HRA Agenda 06-08-1988AGENDA
MONTICELLO HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, June 8, 1988 - 7:OOAM
City Hall
MEMBERS: Chairperson Ken Maus, Lowell Schrupp, Ben Smith,
Al Larson, and Everette Ellison.
STAFF: Rick Wolfsteller, Jeff O'Neill, and 011ie Koropchak.
1. Call To Order.
2. Approval of the May 4, 1988 and May 9. 1988 HRA Minutes.
3. Consideration to Attend a Joint Meeting Between the HRA.
the Planning Commission, and the Industrial Development
Committee.
4. Consideration to Review the Responses of the HRA Townhouse
Survey.
5. Consideration to Review the Responses from the Block 51
Alley Upgrade Opinion Survey.
6. Consideration to Establish the HRA's Direction on the Potential
Expired June 30, 1988 Option Agreements.
7. Other Business.
8. Adjournment.
MINUTES
MONTICELLO HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SPECIAL MEETING
Monday, May 9, 1988 - 7:00PM
City Hall
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Ken Maus, Bud Schrupp, Ben Smith,
Al Larson, and Everette Ellison.
STAFF PRESENT: Administrator Rick Wolfsteller and HRA Director
011ie Korocphak.
1. CALL TO ORDER.
Chairperson Ken Maus called the special HRA meeting to order
at 7:07PM.
2. CONSIDERATION TO REVIEW THE MARKET VALUE ON THE IXI PROPERTY.
Mayor Grlmsmo having contacted Ken Maus to call a special
HRA meeting to consider reviewing the market value of the IXI
property. Present estimated market value is $1.1 million
compared to the $500,000 purchase price. The HRA considered
the market value of $1.1 million to be inconsistent with the $500,000
purchase price; therebye, possibly preventing the sell
of the property and the creation of jobs. Koropchak suggested
the termination of the Assessor's Agreement for the Tax
Increment District /1 and 04; thereafter, to establish a new
estimated market value. Ben Smith made a motion to approve
and execute a resolution to terminate the Assessor's
Agreement for TID ®1. Property located as E 180 ft of Lot 7,
Block 3, Exc N 175 ft, Oakwood Industrial Park, City of
Monticello, minimum market value of $209,400. And Assessor's
Agreement for TID 04, property located as Lot 7, Block 3,
Exc 180 ft, Ly S of N 175 ft, Oakwood Industrial Park,
City of Monticello, minimum market value of $607,000.
Second part of the motion was that the minimum guaranteed
annual increment for the above property be $28,000, commencing
with the taxes payable 1n 1989 and existing through the
duration of the Tax Increment Districts, Year 1995. If in
any year in which the tax increment generated by the above
property does not meet or exceed the amount required by the
HRA to moot its debt retirement demands ($28,000), said
payment to be made no later than the 15th day of December
In the year in which the taxes are due and payable by the new Developer
reasonable minimum morketvalue for the above property to be
established between the Developer and the County Assessor.
This motion pending the review and approval of the City
Attorney. The motion was seconded by Al Larson. The motion
is to be recommended to the City Council for approval. With
no further discussion the motion carried 5-0.
3. ADJOURNMENT.
The HRA meeting adjourned by consensus of ft's members.
011ie Koropchak, Exacuttvo Secretary HRA
MINUTES
MONTICELLO HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, May 4, 1988 - 7:OOAM
City Hall
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Ken Maus, Lovell Schrupp, Ben Smith,
Al Larson, and Everette Ellison.
STAFF PRESENT: Administrator Rick Wolfsteller. and HRA Director
011ie Koropchak.
1. CALL TO ORDER.
The HRA meeting was called to order with all members present by
Chairperson Ken Maus.
2. APPROVAL OF THE NRA APRIL 6, 1988 MINUTES.
Lovell Schrupp made a motion to approve the HRA April 6,
1988 minutes, seconded by Everette Ellison the minutes
stand approved.
3. CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION FOR
TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT 07.
Bon Smith made a motion to approve and execute the Certificate
of Completion for Tax Increment District 07 which states
the developer (NAWCO Minnesota, Inc.) has completed the
construction of a 28.000 eq ft building on Lots 11 and 12,
Block 2, Oakwood Industrial Park in accordance with the
Developers Agreement. Al Larson seconded the motion and
with no further discussion the motion passed 5-0.
4. CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDED ELDERLY TOWNHOUSE
SURVEY.
Chairperson Maus updated the the HRA members of an informal meeting
hold April 27, 1988 between Ken Maus, Al Larson. Gary DQBoar.
Developer Vaughn Viet, and 011ie Korocphak. Developer Viet
expressed an interest in the project, however, felt the first
thing the HRA needed to do was conduct a survey. Mr. DoBoor
and Koropchok were assigned to -develop a survey for
publication in the Monticello Shopper with emphasis on
townhouse concept, location, quality, ago group, and price
range. The HRA discussed the samplo survey presented to
them and made a few alterations and directed Koropchak
to converse with Sherry at the Times' office for suggestions
on an attention heading. The survey to appear in the
May 10th shopper. Koropchak is to leave extra copies at
the Senior Citizen Lounge.
Al Larson expressed his opinion that he didn't think the survey
would generate much response and that a developer needs to be
willing to take a risk in the project.
HRA Minutes - 5/4/88
5. CONSIDERATION TO REQUEST THE CITY COUNCIL'S OPINION FOR
FINANCING BLOCK 51 ALLEY.
The HRA members agreed that the first direction to be taken
on the possible uP-3rade of Block 51 Alley was to create an
opinion survey and approach the property owners. Second,
was to advise the city staff to study needed drainage, catch
basin, piping, and concrete pavement and the total project cost; and
finally, thereafter, to make appropriate recoumendation9 to
the City Council if applicable.
Survey: 1). Benefits to property owners
a) Enhance property valuation
b) Proper drainage of alley
c) Concrete pavement alley
d) Safety
e) Maintained by the City
2). Property owners (Dorothy Topel, Dennie Taylor,
Scott Douglas, and John Sandberg.
Optional Metcalf and Larson).
a) 1002 agreement by property owners to grant to
the City a 30 foot easement or deed
b) Project would be 1002 assessed to all benefitting
property owners.
` Pending Options and Rationale of Project
1) Need 1002 agreement by property owners to grant to
the City a 30 foot easement or deed (South block
property ownere)
2) Blocks 34 and 52 up -graded alleys were 1002 assessed
property owners
3) Gustafson and Brenny
a) Deferred assessments - need not assess at this
time, may be assessed in the future because of
no direct benefit at this time
b) If considered an enhancement of property valuation
and if considered a public benefit the City Council
could deny alley access
4) Metcalf and Larson's pending Elderly Housing Project II
a) If the project is denied F1mHA funding is it beneficial
to execute the alley improvement without the
removal of the Jones property.
b) Does Metcalf and Larson's site plans include a
through allay
c) If Metcalf and Larson's project includes denial
of a through allay, is the alley improvement still
a benefit to the romaining property owners.
Koropchak was directed by the HRA to meat with each of the property
owners individually to acquire their interest and opinion of the
possible project. Topol's may suggest an exchango of assessed
project cost for the removal of their metal shed. Estimatod project
cost for the total alloy by John Simola was 130,000.
HRA Minutes - 5/4/88
6. OTHER BUSINESS.
None
7. ADJOURNMENT.
By consensus of the HRA members, the meeting adjourned.
C%wY'6\ o V's.�
011ie &oropchak
HRA Executive Secretary
Monticello Housing and
1N Redevelopment Authority
{,SURVEY
The Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority
is conducting a survey to determine the need for high
quality housing ($80,000 or more). Housing would in-
clude garages and would be close to the business
• area. If you are interested, please fill out the survey
and return to:,' .
Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority
City Hall -
250 East Broadway .
' Monticello, .MN 55362 -
..'Townhouse Concept: - ._ • :.. _
• Individually Owned •.Gro
und Level Living Area
• Exterior Maintenance Free • Energy Efficient
�''' • Common Grounds i
Location:
Within walking distance of churches and the Monticello
f shopping area.—
Age
rea. Age Group: Optional:
0 45 to 55 years ;
❑ 55 to 65years % Name •'' "' r
❑ 65 to 75 years
t, 10 75. or, oveAddress .'.,• �d -�''6
t aQjelephone
Q i .b• oC .o•• Q.r , $;"'i �:!^ SC.L �s.wv•!a�j' ')2'.l .i
�= For more,inforination'contact:1' '
..,,011ie Koropchak
�: ' �1'' " ►.' ''.:�tiu , .HRA .Director
i '/ � �u•.ICo _. ,-{.k1.r ' :.
?95-2711 -'�I CJs'. J• •� Y .,,',�'� l\x;j
HRA RESOLUTION 88-
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE TERMINATION
OF THE ORIGINAL ASSESSOR'S AGREEMENT POR
ECONOMIC TAX INCREMENT DISTRICTS 01 AND 04
PURSUANT TO THE MINNESOTA STATUTE, SECTION 273.71
TO 273.78 INCLUSIVE AND ESTABLISHING A MINIMUM
GUARANTEED ANNUAL INMU14M AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of
Monticello (the "Authority") is carrying out the Central Monticello
Redevelopment Plan ("the Plan") and the Redevelopment Project ("the Project");
and
WHEREAS, the Authority determined in 1982 and 1984 that it was necessary
to create an economic tax increment district pursuant to the Minnesota Tax
Increment Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.71 to 273.78 inclusive ("the
Act") within the Recevelopment Project created pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,
Section 462.411 et seq., the Municipal Housing and Redevelopment Act; and
WHEREAS, in connection with the undertaking to terminate the original
Tax Increment Assessor's Agreements by the Authority pursuant to the Act, the
approval by the Board of Commissioners ("the governing body") of the Authority
is required by the local governing body before it will consider the termination
of the Assessor's Agreements; and
WHEREAS, there was presented to this meeting of the governing body of
the Authority for its consideration and approval, a copy of the Termination
Agreement of the Assessor's Agreements for said Economic Districts 01 and #4
pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Section 273.76, Subdivision 6, dated May 1988,
and the Minimum Guaranteea Annual Increment Agreement, and
WHEREAS, the Authority has prepared and submitted the Termination
Agreement and the Minimum Guaranteed Annual Increment Agreement to the City
Planning Commission of the City of Monticello (the "Planning Commission") for
its review and opinion;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the governing body of the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Monticello;
1. That the proposed termination of the Assessor's Agreements and the
establishment of a Minimum Guaranteed Annual Increment Agreement are
within the properties of the Economic Tax Increment Districts 01 and
04.
2. That the minimum market values within the original Assessor's
Agreements were deemed unreasonable.
BILA Resolution 88 -
Page 2
3. That the proposed termination of the Assessor's Agreements and the
establishment of a Minimum Guaranteed Annual Increment Agreement
will enhance the possible resale of the vacant property described in
TM +1 and r4: as the buildings were constructed for a single
purpose, the buildings are hidden by a berm, and the location is
undesirable.
4. That with the proposed acquisition, the continued deterioration
within the Districts will be reduced.
S. That with the proposed acquisition will be the creation of new jobs,
and will create overall improvements to the Industrial Park and
community.
The Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Monticello, Minnesota, does
hereby approve the termination of the original Assessor's Agreement for
Economic Tax Increment Districts tl and #4 and approve a Minimum Guaranteed
Annual Increment Agreement for said districts, and does hereby transmit to the
City Council said agreements for their adoption.
Adopted by the Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority this 9th day of
May, 1988.
HRA Chairperson HRA Director
C
THIS AGREEMENT, executed this day of May, 1988, by and between the
Monticello Housing and Redevelopment -=t ority (hereinafter referred to as "the
BRA"), John W. Plaisted (hereinafter referred to as "the Developer"), and
Douglas M. Gruber, Wright County Assessor (hereinafter referred to as "the
Assessor") set out provisions to terminate the original Assessor's Agreement
between the BRA, Ronald and Dee Johnson, and the Assessor of the County of
Wright for Economic Tax Increment Districts 41 and 84 established pursuant to
the Minnesota Statute Section 273.76, Subdivision S. The described property
locateo in the City of Monticello, County of Wright, State of Minnesota,
to -wit:
E 180 ft of Lot 7, Block 3, Exc N 175 ft, Oakwood Industrial Park, City
of Monticello. (Tax Increment District W.
Lot 7, Block 3, Exc 180 ft, Ly S of N 175 ft, Oakwood Industrial Park,
City of Monticello. (Tax Increment District t4).
The original Assessor's Agreement was held between the HRA, Ronald and
Dee Johnson, and the Assessor of the County of Wright, whereby, the above
described property was conveyed to First Bank National Association,
Minneapolis, Minnesota, through default by Ronald and Dee Johnson; whereby, the
above described property shall be purchased by John W. Plaisted ("the
Developer") from First Bank National Association; therefore, this said
agreement is by mutual consent of the HRA, the Developer, and the Assessor.
The HRA, the Developer, and the Assessor do hereby agree as follows:
THE DEVELOPER AGREES:
1. That he shall purchase the above described property from First Bank
National Association, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for the sum of Five Hundred
Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($500,000).
2. That upon purchase shall terminate the Assessor's Agreement or the
minimum market value of Two Hundred Nine Thousand Four Hundred Dollars
and No Cents ($209,400) certified by the 1982 Wright County Assessor to
the above described property in Tax Increment District #1.
3. That upon purchase shall terminate the Assessor's Agreement or the
minimum market value of Six Hundred Seventy Thousand Dollars and No Cents
($670,000) certified by the 1984 Wright County Assessor to the above
described property in Tax Increment District 14.
4. That this agreement becomes void and of no further force and effect if
the above described property is not purchased.
S. That a new reasonable minimum market value for the above described
property be established between the Developer and the Assessor.
THE ASSESSOR AGREES:
1.
That upon purchase of the above described property by the Developer,
shall terminate the Assessor's Agreement or the minimum market value of
Two Hundred Nine Thousand Pour Hundred Dollars and No Cents ($209,400)
certified by the 1982 Wright County Assessor to the above described
property in Tax Increment District f1.
2.
That upon purchase of the above described property by the Developer,
shall terminate the Assessor's Agreement or the minimum market value of
Six Hundred Seventy Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($670,000) certified by
the 1984 Wright County Assessor to the above described property in Tax
Increment District j4.
3.
That this agreement becomes void and of no further force and effect if
the above described property is not purchased.
4.
That a new reasonable minimum market value for the above described
property be established between the Developer and the Assessor.
THE
HRA AGREES:
1.
That upon purchase of the above described property by the Developer,
shall terminate the Assessor's Agreement or the minimum market value of
Two Hundred Nine Thousand Pour Hundred Dollars ($209,400) certified by
the 1982 Wright Wunty Assessor to the above described property in Tax
Increment District %1.
2.
That upon purchase of the above described property by the Developer,
"ll terminate the Assessor's Agreement or the minimum market value of
Six Hundred Seventy Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($670,000) certified by
the 1984 Wright County Assessor to the above described property in Tax
Increment District i4.
3.
That this agreement becomes void and of no further force and effect if
the above described property is not purchased.
4.
To file this document with the County Recorder, Wright County Courthouse,
8uf falo, Minnesota.
C
l
FOR THE DEVELOPER FOR THE ASSESSOR
John W. Plaisted, Owner Douglas M. Gruber, Assessor of the
County of Wright
This day of May, 1988. This day of May, 1988.
Notary Public Notary Public
POR THE HRA
Kenneth Maus, HRA Chairperson
j 011ie Koropcnak. HRA Director
This day of May, 1988.
Notary Public
THIS ACREEMEW.", executed this day of May, 1988, by and between
the Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority (hereinafter referred to as
"the HBA"), and John W. Plaisted (hereinafter referred to as "the Developer")
set out provisions to establish a minimum guaranteed annual increment for the
descr abed property located in the City of Monticello, County of Wright, State
of Mirinesota, to -wit:
E 180 ft of Lot 7, Block 3, Exc N 175 ft, Oakwood Industrial Park, City
of Monticello.
Lot 7, Block 3, Exc 180 ft, Ly S of N 175 ft, Oakwood Industrial Park,
City of Monticello.
The BRA and the Developer do hereby agree as follows:
THE DEVELOPER AGREES:
1. That he shall purchase the above described property from First Bank
National Association, Minneapolis, for the sum of Five Hundred Thousand
Dollars and No Cents (5500,000).
2. That this agreement becomes void and of no further force and effect if
the above described property is not purchased.
3. That the minimum guaranteed annual increment for the above described
property be Twenty-eight Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($28,000),
commencing with the taxes payable in 1989 and existing through the
duration of the Tax Increment District, Year 1994.
4. That in any year in which the tax increment generated by the above
described property does not meet or exceed the amount required by the RRA
to meet its debt retirement demands ($28,000), the developer shall pay
directly to the BRA the difference between the actual tax increment
collected, and the required debt retirement payment ($28,000), said
payment to be made no later than the 15th day of December in the year in
which the taxes are due and payable.
5. That the acquisition of the above described property will comply with the
Monticello Zoning Ordinance and the Monticello Comprehensive Guide Plan.
6. That a reasonable minimum market value for the above described property
be established between the Developer and the County Assessor.
THE FVA AGREES:
1. To terminate or eliminate the original Assesaor'o Agreement between the
Monticello HRA, Ronald and Dee Johnson, and the County Assessor for the
above described property. The Assessor's Agreement for Tax Increment
District /1 (easterly 1/2 of Lot 7) has a minimum market value of
8209,400. And the Assessor's Agreement for Tax Increment District #4
(westerly 1/2 of Lot 7) has a minimum market value of $670,000.
2. That the minimum guaranteed annual increment for the above described
property be Twenty-eight Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($28,000),
commencing with the taxes payable in 1989 and existing through the
duration of the Tax Increment District, Year 1994.
That this agreement become void and of no further force and effect if the
Developer does not purchase the above described property.
4. To file this said document with the County Recorder, Wright County
Courthouse, Buffalo, Minnesota.
FOR THE HRA FOR THE DEVELOPER
Kenneth Maus, BRA Chairperson Jonn W. Plaistea, Owner
011ie Koropchak, ARA Director
This day of May, 1988. This day of May, 1988.
Notary Public Notary Public
3. CONSIDERATION TO ATTEND A JOINT MEETING BETWEEN THE HRA,
THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
COMMITTEE.
For the past six months the IDC has viewed the positive/negative
attitudes and guidelines for economic development within the
City of Monticello. The IDC met with Winkelman Building Corporation,
and completed preliminary comparative studies for up—front development
fees for residential and commerical/industrial buildings. The
community has commented on the increased costs to develop in Monticello
along with the recent increases in property valuations and the
mill rate. From time to. time, the city ordinances have been
questioned whether they are too rigid for industrial development.
On the recommendation of the IDC a joint meeting between the HRA,
the Planning Commission, and the IDC is scheduled for Tuesday,
June 28, 1988, 7:30 P.M., City Council Chambers. The purpose
of the meeting is to discuss and establish common goals and
strategies for economic growth in Monticello.
Some concerns the HRA may want to address before the joint meeting
are: 1) Brainstorm for problems and needs of the community, 2)
How effective is the present organizational structure between
the above listed groups, and 3) What image would you like
Monticello to project?
According to Jeff O'Neill, it is the concern of some Planning
Commission and City Council members that development standards
e in Monticello may have decreased or may be threatened. The IDC
Is concerned about the attitudes and image given to potential
new industry by the City Staff and it's procedures and guidelines.
Needless to say, a uniform strategy would be the most effective
approach for development; therefore, all groups are speaking
the same language and promoting the same imago.
An updated Labor Survey is being conducted by Business Development
Services, Inc. for the IDC which should be completed in September
and the City will be conducting an attitude/noeds survey of the
local residents. The results of both of these surveys will have
a major impact on the city's future plans and should coincide
with the final results of these joint meetings.
Please give some time to this item before our meeting so the HRA
can have a prepared agenda of their concerns at the Juno 28th meeting.
SUMMARY
WINKELMAN BUILDING CORPORATION AND THE IDC MEETING
Tuesday, March 1, 1988 - 8:00AH
Dino's Deli
GUESTS: Duane Schlutz, Harold Jesh, and Terry Duffy.
TRENDS: Continued growth in the areae of St. Cloud and the
Metrolmetro suburban areas.
Financing remains OK.
The ability for a community to offer incentive financial
packages.
Availability of labor survey (skilled or trained people)
Availability of housing
QUESTIONS OF THE CITY:
Who reviews -building permits?
Who reviews•site,plans?
What are the Cit7's guidelines?
What does the building permit cover? NAWCO billed $3,700,
than the City of Monticello passed on the City Engineers
fee.
What is the role of the Public Works Director and what is the
role of the City's Engineer?
Compared within a 50 mile radius, Monticello's landscaping,
ti
curb, and gutter ordinances are very restrictive. More
like Eden Prairie and Maple Grove.
Most communitea notify the developer's of building code
changes (example when a community adopts the 1985
building permit fee chart).
Concern of the long term plan for thq industrial park
(City's Comphenslve Plan [no pole barns]).
City staff would not explain why Winkelman's preliminary
site plan would not work? (no rationale by City)
Cost to Winkelman for fill was $50,000.
Surprises to the developer
NAWCO additional coat $50,000
Ben Franklin - Letter about plastic pipe not acceptable
must be replaced. (Not in traffic area.)
Need topgraphy plans (contour)
drainage plane
site plans
building plans
elevation plans
w�
:a BUILDING PERMIT FEE SURVEY APRIL 20, 1988
_ TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION - WOOD FRAME TYPE V
1300 SQUARE FOOT RAMBLER
_ FULL BAS84ENT - UNFINISHED
t TOTAL SQUARE FEET BLONG - 1300
•`:f��i 24x24' GARAGE
EIGHT BATHROOM FIXTURES
DEPST I SO SO 50 50 $0 50 (500) SO 50 I
(STRT DPST) $0 1
'OTHER I .: PRK OE $0
FEE :i'� •`r+-�.rEs.�. - .�:7 i'�::� .. _ ..:.I - �•.
:-.:TOTAL 1$1.842 :$1.558 $1,883 $971 $1,451 $2,583 $1.aea $2.529 $1,900 j
AVGE ::-4,10217.. e?t _-105% -4.54% m.81% .,;149% 03% y`. 140%_.::,..1
IN
v,l .�-1�'�.'"^"',�•;,s�• v-,..�:�`:r4.-..
••CJICw`F' AJ'!�� r1.•: n��.:la��•''ri.'�� �liu:�.:�r���l` ! •'.:•�. 13��i•
•1*� �T ::SSC 'tG.�k�t���-�a•i:•.��=�: �:aw.v..�.t�r�v: � • .:^ .s�� ��� ,;�.. ..'•.._ ':
42t� Y • :>A.7' .. ]e.'�+11F'.."• P-41:.:.0Pw=sa..�. . ��.:+�•...�.- ..++�ri•�rs.+.n
:r ,---,-.-�
MDNTI- SAINT
ALBERT- BUFF-
BIO
ELK
WATER
ROCK-
AVE
CELLO
MICHEAL
VII LE
ALLO
LAKE
RIVER
TOWN
FORD
'
PEFMITI
I
FEE I
$511 IC
$358
$358
$358
$500
$572
$386
$358
$425 I
- •:
PLAN I
REVIEW1
$332
$232
$232
$232
$0
5143
$251
$232
$207 I
-`+
BURCH.1
$36
$38
$38
$38
$31
$43
$42
$38
$38 I
WATER 1
I
FEES I
$300
$600
$600
$100
$388
$750
$400
$1,000
$417 1
METER
OTHER 1
$100 _
._ $90
_ 590
$70
$100
$74
SEs
$50
$as 1
/
SEWER 1
I
:`•F `�
FEES 1
$300
$150
$475
$100
$388
$750
$300
5685
$393 1
SURVEY I
$200 X
50
$0
50
$0
$200
$0
' $0
$50 1
• ^; # y
PLUMB. 1
$19
$25
US
$29
$0
$45
$0
$40
$23 1
MECHANJ
$0
$20
$20
$0
SO
$60
$0
$40
$18
I
I
EL.ECTRI
$45
US
544
$45
$45
$45
$45
$45
544 I
DEPST I SO SO 50 50 $0 50 (500) SO 50 I
(STRT DPST) $0 1
'OTHER I .: PRK OE $0
FEE :i'� •`r+-�.rEs.�. - .�:7 i'�::� .. _ ..:.I - �•.
:-.:TOTAL 1$1.842 :$1.558 $1,883 $971 $1,451 $2,583 $1.aea $2.529 $1,900 j
AVGE ::-4,10217.. e?t _-105% -4.54% m.81% .,;149% 03% y`. 140%_.::,..1
IN
v,l .�-1�'�.'"^"',�•;,s�• v-,..�:�`:r4.-..
••CJICw`F' AJ'!�� r1.•: n��.:la��•''ri.'�� �liu:�.:�r���l` ! •'.:•�. 13��i•
•1*� �T ::SSC 'tG.�k�t���-�a•i:•.��=�: �:aw.v..�.t�r�v: � • .:^ .s�� ��� ,;�.. ..'•.._ ':
42t� Y • :>A.7' .. ]e.'�+11F'.."• P-41:.:.0Pw=sa..�. . ��.:+�•...�.- ..++�ri•�rs.+.n
:r ,---,-.-�
' COST FOR CITY SERVICES SUMMARY - HYPOTHETICAL CASE
TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION
CONCRETE BLOCK
YPE OF BUSINESS OR LAND USE
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING
NO WATER USED IN PROCESSING
MANUFACTURING FLOOR SPACE
23,500 SQUARE FEET
OFFICE SPACE
1,500 SCUARE FEET
TOTAL SQUARE FEET
25,000 SQUARE FEET
ACRES
2.5
FIXTURES
40
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES
30
MARKET VALUATION
$656,000
WATER USE PER QUARTER
1912.5 (BASED ON LARSON MANUFACTURING)
(cubic yards)
YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR TOTAL
ONE TWO THREE FOUR FIVE FIVE YEAR
INITIAL FES
I
1
BUILDING PERMIT FEE
I
I $2.507 II
' PLAN REVIEW FEE
I II -
1 $1,630 II
• STATE SURCHARGE
I II
I $328 11
WATER HOOK-UP FEES
1 $315 (BASED ON 1' SERVICE CONNECTICN) II
WATER METER FEE - -. - -
I $70
SEWER HOOK-UP FEE
I $615 (BASED ON NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES. NOT FII
PLUMBING INSP FEE
I $41
LANDSCAPING COST EST
I $3,000 (30 TREES + SOD) -II
' PARKING LOT/CURB/GUTTER
1 II .
1 $3,000 38 SPACES 15200 SQUARE FEET SITUM II
I $15,000 (est.)660 LINEAL FEET CURB II
SURVEY
_
I $200 II -
INITIAL FEES AS A
I 4.1% II
PERCENT OF MARKET VALUE
1 II
ANNUAL CHARGES
I 1I II
ANNUAL WATER COST
I II
1 $52 $52 $52 $52 $52 II $260
ANNUAL SEWER COST :_ :�• •.
1 -$118 _,:•$115 '•:. $114 :.3115 $115 I I •$575-
IASSESSED VALUATION Yy�r� --_7.1$281,000.$281,000 $281,000 $281,000 $281,000
'rLOCAL`MILI RATE 10.087878 -0.097876 0.097878 0.097878 0.097878 11'?'Y^°='Y ..:.!x•
:jirT-:.r+ - _- _ ._ :y'•
I _ --_ _ _ .. - cam• rJ :.,.�.. - - I I -�•�a
pANNUAL TAXES ,;�:, :�-.: =•�1
$27,503 $27,503 ,$27,503 ,$27,403 $27,503 11$137,516 -
�..A.�.l�,:., .... lw:t �.►.,.:LwR •.K,,^M�.l�•� � IT�r, Y• ., ti,r:.�pN
:.,START-UP .00ST I .$26,708 - .- 0 r� OyA ;,y,�,0 , p�0 .I 1.$25.706
,jMAL"COST 3:..r-;—" _ , =1
$54,376 -1$27.670 ''•$27,670 :$27,670 ^ $27,070 11$185,057 '� T
�f-f'�L1i!7 `�i.::`^rli r:...ri� •�'t>i) +1 ".�GL'•::� .-.�llY��.3.tiI+O.IpV�� � �n.w�a.�Tr +r .•u .,�,.rt'.��::..
4. CONSIDERATION TO REVIEW THE RESPONSES OF THE HRA TOWNHOUSE
SURVEY.
At the last HRA meeting, the authority agreed on the design
drawing of the townhouse survey and the survey ran in the
Monticello Shopper for one week. I received two mail -returned
surveys from Lowell and Rae Schrupp, and Myron and Paulette
Davis; and one telephone inquiry from Edna Kotilinek. The
response being very low, the HRA needs to decide whether to
proceed with their goal of Initiating high quality housing
for the elderly close to the shopping area. Secondly, need
to contact Gary DeBoer and Vaugh Viet on the survey results.
and thirdly, may need to approach a developer willing to
take a risk. The HRA may consider running the survey ad
again. Mrs. Rotilinek interest was of potential interest
if the HRA was interested in her property as a site location.
5. CONSIDERATION TO REVIEW THE RESPONSES FROM THE BLOCK 51 ALLEY
UPGRADE OPINION SURVEY.
At this point, I made up an opinion survey for the property
owners of Block 51. This to obtain their interest in the
project. Cost estimates were projected. The questions were
addressed as a complete total alley project and as an one-half
alley project. I met with a couple of property owners and
talked on the phone to a couple. The Brenny property has been
sold to a party from Buffalo. Project cost were estimated
with 100% assessment to all benefitting property owners.
Housing and
ithority
�Y
V 1W I IL .
The Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority
is conducting a survey to determine the need for high
quality housing ($80,000 or more). Housing would in-
clude garages and would be close to the business
area. If you are interested, please fill out the survey
and return to:
Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority
City Hall
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
Townhouse Concept:
• Individually Owned • Ground Level Living Area
• Exterior Maintenance Free • Energy Efficient _S•.,
• Common Grounds
Location: -
°e ' :Within walking distance of churches and the Monticello 4
shopping area.
Age Group: Optional:
2'45 to 55 years
0 55 to 65 years Name
i
,65 to 75 years
D 75 or over ;._� Address Q LI
.�'�' �U �Ov MpvG t •t
`(Telephone RIs- zs.l�
• , '•1': ,�'�... J a�l.','Y t'i14'a�'W� � � • : ,',�•Kl:-R�?
;for�ri�or. Information contact:
011ie KoropchakHRA
h.?'` .a+_ •"1•' _ eCrtorA.��{tom`'-✓. r. •1�- j�•�,
:'e`�P '�%'•;��'� � � :,.:^!��295-271 1,r,•f Ao�F+.'„� .'�• �. •:!' �1=�.,. 9
Monticello Housing and
Redevelopment Authority
S U RV
EY
The Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority
is conducting a survey to determine the need for high
quality housing ($80,000 or more). Housing would in-
clude garages and would be close to the business
area. If you are interested, please fill out the survey
and return to:
Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority
City Hall
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
Townhouse Concept:
- • • Individually Owned • Ground Level Living Area
• Exterior Maintenance Free • Energy Efficient
Common Grounds
Location: '
Within walking distance of churches and the Monticello
shopping area.
Age Group: Optional:
❑ 45 to 55 years
Z 55 to 65 years Name��--
❑ 65 to 75 years 3 t l
❑ 75 or over. - • Address
;,• �,,, > Telephone „zqs—S��S�
�,'tiFor more Information contact: , ,:
011ie Koropchak
.r ' ° ��.� �', •1: HRA Director
rf :A 295-2711 ;•j,•i
OPINION SURVEY
I- CONSIDERATION TO UPGRADE BLOCK 51 ALLEY
0
N
PROPERTY OWNER
DATE
ALLEY FOOTAGE
BENEFITS TO PROPERTY OWNERS: a) Enhancement of property valuation
b) Proper drainage of alley
c) Concrete paved alley
d) Safety
e) Maintained by City
UPGRADE BLOCK 51 ALLEY: Alignment of alley to abutt the south
property line of the north block property
lots or the northerly 30 feet of Lots
1-10, Block 51. Original Plat, City nf
Monticello. 30 feet right-of-way of
which 20 feet as designated alley.
To include proper alley drainage (storm
sever catch basin and piping) and alignment
of electical poles.
AS A PROPERTY OWNER:
YES NO
OTHER COMMENTS:
I agree with the preliminary upgrade concept.
I would agree to grant the City a 30 foot easement
or deed. Preference: easement or deed
I understand the total project cost would be
1002 assessed to all benofitting block property
owners by allay front footage.
I agree to the concept only if the total alley
to upgraded.
I agree to the concept if only one-half the alley
is upgraded.
L_
BLOCK 51 ALLEY ESTIMATED PROJECT COST
8 inch concrete pavement, 20 feet wide by 370 feet long
370 R ;55.50 per aq ft - $20,535.00
Alley
66
$20,535.00
$4,753.32
$ 672.21
Catch basin, drainage,
33
ft
2,376.66
piping
Douglas
5,000.00
ft
2,376.66
Contengencies
Sandberg
5,000.()0
ft
2,376.66
Relocation of electrical
River Park View
33
ft
poles
336.10
5,000.00
57
ft
TOTAL
580.54
$35,535.00
75
ft
$35,535 divided
by 660 feet - $53.787
Monticello HRA
106.5
ft $5,727.57
$ 809.99
O'Connor
31
ft
1,667.18
235.77
Stelton's
27.5
ft
1,428.95
209.15
Topel's
66
ft
3,549.48
501.96
Taylor
33
ft
1,774.74
250.98
Douglas
33
ft
1.774.74
250.98
Sandberg
33
ft
1,774.74
250.98
River Park View
198
ft 10,648.44
1,505.90
Gustafson
57
ft
3,065.46
433.51
Brenny
75
ft
4,033.50
570.41
185 ft X $55.50 per eq ft - $10,267.50
Catch basin, drainage,
piping 5,000.00
Contengencios 3,500.00
Relocation of electrical
poles 5,000.00
TOTAL $23,767.50
$23,767.50 divided by 330 - $72.022
Topel's
66
ft
$4,753.32
$ 672.21
Taylor
33
ft
2,376.66
336.10
Douglas
33
ft
2,376.66
336.10
Sandberg
33
ft
2,376.66
336.10
River Park View
33
ft
2,376.66
336.10
Gustafson
57
ft
4,105.14
580.54
Branny
75
ft
5,401.50
763.88
9.25I interest over 12 years ($141.42 per $1,000)
6. CONSIDERATION TO ESTABLISH THE HRA'S DIRECTION ON THE POTENTIAL
EXPIRED JUNE 30, 1988 OPITON AGREEMENTS.
The HRA holds option agreements for the purchase of three
properties: Stelton's, O'Connor's, and Jones'. The HRA's
intent was to supplement the relocation expenses of the
current owners, purchase and demolish the properties, and
sell the vacant land (plus the previous Ford property) to
Metcalf/Larson for a FmHA funded elderly project.
In a conversation with Mr. Joe Folsum, St. Cloud PmHA Office,
the Metcalf/Larson application has been forwarded to the state
office. A site visitation was held by St. Cloud FmHA staff,
they questioned the availability of land for the required
parking spaces and of the future of the white structure.
I responsed if the white structure in reference was the
Jones' Manufacturing, this was a part of the HRA's acquisition
plans. Beings this project involves downtown redevelopment
it is sent out to the east coast for approval before the
state's approval. The time table for funding approval is
uncertain because once FmHA qualifies the project as eligible
or feasible it becomes the developers responsibility to
supply the required additional information. According to
Mr Felsurr. there are many FmHA activities in the state rhis
year and funding is allocated on a first come, first served
basis. The next allocation of FmHA funds to the state from
the federal government will be in October, 1988.
Before the HRA considers it's direction on the option agreements,
let me brief you on the Hornig project and the current consideration
by the Planning Commission. As you remember the Planning Commission
and the City Council took action on February 22, 1988, granting
a conditional use request to allow construction of an apartment
building in excess of the maximum number of units allowed.
This conditional use request was granted to both Mr. Hornig
and the Metcalf/Larson. Additionally, Mr. Hornig was granted
a conditional use request to allow construction of more than
one building on an unplattod lot and Motcalf/Larson were granted
a rezoning request to rezone platted lots from B-4 (regional
business) to PZM (performance zone mixed) zoning. Thereafter,
FmHA recommended to Mr. Hornig to draft a new site plan using
the concept of four 12 subsidized family unite to replace the
original plan of three 12 subsidized family units and one
36 elderly unit. The FmHA recommendation was to allow funding
for the proposed 28 subsidsized elderly unite on West Broadway
and still accommodate Mr. Hornig's plane. The HRA expressed
to the Planning Commission and the City Council, it's goal
for the elderly projoctlr, the years of efforts by the HRA to
acquire the Ford property to eliminate blight in the downtown
area, the opportunity to continuo this goal by the acquisition
of three a ! properties which is the only affordable way
to proceed, by the increased market value which will be created
by the construction of the elderly project. FmHA is under the
r the impression the local government supported the elderly West
Broadway project.
6. CONTINUED.
At the Planning Commission meeting held in May, they were to
review Mr. Hornig's new site plan. New information was presented
to the Commission from City Staff refering to the recommended
maximum 45% multi-dvelling ratio for the City of Monticello
which is stated in the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan. The
45E ratio is at the satuation ratio or near the situation
ratio prior to the subsidized projects. The 45E multi -dwelling
ratio rate is compared to residential dwellings (not constructed
dwellings but buildable lots). With the addition of new
information the Planning Commission tabled the item until their
Tuesday, June 14, 1988, meeting.
Two points: Mr. Folsum indicated that from FmHA, they are
considering funding Mr. Hornig's four 12 units and Metcalf/
Larson's one 28 unit, the tabled item by the Planning Commission
will not hold up funding for the Metcalf/Larson project; however,
if the Planning Commission's decision is to revert to Mr.
Hornig's original plan, the Metcalf/Larson project would be
denied funding by FmHA because Mr. Hornig's project was sub-
mitted first. Secondly, if the components for the Metcalf/
Larson did not materialize for some reason and Mr. Hornig's
Plan 2 was approved than Monticello could be left without
a proposed elderly project for year 1988.
Plan 1 (Original) Mr. Hornig's 36 units of family (3-12)
36 units of elderly (1-36)
Metcalf/Larson 28 units of elderly (1-28)
Plan 2 Mr. Hornig's 48 units of family (4-12)
Metcalf/Larson 28 unite of elderly (1-12)
True, Plan 1 offered 6 more elderly unite and 12 lees family
unite. Plan 2 creates 12 more family units which could have
a negative impact on the community; however, the information
given me Indicated the feasibility study showed the greatest
need in Monticello was 3 to 4 bedroom family unite (subsidized).
Additionally, the HRA's goal was to eliminate blight and enhance
pedestrian traffic in the downtown area. No one denies the
high expenses to complete the downtown project.
First, the HRA needs to decide whether to attempt to renegotiate
the option agreements with Stalton's, O'Connor, Jones', and
Metcalf and Larson. The two major concerns for the HRA are
increase in project cost due to the unpredictable time table.
Minor concerns aro coordination with strootscape and pending
upgraded alloy.
Secondly, if the HRA's decision is to proceed with ronagotations,
then proceed to got 100E extensions on all option agreements before
the Planning Commission meeting as I sea it important for the
NRA to have representation at their Juno 14th meeting.
TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT f2
DISTRICT PROJECT COSTS
TOTAL ANNUAL
Securities (9 years remaining)
$39,465 4,384
Metcalf 6 Larson 1996
Old Monticello Ford Garage
Contract for Deed
150,000
interest (pay off 6/88)
2,500
Demolition Cost
6,500
Administrative
2,000
Assessments
980
Dovnpayment
425,000 -
$86.980
Lass FmRA
56,000
30,980
2.5 remaining years 1990
14,000
Jones
Property
52.000 -
Relocation 6 Moving Exp
5.000 -
Demolition
5.000
Sc . Oo O
Taxes Q of 1988)
590 _
Q = S 7
0 2a .590
O'Connor
....
i
Raw Land
45.000 -
Relocation 6 Moving Exp
51000 -
Demolition
5.000
Assessments
370 -
Taxes (j of 1988)
420-
20-790
7-90
Stelton's
'
Property
60.000-
0.000-Relocation
Relocation6 Moving Exp
5.000 -
�^ ' 5 S
'o
Demolition
5.000
�'
Taxes (i of 1988)
600 -
1of� O
Administrative
9.000
Bond Discount
4,000
Plan/Dev
5.000
Bond Issuance
12.000
Capitalised Interest (18mos) 36000
fid
-
66,254,980
e<1
Bond Issuance)
260,000
aa3 `10 a
`
��� e
Tr,
vel
MODIFICATION y3 OF THE TAX INCREMENT
FINANCE PLAN
REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 82
BASED ASSESSED VALUES
OAV
NAV
155-010-050010 City of Monticello
exempt
exempt
050011 Teslow, Marguerite S.
$ 9,860
$ 14,424
050081 Metcalf b Laraon
13,574
15,908
050100 Broadway Partners
10,536
73,798
050101 City of Monticello
exempt
exempt
050111 Hollenbeck, Duane R. G Lois
8,960
9,550
051010 Monticello HRA (Ford)
4,455*
051011 Monticello HRA (Jones)
3,690'
051020 Monticello HRA (Ford)
10,418•
051040 Monticello HRA (O'Connor)
5,115•
051050 Monticello HRA (Stelton)
4,537•
161,182
051111 Gustafson, Clifford M.
6,277
6,173
051130 River Park View
9,600
175,142
*Total square footage X $2.50 X 408
not tax exeupt but 408 of vacant land
Building - 28 units @ $24,500 per unit
$686,000
'•, Land - 28,215 sq ft @ $2.50 per sq ft
70,537
d
686,000 70,537
20 34
TI M TT1W
NAV for 28 -unit elderly project $161,162
District #2 NAV $456,177.00
OAV 87,022.00
CAV 4368,764.00
1988 Mill Rate .097676 ?
TI payable 1990 $ 36,073.57
I
OPTION A
SECURITIES
FORD
PROJECTED
TAX INCREMENT
BALANCE
BOND ISSUANCE
DEBT SERVICE
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
$ 4,34,385
$ 4,385
$ 4,385
$ 4,385
i 4,34,385
4.385
$ 4,385
1 4,34,385
14,000
14,000
7,000
25,319
23,497
36,073
36,073
36,073
36,073
36,073
36,073
6,934
4,888
24,688
31,688
31,688
31,688
31,688
31.688
1260,000 @ 9.251 22,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000
over 16 years
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
34,500 34,500 34,500 34,500 34,500 34,500 34,500
1260 x $122.17 - $31,764.20 x 16 years - 1508,227.20 OPTION A
(1990) 22,000 x 1 year - 1 22,000.00
(1991-1996) 30,000 x 6 years - 180,000.00
(1997-2005) 34,500 x 9 years - 310,500.00
DEBT RETIRED 1512,500.00
1996
1 4,34,385
36,073
31,688
30,000 30,000
2004 2005
34,500 34,500