrien, a review by the City Planning
Commission of the proposed PLro, and the scheduled holding of a Public hewing upon published notice as
required by law.
BE R RESOLVED by the Board ofCommisaimms ofthe Housing and Redevelopment Authority
In and for the City of Monticello, as follows:
1. The Plans are hereby approved and adopted and shall be placed on tale in the office of the
Executive Director.
2. Subject to die approval of the Pians by the City Council, the Authwiys advisor and legal
counsel a e autorimcl and dire cted to proceed with the implement+tlom of Tho Plans and for this purpose to
negotiate, draft; F; - - and present to this Board for its consideration all huthor plans, resohnim
DEC 2B '95 06:35PM M -LMS S ASSOCIATES P. 5/9
documents end contracts necessary fu this pmposu.
3. Upon approval of the Pleas by the City Ca mci4 the bwcu ive Director is mftdmd to toew std
a copy of the Plam to the Wright Canty Auditor ad the Minnesota Deparsmtmt of Rave= pmmmt to
bdimesots Somme 169.176. subdivision t
Approved by me Bora of commissioners oft o Monticello Homing and Rehmlopmw Authonay
this 10th day c0anuaay,19K
ATrM.
M%VAPMTAVAQMn=T1M0Dt9AAPPQOVBJZS
HRA AGENDA
JANUARY 10, 1996
1 yl 11111 1 11.111 okvj l :l :1 71
Based on the December 6,1995, motion, the HRA authorized the hiring of a planner
who specializes in the area of riverfront/downtown redevelopment. With
recommendations from Theresa Washburn, Attorney Bubul, and the l.eaque of
Minnesota Cities; Jeff O'Neill has contacted various cities for copies of request for
proposals (RFP). The modified RFP for Monticello's purpose may be included as
supporting data or will be presented at the HRA meeting for your review.
Theresa had no objections to the hiring a planner; however, suggested the hiring
selection follow the visioning workshop of Saturday, January 20,1996.'his does not
appear to be a problem as after mailing of the RFP, 2-3 weeks for return, and the
interviewing process; we will be beyond the 20th of January. Other coalition group
members may participate in the interviewing process; however, the HRA is the
voting body for hiring the specialized planner.
Scheduled meeting dates for HRA members:
Thursday, January 18, 1996, 5:00 p.m. Review Comprehensive Plan Update (City
Council and Planning Commission), City Hall
Saturday, January 20, 1996, 9:00 a.m. Visioning Workshop - District Board Room.
Wednesday, January 24, 1996, 6:30 p.m. Joint meeting for members of the Planning
and Parts Commission and IIRA.
Wednesday, February 7, 1996, next scheduled HRA meeting.
Page I
The Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA), City of Monticello
(City), and the Downtown/Riverfront District Coalition (DRDC) are requesting
proposals from qualified firma for the development of a design, traffic, market, and
financial plan for redevelopment or revitalization of the traditional dowthown and
nearby riverfront area. The final plan must stem from commu6ity ivoRvement and
reflect, to the extent possible, the desires of the public. A coczlQi ' ' - process
is as important as the product. i
The parties are seeking qualified consulting firms,
preparing revitalization studies and developing.`sti
of study recommendations. 4 z
The submission deadline for proposals is 4 p.i
to the address specified below. The project is
montlta of the award of the contract.
The M&
intent of
selected
other cii
a plan b
CITY OF MOD
ATTN: JEFF
250 EAST BR(
PO BOX 1147'
input:
LL //\
AY
6
76362
/
for
y 26 1996, to be submitted
be c�dmpleted within sia
i sufficient funds to pay for this project. It is the
MA enter into a contract for services with the
Pladning Commission, Parks Commission, DRDC,
tens at large will contribute toward development of
support will be provided by the City.
basic components. They include:
sign of the downtown/riverfront area (study area) and other
areas defined by the study as affecting the vitality of the study area.
2. A market analysis of the study area.
3. Analysis of cost/benefit of incorporating development of a community center
into the overall plan for the study area.
DOWNTOWINA P: t/M Page I
4. Specific recommendations for financing and implementing the plan.
PROJECT COMPONENTS
1. Physicaldesign of h c ,dy area.
This plan should assess and analyze the historic and existing conditions of
the study area as well as a design for future improvements. This section
should include but not be limited to:
a. A land use plan for the study area and f land use�djacent
areas identified by the firm as affect�ngr vitahtp,ofe, study area.
b. Existing public amenities and infrasiructure re tion
improvements (including public pai!lting and.access to area s
is to also include traffic impacts and recommendations fo _. '
transportation system changes bo&in an"ut of the study area.
C. Existing Parcel, easement, pathway,and,rD coiY6
gurations and
recommendations for replat"* ,to improve6Rmmeri6ial viability and to
improve utilization of the riv6rfmnt an asset /
d. Historical significance Pan
e. Existing uses of h ecific11ecommendations for buildings
to be removed., p�e� !
f. Development of design ten opprivate and public structures,
cludi�tuldii gs, facades and signage.
g. \endations f r.enforcement of design criteria.
h.rldpt on,,O ululd include designs and preliminary estimates of
r
o�uthe plan is in conflict or harmony with the
nsive plan for the City.
The pati should include the following:
a. Identification of existing and future economic opportunities and
threats to the traditional downtown area.
b. An analysis of the existing and potential public, commercial,
residential, and industrial, recreationnl/tourism users in the area.
DowxTOWN.RFP. vase Page 2
3.
4
C. Potential for methods to encourage restoration or impro
maintenance of housing stock within the pfejectarea.
d. Specific recommendations regarding recruitment of commercial and
recreational users to the study area.
e. Plans for reuse of existing vacant or underutilized buildings.
into the overall plan for redevelopment.
a. Determine if a community center is a
redevelopment plan for the study are
desires of the community.
b. Determine the optimum community c
civic/community uses necessary to su
goals and meet community desires/
a. Financing:
1. A discussion of
2. Recommendatio
3. A financial f si
b. n Implemental n,bf the
amic'fitetors and t
an and me tgf�
area development
parties for financing.
tion portion of the plan should focus on the
of i�ty and all recommendations identified in the plain
ation pP organizations that would be primarily
ac�project. This portion of the plan should be a
step action plan that identifies future actions and
The plan Jbhould be divided into phases with recommended start and
finish tes and methods of accountability for each phase. It is
im t to have quantifiable measures to indicate the success of
phase of the plan. The consultant must identify theso methods of
_ untability in the plan. The plan shall be a blueprint for the steps
and projects that need implementation for a systematic revitalization
of the traditional downtown area.
DOWNTOWN.RFA nares Page 3
FINAL PRODUCT
The consultant shall prepare and submit 50 copies of the final plan and shall
schedule a final presentation to the community at a public meeting, which shall
include professional visual aids summarizing the findings and recommendations.
THE CITY
Monticello is a city of 6,000 people located on the Mississippi River and.103,
Interstate 94 approximately 30 miles northwest of the Minnea#olis/SPaul Metro
area. The population within a radius of 5 miles is approximaf V.,1CO00.
Founded in the 1850'x, Monticello was incorporated,in 1856.. 2 the city
has experienced significant m ty
xp gni growth which has accelerated since 1992:
population is currently growing at a rate of about 4% peryeear. `� Vii"
In 1995, the City began the process of u
pdating the compreheiisi plan for the city.
The draft of the plan identified downtown and riverfront redevelopment as a
priority for the community. Subsequentto`tlie identiacatio"t this community
issue, a team is emerging to address' develo�ii ent issues✓ibllowing are team
members, activities to date, and the Tole each plays.
The Planning Commission andit'y Couacil, through development of the
comprehensive plan, have identified d'owntown/riverfront redevelopment as an
important issue. There.ie-wcommunity coAn esus that action needs to be taken to
utilize the riJerfront setting to enhance tk{"ability of the downtown area. The
City Ceuncil had ro4i ad- staENupport for the activities of the HRA and the
activitiesofthe D -W
7
The HRA has�f llowed up on comprehensive planning efforts by conducting awell-
attended`eommumn ty wor6hop focusing on the downtown area with the guidance of
consul(artt Theresa Washburn. The workshop spawned the recent establishment of
the.9RDC. The HRA's providing support to the DRDC by loaning funds sufficient
to4&e Washburn to bbip organize and develop the DRDC organization and provide
additional input in.tye planning process. The firm selected will use information
�btai edvia a v+nary workshop conducted on January 20, 1995, by Washburn.
'bite H igrmarked funds sufficient to finance the redevelopment plan
activitiesp�posed in this document and will be involved in funding appropriate
re$ovelop ent activity as identified in the plan.
The DRDC is a private, non-profit organization with functions similar to a
"Mainstreet" organization. The DRDC duties include development of downtown
promotions, business financing, fund-raising programs, and design.
DOWNTOW�7.RFP: I/M Pago 4
Your proposal should include the following:
1. Information demonstrating your understanding and perspective regarding
the goals of the project, assumptions underlying the project, and problems
you anticipate in completing the project.
2. A proposed approach to the project. The approachshallyour
firm intends to communicate with the Umbirrs and howlu p se to
involve local business people, property ownersrand other' ns.
3. Specialized experience in the type of work required. P names
and telephone numbers of clients we may, 1 about• ae ,.
/ �.:
4. Resumes for professional staff members �}tov�fl be assigned to y ject
with synopses of their particular responsibilities this project.
b. An estimated schedule for completing the p Iro ect with a phic illustration
of major tasks.
6. A schedule of fees including a notrto'•ezceed fee-for� project.
SELECTION PRnCIPSS
A selection committee made,, 9g a and m9mbers of the City Council,
Planning Commission, and D C will rav�iew alLproposals and will invite a limited
number of firma to Mond?eU for a personal fesentation and interview. Final
Q� selection e ma" the ,Cost of preparing proposals and being
involved�in penal prate to ps will be borne entirely by your firm. Ten copies of
your prop should be en)�mitte�by 4 p.m., February 15, 1996, to the following
address: \\ p,
A�F MONTICELLO
fN: JEFF O NEILL
X50 EAST BROADWAY
PO BOX 1147
MONTICELLO, MN 55362
DOWNTOWNAM 1AM Page 5
HRA AGENDA
JANUARY 10, 1996
CS
A.
Enclosed is a copy of the 1993 HRA Goals. 1 was unable to locate goals for 1994
and 1995, which we may not have done. You will note items I and 3 have been
completed or are in the process of completion.
With the proposed redevelopment of the riverfront/downtown you may wish to
include this in your 1996 goals. Additionally, some thought may be given to
exploring other Minnesota Housing Finance Agency programs for funding rehab of
older homes or apartments.
C Page I
1993 ERA GOALS
1. To serve as a Pacilator and to investigate the need for senior
housing, .+��lveivo of a maakei study *+A �+L^ ' ^�" ^n.
A. Market rate and subsidized assisted -living.
B. Market rate quality independent -living.
2. To encourage and assist in the development of two industrial
projects of quality.
3. To research the pros and cons for consideration to consolidate
the Housing and Redevelopment Authority and the Economic
Development Authority.
6. To serve as a governmental unit which utilizes Tax Increment
Financing while accountable to the local taxpayers.
S. Others.
t
HRA AGENDA
1 JANUARY 14, 1996
a) HRA bilis for approval.
Page I
1lo MNS15rSWBox548
Monticello
(612)285.3131
Fax (612)295-3080
8 8
O 1"W rlDldl II GI I.I- H
L 1
U Ix 114: P
T 11LINTIrLU_0 Pill 62 T
O O
'INVOICE NO. PAGE
DATE
•. Iq I 10 I'I'I I•I'I II rl' lI. III • . i I
MoMlcelo II a E. Ftkw scam. ea two CFmDIT TE'Wi9• BMW" r arm to ra aM a t. mono MIA a of AMOUNT DUE
Wtaalb, MN 553M bwdm Cath r maty aro dwp. a 15% 11811 bow Pwcwmp. i I• r , (.
mmeg (912)295.1191 Raft, w,tmhftndUX. Ye1mwdOWartwwa
Monticello
Timeo
116 East River Street, Box 548
Montke0o, MN 55362
(612) 295.3131
Fax (612) 295-3080
V s
O (3I'I Y UI' PIF-N'T J CBL.L LI H
L I
O P.U. UI Ik 1 1 97 °
T rlOPll'ICEI_LU PIN T
0 0
MOtCE NO. PAGE .
DATE
mo1(icelo I I a E. RNa strew. Box 648 CAM TEMM. 021mm 6*Aon Om WI M' d Or tmnOr I -I Pr
�, I . rA15m Ynom dw A eueiy 6+ Nup d CIS x 118x Amutl rrfmap�
�rt1rR10t.Mµd (612)W5.313I RM). �0I TYntun dept. r AOrged on M Pal UA SWOLM
AMOUNT DUE
Monticello HRA
PO Box 1147
Monticello MN 55362-9245
January 5, 1996
MC10D-03 REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
12rMM CJM Dmftbg - TIF Plans and DoMffW e
12/22/85 CJM Drafting - TIF Pians and Documents
Total Due This Month:
Pravlous Balance:
128819& Payment - thank you
Total Balance Due:
f EHLERS AND ASSOCIATES, INCJPUBUCORP INC.
2950 NORWEST CENTER
90 SOUTH SEVENTH STREET
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 5$402
1.75 183.75
1.50 157.50
3.25 $341.25
$210.00
(5210.00)
$341.25
Monticello HRA
PO Box 1147
Monticello MN 55362-9245
January 5, 1996
MC10404 TIF BUDGET MODIFICATION (1186)
12/11/95 MTR Dlsansbns wlih OMe end Steve S. on tax Increment rtgdi ieatbtq
Amount
26.25
12/19/95 MTR Work on doomwds for budget ngd@fcation
183.75
12/20/95 MTR Work on dodmreras for budget nndUkation W tax haemeru dwAft
603.75
12/21/95 MTR Work on plans for budget modicetbm
341.25
12/26/95 MTR Work on resolutions for modfcatbn
131.25
12/28195 MTR m==ate S. Bulxd oommvta Into resolutions
78.75
Total Due This Month: $1,365.00
Total Balance Due:
EHLERS AND ASSOCIATES, INCJPUBUCORP INC.
2930 NORWEST CENTER
90 SOUTH SEVENTH STREET
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 53402
$1,365.00
Monticello EDX \� Q
PO Box 1147
Monticello MN 55362-9245
December 7, 1995
MC70D-03 REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
Taal BaWm Due:
PLEASE REMIT TO:
? EHLERS AND ASSOCIATES, INCJPUBLICORP INC.
2950 NORWEST CENTER
90 SOUTH SEVENTH STREET
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
ia�amwca eavv
Amount
5210.00
$210.00
KENNEDY at GRAVEN
aurtead
200 Swath Stith Saar, Sala 470
Kmwapo&, MN S5402
1612) 377-93W
CLIENT SUMMARY December 14, 1995
Monticello HRA
City Hall
250 East Broadway
PO Box 83A
Monticello, MN 55362
Through November 30,1995
MN 195-00004: Katzrnarek Acquistion S 62.50
Services Rendered: S 62.50
Disbursements: S 0.00
Balance Due: E 62.50
Happy Holidays!
From Bookkeeping
`d
1 ded m ump p4rrfd d Iw
? ere%weewntd"aderrd
aq rl0erinop,
�d at
sorer. a
KENNEDY 8t GRAVEN
200 South Umb Soar, Sulo 470
j 7 YMhwmpok MN 55402
i (612)337-9300
December 14, 1995
Monticello HRA
City Hall
250 East Broadway
PO Box 83A
Monticello, NIN 55362
MN 195-00004: KatEmarek Acquistion
Invoice H 6939
Through November 30, 1995
For All Legal Services As Follows:
11/01/95 SJB Review redevelopment plan re acquisitions; phone 0.50 62.50
call with O. Koropchuk re some
Total Services:
62.50
Total Services And Disbursements: S 62.50
KENNEDY 8t GRAVEN
Charared
200 South Shah SoM Supe 470
r "' 14 mwaPoas, MN 55402
�- - (612) 337.9300
December 14, 1995
City of Monticello
PO Box 1147
Monticello, MN 55362-9245
MN190-00041: Redevelopment - General
Invoice # 6936
Through November 30, 1995
For All Legal Services As Follows:
11/01/95 SJB Phone call with O. Koropchuk re various TIF
0.50
62.00
issues
11/14/95 SJB Phone call with PRG re TIF plan; review same;
0.75
93.00
I call with O. Koropchal
86/95 DJG Memo to S Bubul re chamber of commerce loan
2.30
230.00
1187/95 SJB Review loan to Chamber of Commerce; intraoffice
0.50
62.00
conference with D. Greensw * ec
Total Services:
S
447.00
Attorney Summary
Daniel J Greensweig 2.308 100.001hr
230.00
Stephen Bubul 1.75 a 124.001hr
217.00
1 ddW UNWPVj* G1 tW
eW 1rw atym a
a �letlrtne
Total Services And Disbursements: $ 447.00
Happy Holidays!
From Bookkeeping