EDA Minutes 10-21-1997
.
..
.
Minutes
Monticello Economic Development Authority
Tuesday, October 21, 1997 - 7:00 p.m.
City Hall
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chair Ron Hoglund, Vice Chair Barb Schwientek, Assistant
Treasurer Ken Maus, Clint Herbst, Roger Carlson, Bill Demeules,
and Darrin Labr.
STAFF PRESENT: Ollie Koropchak, Executive Director
STAFF ABSENT: Rick Wolfsteller and Jeff O'Neill.
GUESTS:
Rita Ulrich, MCP Manager and Pam Campbell, Design Chair.
1. Call to order.
Chair Hoglund called the EDA meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2.
Consideration to approve the July 22. 1997 EDA Minutes.
Bill Demeules made a motion to approve the July 22, 1997 EDA minutes. Seconded by
Roger Carlson and with no corrections or additions, the motion was approved. Yeas:
Demeules, Carlson, Hoglund, Schwientek, and Lahr. Nays: None. Abstention: Herbst
and Maus (not present at July meeting).
3.
EDA members accepted the recommendation of the MCP-Design Advisory Team.
Recommendation was to table for consideration by the future owners as the current owner
is negotiating to sell the business and property at 112 East Broadway.
4. Consideration to review for approval/disapproval the DMRE application for 103 Pine
Street.
EDA members reviewed the application for funding for facade improvements at 103 Pine
Street. Applicant Kathy Froslie. Some confusion existed among commissioners as to the
true front, rear, and side facade of the building as described for funding. Maus
recommended in the future the front facade be consistent with the city designated street
address. Hoglund, a member ofthe Design Team, informed commissioners that Froslie
consulted the recommended preservation consultant for suggestions. Entry, roofline and
window changes are proposed with respect to the era the building was constructed.
1
.
..
.
EDA MINUTES
OCTOBER 21, 1997
The commissioners found the application to be consistent with the DMRF purpose and
criteria where applicable. Barb Schwientek made a motion to approve DMRF No. 001 in
the amount of $2,500 for front facade and signage improvements, $2,500 for rear facade
improvements, and $710 for side facade improvements at 103 Pine Street (Going-In-Style,
Kathy Froslie). Disbursal of the matching grant funds in the amount of$5,710 subject to
compliance of the facade designs as recommended by the MCP Design Advisory Team,
compliance of codes and ordinances by the Building Official, and evidence of payment of
approved improvement costs. DMRF No. 001 becomes null and void July 21, 1998 if
funds are not disbursed. Clint Herbst seconded the motion and with no further discussion,
the motion passed unanimously.
5.
EDA members reviewed the application for funding for facade improvements and fee
reimbursement at 121 West Broadway. Applicant Steve Johnson. Hoglund reported that
the Design Team reviewed two front facade designs: One consisted of an all new brick
and the second consisted of panel inserts. The applicant utilized the recommended
architect for assistance and both designs met the design guidelines. Panel inserts are
economically more feasible than full replacement; therefore, panel inserts were acceptable
to the design team. The rear facade improvement included a painted mural. The design
team will review the mural sketches when available.
The applicant proposes to make appropriate treatment to the east side facade which is
propos~d to consist of a painted turn-of-the-century sign. The painted sign may not be in
coIlfo~ce because of size and perhaps creates to many signs. The MCP continues to
WQfl\- with Steve Grittman to amend the sign ordinance within the CCD. The proposed
imPrpvements will be done in two phases in 1997 and 1998.
p~ Lahr made a motion to approve DMRF No. 002 in the amount of $2,500 for front
f~~~fle and signage improvements, $2,500 for rear facade improvements, $1,000 for east
S\q~ facade improvements, and $200 for fee reimbursement at 121 West Broadway.
Pl~\'l\J.fsa1 pfthe matching grant funds in the amount of $6,000 and fee reimbursement of
$200 subject to cOliIpliance of the facade designs as recommended by the MCP Design
Advisory Team, compliance of codes and ordinances by the Building Official, and
evidence of payment of approved improvement costs. DMRF No. 002 becomes null and
void July 21, 1998 if funds are not disbursed. Clint Herbst seconded the motion. EDA
members found the application to be consistent with the DMRF purpose and criteria
where applicable. Without further discussion, the motion passed unanimously.
2
.
..
.
EDA MINUTES
OCTOBER 21,1997
6. Consideration of a req.uest for funding to provide a one-day training session for members
of the Design Advisory Team and others.
MCP Design Chair Pam Campbell requested $1,000 from the EDA to provide a one-day
training session for members of the design team and other designated commissioners. The
Design Committee did not budget this expenditure in their 1997 Budget. The RFP from
Bob Claybaugh had a cost of $1,500 attached for the one-day session. The Design
Committee would pick-up the remaining $500. Claybaugh is a historical rehabilitation and
commercial architect who understands economic ramifications and is capable of assisting
with determinations of what lies underneath existing facades. The session would inform
the advisory team as to their responsibilities and how to prepare reports with
recommendations to the City Council. Barb Schwientek made a motion authorizing the
expenditure of $1 ,000 from the $200,000 DMRF appropriations. Bill Demeules seconded
the motion and with no further discussion, the motion passed unanimously.
7.
Consideration to review for discussion and to measure the interest-level to construct an
industrial building for lease.
EDA members reviewed the explanation from Mark Ruff relating to an EDA owned
building leased to private business. The explanation was requested as perhaps a means to
assist m the recruitment of new industrial business and the idea was first suggested in 1974
by tlW JPC. Some EDA members had concerns that the principal and interest payments
may qrain the EDA funds and how a spec building would casbflow if vacant. Some felt
thi~ )Vas best left to the private sector. Members asked when is an BRA or EDA tax
exwpt? They requested further defining of construction numbers and square footage
reem... irements, land costs, loan requirements and cashflow. Provide examples using two
d~.~~S: Tip-up panel and steel.
8.
~er business:
EpA members received a copy of the Monticello Downtown Revitalization Loan Program
offered by First National Bank of Monticello.
9. A<ijoumment.
The EDA meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
.~)~\<O\~
Ollie Koropchak, Executive Director
3