HRA Agenda 05-04-1989AGENDA
MONTICELLO HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Thursday, May 4, 1989 - 7:00 PM
City Hall
MEMBERS: Chairperson Al Larson, Ben Smith, Lovell Schrupp,
Everette Ellison, and Tom St. Hilaire.
STAFF: Rick Wolfsteller, Jeff O'Neill, and 011ie Koropchak.
GUEST: David Ficek, Scottvood Corporation.
1. CALL TO ORDER.
2. APPROVAL OF THE MARCH 22, 1989 and APRIL 4, 1989 HRA MINUTES.
3. CONSIDERATION TO HEAR MR. FICEK'S PROPOSALS FOR THE ELDERLY
TOWNHOUSE HOUSING CONCEPTS.
4. CONSIDERATION TO ADOPT THE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE HRA, THE EDA, AND THE CITY COUNCIL.
5. CONSIDERATION TO REVIEW AND ADOPT RELEASING THE TAR INCREMENT '
PLEDGE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE HRA AND THE CITY OF MONTICELLO.
6. CONSIDERATION OF A NOTICE OF THE CITY'S JOINT GOVERNMENTAL
UNITS MEETING.
7. CONSIDERATION OF AN UPDATE OF HRA PROJECTS.
8. CONSInVRATION TO SET UP AN ESCROW ACCOUNT FOR RESTORATION OF
TOPEL'S WESTERLY WALL.
9. OTHER BUSINESS. a
10. ADJOURNMENT.
MINUTES
MONTICELLO HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SPECIAL MEETING
Tuesday, April 6, 1989 - 7:00 AM
City Hall
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Al Larson, Lovell Schrupp, and
Ben Smith.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Everette Ellison and Tom St. Hilaire.
1. CALL TO ORDER.
The HRA Special meeting was called to order at 7:05 AM
by Chairperson Al Larson.
2. CONSIDERATION TO EXECUTE THE CONTRACT BETWEEN BDS, INC. AND
THE MONTICELLO ARA.
Koropchak presented the copy of the contract draft as prepared
by BDS, Inc. for and between the BRA and BDS, Inc. which
outlines the consultant's agreement for TIF proposals, loan
packaging proposals. TIF finance plans and TIF development
plans. Koropchak indicated that city staff had not reviewed
the contract yet. The HRA declined to execute the agreement
until city staff had a chance to review the contract and
make comment if necessary.
3. CONSIDERATION OF THE PARTY WALL AGREEMENTS BETWEEN O'CONNOR,
STELTON, AND TOPELS.
Koropchak updated the NRA members on the progress to
acquire the O'Connor and Stelton's property. Fred and
Dorthy Topel do not object to relinquishing the party
wall agreement however feel it is not their problem.
They will sign the release if 1) an easement is granted
for future maintenance and 2) the cost to repair the
exposed wall is determined and negotiated. According
to Gary DeBroar, representation for Ervin and Donna
Stelton, the Stalton's will not sign the party wall
release with O'Connor. O'Connor's property was not
demolished because of no party wall release. Joe
O'Connor has contracted with Viet 6 company for
demolition of the Monti Truck Repair for a bid of $3,500.
After some discussion the HRA requested Koropchak contact
Vaughn Viet for the potential to contract with the
City for demolition of the O'Connor property at the above
coat ($3,500), thereafter contact Joe O'Connor to negotiate
the remaining purchase price lose the Viet demolition cost.
This voids the need of the party wall release from Stalton's
at this time and allows the City to have Viet demolish
both structures at the same time.
BRA MINUTES - 4/4/89
3. CONTINUED.
Rick Nolfsteller reiterated the city attorney's opinion
that the party wall agreement is a flaw in the Stelton's
title. Mr. DeBroer indicated he can obtain title insurance
an the property. The HRA requested Koropchak obtain
two bids to repair the exposed portion of the westerly
wall of the Topel's property and thereafter negotiate
payment between the Steltons and Topels, the HRA being
involved only if necessary. The Topels are represented
by Ken Holker.
4. ADJOURNMENT.
The HRA special meeting adjourned by consensus of its members.
011ie Koropchak
HRA Executive Secretary
MINUTES
MONTICELLO HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, March 22, 1989 — 7:OO7M
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Al Larson, Lowell Schrupp. Ben Smith,
Everette Ellison, and Tom St. Hilaire.
CITY STAFF: Jeff O'Neill, Assist Administrator
011ie Koropchak, HRA Director
GUEST: David Ficek. Scottwood Corporation
1. CALL TO ORDER.
The HRA meeting was called to order at 7:03PM by Chairperson
Al Larson.
2. APPROVAL OF THE FEBRUARY 1 AND FEBRUARY 21. 1989 HRA MINUTES.
A motion was made by Lowell Schrupp to approve the February 1
and February 21, 1989 HRA minutes, seconded by Ben Smith,
the minutes were approved unanimously as vritten.
3. CONSIDERATION OF A DISCUSSION WITH POTENTIAL DEVELOPERS ON THE
QUALITY ELDERLY TOWNHOUSE CONCEPT.
Chairperson Al Larson summarized the development process of the HRA
goal for higher quality elderly housing close to downtown
with a townhouse concept. The information introduced David
Ficek of Scottvood Corporation to the HRA'$ objectives.
Mr. Ficok presented his concept and site plane of townhouse
models based on projects in Roseville, Columbia Heights, and the
proposed project in Princeton. The uniqueness of townhouses
is individual ownership and maintenance free exterior. Mr.
Ficek outlined that the general townhouse model is 1,198
square feet with double garage, full basements, quality carpet (113),
solid oak cabinets, 10 ft living room tailing, excellent
insulation, first floor laundry, irrigation system, and
formal or informal dining room. Options are deluxe bathroom,
fireplace and three season porch on portion of 12 x 12 deck.
Mr. Ficak informed the HRA that in the metro area this concept
would market for approximately $90,000 and in Princeton for
approximately $72,500. Mr. Ficak informed the HRA the assistance
provided by the NRA is passed through to the consumer by
the developer and is a benefit to the buyer and the rate of
return is the same for the developer. Example: if the
HRA assisted in demolition and soma land cost writedown this
could be a reduction of $8,000 par unit sold. The example
was given by estimated land values in Princeton. The consensus
of tho NRA was the Mr. Ficok's concept coincides with that
of the HRAs and encouraged Mr. Ficak to view the site options
selected by Ben Smith. Al Larson, and Jeff O'Neill. Mr.
O'Neill or Koropchak will contact Mr. Fizak. Mr. O'Neill
presented a map of the site options to the HRA along with
a partial list of property owners and market values which
HRA Minutes — 3/22/89
3. CONTINUED.
will be completed for the next HRA meeting.
4. CONSIDERATION TO REVIEW TIF POLICIES AND PROCEDURES.
Mr. Pat Pelstring summarized the Tax Increment Policies and
Procedures in three categories: 1) Public purpose which are
subjective uses for the use of TIF or the inverse of why
deny the use of TIF. 2) Policy Guidelines are standard
issues on how to proceed or what are the recommended structure
for TIF assistance, and 3) Internal Procedures which specifies the
standard TIF sfocess. Mr. Pelstring elaborated Policy Guidelines
stating theyes andards and are not locked in recommendations.
Additions or corrections made: a) All shells shall be changed
to mays, b) Rate to be set by the HRA and up for review, c)
first offer should include loan if available project increment,
4) office/commercial projects include accepted area market
values and market rate interest, 5) housing project loan
demostrate to the HRA that the benefits are passed through
in reduced rents and/or purchase costs. The excess increment
monies from the combination of the seven TIF Districts is
for small projects unable to support themselves or to eliminate
blight without a planned development. All TIF projects are
strongly recommended to stand on their own. Policy Guidelines
No. 2, maximum is changed to standard terms and amortized
from 8 to 13 years with length of 25 years. No. 3, is a
standard guideline. No. 4, site preparation and improvement,
are hard surface of parking late included in site improvements, this is
case by ease review by bond counsel and generally are considered
if the parking lot is used as an access for the general public.
No. 5 and 6 are Statutory purposes.
Mr. Pelstring informed the HRA that the first Internal Tax
Increment Financing Procedures draft was modeled after
the City of Woodbury who has no personnel with the knowledge of TIF.
The second draft presented includes more responsibility
by the Monticello city staff. Jeff O'Neill presented a written
outline of pros and cone from his and the City Administrator's
precaption on why to contract withBDS for the internal procedures.
The outline was presented to the HRA and the HRA Director
at this late time. BUS has certified 15 TIF districts in
Vadinas Heights, is used as a support group for company
services and is a Small Business Development Grant writer.
Mr. Pelatring indicated the proposed fee schedule would
need to be revised, suggested a trial basis contract with a
30 day withdrawal notice. Everette Ellison made a motion
to contract with BUS. Inc. for a one year trial basis for
BUS to develop a strategy for finance plan development with
City Staff support to be determined by Mr. Pelstring and
City staff. Motion was seconded by Tom St. Hilaire and
passed unanimously. Horopchak expressed her disappointment
HRA Minutes — 3/22/89
in the HRA members for the lack of consideration on her
position to contract with BUS. She expressed that DDS in a
fine company, huvever, telt the city was spending unnecessary
monies to duplicate functions that had been performed by
herself and to her knowledge without a complaint. She
continued to express that the Administration had not once
approached her to discuss this issue. Further, she had
been given the administrative role of the HRA by the
previous Administrator and has worked hard to learn the
role which is apparently changing.
5. CONSIDERATION OF AN UPDATE ON THE RELINgUISHING OF THE PLEDGE
AGREEMENT AND REFINANCING OF THE DISTRICT GENERAL OBLIGATION
BONDS.
&oropchak updated the HRA on the statue of refinancing
the Tax Increment G.O. Bonds/loan funds as directed through
a motion by the HRA. Rick Wolfateller contacted £pringsted,
Inc. for their opinion of the refinancing to advise the
City Council of Springsted's opinion as he assumed would be
their first question. A summary of Springsted's opinion
is "it does not appear the City's outstanding tax increment
debt can be advance refunded at this time and meet the
statutory requirements of realising a 3Z present value level
of savings. Since the individual districts have now been
combined, there does not appear to be a need to consolidate
debt into one issue as increment should now be able to be
shared. The City and HRA should review their pledge agreements
to ascertain the necessity of continuing the 1502 level of
debt service coverage and/or reserves. Bond counsel should
review the consolidation process to insure all necessary
hearings and amendments have been met so that any new
debt will continue to meet statutory requirements."
6. OTHER BUSINESS.
Roropchak updated the HRA on the progress of the Modified
TIF District 12 stating 1) the HRA has purchased the Jones
building, 2) the party wall agreement between Steltons
and Topols has not been resolved, 3) Staltons are holding
off on relinquising the party wall agreement between
O'Connor and Steltons, 4) the HRA has not signed Cho
contract with Vaughn Volt for the demolition of the
Jones and Stelton properties, and 5) Broadway Square
Limited has not boon notified of final approval for
FmHA funding. Topels are agreeable to relinquishing
the party wall agreement, however, the cost to restoro
the extortor wall after demolition has not been
determined nor to whom shall pay the restoration costs.
Broadway Square Limited will grant a five foot casement
to Topele for future wall repair.
7. ADJOURNMENT.
By consensus of the HRA, the meeting adjourned.
01A,' Kd%o Q c•\-t�9y�
011ie Roropchak, HRA Executive Secretary
3. CONSIDERATION TO HEAR MR. FICEK'S PROPOSALS FOR THE EDLERLY
TOWNHOUSE HOUSING CONCEPTS.
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND.
On April 7, Mr. Ficek, Jeff O'Neill, Ben Smith, and Koropchak
drove around and observed the designated areas previously
determined as potential sites for the elderly townhouse
housing concept. Mr. Ficek was given market values and
tax information for the above described properties.
Mr. Ficek has prepared a couple preliminary proposals for
your review which will be enclosed in this agenda or will
be presented at the meeting.
4. CONSIDERATION TO ADOPT THE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE HRA, THE EDA, AND THE CITY COUNCIL.
To be presented by Jeff O'Neill.
177JO / /, / 96q
dMUs/d4 !,QFdEv6-G004Gr17- AtilfiPir[//Y
.. /11dNT/GE�o /1t /w/,rl6�oTifl
7349- F Z-40AI .1 /r¢o cas.¢c. /s ,#e L—d y Oa B/1l//7-" `D - e
y0!/R Rel//L--&j ? CONfiO&-iQ,j)7ON, /T /J VOI- /�f4'F 0 Z -Y
cewc For- T�,00w j Y ATS F6�1,9tE.
'r fi6+'L/6d6 /l /s oir 4OC4 BOi9/CO5 Mere/ iVT TD 004Ri¢oe
*I/.I IA1 j /.1/ JO4W A"; -J, ';� Oe1OA17Y 4E/N4j TO
;s.9Tli�Yf N/ 4 e av /,d'E MiBCrtrT, siL2i�/t/ic GY p9volAV ►
Fae Ti;,IF- 55 .6'4E Q�ia a, ,ys ra slAriP�Cl tba • &-t-Oiw,
.7,y4A-T 4ow-c /J �9cy/6d6ip.006, �toag cu/rJ/ /VnWr,ift4y
NM29d3 of .fGt 046.3,
i
¢8 J/A/4C E GBI/L-Z TLu/�/iSb/s+tr3
I J J/,1/g4E F.MI/LY-J/NkGF GE'ao-Z iyfD�Ii6�3
%Z 2 JTa.QY 7awN/y&A4C5
. �7�/3 l�/B�i AVJr'Of/L f/ Q�FtrR.7 /A�F�iQ4O.0/G li'f' , d'!/T AlJO
,,a!/A14 STYLE Cb/o/ct3, r ifs 6%C fl" 4W&I r- D/dCuJS/AI(/
,�/J �i¢OODt�F1. AR✓0 G�X�Lo�' A/!/ .IiCJF,LV/tl7l/63, l�o!/� 7%.�
COA/J/eNR6tl70N OSE Q/¢q,�FF000 y /9+�/et�=l/�/�rTQ.
�I
. , sco�Tu/ooe Oo/P/oR.v�r/c�J
,Qf(E Z
�i�bN .!6✓/e.Zlsiu� J/s'F .�.tO/E.�T163 �wJ ePVd-3nON, IOY
.CEce/lt/�+EwMi31iLW5 fCit �EG�DEUtrZOI°/��ENT Aetr 4W-Af-O
VW 77Yer IV4Low/41!j A-fSdo RAIZ SIJ
/. /F06T/EZOP .r/� O/t ie/c/S w/Ct ,6e 'Ae-7/pnV,
2. F✓NQ3 u// [ C C6 /lLAA6 ip//i¢/c lC6 Xy'eu /Ois
-! BOND .a.40c6�As su/GC BE uJtrV Fo.R 01111.OIA14
urfino v d �CEZ&,fV70-AJ mR d63r,Cac174M , ^tO
�• OEY6za/�. .�s��L .etz�ve= saii/c/E•vT
AjFO"b--Z4oO ev;- �",4/S r,Rtwer 1v A4vl AMe 4'iF
CNsri¢GG/f%lo� aF 017411!675 dr.CGZ�J3, cv4.B,
7WYs3;-E ASWes' CO0L4 4&r 1AJ r4W- liipeW
Y
o� A, ,¢. You d' 046WAOe10.
S. O6rJEzo/°N� Jittozi- orWw 3 y6/1se- 6;R--4uJ/GI5
�Pcgr ro .pu �.PVI°EiP�Y iN
. , visrzJcr(s),
6. j7E!/ELo/�E7QG �E OEtr� J7f/S�i9/e�7d r
.OW 7,,Ps c.GWs>"- ,.1ZOAJ .OWd
SUBS6Qva�vr cceSruy ,pccd¢envy 1a >7L'�/OPIJ�SEd
, p67/trZpoA'+E,1/lr JG�IJlE.
1444 /�
' � , /W ,j'SSCej,NToN CfvLL Q6' �Q/I�rZJ � � RC`'�iPoNfi.QC6 �.e
/. E�Oi! JWLO/�/y /11if'i'.f//7�iAJyw�L6
cAWW ! 4Rovuol O%OeE
! .R show .ocouimov
,B. 6XJSa OAi r ,QB A7/ilf//�i�diAv[Er FiQtr-Sr us/.vl� ~.*1OVv*(
,! a/D/�vy, Fsf•c/R, � SOF�ir
.C. 4Rouv0 J � �6 uv,Oc�t q.Qo�aO rtes/,yrlo.V sYfla�t �
tr�lax�iv6' ZflovASefAiAW.
,414E 9
R �.�DidiDurtt sc¢✓icos CGil � , rZezTRrc, � Fr..,t�r., i cu�RJ.
� E. /�iQltS4� E�cYsvi➢.dcG ra /�u.0/viOuAc. utiil;
. i DEscArPTlays
s/Nq a cEvtrz lDu�.v�.b/ftE
. z. eEo.aecnt
z CAC 6Ae4,1 c
12M :r. - u✓i vy A
JL.AB a+N !iR/Fd� oR fiitc d�JE�AtFMr (.,mmnlezv 1o&v~)
4elc— �A.sae — 69sa9
AVOf erEr: ss t e"av-
z
2 t 2
r t 2 c.1.e aAas
/!oo d /rf¢ aq. Fr - t/vi.✓4 iA�t�
Jr.AvOa•¢O / Fteo/e- AZAWs
. ifSl. San
, /1t,�itrar r EmD�Y .v6srs�s -� A4�s
. � ?i.� c6 �.�� ! I/eaNy ces•�ctr3
I1lN [6 �i�Al/l.y �J/dam �U/'J d / C6L6ZJ
Z Z' BG--J"PAtZ
Z CAA. 4A&44o 6W*141412)
/4040 - /¢eo 047.001-77 - ~lr,*d /8 "41/uti 4Meg
casrein / tbTa /,uit�¢/o�t�
'� Pi4./cs r �6 S, aav - 408, eeo
/r6r SS
� e�tPlY �raaea
f
RSO E01 -7.&A ovT IVAO/et/Y
P,vdm 8
inw,vE3olA! 6 —
,,sv�
. tea- D
m.POcs t ¢'t
I -/NA) t 5 -
141946 f
za AIA44 cF ZZYIeZ Tetrads 3 ~MS
/& Z ssv" ✓awws
/v S/.V4 LC 46Y6 -z- lvWNJ
/2 flAI416
B Z O'."y TtvaV5 4 7 ASwJE3
¢B 2 .r Ay TD1wN3
-d&d4X /I/ co&e-d ea- .eerrww".
8. -VA COAOrlVi rY, 10/1 (o, 7, < 154Wr' �: eF OOCI e
.. .v-.� elp9vie At S si�Lo- FA.or/GY
¢. d,"*We6r dF 9�EB, /A1GL[/OiAJij GLoeK f=, e04144 d6'
5/N4 [ &' LEYeY IOWA/.S.
/. Ot=ve20P 2 - Z STeRY �PLe�7c /awA/S
4drs 9, ¢ is-, ozoex $-if Ayv4 LO/S 91 /O, Armee 5-5-
rd
STd ,QS S�fve4 d er wfe, QIF Me e a&a t AW,-,iiQ ea..
LOcosr 1T. ce7uL0 d6 il*cAw'apt B6774,ot-&;v
,B4.Oc rs S� ! SS, wA"vc*- aVVi-O *UAW FaQ A
AO" 4oO;PYOvr OF fi40/Of E'Z7 J/A.<L 9
4&V Z- rVW4/S.
1
.� D
/, tors 6 17, e4 oc.- 20 fovo L.Or3 9 t /O , erne,- Z
ra /et-,A*IAI
Z. 4--1 o tlnl ae o, .d Pe iwe&, %- z -4w d rm df- Oe=dezza�� p
A3 S/,tIIILE LEdEL rosv�VS.
7
/. ,es-myw Lor ¢ dcet,�c /O dtr�ufer ma v".fScas
z, QsV&zaod cels i 2 9,40S A3 si ur, c 6 /11ILY ro
X267 .-j i CeyVri vulTY .
.�. r7,t-- 3 cors OeOlINe cars .� ¢, t s cvov44 zzwd
TI�E�nsFzvss M /- 2sre►o-F-r 9oiex YaWAI,
Ioee�v- F
I. .e6cecAr� rives a „vpusri¢,dc Oa=Yvzop�rr6wr
- z_ co�vsocio�rs /Ka *r- carFt.vvr i s ��vt a s ae
8. j,/4ch fv- S 4,WAV IA/ rA'6- mvT4*40 Ase4—* — rW-f
w"t0 ,YLaoaj 6Axw~ Ftdwvdle,ry ,Al APAw- oevpoi.
q4 oEl/ELv.o 6 - B PLcu 2 Sr& Td�tvnCt
,1
., BY svm" r* vevvdcY PC -V&7 -0,001A,4
„IW14041Y ,ea 067L-AMIAI" 7'YL- AV4ff 4 STYLE BP t/I/IMV
. I �7WFT 171'�r CeAI AlGtt/I i1� AL`+'3/�b'S.
'I
ilrFrc,4 flaal�v� eur u�r rkr r Is, j,� .eea�iAu/•wy
IA9RL6ZS S//%Uc 0 .d ar 4Wd 4oe6r-, /�IBGe* /.v alA,A
�i20� UCr 3/Yb!/G0 �� OrsYeZU/o6T0.
•I
0
.623- ur VOL JVQ
sru(.Lq
5. CONSIDERATION TO REVIEW AND ADOPT RELEASING THE TAX INCREMENT
PLEDGE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE HRA ADN THE CITY OF MONTICELLO.
A. REFERENCE AO BACRGFrnrND
The HRA's priority is that each newly created Tax Increment
Finance District should be solely supportive. However,
some time ago the HRA hired BDS, Inc. to begin research
for possible means for excessive funds which would allow
the HRA benefits for the ability to eliminate blighted
area without a proposed redevelopment project or to
assist with small projects which are deemed beneficial
to the City. The f fret step in that direction was the
adoption of a resolution by the HRA and the City Council
of which one part was the combining of the individual
TIF Districts which incorporated all separate TIF districts
into one district for the purpose of sharing growth among
financing districts.
The second step was the recommendation by Dougherty Dawkins
to the HRA that additional funds could be obtained by
1) releasing the Pledge Agreements for Districts 3, S. and
6 between the HRA and the City; and 2) refund the three
outstanding tax exempt bond issues. Recommendation from
Springsted Incorporated (City bond counsel) was that
it did not appear the City's outstanding tax increment
debt can be advance refunded at the time and meet the
statutory requirements of realizing a 3% present value
level of savings and since the individual districts
have been combined, there does not appear to be a need
to consolidate debt into one issue as increment should now
be able to be shared. At this time City Staff gives
no recommendation to proceed with refunding of tax
exempt bond issues.
However, City Staff to recommonding the HRA and the City
review their pledge agreements to ascertain the necessity
of continuing the 1501 level of debt service coverage
and/or reserves. Based on the awarding resolutions
and provisions of Minnesota Statutes, there to no require-
ment for maintaining ouch o level of security. The
statutas require that incomo for debt be at least 105%
of the required payment of debt. This is a protection
to the City and the bondholder in the event there is
a shortfall of revenue duo to nonpayment of taxes or
non -generation of revenues. This coverage is standard
for every bond tsetse of the City. To the extent such
level of revonuo is not anticipated, the City to required
to levy a tax for the difference or appropriate such
an amount from ovai lable funds. It is Springstod's
understanding the 1502 lovel of coverage is based on
5. CONTINUED.
agreements entered into between the City and the HRA.
Since this level of security has not been pledged to
the bondholders. such a level could be reduced back
to the statutorily required level of 105% if the City
desires and the HRA agrees.
Mr. Wolfateller will present at the HRA meeting an
account of each District and the potential amount
of excess funds. Staffs intent is to review each
pledge agreement and the HRA adopt a resolution
approving the release of the Pledge Agreements
and requesting the City to review and release
the pledge agreements between the City and the
HRA.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS.
1. Adopt the resolution approving the release of the
Pledge Agreements and request the City Council review
and consider the release of the pledge agreeeents
between the City and the HRA.
2. Denial to adopt the resolution approving the release
of the pledge agreements.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
Staff recommends alternative /1.
D. SUPPORTIVE DATA.
Copy of a pledge agreement.
64
i.
TAR INCREMENT PLEDGE AGREEMENT
by and between
THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
and
THE HOUMG AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
IN AND FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MDIiNESOTA
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into on or as of the 7th day of
Max , 1984, by and between the City of Monticello, MrMesota (the
"City T), and The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of
Monticello, Minnesota (the "Authority').
WHEREAS, the Authority established Central Monticello Redevelopment
Project (the "Project"), prepared the Central Monticello Redevelopment Plan (the
"Plan") for the Project, and approved the Plan on November 23, 1982, and has since
approved Modification No. I to the Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City approved the Plan on December 13,
1982, and has since approved Modification No. 1 to the Plan; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to authority conferred by Minnesota Statutes, Section
273.77, and Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475, the City has agreed to finance
certain public redevelopment costs to be Incurred by the Authority in the Project
through the issuance of general obligation bonds of the City, designated the
$155,000 General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1984, and hereinafter
y referred to as the "Bonds"; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has agreed to pledge certain tax increment
revenues to the City for the payment of the principal of and Interest on the Bonds;
and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.77(a), any
agreement to pledge tax Increment rovenues must made by written agreement
by and between the Authority and the City and must be filed with the County
Auditor of Wright County;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City and the Authority mutually agree to the
following+
(1) The City will sell the Bonds.
(2) The proceeds from the sale of the Bonds and the earnings from
the investment of such proceeds will be made available to the Authority to
pay or reimburse the Authority for public redevelopment costs paid,
incurred, or to be paid or Incurred, by the Authority in the Project.
(3) All tax increment generated by the Project, from and after
the date of this Agreement shall be deposited In a special fund (the "Project
Fund") held by the Authority. The Authority hereby pledges to the payment
of the principal and interest on the Bonds, tax increment from the Project
Fund in an amount equal to 105% of the annual principal and Interest due on
the Bands
(4) Not later than five (5) business days prior to each February 1
and August 1 debt service payment date for the Bonds, there shall be
transferred from the Project Fund to the Debt Service Account maintained
by the City for the payment of the Bonds, an amount which, when taken
together with amounts already on deposit in the Debt Service Account, is
equal to the payment of principal and interest next due on the Bonds. If at
any time the Project Fund contains an amount -in excess of the amount to be
transferred to the Debt Service Account maintained by the City for the
payment of the Bonds on the following two debt service payment dates
(excluding debt service payment dates for which interest Is payable from
proceeds of the Bonds deposited in the Debt Service Account), then such
excess amounts shall be available to the Authority to pay or reimburse the
Authority for public redevelopment costs paid, incurred, or to be paid or
incurred, by the Authority in the Project.
(5) Without regard to anything in this Agreement to the contrary,
tax increment generated by the Project shall be available to pay principal of
and Interest on both the Bonds and any other obligations issued by the City,
Authority or any other public body to finance public redevelopment costs
paid or incurred by the Authority in the Project.
(6) When the entire public redevelopment costs of the Project
have been paid and all principal and Interest on the Bores and other
obligations issued to finance the public redevelopment costs of the Project
have been paid, and the City has been reimbursed from collections of tax
increment from the Project for collections of general ad valorem taxes used
to pay principal of and interest on the Bonds, then the Authority shall report
such fact to the City Council of the City and the Authority shall submit a
final statement of such payments. Upon audit of this statement and
approval thereof by the City Council, the payment of the expenditures of
the Authority in the Project shall be reported to the County Auditor of
Wright County.
(7) An executed copy of this Agreement shall be filed with the
County Auditor of Wright County pursuant to the requirement contained in
Minnesota Statutes, Section 275.77(a).
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and the Authority have caused this
Agreement to be duly executed on their behalf and their seals to be hereunto
affixed and such signatures and seals to be attested, as of the day and year first
above written.
A "�W_—J—
City
J -City Administrator
(SEAL)
ATT
L—Zakotery
(SEAL)
CITY DELLO --_
By��'_
Mayor
THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
AUTTP O IN AND FOR THS
CIT F NTIC M OT
By
Chelema rr
MEMO
T TO: THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
FROM: OLLIE ROROPCHAR, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DATE: THURSDAY, APRIL 27, 1989
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A NOTICE FOR THE CITY'S JOINT
GOVERNMENTAL UNITS MEETING.
i
j At the Industrial Development Committee's April meeting,
the members targeted Monday, June 5. 1989 as the date for
the joint meeting between the Planning Commission, the
Housing and Redevelopment Authority, the Economic Devel-
opment Authority, the Industrial Development Committee,
the City Council, and the City Staff. As you may recall,
a similiar meeting was held last June at the Fire Hall
and the response received from the participants was
positive. The intent of the meeting is to encourage
cooperative efforts between the local governmental units
which will enhance the future of the City of Monticello.
Please consider the date. June 5, respond and/or place it
on your calendar. Although, the time and place was not
established I'm assuming an evening meeting at the Fire
Hall. You will receive a notice and agenda prior to i
the meeting.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
0
8. CONSIDERATION TO SET UP AN ESCROW ACCOUNT FOR THE RESTORATION
OF TOPEL'S WESTERLY WALL.
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND.
The HRA having received the extinquishment of the party wall
agreement from Fred and Dorothy Topel via a quit claim deed,
it was the Staff's recommendation that the HRA open an escrow
account (interest bearing 5.52) at Wright County State Bank
in the name of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority for
$4,500. This monies for the restoration of the westerly wall
of Topel's building. The HRA has conveyed a ten foot easement
to the Topel's for future maintenance and the BRA has
received a easement consent agreement from Jim Metcalf.
As a bank requirement of procedure to open such an account
for an association a bank resolution was needed. Under
Part A. the HRA needs to approve Fred E. Topel and Olive
M. Koropchak as signatures to release the monies In the
escrow account. The bank accepted the May 4, 1989 date.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS.
1. To adopt the bank resolution electing Fred E. Topel and
Olive M. Koropchak as determined to be qualified to
order payment of money and withdraw funds from this
organizations account.
2. To deny adoption of the said above bank resolution.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
City staff recommends Alternative /1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA.
Copy of the agreement.
Copy of the bank resolution.
t'
COVPARTY WALL RELEASE AGREEMENT
E
WHEREAS, Fred fY and Dorothy A. Topel (Topels) are :he owners of Lot 6,
Block 51, City of Monticello, Wright County, Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, the Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) is the
fee owner of Lot. 5. Block 51, City of Monticello, Wright County, Minnesota;
and
WHEREAS, the HRA intends to demolish the building on Lot 5; and
WHEREAS. Lot 5 and 6 are subject to a common or party wall agreement
obligating the owners thereof to share certain obligations regarding
maintenance of said party wall; and
WHEREAS, the pertiea are desirous of terminating said party wall
agreement.
NOW THEREFORE, it Is agreed to by and between the parties as follows:
1. Topela shall execute a Quit -Claim Deed in favor of HRA covering Lot
g and expressly releasing NRA from the terms of the party wall agreement.
2. HRA shall deposit in an interest-bearing account in the name of
Topels requiring both Tope16 a d ths.HRA's signature, the sum of $4.500.00.
3• Topels shall, within 30 days of the demolition of the building on
Lot 5. resurface the wall formerly subject to the party wall consistent with
the existing siding on that part of the wall on the building located on Lot 6
which extends above the common wall.
0. HRA shall grant to Topela an easement across that portion of Lot 5
described in the attached Quit -Claim Deed for wall maintenance.
5. Upon completion of the resurfacing of the wall described in
paragraph 3 herein. the funds held in the intereat-bearing account shall be
released to Topels. In the event Topela fail to complete the resurfacing
�s A ¢ �
qo Ast
within 80 days, the HRA shall be entitled to use the funds held in the
Interest-bearing account to resurface the wall to the HRA's specifications
without further liability of Topels.
DATED: _" I—, \ . \ Ck % q
MONTICELLO HOUSING 6 REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
BY:�\ZfN.\<d%at, .X�
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) as.
COUNTY OF WRIGHT )
DATED:./
�, "'et ��_o
RED f. TOPEL
DOROTHY TOPEL
Subscribed and sworn to before me this erday of MOq , 1989, by
oL,wt .*• W.,a•O.LId , on behalf of the Monticello Housing 6 Redevelopment
Authority.
gICNAgD MIOIFSTEILER �
�_ �1• NOTAiIY PUF0.IC—MINNESOTA G2�
WRKiNT COUNTY �f c �
M.YCT.M cvp JUt7E I• •e.•.. NOTARY PUBLIC,
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ea.
COUNTY OF WRIGHT )
Subscribed and sworn to before me this L day of 014i , 1989. by
Fred A. Topel and Dorothy A. Topel.
0 -'C� RCHARD NOTARY PUBLJ0_M1lj ESOTq A
MYOOMLt W 999 JUNE 111, tNOTARY PUBLIC
y
I�
RESOLUTION OF LODGE, ASSOCIATION OR OTHER SIMILAR ORGANIZATION
T0; Wright County State Bank
Iff. MONTICELLO ROUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORI
Itu.n Y Ana al Mw.Yeri
Orwn w beam. Aawenb. w &MOW 09mabeaf
790
tAea.t
250 East Broadway
IAeweea
_Mlmeicell0_MH_35362__
Monticello. MN 55362
Mr. Mau mu Zu Caen
W4 sub an Ito cont
Oaq; May 1. 1989
Feft LD, ronnber: 411-28-2974
A. At a np Lv w1P 89 . w.niCh a nwant
4
pwaa,adu wMvvorw" tha Mm property ww and 680
611w to W tluaddW:
Uma nom Signed n Fecsh 4SiPlwre
00.
Fred E. Tooel
Olive M. Rorouchak HRA Director
B. it ctraad, undr the edea of der ory Wratlon ntnw atnw. er pmnps gaze atoll MW
❑ II I Opmn deoWL saw all tlrainp mo.M In the nanr of Wer
pk~ of aWwlgO OPIUM nWhd for Oft popdw:
ri
Oryanuww. wad nd t� O.pan4ulpn to the a.n+a and mrwool
of erry rererw somuro own -o ua
' IMWYp try nods repwdlrq a Moot
U)IIIenadb. aw Man to dr pern.rm or awry ane eidormw
a trwn thsotPudalliw.i Wer ntm an depoah.Ma as Rnnnal
In "mociLdden"
dwltutbn. This AnaMY Inadmio. iIv Ou- Ods O.pwigtbn for
fawwror.udgdsdrpnw.Mnabeaep.twaupo.:
W IM4t, dmu a cow Ach Were, for dq pavrmm of toothy dawn
On o14 AnaMYIna111pIp11, raparduMOwweanaw.wan rwna
0 Tal War Into a nfdM WM At ter pu�Dosa of rMdrp tier ma'ullMrp
a!all oepoeb eea In mla W+antlal1MbWdW
OM apt Wm0 UncwWt1qp hcabnJe aipnwwmal rosy her tmlM YaMe.
b loop r they taaernw the apmmN tpedrner.a tlrlcMrdlrq any
hch++i4 slplwn apsH I rhe, appear in mectlon A. ant eonaln
N~ at auNaltw papaw nouln0 togainatceu and to arndnate
am proper number of au0orlted OPIUM for 014 mm m.
the wdrten tmm t
C. Tho moMlon ewaM ell Drier Motut a on the wiN pia Rnwm 4f MUMIen anti Cud eonl wm to Iun .Katt baa e1prMm wdWn notice of In MOM on
o. IM flitafon hn Wen rmuhmd, mordw attd wmm+MdWo by Wer RIMY b bmia .
^ E. x l Yn �n..'t'Lc►
Td rnr .
AFRX SEAL MERE
twwm w a anamra
`
x CtioA,.
tAam w awoen
x Y
x
IigMaw w AM" oaten RIa•esae er
asera." Dawn t1Pw.seee a mm" otwat
o III eatRLn Pgtnn. W— It MOM YY OW P" OM WaS
C
REASONS FOR AND AGAINST UTILIZATION OF BPS SERVICES
SERVICE PROVIDED: Data Preparation, Processing and certification of newly established
or amended Tax Increment Financing District. Preparation of development
and assessment agreement is an additional $850.
Includes assistance with finance plan development.
BUSINESS DEVEuOFNB+T SERVICES I IN-HOUSE
COST $3,850
No payment unless a deal is
consummated .
Cost of BDS services folded
into project costs.
TIF funding pays the full
cost of TIF plan development
Smaller projects may be done
by City Staff with SDS updating
TIF project area balance sheet.
If a project finance plan is
unable to support consultant
fees. the project may remain
entirely in-house
PERFORMANCE
SOS fully capable of
performing service noted
above. Breadth of experience
possessed by BOS principals
creates added dimension to
Mont. Econ. Development Efforts.
EXPERIENCE/STAFF TRAINING
BDS highly experienced in
combining various financing
tools in developing finance
plan. Provides a conduit for
latest Econ. Dev. techniques
and innovations.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff time at =13.21/hour
Payment made with or
without a consummated deal.
City staff services may also
be folded into project cost,
but only if a project proceeds.
If project does not proceed,
recovery of staff costs
associated with TIF program
development efforts is
not possible.
Time spent in this area
diminishes time necessary for
successful completion of projects
that can only be done by staff.
List of projects vital to development
of comprehensive economic development program.
- Promotional materiel
- Development of 1 - 5 year plan
- Development of Marketing Strategy
- Execution of Marketing Strategy
- Revolving loan fund administration
- Industrial Development Committee Projects
Current staff fully capable
of performing service noted
above.
City staff trained in application
of various financing tools.
Experience In applying various
financing methods is limited.
City staff ,_, '.. _. -e will
profit from ccntinuod exposure
to 803 service and ideas.
Rick recommends utilization of SDS on a trial basis. SOS services to be
to be used as follows:
Sma11 Projecta: SOS acts as support to City Staff - 809 paid by the hour. If 1S.eo
b
Medium to Large Project: 809 develops strategy for finance plan development
with the direct support of City Staff. SOS ren mmerated
per, the contract submitted.
Business Dave)opment Semen hx.
M E M G R A N D U M •��
TOs ' O. Roropchak,iJ. O'Neil and R. Wolfateller
City of Monticello
FROM: P. Pelstring, Business Development Services, Inc.
DATE: February 21, 1989
REs TIF POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
I have prepared a draft of HRA policies and procedures for Tax
Increment Pinancing assistance as discussed by the Authority at
their February meeting.
These policies are organised as follower (1) Program Purpose,
(2) Policy Considerations --for HRA project evaluation, (3) Policy
m Guidelines --recommended structure for TIF assistance, and (4)
Internal Procedures --specifies standard TIF process.
The Policy Considerations are subjective criteria which the HRA
can utilise for the evaluation of projects. These criteria are
purposely more philosophical in nature, to provide for the
appropriate review and discussion of the project.
The Policy Guidelines address the typical structures which will
be utilised to fund each type of project. These guidelines
provide flexibility for the overall structure of the project.
Moet importantly, they draw a distinction between providing
"subsidised• assistance for manufacturing verses other types of
commercial or housing projects. Generally, TIP assistance
would be structured as a loan, unless the write down simply
brings the project down to competitive market terms. We should
review the consequences of this policy in light of your
continuing discussions with developers.
The internal procedures do presume a continued relationship with
our firm and the Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority.
This relationship would be consistent with the contractual
proposal presented at the earlier HRA meeting.
Please review this information and I will schedule a meeting to
discuss it further, prior to the next HRA meeting.
PWP/ld
Enclosures
8000 f0RMW40 OM • 9108 00 • MO OVOK MN 59437 • p1iM 6100"151
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
I
City of Monticello
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING POLICY
Program Purpose: The Monticello Housing and Redevelopment
Authority will utilise Tax Increment Financing to support the
community's long-term economic and housing goals.
Policy Considerationss The HRA will analyze and evaluate Tax
Increment Financing proposals based upon the following policy
considerations. Each project shall be measured against these
considerations and the project's value shall be determined, based
upon meeting these considerations.
(1) The project shall be consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
(2) The project shall demonstrate long-term economic and/or
housing benefits to the community.
(3) The project shall create and/or retain employment for
Monticello residents.
(C) The project shall increase moderate priced housing
options for area residents. L v%at \u,tw w.i>
(5) The project shall facilitate the redevelopment or
elimination of •substandard' or •blighted• areas as
determined by the HRA.
(6) The project shall facilitate the 'clean-up' of
environmentally unsound property.
(7) The project shall provide additional public funding
for public improvements including utilities and/or
park development which would not otherwise be available.
(8) The project shall be deemed to promote additional
desired •spin-off' development.
POLICY GUIDELINES
(l) Tax Increment Financing will be considered for use in
economic development, redevelopment and specialized
housing projects. The standard level of assistance for
projects shall be as follower
A. Manufdcturing trojecte - The BRA, Rhall, to the extent
of the availablel'-increment, compensate manufacturing
projects for the cost of their land acquisition. If
additional funding is feasible for site development
costs, the funds shall be lent to the manufacturer over
a ten-year time period at an interest rate of 5 percent.
B. Office/Commercial Projects - The HRA sha vide
assistance to the extent of the avail
abl increment, to
compensate the business/developer to "equalise" the pro-
ject to accepted area market standards. Additional
available TIF funds shall be provided to the company/
eveloper es a 110 -year, 8 percent loan.
C. Housing Projects - The BRA shall provi assistance I �
to encourage the development of housinoprojects whic
are consistent to the BRA's objectives. TIF compensa
to the extent available, shall be utilised to compens
the developer to "equalise" the project to accepted
market standards. Addit nal assistance may be
T,• 'available to a develo_ . so long as the benefits of assistance are passe through in educed rents and/orpurchase �osts.NRA 1 r1C .--� c, -�- NO-A.n
(2) The term of the Tax Increment Financing bond issues
S�,I -ae� shall be amortised based on receipt of thirteen (13) years si
e full incremt �,i th the district having a sww4wwm length of
r, fifteen (XS1oggppyag s. Economic Development and Soils
Corrections Districts shall conform to statutory
requirements.
(3) Tax Increment Financing projects in the City of Monticello
must be accompanied by a signed development agreement with
the developer which includes an assessment agreement setting
forth a minimum market value.
(4) Tax Increment Financing may be used for:
A. Land acquisition and write down.
B. Site preparation and improvement.
C. Public Improvements.
D. Demolition.
E. Bonding costs.
F. Capitalized interest.
G. Legal, administration and engineering.
(5) The Monticello Planning Commission shall review each Tax
Increment Financing proposal to determine that the
established and/or modified development district is in
conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan and to review
the specific Tax Increment Financing District to review the
appropriate zoning.
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
City of Monticello
INTERNAL TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PROCEDURES
(1) Applicant submits the completed application for Tax
Increment Financing and the application fee.
(2) City staff sends a copy of the application to Business
Development Services, Inc.
(3) Business Development Services reviews application and
advises City staff whether project is financially feasible,
makes a preliminary analysis of expected yearly tax
increment and reviews proposal to assure its consistency
with the City's Tax Increment Financing policy.
(4) City staff determines that proposal should proceed and
notifies developer.
(S) Business Development Services prepares TIP plan and sends a
copy to City staff and Holmes a Graven and coordinates
distribution to county and school boards.
(6) Business Development Services prepares Tax Increment
Financing plan and all necessary notices, resolutions and
certificates utilising information supplied by Springsted
Incorporated and Holmes a Graven.
(7) Business Development Services publishes notice and sends
notice to county and school boards.
(8) Representatives from Business Development Services attend
planning commission meeting and public hearing as required.
(9) City staff compiles executed documents and supplies
Business Development Services, Springsted Incorporated and
the City with follow up documentation.
(10) Business Development Services files adopted Tax Increment
Financing plan with the State.
(11) City staff conducts annual audit and prepares
•certification documents to comply with State reporting
requirements.
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
City of Monticello
INTERNAL TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PROCEDURES
(1) Applicant submits the completed application for Tax
Increment Financing and the application fee to the
City.
(1) -Cit, staff reviews the application and will make a
preliminary analysis of the expected yearly tax increment.
—t.;xty staff -reviews proposal to assure its consistency
with the City's Tax Increment Financing policy.
(3) City- staff sends a copy of the application and preliminary
financial analysis to Business Development Services, Inc.
(4) City staff determines that proposal should proceed and
notifies developer.
(5)—City staff completes the gathering of financial data and
forwards to BES.
(6) Business Development Services prepares TIF plan, notices
and resolutions and sends a copy to City staff and Holmes 6
Graven and coordinates distribution to county and school
boards.
(7) Business Development Services prepares Tax Increment
Financing plan and all necessary notices, resolutions and
certificates utilising information supplied by Springsted
Incorporated and Holmes 6 Graven.
(8) SIU -staff publishes notice and sends notice to county
and school boards.
(9) City staff oresentR Tj plan to the Planning Commission,
HRA and City Council. Representatives from Business
Development --Services will attend Planning Commission
meeting and public hearing as required.
(10) City staff compiles executed documents and supplies
"Business Development Services, Springsted Incorporated and
the City with follow up documentation.
(ll) Business Development Services files adopted Tax Increment
Financing plan with the State.
(12) City staff conducts annual audit and prepares
certification documents to comply with State reporting
requirements.
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
v
City of Monticello
INTERNAL TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PROCEDURES
(1) Applicant submits the completed application for Tax
Increment Financing and the application fee to the
City.
(2) City staff reviews the application and will make a
preliminary analysis of the expected yearly tax increment.
City staff reviews proposal to assure its consistency
with the City's Tax Increment Financing policy.
(3) City staff sends a copy of the application and preliminary
financial analysis to Business Development Services, Inc.
(d) City staff determines that proposal should proceed and
notifies developer.
(5) City staff completes the gathering of financial data and
forwards to BOS.
` (6) Business Development Services prepares TIP plan, notices
and resolutions and sends a copy to City staff and Holmes 6
Graven and coordinates distribution to county and school
boards.
(7) Business Development Services prepares Tax Increment
Financing plan and all necessary notices, resolutions and
certificates utilising information supplied by Springsted
Incorporated and Holmes b Graven.
(8) City staff publishes notice and sends notice to county
and school boards.
(9) City staff presents TIP plan to the Planning Commission,
HRA and City Council. Representatives from Business
Development Services will attend Planning Commission
meeting and public hearing as required.
(10) City staff compiles executed documents and supplies
•Business Development Services, Springeted Incorporated and
fhe City with follow up documentation.
(11) Business Development Services files adopted Tax Increment
Financing plan with the State.
(12) City staff conducts annual audit and prepares
certification documents to comply with State reporting
requirements.
7 j I I
SdAoW
SPRINGSTED
PUBLIC FINANCE ADVISORS
85 East SevenM Pace. Sure 100 FOR YOUR INFORMATION
ve
SaPa Nm
. Mnesda 551014143
612423.3000
Fax: 612423.3002
March 8,1989
Mr. Ride Wolfsteller, Administrator
City Hall
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362-9245
RE: Tax Increment Districts
Dear Mr. WoHsteller:
The Council recently conducted public hearings for the purpose of modifying the various tax
Increment districts In the City. The main thrust of the modification is to incorporate all
separate TIF districts Into one district for the purpose of sharing growth among financing
districts.
Subsequent to the combining of the districts, the City and/or the HRA received a proposal
from Dougherty Dawkins outlining a refunding program for current debt incurred by the
various districts. The proposal included the negotiated sale of $1.2 million to refund existing
debt and provide funds for new proposed projects. The proposed Issue would ' Improve
cash flow, repay general fund loans, free up excess future Increments, reduce general fund
exposure, reduce indebtedness necessary for future projects and provide simplification and
administration efficiency." The existing debt Includes loans of the City's general fund to three
projects and the City's 1984,1985 and 1987A tax Increment Issues.
While the goals proposed by Dougherty Dawkins are in keeping with the general policy of
the City, we are of the opinion that a negotiated sale of bonds would not be the most
economical way to achieve this goal.
Statutory provisions require an advance refunding to generate a net present value of savings
of 3%. If that level of savings cannot be achieved, an alternative would be to extend the
average maturity of the debt by three years. We note, as does Dougherty Dawkins, that the
Interest rates on any new obligations will be approximatoly equal to or slightly less than most
of the current debt outstanding. This, of course, does not Include any taxable debt
outstanding which Is not Included In the refunding proposal.
When 'proving' a refunding savings, cortain items must be taken Into consideration Including
allowance for discount, issuance and bond counsel costs, printing and delivery charges,
rating and escrow fees. Just because the City may be Issuing debt at a later date and some
of those costs would be duplicated, they cannot bo Ignored In a refunding analysis. For
Instance, each Issue the City soils, will require a legal opinion, bond rating and registration.
We again reviewed your outstanding debt for the possibility of advance refunding to Gave
debt service. When all costs aro considered, estimated to be $42,500 including discount, we
ulaana Onca w,cccn" Onto
251 Nosh 1wrm Sunni. 8w,. 1510 500 Edn Grown React, Sudo 101
intlt3n20043. Ina4m 46204-1942 Et. Grove w=onan 53122 0037
317.277.3830 414-782.1012
Fax 317.237.3639 Fax 414.7622904
The City of Monticello, Minnesota
March 8, 1989
Page 2
show a net cost or increase in debt service requirements of $28,825. Our analysis is
Included as part of this report.
Not withstanding the aforementioned, we believe the City can or has already accomplished a
number of objectivos within Dougherty Dawkin's proposal. Upon our contacting the Citys
bond counsel, Holmes & Graven, Mr. Green was not aware of the actions taken to
consolidate the districts. Based on our discussions with Mr. Green, since the modification of
the district has already taken place, the existing Increment can be shared throughout the
new district. This opinion is, of course, subject to bond counsers opinion. We have
assumed Holmes 8 Graven have been given a copy of the proceedings for review. If this
opinion holds, there is no reason to refund the existing debt.
One of the main concerns in any refunding Involving bonds issued prior to the 1988 Tax
Reform Act is the security provided for debt service and the use of original proceeds. if the
developer has provided any guarantees of payment of debt or the proceeds were used for a
non-governmental purpose, the Interest on the resulting refunding issue may be taxable and
thus the debt service costs will dramatically Increase. The City/HRA may be required to
rescind those guarantees in order to maintain a tax-exempt status. The question then
becomes, does the City want to give up this security? Each project will require a careful
analysis prior to making a decision.
If the current loans from the general fund total approximately $243,000, why refinance only
$140,000? Why not repay the fund all it is due? If these loans are payable at any time, the
full amount could be Included In any current financing as they would not be required to be
advance refunded and the proceeds of a new issue placed Into an escrow account and then
repaid to the City. Again, one important factor to consider is whether developer agreements
currently in place would render the new bonds taxable.
One of the other items addressed In the proposal is the assumption that the 150% coverage
of debt service can be eliminated with the refunding. Based on the awarding resolutions and
provisions of Minnesota Statutes, there is no requirement for maintaining such a level of
security. -The statutes require that Income for debt be at least 105% of the required payment
o1 debt. This is a protection to the City and the bondholder In the event there Is a shortfall o1
revenue due to nonpayment of taxes or non -generation of revenue. This coverage Is
standard for every bond Issue o1 the City. To the extent such level of revenue Is not
anticipated, the City is required to levy a tax for the difference or appropriate such an amount
from available funds. it Is our understanding the 150% level of coverage Is based on
agreements entered Into between the City and the HRA. Since this love[ of security has not
been pledged to the bondholders, such a level could be reduced back to the statutorily
required level o1 105% If the City so desires and the HRA agrees.
While it is true the interest rates on the outstanding longer maturity bonds are higher than
current ratos. It does not appear to be economically feasible to refund the outstanding debt
at this time. We rocommend you confirm with bond counsel the ability of combining
Increment Income from all sourcos as a moans of 'sharing' Increment for all current and
future dobt. We recommend further that the City and the HRA discuss the origin and
necessity o1 the 150% coverago factor to soe If certain funds could be released for future
expenditures. Each development agreement should be reviewed to ascortain the level of
assurances provided for payment of debt service and decide whether or not the City wants
to release the developer(s) o1 those obligations.
The City of Monticello, Minnesota
March 8, 1989
Page 3
We recommend further that a full description of financial needs of the HRA be developed. A
preliminary estimate of $1,328,390 was developed which included the refundings noted
above as well as the use of $128,395 of available funds on hand. We note these funds may
have been available as of the end of the year, however, debt service payments of
approximately $83,000 were required to be made in February and, therefore, those balances
may not be available. We note further that the size of a required Issue was structured to be
not greater than $1.2 million. While this is the maximum amount of bonds which can be
negotiated in a twelve-month period of time, it should not be the prime determining factor as
to how much indebtedness is to be incurred.
In summary, it does not appear the City's outstanding tax Increment debt can be advance
refunded at this time and meet the statutory requirements of realizing a 3% present value
level of savings. Since the individual districts have now been combined, there does not
appear to be a need to consolidate debt into one issue as Increment should now be able to
be shared. The City and HRA should review their pledge agreements to ascertain the
necessity of continuing the 150% level of debt service coverage and/or reserves. Bond
counsel should review the consolidation process to Insure all necessary hearings and
amendments have been met so that any new debt will continue to meet statutory
requirements.
Once the definitive costs for the new elderly housing project have been finalized, we
recommend the Issue be structured around not only the projected Increment of the project,
but also the projected total Increment to be received. This total Increment should Include the
coverage of all debt including the taxable bonds sold In 1887.
We would be pleased to discuss further your upcoming financing requirements and the
alternatives available to the City and HRA on the tax Increment projects.
Respectfully submitted,
S(RINGrEDIncorporated
bb
enclosure
City of Monticello, Minnesota
G.O. Refunding Bonds, Series 1989A
Full Net Advance Refunding of
G.O. Tax Inc. Bonds of 1984, 1985, i 1987A
Even Annual Savings Structure
Issuer Funds Required: $0.00
Date of Bonds: 03/01/89
Delivery Date: 03/01/89
Prepared: 02/23/89
By SPRINGSTED Incorporated
City of Monticello, Minnesota Prepared: 02/23/89
G� Refunding Bonds, Series 1989A By SPRINGSTED Incorporated
Table of Contents
Schedule Description
A Existing Debt Service
B Refunded Debt Service and any Call Premium
C Non -Refunded Debt Service
D Refunding Debt Service
E Annual Savings Analysis
F Escrov Structure
G Sources and Uses of Funds
H Refunding Expenses
City of Monticello, Minnesota Prepared: 02/23/89
C Tax Inc. Bonds of 1984, 1985, & 1987A By SPRINGSTED Incorporated
L .sting Debt Service
Schedule A
Date Principal Rate Interest Semi -Annual Annual
08/01/89
30,365.00
30,365.00
02/01/90
60,000.00
Various
30,365.00
90,365.00
120,730.00
08/01/90
28,440.00
28,440.00
02/01/91
60,000.00
Various
28,440.00
88,440.00
116,880.00
08/01/91
26,440.00
26,440.00
02/01/92
60,000.00
Various
26,440.00
86,440.00
112,880.00
08/01/92
24,365.00
24,365.00
02/01/93
70,000.00
Various
24,365.00
94,365.00
118,730.00
08/01/93
21,848.75
21,848.75
02/01/94
75,000.00
Various
21,848.75
96,848.75
118,697.50
08/01/94
19,062.50
19,062.50
02/01/95
50,000.00
Various
19,062.50
69,062.50
88,125.00
08/01/95
17,320.00
17,320.00
02/01/96
55,000.00
Various
17,320.00
72,320.00
89,640.00
08/01/96
15,335.00
15,335.00
02/01/97
55,000.00
Various
15,335.00
70,335.00
85,670.00
08/01/97
13,295.00
13,295.00
65,000.00
Various
13,295.00
78,295.00
91,590.00
1 3/01/98
10,820.00
10,820.00
02/01/99
65,000.00
Various
10,820.00
75,820.00
86,640.00
08/01/99
8,312.50
8,312.50
02/01/2000
20,000.00
Various
8,312.50
28,312.50
36,625.00
08/01/2000
7,492.50
7,492.50
02/01/2001
25,000.00
Various
7,492.50
32,492.50
39,985.00
08/01/2001
6,461.25
6,461.25
02/01/2002
25,000.00
Various
6,461.25
31,461.25
37,922.50
08/01/2002
5,430.00
5,430.00
02/01/2003
30,000.00
Various
5,430.00
35,430.00
40,860.00
08/01/2003
4,185.00
4,185.00
02/01/2004
30,000.00
Various
4,185.00
34,185.00
38,370.00
08/01/2004
2,940.00
2,940.00
02/01/2005
35,000.00
Various
2,940.00
37,940.00
40,880.00
08/01/2005
1,470.00
1,470.00
02/01/2006
35,000.00
Various
1,470.00
36,470.00
37,940.00
Totals 815,000.00 487,165.00 1,302,165.00 1,302,165.00
B�,.d Years: 6,177.08 All lover calculations
Avg. Mat..: 7.579 are made from the date
NIC.......: 7.8051 of the refunding bonds
City of Monticello, Minnesota Prepared: 02/23/89
G, Tax Inc. Bonds of 1984, 1985, & 1987A By SPRINGSTED Incorporated
RL unded Debt Service and any Call Premium
Schedule 8
Date Principal Premium Interest Semi -Annual Annual
08/01/89
30,365.00
30,365.00
02/01/90
60,000.00
30,365.00
90,365.00
120,730.00
08/01/90
28,440.00
28,440.00
02/01/91
60,000.00
28,440.00
88,440.00
116,880.00
08/01/91
26,440.00
26,440.00
02/01/92
110,000.00
26,440.00
136,440.00
162,880.00
08/01/92
22,208.75
22,208.75
02/01/93
45,000.00
22,208.75
67,208.75
89,417.50
08/01/93
20,755.00
20,755.00
02/01/94
50,000.00
20,755.00
70,755.00
91,510.00
08/01/94
19,062.50
19,062.50
02/01/95
490,000.00
19,062.50
509,062.50
528,125.00
Totals 815,000.00 294,542.50 1,109,542.50 1,109,542.50
CL1 Date .............: 02/01/95 This portion will be paid by the escrow.
First Date Called.....: 02/01/96
Call Premium..........:
City of Monticello, Minnesota Prepared: 02/23/89
Tax Inc. Bonds of 1984, 1988, & 1987A By SPRINGSTED Incorporated
14 .-Refunded Debt Service
Schedule C
Date Principal Rate Interest Semi -Annual Annual
Trale
C 11 Date .............: This portion will be paid by the issuer.
First Date Called.....:
Call Premium..........:
i
City of Monticello, Minnesota
880,000.00
Prepared:
02/23/89
G,- Refunding
Bonds, Series
1989A
7.069%
By SPRINGSTED
Tncorp^rated
R. ending Debt
Service
Schedule D
Date
Principal
Rate
Interest
Semi -Annual
Annual
08/01/89
24,623.96
24,623.96
02/01/90
70,000.00
6.300%
29,548.75
99,548.75
124,172.71
08/01/90
27,343.75
27,343.75
02/01/91
65,000.00
6.400%
27,343.75
92,343.75
119,687.50
08/01/91
25,263.75
25,263.75
02/01/92
65,000.00
6.500%
25,263.75
90,263.75
115,527.50
08/01/92
23,151.25
23,151.25
02/01/93
75,000.00
6.550%
23,151.25
98,151.25
121,302.50
08/01/93
20,695.00
20,695.00
02/01/94
80,000.00
6.600%
20,695.00
100,695.00
121,390.00
08/01/94
18,055.00
18,055.00
02/01/95
55,000.00
6.650%
18,055.00
73,055.00
91,110.00
08/01/95
16,226.25
16,226.25
02/01/96
60,000.00
6.700%
16,226.25
76,226.25
92,452.50
08/01/96
14,216.25
14,216.25
02/01/97
60,000.00
6.750%
14,216.25
74,216.25
88,432.50
08/01/97
12,191.25
12,191.25
,^?/01/98
70,000.00
6.800%
12,191.25
82,191.25
94,382.50
I /01/98
b2/01/99
9,811.25
9,811.25
70,000.00
6.850%
9,811.25
79,611.25
89,622.50
08/01/99
7,413.75
7,413.75
02/01/2000
25,000.00
6.900%
7,413.75
32,413.75
39,827.50
08/01/2000
6,551.25
6,551.25
02/01/2001
30,000.00
6.950%
6,551.25
36,551.25
43,102.50
08/01/2001
5,508.75
5,508.75
02/01/2002
25,000.00
7.000%
5,508.75
30,508.75
36,017.50
08/01/2002
4,633.75
4,633.75
02/01/2003
30,000.00
7.050%
4,633.75
34,633.75
39,267.50
08/01/2003
3,576.25
3,576.25
02/01/2004
30,000.00
7.100%
3,576.25
33,576.25
37,152.50
08/01/2004
2,511.25
2,511.25
02/01/2005
35,000.00
7.150%
2,511.25
37,511.25
40,022.50
08/01/2005
1,260.00
1,260.00
02/01/2006
35,000.00
7.200%
1,260.00
36,260.00
37,520.00
To'($als 450,990.21 1,330,990.21 1,330,990.21
Delivery..: 03/01/89
Discount.%: 1.50000%
Bond Yield: 6.84012%
880,000.00
B21r.j Date.:
03/01/89
Avg. Mat..:
7.462
dIC....... :
7.069%
City of Monticello, Minnesota
Prepared:
02/23/89
G-. Refunding Bonds, Series 1989A
By SPRINGSTED
Incorporated
Al aal Savings Analysis
Schedule E
Date
Refunding Non -Refunded Total Debt
Old Debt
Savings
(Schedule D) (Schedule
C)
(Schedule A)
08/01/89
02/01/90
124,172.71
124,172.71
120,730.00
(3,442.71)
08/01/90
02/01/91
119,687.50
119,687.50
116,880.00
(2,807.50)
08/01/91
02/01/92
115,527.50
115,527.50
112,880.00
(2,647.50)
08/01/92
0
02/01/93
121,302.50
121,302.50
118,730.00
(2,572.50)
08/01/93
02/01/94
121,390.00
121,390.00
118,697.50
(2,692.50)
08/01/94
02/01/95
91,110.00
91,110.00
88,125.00
(2,985.00)
08/01/95
02/01/96
92,452.50
92,452.50
69,640.00
(2,812.50)
08/01/96
02/01/97
88,432.50
88,432.50
65,670.00
(2,762.50)
08/01/97
^2/01/98
94,382.50
94,382.50
91,590.00
(2,792.50)
`�` i/01/98
U2/01/99
89,622.50
89,622.50
86,640.00
(2,982.50)
08/01/99
02/01/2000
39,827.50
39,827.50
36,625.00
(3,202.50)
08/01/2000
02/01/2001
43,102.50
43,102.50
39,985.00
(3,117.50)
08/01/2001
02/01/2002
35,017.50
36,017.80
37,922.80
1,905.00
08/01/2002
02/01/2003
39,267.50
39,267.50
40,860.00
1,592.50
08/01/2003
02/01/2004
37,152.50
77,152.50
38,370.00
1,217.50
08/01/2004
02/01/2005
40,022.50
40,022.50
40,880.00
857.50
08/01/2005
02/01/2006
37,520.00
37,520.00
37,940.00
420.00
To ale 1,330,990.21 1,330,990.21 1,302,165.00 (28,825.21)
Pri.sent Value Rate...: 6.84012% Excess Proceeds......: 1,082.43
Present Value Savings: (19,316.45) Funds to Sinking Fund:
As % of Refunded D/S.: -1.481 Total Net Savings....: (27,742.78)
F,
City of Monticello, Minnesota
G; 1. Refunding Bonds, Series 1989A
i� row Structure
Schedule P
Payment SLG SLG SLG
Date Principal Rate Interest
Beg. Bal.:
08/01/89
7,400
4.490%
02/01/90
59,700
6.534%
08/01/90
1,300
6.784%
02/01/91
61,400
7.034%
08/01/91
1,600
7.034%
02/01/92
111,600
7.034%
08/(01/92
1,300
7.034%
02/01/93
46,400
7.034%
08/01/93
1,500
7.034%
02/01/94
51,600
7.034%
08/01/94
1,700
7.034%
02/01/95
491,700
7.034%
23,032.47
30,684.36
27,082.80
27,038.70
24,879.26
24,822.99
20, 898.02
20,852.30
19,220.41
19,167.65
17,352.88
17, 293.09
Prepared: 02/23/89
By SPRINGSTED Incorporated
SLG
Receipts
30,432.47
90,384.36
28,382.80
88,438.70
26,479.26
136,422.99
22,198.02
67,252.30
20,720.41
70,767.65
19,052.88
508,993.09
Escrow
Payment
(Schedule B)
30,365.00
90,365.00
28,440.00
88,440.00
26,440.00
136,440.00
22,208.75
67,208.75
20,755.00
70,755.00
19,062.50
509,062.50
Totals 837,200 272,324.93 1,109,524.93 1,109,542.50
Yield on SLG's...... 1 7.0344%
Yield Limit on SLG1s: 7.03441
Cash
Balance
17.57
85.04
104.40
47.20
45.90
85.16
68.15
57.42
100.97
66.38
79.03
69.41
City of Monticello, Minnesota Prepared: 02/23/89
Gr • Refunding Bonds, Series 1969A By SPRINGSTED Incorporated
S � :ces and Uses of Funds
Schedule G
Sources of Funds:
Par Value of Refunding Bonds ....................................: 880,000.00
Less Discount / Plus Premium ....................................: (13,200.00)
Accrued Interest ................................................:
Earnings on Proceeds ............................................:
Funds From Issuer ................................................
Total Sources of Funds 866,800 00
...eeanam�e
Uses of Funds:
Par Value of SLG's..............................................: 837,200.00
Opon Market Security .............................................
B`( nning Balance in Escrow ..................................... 17.47
Ac rued Interest to Sinking Fund ................................:
Unused Discount to Sinking Fund .................................:
Refunding Expenses ..............................................: 28,800.00
Excess Proceeds .................................................: 1,082.43
Total Uses of Funds 866,800.00
t
City of Monticello, Minnesota
G- Refunding Bonds, Series 1989A
i. anding Expenses
Schedule H
Fiscal Advisor
Registrar
Bond Counsel
Rating Agency
Escrow Agent
Certified Public Accountant
Official Statement Printing
Bond Printing
Py�'-lications
Miscellaneous
Total Refunding Expenses
I
I
Prepared: 02/23/89
Rv SPRINGSTED Incorporated
13,050.00
3,000.00
3,000.00
2,000.00
3,000.00
2,500.00
750.00
500.00
500.00
200.00
28,500.00