EDA Agenda 08-11-1998
.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
. 6.
.
AGENDA
MONTICELLO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Tuesday, August 11, 1998 - 7 p.m.
City Hall
MEMBERS: Chair Ron Hoglund, Vice Chair Barb Schwientek, Assistant Treasurer Ken Maus,
Clint Herbst, Roger Carlson, Bill Demeules, and Darrin Lahr.
STAFF:
Treasurer Rick Wolfsteller, Executive Director Ollie Koropchak, Recording
Secretary Nancy Whalen, and Jeff O'Neill.
Call to order.
Consideration to approve the June 23, 1998 EDA minutes.
Consideration of adding agenda items.
Consideration of request for a 30-day extension for DMRF No. 101. (Kathy Froslie)
Consideration ofrequest for an approximate 5-month extension for DMRF No. 102.
(Steve Johnson)
Consideration to approve disbursement of DMRF No. 102 prior to completion of front
facade improvements. (Steve Johnson).
7. Consideration to discuss awarding a certificate to applicants participating in DMRF
program and its criteria.
8. Consideration to review the draft copy of the facade improvement funding procedure and
its purpose.
9. Director's consideration of executive report.
10. Other business.
11. Adjournment.
MINUTES
MONTICELLO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Tuesday, June 23, 1998 - 7:00 p.m.
City Hall
MEMBERS: Chair Ron Hoglund, Vice Chair Barb Schwientek (tardy), Roger Carlson, Bill
Demeules, and Damn Lahr.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Clint Herbst and Ken Maus.
STAFF PRESENT: Ollie Koropchak, Executive Director
STAFF ABSENT: Rick Wolfsteller, Treasurer
GUEST: Bruce Hamond
Call to order.
Chair Hoglund called the EDA meeting to order at 7:20 p.m.
2. Consideration to approve the January 20, February 17, and May 20, 1998 EDA minutes.
Bill Demeules made a motion to approve the January 20, February 17, and May 20, 1998
EDA minutes. Seconded by Ron Hoglund and with no additions or corrections, the
minutes were approved as written.
3. Consideration of adding agenda items.
No items were added to the agenda.
4. Consideration to review for approvaUdisapproval the DMRF application for 232 West
Broadway.
Bruce Hamond owner of the property located at 232 West Broadway informed the EDA
of a three-year lease with Rachel's, a consignment shop. The rehab plans includes
replacement of the roof, supports, and front by end of August. The exterior front and
west side of the building will be refaced with clapboard including removal of asbestos
behind the original wood and artificial brick. The front air conditioner will be moved to
the side, the upper front windows will remain and be sealed, the lower front aluminum
windows to receive wood facing and painted, and the clapboard exterior painted an
appropriate color to retain its original 1850s look. Hamond would like to tie into the
Shingobee project for parking access, a survey has been ordered for the rear property line
to determine potential accessibility.
• EDA MINUTES
JUNE 23, 1998
Koropchak noted the application did not include rehab estimates from a contractor for the
front and side, the $22,800 was the estimate for the rear only. Hamond informed
commissioners he would be meeting with Paul Becker Construction on Thursday and
would submit the correct allocation for the front and side. The application indicated a
total front and side cost of $10,800.
Hamond reported the rear building size was reduced from its original rehab plan in order
to utilize the existing footings to retain the original size of the structure. The once rear
apartment was rebuilt for office space at a cost of approximately $22,800. This was
completed in April or May of 1998. Hamond indicated future considerations are front
awnings, perpendicular sign and second-floor finished as is ideal for book store.
Schwientek felt the rear improvements were generous and also suggested to encourage
rehabilitation, building histories be written and published.
Darrin Lahr made a motion to approve DMRF in the amount of $2,500 for front facade
and signage, $2,500 for rear facade, and $2,500 for side facade improvements and $500
for fee reimbursement at 232 West Broadway subject to submittal of the allocated front
and side improvement estimates as documentation. Disbursal of the matching grant funds
in the amount of $5,000 subject to compliance of the facade designs as recommended by
• DAT, compliance of codes and ordinances by the Building Official, and evidence of
payment of approved improvement costs. The approved funding becomes null and void
March 23, 1999. The EDA found the rear improvements to be generous and building size
consistent to the original size; therefore, they approved funding for the rear improvements.
Bill Demeules seconded the motion and with no further discussion, the motion passed
unanimously.
5. Consideration of Executive Director's report.
EDA members acknowledged the reminder letter mailed to Froslie and Johnson relating to
the non-performance date of their respective approved funding. The EDA requested the
Executive Director prepare and mail afollow-up letter to Froslie and Johnson requesting
the applicant submit a formal letter detailing the time frame for completion of the facade
improvements and requesting an extension.
Darrin Lahr made a motion to accept the director's report as written. Seconded by Roger
Carlson and with no further discussion, the motion passed unanimously.
2
• EDA MINUTES
JUNE 23, 1998
Adjournment.
The EDA meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
~X~
~~ ~- ~ ~ --
Ollie Koropchak, Executive Director
•
.
.
.
EDA Agenda - 8/11/98
4.
Consideration of request for a 30-dav extension for DMRF No. 101.
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the EDA meeting in June, commissioners agreed that an applicant must submit a
formal letter to the EDA requesting an extension of the 270-day Non-Performance
Provision of the DMRF Guidelines and detailing a time frame for completion of the
improvements.
The EDA is asked to consider a request from Kathy Froslie for a 30-day extension for
DMRF No. 101. Additionally, the July 20 letter requested alterations to the front side
(south side) facade improvements as initially approved by DAT. DAT reviewed this
request at a July 29 meeting and a letter from Oertel Architects. DA T recommends the
EDA extend the request to August 28 allowing time for completion.
As you recall, Ms. Froslie received payment for completion of the rear side (north side)
facade improvements and fee reimbursement on February 2, 1998 and withdrew the
request for funding for the facade improvements to the side (east side).
Again, the only action required by the EDA is to consider the request for an extension.
B.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1.
A motion granting a 30-day extension to the July 21, 1998 Non-Performance
Provision for DMRF No. 101. Extension granted to August 21,1998 for
completion of front side (south side) facade improvements.
2.
A motion granting a 37-day extension to the July 21, 1998 Non-Performance
Provision for DMRF No. 101. Extension granted to August 28, 1998 for
completion of front side (south side) facade improvements per recommendation of
DAT.
3.
A motion denying an extension to the July 21, 1998 Non-Performance Provision
for DMRF No. 101.
4.
A motion to table any action.
1
EDA Agenda - 8/11/98
C. RECOMMENDATION:
Recommendation is Alternative No.2, allowing the applicant time to complete the front
facade improvements as modified by DAT on July 29, 1998.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A - Copy of request from Kathy Froslie
Exhibit B - Follow-up from EDA
Exhibit C - Minutes of July 29 DA T meeting.
2
.
.
.
7-20-98
.
E. D. A.
% Ollie Koropchak
Dear Advisory team;
I am requesting an extension on my time frame for completion of my
improvements to my building at 103 Pine Street. My final date was
to be 7-21-98. I would like a 30 day extension for my completion
of my south side.
I am on the Wed. July 29th agenda with the Design Advisory Team to
discuss some changes to their decision of what should be done to my
south entrance, specifically I would prefer to delete the request to
replace the metal railing with brick walls. I actually would like to
replace the steel columns with brand new round colums. This change
necessitates the meeting on the 29th.
All other work is completed as required by the advisory team.
.
~
~
owner of 103 Pine St.
EXHIBIT A
.
~A
67/13/1998 11:14
5122'3569S7
MONTI COMM PARTNERS
PAGE 62
.....
".,
.
"OERTEL ARCHITECTS
1406 WEST LAKi sTREET I RoOMY BUILDING I SUITE 201
" " " '. '. MINNEAPOUS. MN "408 '. ,
FAJ(:. 61~111A
~ 6121US1613
July 8, 1998'
Ms. Pam Campbc~, Design' Chair .
Moaticcl1o Community PartnerS
P.O. Box 984
Monticello, MN SS3~2
RE: ltivet~ttcct Antiques I Going In ,Style .
Dear Pam,
It has been many months since I bad the opportunity to assist in your ~ project. 'I hope
tbat the momentuin continues CO build and .that the downtown ploperty owners ~ able. to
benefit from the "!'ortshop an<1 related efforts by your group. 1 notice that Lock Jewelers is
unvei1iq their -historic storeflo4t- renovation ~ month! "
.The primary reason for my memo is oot as upbeat.. 1 was oont8MM by Kathy Froslic of .
~vcd,t1'cct Antiques laSt September with in urgent request for my office to review her addition-
in.progress, provide.-input, and provide drawings to allow ber to receive ~ funds from the
city (as was my ~g.) I bad indicated to her at the'time that the cost of our services
as requested "as far greatei tbaa. wb&t she was will.ina 'co spend (aboUt $300.00.) Still, for the
good of the. cause we performed the serviceS and did so in very short order ~ Since theil, a
. payment of $150.00 was received after several months of request for payment to Kathy. The
tellUJining $219.00 has not been paid and I assume it likely never will. .
I do not expect you to be involved in my cOnUactual agreements but I do have a few questions.
Did Kathy receive city funds or grants for her project? If so were tbcrc any coaditions or tamS?
, '
Whatever information you arc able to provide wOuld help. I am ,not sW-e what I can do at this
point but this is especially aggravating: this is the only client in my several years of businesS that
has not paid their bill, aDd it is. also one of the smalle6t invoices submitted.
Again, just a brief note on the facts is all t need. Tbaoks in' advance for any information. .
.' Ocncl, AlA, CCS
t
~/~
.
EXHIBIT A
'.
.
.
July 24, 1998
--
MONTICELLO
Kathleen A. Froslie
7833 Aetna Avenue Northeast
Monticello, :MN 55362
Re: DNJRF No. 101 for 103 Pine Street.
Dear Kathy:
The office of the EDA received your letter of July 20, 1998 requesting an extension of approved
DMRF No. 101. The 270-day non-performance provision for No. 10 1 expired July 21, 1998.
Kathy, this letter is to inform you that the EDA Chair will call a meeting of the EDA perhaps the
second week of August to review the extension request and any recommendations ofDAT from
your scheduled DAT meeting ofJuly 29. I will contact you of the EDA meeting date when so
called.
Sincerely,
ECONONfIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
IN AND FOR TIlE ~ITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
OCl(l~ \'\O\~~
Ollie Koropchak
Executive Director
cc: DNJRF File
DAT
EXHIBIT B
~~3
Monticello City Hall, 250 E. Broadway, PO Box 1147, Monticello. MN 55362-9245' (612) 295-2711. Fax: (612) 295-4404
Office of Public Works. 909 Golf Course Rd., Monticello, MN 55362. (612) 295-3170 . Fax: (612) 271-3272
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO DESIGN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Wednesday, July 29,1998, 9:00 am
Monticello City Hall
.
Members Present: Pam Campbell, Gail Cole, Ron Hoglund, Rita Ulrich
Members Absent: Susie Wojchouski
Also Present: Ollie Koropchak, Kathy Froslie
1. Call to Order.
PAM CAMPBELL CALLED THE MEETING TO ORDER.
2. Consideration of adding items.
No items were added.
3. Consideration of accroval of the minutes of the scecial meetina held Julv 22. 1998.
RON HOGLUND MOVED, AND GAIL COLE SECONDED, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES .
OF THE SPECIAL MEETING HELD JULY 22, 1998. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. Consideration of a modification in design clan for south facade of 103 Pine Street oroiect.
Acolicant: Kathv Froslie.
Kathy Froslie was present to ask for a modification of the plans for the south facing side of
103 Pine Street. She asked that she be allowed to replace the columns on the front steps
with fiberglass or wood columns or pillars instead of enclosing the lower portion of the steel
columns with brick. She also asked that the ramp and side railings not be changed. Rita
Ulrich noted that the ramp was not required to be changed in the original plan. Members
agreed that replacing the side railing with a brick fin wall was not necessary. One of the
existing steel columns has been damaged. Gail Cole said that wood or fiberglass columns
would be attractive and durable. Rita Ulrich noted that it had come to the attention of the
DA T that the architect who design the building improvements had not been paid his full fee
by Ms. Froslie. Ms. Froslie said that it was her intention to pay the bill. Members asked Ms.
Froslie if her request for an extension to complete the building by August 20th would allow
enough time for her to complete the project and have DAT review it at a regular meeting.
She was not sure. OAT members felt that the extension should be until August 28th so that
a review could be done at its regular meeting on August 26th and disbursement take place
after that.
RITA ULRICH MOVED, AND GAIL COLE SECONDED, TO APPROVE THE CHANGE IN
THE NORTH FACADE AS REQUESTED BY MS. FROSLlE, TO RECOMMEND TO THE
4/~
.
EXHIBIT C
.
.
.
EDA THAT THE MS. FROSLlE BE GIVEN AN EXTENSION UNTIL AUGUST 28, 1998,
AND THAT NO DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS BE MADE UNTIL MS. FROSLlE
FURNISHED PROOF THAT THE ARCHITECT HAD BEEN PAID IN FULL. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. Consideration of aooroval of information sheet on Facade Imorovement Fundina Procedure.
Members discussed changes to the information sheet and the possibility of printing it in
brochure form so that it could be used to promote the DMRF program in addition to
providing information on the process to interested building owners. Rita Ulrich offered to
edit the information sheet for that purpose.
6. Adiourn.
RITA ULRICH MOVED, AND GAIL COLE SECONDED, TO ADJOURN. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
EXHIBIT C
'i~~
.
.
.
EDA Agenda - 8/11/98
5.
Consideration of request for an approximate 5-month extension for DMRF No. 102.
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The EDA is asked to consider a request from Steve Johnson for a 5-month extension for
DMRF No. 102 due to the unforeseen future of tenant occupancy at 121 West Broadway.
The next agenda items relates to disbursements of funds associated with the front facade
improvements.
At the DA T meeting of July 22, the members supported a December 31, 1998, extension
for DMRF No. 102 for completion of the rear and side facade improvements and
approved an October 31, 1998 completion date for the front facade improvements.
Again, the only action required by the EDA is to consider the request for an extension.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1.
A motion granting an approximate 5-month extension of the July 21, 1998 Non-
Performance Provision for DMRF 102. Extension granted to December 31, 1998
for completion of the front, side, and rear facade improvements.
2. A motion granting an approximate 5-month extension of the July 21,1998 Non-
Performance Provision for DMRF 102. Extension granted to December 31, 1998
for completion of the side and rear facade improvements only.
3. A motion denying an extension to the July 21, 1998 Non-Performance Provision
for DMRF 102.
4. A motion to table any action.
C. RECOMMENDATION.
Recommendation is Alternative No.1. Although the request for the extension only
applied to the rear and side, recommendation is to grant an extension of all three sides as
the next agenda item request disbursement of funds prior to completion of front facade
improvements.
3
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A - Request from Steve Johnson
Exhibit B - Response of ED A
Exhibit C - DA T minutes
Exhibit D - Letter to Mr. Johnson.
EDA Agenda - 8/11/98
4
.
.
.
.
.
.
Steve Johnson
P.O. Box 598
Monticello, MN 55362
July 17, 1998
Ollie Kropchok
EDA
City of Monticello
250 West Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
Dear Ollie,
I would like to ask the EDA for an extension of the grant to restore the building at 121
West Broadway. Work has been suspended due to financial difficulties of the tenant
business. In that many of the design plans would be specific to the type of business in the
building, I felt that such things, as painting a sign on the side of the building could be a
waste of money. The rear of the building was to have been remodeled in an antique motif
on a common cinder block wall. If this tenant were to vacate the expense would be
wasted. In fact in the last two weeks the tenant has given notice to leave the premises.
Until I have a future tenant for the building expending any funds could very well be
futile.
I therefore request an extension of funding through the end of the year December 31,
1998 for the side and rear of the building.
Construction work and installation of revitalization has been completed on the front of
the building. The current tenant agreed to clean the brick as his in kind contribution to
the project. He has not fulfilled his obligation. As a result some adhesive still remains
on the front of the building. This sh01lUd be completed in the near future when I regain
possession of the building. More than enough work has been completed 10 qualify for the
matching grant. Copies of invoices are enclosed with this letter. A review has been done
by the Design Committee and should be available to you through the MCP.
If you have any further questions do not hesitate to give me a call.
~\
EXHIBIT A
July 24, 1998
--
MONTICELLO
Mr. Steve Johnson
P.O. Box 598
Monticello, MN 55362
Re: DMRF No. 102 for 121 West Broadway.
Dear Steve:
The office of the EDA received your letter of July 17, 1998 requesting an extension of approved
DrvIRF No. 102. The 270-day non-performance provision for No. 102 expired July 21, 1998.
Steve, this letter is to infonn you that the EDA Chair will call a meeting of the EDA perhaps the
second week of August to review the extension request and the recommendation ofDAT for
disbursement of funding relating to the front facade improvements. I will contact you of the
meeting date when so called.
Sincerely,
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
IN AND FOR THE CIT(\ OF cr>~CELLO, MINNESOTA,
a ~ \<O\.GF=--'
Ollie Koropchak
Executive Director
cc: DMRF File
DAT
EXHIBIT B
.
.
6,JI
Monticello City Hall. 250 E. Broadway. PO Box 1147. Monticello. MN 55362.9245' (612) 295-2711' Fax: (612) 295-4404
Offic~ of Public Works, 909 Golf Course Rd.. Monticello. MN 55362' (612) 295.)170' Fax: (612) 271-3272
.
.
.
v~
~\i
\J\W\0~~
9~ ,V:t~ ~
to Highway 25 because that entrance sits at an angle, and the fact that two other higher
pylon signs are in the same vicinity, members felt that the height, size, and position of the
sign are are justified and appropriate.
SUSIE WOJCHOUSKI MOVED, AND RON HOGLUND SECONDED, TO APPROVE THE
SIGN AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
At this time, Ron Hoglund left the meeting.
5. Consideration of final approval of work on 207 West 3rd Street to authorize disbursement of
DMRF funds.
Members were satisfied that the work on the building for which DMRF funds were
authorized was complete and that the funds should be disbursed.
RITA ULRICH MOVED AND SUSIE WOJCHOUSKI SECONDED, TO APPROVE THE
WORK AS COMPLETED.
6. Consideration of final approval of work on 121 West Broadwav to authorize disbursement of
DMRF funds.
Members expressed concern that the black adhesive on the lower portion of the front
facade has not been removed and that this significantly detracts from the look of the
building. Because of this, they did not consider the project complete. Members also said
that they realized a lot of work has been done on the building and it was a great
improvement. They also recognized that there are some special circumstances related to
the building and that this was the reason the adhesive has not been removed. They
supported Mr Johnson's request for extensions for the east and rear facades of the building.
After further discussion, SUSIE WOJCHOUSKI MOVED, AND GAIL COLE SECONDED,
TO RECOMMEND THAT THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AUTHORIZE A
$2,000 PAYMENT AT THIS TIME, AND THAT THE REMAINING $500 OF THE
MATCHING GRANT BE PAYED AFTER THE ADHESIVE IS REMOVED, PROVIDED IT IS
REMOVED NO LATER THAN OCTOBER 15, 1998. MOTION CARRIED.
7. Consideration of aooroval of information sheet on Facade Improvement Funding Procedure.
RITA ULRICH MOVED, AND PAM CAMPBELL SECONDED, TO TABLE THIS ITEM.
MOTION CARRIED.
8. Adiourn.
RITA ULRICH MOVED, AND PAM CAMPBELL SECONDED, TO ADJOURN. MOTION
CARRIED.
EXHIBIT C
~/3
Pam Campbell
2744 155th St NW
Monticello Mn 55362
.
July 22, 1998
Steve Johnson
PO Box 598
Monticello Mn 55362
Dear Steve,
The Design Advisory T earn met this morning and considered your request for extension. It will be.:
DAT's reconunendation to the EDA to extend the deadline for side and rear facade treatment until
December 31, 1998. Ifwe can be of help, please let us know.
The request for payment for the front facade was also considered. The discussion revolved around
the removal of the black adhesive from the brick under the windows. We understand the removal of
the black adhesive was to be the responsibility of your tenant, and that otherwise the project is
complete. It has been the policy of the DAT to wait until the project is entirely finished before
reconunending reimbursement. But due to the unique circumstances in this case, the DAT will
recommend to the EDA to reimburse you $2000 with the remaining $500 to be paid when the .
adhesive has been removed. The deadline for the completion is October 15, 1998.
The DAT appreciates the investment you have made in this building and the contribution it has made
to the downtown landscape.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
.~a~
DAT Chair
cc: Ollie Koropchak
DAT members
EXHIBIT D
~~~
.
.
.
.
EDA Agenda - 8/11/98
6.
Consideration to approve disbursement ofDMRF No. 102 prior to completion of
front facade improvements.
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Although it was unclear as to whether the letter requesting an extension also was
requesting disbursement of funds, the commissioners are asked to consider approving
disbursement of the funds prior to completion of the front facade improvements.
The DMRF Guidelines state:
1. The EDA shall not disburse approved DMRF without a written acknowledgment
from the MCP Design Advisory Team that construction of the improvements are
complete and comply with applicable design guidelines and all codes and
ordinances.
2. The EDA shall not disburse approved DMRF (grants and reimbursement) without
certified documentation of the actual costs of improvements and completion of
improvements.
At the DA T meeting of July 22, the members did not consider the project complete;
however, they did recommend disbursement of $2,000 for non-completion of approved
front facade improvements and the remaining balance of $500 disbursed upon removal of
the black adhesive if removed no later than October 15, 1998.
DAT's written acknowledgment said the project (front facade) was not complete.
Additionally, it is my understanding no permit was issued for the facade improvements,
therefore, the improvements would not comply with the codes and ordinances. Certainly,
DA T can make recommendations for disbursement; however, they do not approve
disbursements. I agreed with DAT's rational for the recommendation to disburse a
portion of the dollars because of the improved aesthetic appearance, dollars expended,
and tenant hardship. However, the real questions are: Was the front facade improvements
completed as approved, is the EDA objective met, what about the next request for non-
completed improvements, and will the funding program encourage completion of
improvements?
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. A motion to approve disbursement ofDMRF No. 102 in the amount of$2,500 for
the front facade improvements upon removal of the black adhesive.
5
EDA Agenda - 8/11/98
2. A motion to deny disbursement of DMRF No. 102 for non-compliance of the
DMRF Guidelines.
3. A motion to approve disbursement of DMRF No.1 02 prior to completion of front
facade improvement in the amount of $2,000.
4. A motion to table any action.
C. RECOMMENDATION.
Although the completed improvements are wonderful and an extraordinary amount of
dollars were expended, the recommendation is to approve disbursement of the total
$2,500 upon removal of the black adhesive. This encourages completion of the
improvements, indicates willingness of the EDA to disburse dollars in an expedite
fashion, and complies with the DMRF Guidelines.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A - Cost proposal
Exhibit B - Mechanic's lien rights
Exhibit C - Canopy invoice.
6
.
.
.
Robert Aasen Construction
Your Full Service Contractor
19215 Cypress Street
Rogers, Minnesota 55374
428-7199
Proposal
Page No.
of
Pages
SAL SUBlimED TO
" c. l' c'
Tt)~
PHONE
,)9';- 26 ..r~
JOB NAIIE '7 ' ... '
/1t! ,;iu.d~ ,1..J
JOB LOCATION
T (' I"D/V'
CITY, STATE AND ZIP CODE
A- I . t".
JOB PHONE
STREET
ARCHITECT
F:.
, ....tl('...ul.f::'
*-
1:::;
.Jt ]')
__11--
,y..' ~'(,. /~ /
//1.. /./
I -. ~ f'
I..J~)// I
. .'1/ j hi/' ( \//.
k,<l, / /
r~.(j/ r.v
')
I '(/t
(~ Ie:{ ~ i.
.-! /",_-7
- . /I --
I
t-'
/ .1 ;(I!r (/1/ t'
If ,
I
;6, I ,/t/vJ""rlt ~I-
'--~_l'r" ..4Ih"I/
- (
/i~( /. f(~!t'~()
/ , ji
il /r"/L,/pll:.J JJ
/r(..)
I
('A/it} r'
c'ir
/./ "
..?y--r
/ 7
.
tJ/: / b
f.!
).
All material Is lluaranteed to be as speCified. All \\Iork to De completaa In a SUb.
stantlal workmanlike manner- accordlnll to specifications submitted, per standara
practlcas. Any alteration or deviation trom above specltlcatlons Involvlnll extra
costs will be axecutad onlY upon \\Irltten orders, ana \\1111 become an extra cn.,ge
over ana abova tne estlmata. All allraements contlnllent upon strikes, accidents or
aelays beyona Our contrOl. O\\lner to carry tire, tornado and otner necessary in.
surance. Our workers are fully coverea by Workmen's Compensation InSUrance.
daY$.
Authorized
Silnalur.
.PTANCE OF PROPOSAL Tne above prices, speclflcatlon$ ana condi-
t ara satisfactory and are nere y accepte . You ara autnorlzea to do tne \\Iork
as speCltled. Payment Will be mad as outlln above.
~;;/
~j
Silnatur -
(
,,~\
Dall of AectpllnCl:
Si&ntlur.
EXHIBIT A
No. 1031 (Rev. 1962)
RECEIPI' AND WAIVER OF MECHANICS' LIEN RIGHTS
N. B. It is important that the following directions be closely followed as otherwise the receipt
WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED.
I. This is a LEGAL INSTRUMENT and must be executed accordingly by officers of corporations
and by partners of co-partnerships.
2. It is important that ALL the blanks be completed and that the AMOUNT PAID BE SHOWN.
3. If payment is not in fuU to date, so state. SHOW UNPAID BALANCE, and strike out last
three lines.
4. A receipt similar to this or legal waiver of lien rights will be required for all plumbing, heating
and plastering material, etc.
5. NO ERASURES OR AL TERA nONS MUST BE MADE.
/7!~)'
. / (DATE)
C' .,~
19 /f"
,-
The Under/fned aCkn9~!e~ges. having receive/ p~>7ent of
(L~/.-t ,/;'/1/; ),1, ../ )'1 ,{- h;,/v,v (I"V?,! / k"c
(Amount Paid) / /
from <C-;TEi...'t..~.~ I )'/h-/ S~t /L/
" -) . I ' (Name of Payor)
all kC:...-j(n~/'(,li>;.....1
.
DOLLARS ($ (/?~/~:. I~:; )
in full payment of
(Kind of Material or Labor)
.-- /
- / { I [ ~ I' - '[ /- '. ,.-( ·
7I-/ ,';/ il -.;
/
by the undersigned delivered or furnished to (or perfonned at)
.7 j
/l:(::~[" t"c: '- .(.-'1 C ~l;//.'0;'~i _ //-t....-
(Streel Address or Legal Description)
and for value received hereby waives all rights which may have been acquired by the undersigned to file
mechanics' liens against said premises for labor, skill or material furnished to said Rremises prior to the
date hereof /;;/';;.i' /1 ,/.J . r' (.
. J c..'t,<-:r ;c/,....j.>-----. (~. il/t..-..<..: /I..
..--. - / /I
',',;.:.:' ~,,-A Nt') -:'1:- -
. .,
/' /~/:'L-FK
/It.-v (TITLE)_ ...- __~:. )i_.
By
PLUMBING, HEATING and PLASTERING
/7
[-.'6.', (1( r
contractors must sign statement on reverse hereof
Address
EXHIBIT B
\o~r.
DEC-2a-97 MON 23:37
INS-TENT CORPORAl'ION
, , , ," ,
AOVI\f'ICE~ A~'~ DESIGN
1600 29W $TREET i:
ClOQVEr MN 56720 '
." fa19~911.2 (218~ Sn:.2936 FAX
ce:
Fax:
~ ~WQ)~(C,~
P. €II 1
INVOice NUMBER:
513'
I,
"
PAGE:
12/31/97
1
" .
INVOICE OATE:
""
\':\,
SOLD TO: .
STEVEN'C. JOHNSON
. 0(;-
JUNCTION ANTIQUES
P.O. sOx 598
MONTIC~, ~ 55362
Ship To:
.. <~;
<\
. ::?~,::tl;:;';;l;i~;;;,,;~~~:=~~~~~~\t;'~;~;fil~~Jt~i;;:-~: ~;9~I~~.. .
.
.
EXHIBIT C
\p/3
.
.
.
EDA Agenda - 8/11/98
7.
Consideration to discuss awarding a certificate to applicants participating in DMRF
program and its criteria.
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Question One: Is the EDA interested in presenting a certificate to applicants participating
in the Downtown Monticello Revitalization Fund program?
1. One member felt to present a certificate to an applicant receiving a grant didn't
make sense.
2. If a certificate is presented perhaps the criteria should be: Only upon or after
disbursement of OMRF funds.
Question two: Is the City interested in presenting a certificate to downtown businesses
for participating in downtown redevelopment?
1. Not the discretion of the EOA.
7
.
.
.
EDA Agenda - 8/11/98
8.
Consideration to review the draft copy of the Facade Improvement Fundine
Procedure and it's purpose.
DAT drafted a first copy of the funding procedure and Ms. Koropchak made revisions for
draft two. The document enclosed is draft two which was reviewed by DAT. DAT's
revision is draft three which will be submitted at the EDA meeting.
Exhibit A - Draft two of the Facade Improvement Funding Procedure.
8
.
.
.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTIlORITY AND DESIGN ADVISORY TEAM D ., JlI!1e ~
FACADE IMPROVEMENT FUNDING PROCEDURE .. ,
Facade Funding: For information on the facade funding program or a copy of the funding guidelines and application
and design guidelines, please call or stop by City Hall (271~3208). City Hall will arrange a meeting date between the
property owner and representatives of the EDA and DA T to discuss the proposed improvements.
Initial Meeting: The owner can come with ideas, drawings, or plans. OAT will come with building history if available.
Owner decides if they want to proceed. If yes, the completed facade funding application is returned to City Hall for
review and forwarded to OAT. The application is added to the next DA T agenda. (DA T meets twice a month).
DA T Meeting: DA T meets Wednesday moming, twice a month, 9:00 a.m., in the City Hall Council Chambers. The
property owner is asked to be present to explain their proposed facade improvements and answer any DA T questioos.
The proposed. facade improvements are discussed and a vote taken at that meeting. If more information is needed, the
application may be tabled until the next DA T meeting.
Additionally, the owner is asked to come with drawings of the proposed improvements and two written contractor's
estimates. DAT will compare the proposed facade improvements with the design guidelines to see if the improvements
comply with the design guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan. Within the next week, DAT will furnish the property
owner and EDA with a copy of their design review, approval, and recommendation.
EDA Meeting: The EDA will vote to approve or disapprove the funding application at a special called meeting. The
EOA will consider the funding guideline criteria and the DAT design approval and recommendation. The distribution
of funds is the sole decision of the EDA.
Completion of facade improvements: If the funding application is approved, the owner has 270 days to complete the
approved. facade improvements. It is highly encouraged to complete the improvements on time as the distribution of
funds is on a first.come, first-serve basis through December 1998.
Funding disbul'lIement: After completion of the approved facade improvements, OAT will conduct a final assessment
of the completed improvements, usually on site. OAT will compare the completed improvements to the written
approved design recommendation and will forward a copy of the final assessment to the property owner and IDA
Documentation certifying payment of completed facade improvements should be turned into the City Hall for
verification and disbursement of the approved funds. The disbursement check is generally issued within a week to two
weeks.
Communication: Success for disbursement depends on good communication among all parties. The EOA and OAT
want to provide a smooth process to expedite the completion of your facade investment. If you have any questions,
p lease do not hesitate to contact any representative of the EOA or DA T .
EXHIBIT A
July 1998
~/\
• Notes DMRF Info Sheet
`~` DAT suggestions:
Print as a brochure which can be used to promote the program as well as provide information
on the process to prospective applicants.
Start with the purpose of the program-when and why established (i.e., started in (month) 1997
to encourage downtown Monticello property owners to invest in improvements on their
buildings.)
Since this is specific to facade improvements, note that interior rehab loans are also available.
Contact city for more information.
Note that the current program ends in Dec 1998, but may be continued beyond, at the
discretion of the EDA and City Council.
Include a map highlighting the qualifying area.
Include a schedule of DAT and EDA meetings. Note that EDA meetings are quarterly, but
special meetings are called as needed to review applications and conduct other business.
Include a paragraph on how the DAT and EDA make their decisions on applications: DAT uses
the design guidelines in the revitalization plan, pay attention to the integrity of the building, and
recognize that each building is different, additional EDA criteria apply.
Format as a check list of steps:
Step One: Application
The owner completes an application and submits it to the city (to the attention of the
Executive Director of the EDA)
Step Two: DAT Review
The application will be put on the agenda for design reivew at the next DAT meeting. If
at all possible, the owner should attend the DAT meeting to answer any questions that
arise.
The DAT makes a recommendation at its meeting. The recommendation is forwarded
to the EDA for review at its next meeting. A copy of the DAT design review form will be
sent to the applicant within one week of the meeting.
Step Three: EDA Review
The EDA meets to review the application and make a decision for approval or
disapproval. The decision of the EDA is final. (Is there an appeal process?)
.~
...
Step Four: Sign the Contract
The Executive Director of the EDA will contact you regarding your application prepare a
contract for your signature.
Step Five: Make Building Improvements
Make building improvements as submitted in your application. Be sure to obtain all
necessary permits..... The applicant has 270 days to complete the project. If you wish
to make changes to the application, contact ---- to schedule---
Step Six: DAT Review of Completed Project
Notify the DAT or EDA of completion. DAT will do a final review at its next regular
meeting. Its findings will be forwarded to the property owner and the EDA Executive
Director. If DAT deems project complete,
Step Seven: Payment
Submit documentation certifying payment of project expenses to EDA Executive
Director for verification and disbursement of funds.
r
•
~_,
.
.
.
EDA Agenda - 8/11/98
9.
Consideration of Executive Director's reDort.
A. DMRF No. 106 - The front, side, and rear facade improvement grant for 207 West
3rd Street to Dan and Andrea Olson was disbursed on July 27, 1998 in the amount
of$6,814.13. This was about $100 less than the estimated costs. DAT
determined the facade improvements were completed as approved and the
applicant had obtained a building permit.
Exhibit A - DAT Minutes - July 22, 1998
Exhibit B - Copy of check to Dan & Andrea Olson.
B. Ron Ruff - DAT has provided Mr. Ruff with some ideas for improvements to the
building occupied by Companion Pets.
9
.
.
.
\) '4~-
~\i
\ \J\ \Y'\0 \.QJ~
9'?-, \q<i g
to Highway 25 because that entrance sits at an angle, and the fact that two other higher
pylon signs are in the same vicinity, members felt that the height, size, and position of the
sign are are justified and appropriate.
SUSIE WOJCHOUSKI MOVED, AND RON HOGLUND SECONDED, TO APPROVE THE
SIGN AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
At this time, Ron Hoglund left the meeting.
n
\.:jconsideration of final aooroval of work on 207 West 3rd Street to authorize disbursement of
DMRF funds.
Members were satisfied that the work on the building for which DMRF funds were
authorized was complete and that the funds should be disbursed.
RITA ULRICH MOVED AND SUSIE WOJCHOUSKI SECONDED, TO APPROVE THE
WORK AS COMPLETED.
6. Consideration of final aooroval of work on 121 West Broadwav to authorize disbursement of
DMRF funds.
Members expressed concern that the black adhesive on the lower portion of the front
facade has not been removed and that this significantly detracts from the look of the
building. Because of this, they did not consider the project complete. Members also said
that they realized a lot of work has been done on the building and it was a great
improvement. They also recognized that there are some special circumstances related to
the building and that this was the reason the adhesive has not been removed. They
supported Mr Johnson's request for extensions for the east and rear facades of the building.
After further discussion, SUSIE WOJCHOUSKI MOVED, AND GAIL COLE SECONDED,
TO RECOMMEND THAT THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AUTHORIZE A
$2,000 PAYMENT AT THIS TIME, AND THAT THE REMAINING $500 OF THE
MATCHING GRANT BE PAYED AFTER THE ADHESIVE IS REMOVED, PROVIDED IT IS
REMOVED NO LATER THAN OCTOBER 15,1998. MOTION CARRIED.
7. Consideration of aooroval of information sheet on Facade Imorovement Fundina Procedure.
RITA ULRICH MOVED, AND PAM CAMPBELL SECONDED, TO TABLE THIS ITEM.
MOTION CARRIED.
8. Adiourn.
RITA ULRICH MOVED, AND PAM CAMPBELL SECONDED, TO ADJOURN. MOTION
CARRIED.
EXHIBIT A
q~
GEN CKS
CITY OF MONTICELLO
GENERAL FUND
250 EAST BROADWAY
MONTICEllO, MN 55362
75.1152
----g;g-
NO. 21754 .-.
MARQUETTE BANK - MONITCELL - -
P.O. BOX 729
MONITCELLO. MN 553S2
DATE CHECK NO.
07/27/1998 21754
SIX THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED FOURTEEN AND 13/100 DOLLARS
AMOUNT
$6,814.13
PAY TO
THE
ORDER
OF
DAN & ANDRA OLSON
207 WEST 3RD STREET
POBOX 265
MONTICELLO MN 55362
(:.::.:::>::::'r:) ~,. :;":/t'jl ";'~," ";~,:". - ,:::,"::}l
.............1. 'd( (jj,r,'u",-,'f...;..., u .
i::;.(:::::Y;~;::~:i~fi;:t~~ ::.;:;i:....::)
11'05 50g 511' I:Og.g. ~ 5221:
7 bOO O. 711'
250.46501.6602
DMRF #106 FACADE IMPR
6,814.13
.
TOTAL
6 814.1<:>
CITY OF MONTICEllO
EXHIBIT B
q~~