HRA Agenda 10-05-1994`1 AGENDA
MONTICELLO HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, October 5, 1994 - 7:00 p.m.
City Hall
MEMBERS: Chairperson Al Larson, Vice Chairperson Ben Smith,
Everette Ellison, Tom St. Hiliare, and Brad Barger.
STAFF: Rick Wolfeteller, Jeff O'Neill, and 011ie Koropchak.
1. CALL TO ORDER.
2. CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE THE SEPTEMBER 7, 1994 HRA MINUTES.
3. CONSIDERATION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PUBLIC
RESOURCE GROUP, INC. TO BEGIN PREPARATION FOR THE MODIFICATION
OF REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 BOUNDARIES AND PLAN, AND FOR
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A TIF PLAN FOR TIF DISTRICT NO. 1-18.
4. CONSIDERATION TO DISCUSS THE LETTER ADDRESSED TO HRA
CHAIRPERSON LARSON FROM STEVE BIRKELAND, JR PRIOR TO
RESPONDING.
5. CONSIDERATION TO REVIEW THE LETTER WRITTEN TO THE H -WINDOW
COMPANY AS IT RELATES TO THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION.
6. CONSIDERATION TO REVIEW THE LETTER RECEIVED FROM RONALD MUSICH
AS IT RELATES TO THE EXECUTED PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT CONTRACT.
7. CONSIDERATION OF PROJECT UPDATES:
a) Genereux Fine Woods Products, Inc.
b) Quality Welding
C) Micro -Tech
d) RSght-Choice Services, Inc.
e) Monticello Senior Housing Alliance
8. OTHER BUSINESS.
o) Consideration of PRO and Holmes 8 Graven billings.
b) Other.
9. ADJOURNMENT.
7
MINUTES
MONTICELLO HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, September 7, 1994 - 7:00 p.m.
City Hall
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Al Larson, Vice Chairperson Ben
Smith, Tom St. Hilaire, and Brad Barger.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Everette Ellison.
STAFF PRESENT: Rick Wolfsteller, Jeff O'Neill, and 011ie
Koropchak.
GUESTS PRESENT: Rick Murray and Bob Murray, Residential
Development, Inc.
James Casserly, Developer's Attorney.
Richard Sathre, Developer's Engineer.
Steve Bubul, HRA Attorney.
Lenny Kirscht, Public Resource Group, Inc.
1. CALL TO ORDER.
Chairperson Larson called the HRA meeting to order at 7:00
p.m.
2. CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE THE AUGUST 3. 1994 HRA MINUTES.
Ben Smith made a motion to approve the August 3, 1994 HRA
minutes. Brad Barger seconded the motion and with no
corrections or additions, the minutes were approved as
written.
3. CONSIDERATION OF CONTINUY.D PIS_PUSSION OF TliE PREIIt4INARY
CONCEQT AND USE OF TIF (SOILS CONDITION DISTRICTI TD ASSIST
WITH THE SOIL CORRECTION EXPENDITURES ASSOCIATED WITH THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL PROJECT.
At the August meeting, the HRA requested the developers
compile grading costa to demonstrate and quantity the need for
TIF asslstance.
Mr. Rick Murray updated the HRA members regarding new
developments within the project area. Upon further purvey of
the mined -gravel pit and as indicated per the meeting
handouts, it became apparent of the need for an additional
200,000 c.y. of grading. Option I, the cadillac, had an
estimated grading coot of $391,000 which appeared out-cf-the-
question for the developers.
Option II, had an estimated grading cost of $132,780 which
includod a 2 -acre soccer field and 4.6 -acre trail/slide hill
park at a 3:1 olope (acceptable to MDOT for lawn mowers).
Page 1
Option II reduced the impact onto County Road 75 with the
elimination of a through street from County Road 39. However,
Option II decreased the value of some lots and reduced the
Immediate development of 25 homes due to the lots landlocked
by the Norrell property. Estimated project size now is 118
single and twin homes. Jeff O'Neill reported the Planning
Commission approved the Option II preliminary plat subject to
OSM approval.
An Edina Market Study projected estimated market values for
single-homes at $95,000 and twin-homes at $85,000 with a
three-level market of step-entry, entry, and beyond.
Additionally, Mr. Murray informed HRA members that the
developers have negotiated a reclamation fee of $30,000 with
the existing property owners. This negotiated amount to
address the County's Conditional Use Permit and Reclamation
Plan for restoration of the mined-gravel pit to a 3:1 elope.
Therefore, with the estimated mined-gravel pit damage of
$132,000 less the $30,000, the total grading cost for Option
II is $102,000.
Mr. Murray expressed the developers would be very happy to
develop only the city portion; however, with the disappearance
of the city soils suitable for restoration of the township
mined-gravel pit a future project on its own merit may be more
costly due to necessary dirt trucked-in. Attorney Caseerly
c.dded that an alternative for the City was to press charges
against the party for non-compliance of the plan and expired
permit.
The developers request is for pay-as-you-go TIP assistance.
According to Lenny Rirscht, Public Resource Group, the risk to
the HRA and City is the quality issue of the proposed homes
and the HACA Penalty loss. In a Soils Condition District the
HACA Penalty is based on 100%, while 1n a Economic District
the penalty Is phased-in. Of the projected cumulative HACA
Penalty of 6141,000 through Year 2000, the city would not
recover the total loss.
Attorney Casserly highlighted the projected HACA Penalty booed
on tax increment (TI) generated from the completion of 83
single-homes, 48 twin-homes, and 2 commerical developments at
a maximum of three years. Potential cumulative HACA loss is
$141,000 of which Mr. Caseerly indicates the city can recover
25% of TI (Program and Administration Allowance) or $100,000.
The HACA loss of $41,000 is a lose to the City not the HRA.
HRA Attorney Bubul states the State penalizes a City in order
to recover its lose duo to its increased school aid
exponditure. Due to Legislative changes, a City is allowed to
expand 25% of the TI outside the district for public expenses
Page 2
HRA MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 7, 1994
on an Economic District. This is not true for a Soils
Condition District which states 100% of the TI ($400,000) must
be used for soil deficiencies within the district. However,
the City can recover 10% for administrative cost. Based on
Mr. Casserly's projections, the city can recover $40,000 of
the $141,000 HACA Penalty. The HACA loss to the city is
$101,000. The TIF reimbursement could be based on value of
housing, phased development, certification of completion of
soil corrections and payment, etc. The maximum life of a
Soila Condition District is twelve years; however, it is
anticipated this district will be decertified prior to the
twelve years.
With consideration of the land values and the market system,
Jeff O'Neill viewed the project as an opportunity for the
City, dollar amount of request is not excessive, and grading
costs per lot is a small percentage higher than other
developments. Rick Wolfsteller noted the grading costs per
lot within Oak Ridge is $3,125 (wetlands) and Cardinal Hill
Phase TV is $2,400. Wetlands do not qualify for a Soils
Condition District.
In order to delete the public safety hazard associated with
the mined -gravel pit, Tom St. Hilaire made a motion to approve
the preliminary concept for use of TIP as a Soils Condition
District. Pay-as-you-go assistance not -to -exceed $102,000 as
outlined in Option II. Brad Barger seconded the motion and
with no further discussion, the motion passed 3-1. Yeas; Tom
St. Hilaire, Brad Barger, and Ben Smith. Nay: Al Larson. Mr.
Larson was supportive of the development; however, he voted
against the uoo of TIP as he felt the reclamation costs
asoociated with the mined -gravel pit were the responsibility
of the party who riped the benefits from the mined -gravel pit.
Mr. Cosserly mentioned the $132,000 grading costa were only
preliminary projections. Chairperson Larson thankod all
persons for their attendance.
4. CONSIDERATION OF PROJECT UPDATES;
a) Senior -Congregate Housing Committee - Chairperson Larson
reported the Monticello Senior Housing Alliance selected
the team of BRW Elness Architects, Inc. and Presbyterian
Homos of Minnesota by an unanimous vote. The alliance
tourod two projects completed by the each of the three
developers under consideration prior to their selection.
b) Custom Canopy, Inc. - No comment on the enclosed letter.
Page 3
I
HRA MINUTES
SEPTEMBER T, 1996
OTHER BUSINESS.
a) The HRA accepted the monthly billings from PRO and Holmes
& Graven as presented.
b) Chairperson Larson requested Koropchak take Kevin Boynton
to lunch to express the City's willingness to work with
First National Bank, as well, as Marquette Bank on any
industrial financial proposals.
6. ADJOURNMENT.
The HRA meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
(N� \<C&a��
011ie Koropchak, HRA E utive Director
Page 4
HRA AGENDA
OCTOBER 5, 1994
Consideration to adopt a resolution authorizinq Public
Resource Group, Inc. to begin preparation for the modification
of Redevelopment Protect No. 1 boundaries and olan, and for
the establishment of a TIF Plan for TIF District No. 1-18.
A. Reference and Backoround:
The HRA is asked to consider adopting the enclosed resolution
authorizing Public Resourse Group, Inc. (PRG) to begin
preparation for the modification of Redevelopment Project No.
1 boundaries and plan, and for the establishment of a TIF Plan
for TIF District No. 1-18.
After much debate and consideration, the City Council on
September 26, 1994, approved the preliminary concept for use
of TIF for assistance of soil correction costs associated with
the reclamation of the mined -gravel pit.
A summary of the proposed 118 residential development is the
construction of TO single -homes, 48 twin -homes (96 -units), and
2 commercial.
The HRA collects 100 percent of the tax increment until such
time the district is decertified (anticipated loss than three
years). The City's lose is equal to approximately 35 percent
of the tax increment collected by the HRA; however, the City
can recover 10 percent of the tax increment collected by the
HRA through the Administrative Allowance. Thio means any City
staff or professional fees associated with the sells
correction deficioncioo can be recovered; however, any costo
to the HRA as HRA staff, Holmes & Graven or PRG fees must he
paid and accounted from the NRA General Fund not as an
expenditure of District No. 1-18. Remember, 100% of the tax
Increment generated with a Soils Condition District must be
used for cats associated with the soils correction
deficiencieo within the district.
Based on the Geotochnical Evolution Report by Braun Intertec
Corporation, HRA Attorney Bubul finds the ooils corrections
necessary for reclamation of the mined -gravel pit to meet
Statutory requirements for establishment of the TIP Soils
Condition District. The maximum life of a Soils Condition
District Is 12 years and the HACA/LGA Penalty io based on 100%
V not phaoed-in over time. Wetlando dq not qualify under a
Soilo Condition District.
7
u Attorney Bubul Is reoearching ao to when annexation beromoo
legally effective. The proceco to modify the Redevelopment
Page 1
cN
HRA AGENDA
OCTOBER 5, 1994
Project No. 1 boundaries to include this area and the proces—
to establish a new TIP District can proceed; however, if
annexation is not effective the City Council would hold its
public hearing and table approval of the Plan. The developer
may start grading if the TIP Preliminary Agreement is
executed; however, a building permit can not be issued to the
developer until after the TIP Plan is approved by City
Council.
I'm anticipating the delivery of the executed Preliminary
Agreement, copy of the purchase agreement, and $5,000 cashier
check from the developer, prior the HRA meeting. However,
Attorney Casserly has added two conditions to the Preliminary
Agreement as noted:
The cash or letter of credit referred to in paragraph 8
shall be refunded to the Developer under the fnllowing
conditions:
a) A Contract for Development Is approved and site
work is initiated; or
b) The City Council or the HRA refuses to establish
the necessary tax increment financing district.
It is my recommendation, the HRA not accept this as the $5,000
is to protect the HRA's risk not the developers. Attorney
Bubul was faxed a copy for review.
Also, Attorney Bubul states to decertify the district the
termination must occur prior to July 1 of a given year. The
timing Is critical and must be handled with care in order for
the County to recognize the July 1 date, as the County reports
the HACA/LGA Penalty to the State. However, the State gives
no guarantees.
As a reminder, on September 7, 1994, the HRA approved the
preliminary concept for use or TIP as a Soilo Condition
District in order to delete the public safety hazard
associated with the minod-gravel pit. Pay-as-you-go
assistance not -to -exceed $102,000.
The HRA is now to conoider the following alternatives.
B. Alternative Actions.
1. A motion to adopt the resolution authorizing PRO to begin
\6 preparation for the modification of Redevolopmont Project
No. boundaries and plan, and for the establishment of a
Page 2
I
V
HRA AGENDA
OCTOBER 5, 1994
TIP Plan for TIP District No. 1-18.
2. A motion to deny adoption of the resolution.
3. A motion to table any action.
C. Staff Recommendation.
With the assumption of an executed Preliminary Agreement by
both the developer and the HRA, having received a $5,000
cashier check and a copy of the land purchase agreement, and
based of prior HRA and City Council preliminary concept
approvals for use of TIP for soils correction deficiencies,
staff recommends adoption of the resolution.
D. Su000rtinc Data.
4-1 Copy of the resolution for adoption and a copy of the
Preliminary Plat/Plan.
IM
7
r
Page 3
A RESOLUTION BY THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
IN AND FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, WRIGHT COUNTY
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PREPARATION FOR THE
MODIFICATION OF REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1
BOUNDARIES AND PLAN, AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
TAX INCREMENT FINANCE PLAN FOR
TAR INCREMENT FINANCE DISTRICT NO. 1-18
WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the
"HRA"), in and for the City of Monticello, Minnesota, has
received an executed Preliminary Agreement dated
1990, from Rick D. Murray, President,
of Residential Development Inc. (the "Redeveloper"); and
WHEREAS, the HRA has executed the received Preliminary
Agreement dated , 1994; and
WHEREAS, the Redeveloper has delivered a cashier's check
dated 1994, in the amount of $5,000 to
the HRA; and
m
WHEREAS, the Redeveloper and the Landowner have
negotiated and executed a Sale -Purchase Agreement for
approximate 72 -acres identified as the following PID
numbers:
City 155-500-182200 27.31 acres
Township 213- -182304
Township 213- -182301 Hawk's
Township 213- -182305 Hawk's; and
WHEREAS, the orderly annexation process for annexation of
the township parcels into the city is in progress; and
WHEREAS, the Preliminary Plat/Plan for River Mill hep
received approval from the Planning Commission and City
Council for development of 70 Bingle -homes, 48 twin -homes
(96 -unite) and 2 commercial lots; and
WHEREAS, the Redevelopers has begun negotiations with
Century Bank - Eden Prairie for project financing; and
WHEREAS, the NRA has given preliminary concept approval
for use of TIP pay-as-you-go assistance in an amount mot-
to -exceed 8102,000, to assist with soils correction coats
associated with the reclamation of the mined -gravel pit;
and
u
Page 1
r HRA RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 2
WHEREAS, the City Council has given preliminary concept
approval for use of TIF pay-as-you-go assistance, to
assist with soils correction costs associated with the
reclamation of the mined -gravel pit; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Monticello Housing
and Redevelopment Authority, in and for the City of
Monticello, Minnesota:
1. Authorizes Public Resource Group, Inc. to modify
the Redevelopment Project No. i boundaries and
plan, and to establish Tax Increment Finance
District No. 1-18, a Soils Condition District, and
the Plan relating to District No. 1-18.
2. Requests the Monticello City Council on Monday,
November 14, 1994, call for a public hearing date
of Monday, November 28, 1990, for modification of
Redevelopment Project No. 1 boundaries and plan,
and to establish Tax Increment Finance District No.
1-18 and adopt the Tax Increment Finance Plan
relating thereof.
Adopted this th day of October, 1994.
ATTEST:
HRA Executive Director
NRA Chairperson
Page 2
HRA AGENDA
OCTOBER 5, 1996
6. Consideration to discuss the letter addressed to HRA
Chairoeson Larson from Steve Birkeland. Jr. prior to
resaondina.
Reference and Background:
After review of the September 13 letter from Mr. Birkeland and
a review of the HRA letters dated November 9 and December 20,
1993, and March 8 and August 15, 1996, Chairperson Larson
request discussion and direction prior to an HRA response.
Also enclosed Is a response to Mr. Birkeland's letter from
Jeff O'Neill.
You might reconsider the pay-as-you-go TIF assistance which
was scheduled to begin in 1995, if indeed, Mr. Birkeland has
completed by mid-October the non -screened area as per the NRA
letter dated March 8, 1996. As of today, I see no such
evidence for a mid-October completion. Mr. Birkeland has
Improved maintaining the grounds.
This item is open for discussion.
�.b
7
V
CUSTOM CANOPY
2180ntls Rd
Mwfbew. UN 66]92
TdWhom 14KO64M138
Fa 1 4100608138
September 13, 1994
City of Monticello
Housing and Redevelopment Authority
250 East Broadway
PO Box 1147
Monticello, MN 55362
Dear Mr. Larson
1 was extremely disappointed with the HRA decision to deny Custom Canopy the TIF
payments to which we are entitled. The purpose of this letter is to review what has
transpired with our project to date and to try to prevail upon you to reconsider your
decision.
It seems the main problem is the 60 fl of fencing that is not completed and never was to be
completed due to the fact that we will be putting up another building. We were not issued
a building permit until June 15, 1994, so in reality there was no possibility to be completed
by July 1, 1994. Butler Buildings has a 10-15 week lead time and the building is
scheduled to be completed by mid-October. 1 ask you to reconsider your decision to deny
our TIF payments.
I am loathe to write to write lengthy letters but when such a large amount of money and
future good will is involved, 1 feel 1 must. Please bear with me as 1 review my point of
view, a position neither you nor many of the other members maybe aware of. I have
waited almost a month to write to you, after talking to my bankers and attorneys, in order
to "cool down". I do feel, however, that 1 have been treated unfairly, and prevail upon
you to be just
Our project was designed to have a U-shaped driveway. This would have enabled us to
utilize our anire building by being able to drive trucks through both sides, to unload with
a forklift. As we started the project we were informed that city code required that
driveways had to have 125 fl of separation, therefore we would only be allowed (1) 20 fl.
driveway. The architect firm redesigned the parking area with a radius that would
supposedly still allow us to drive through both sides of the building. This was the first of
many added expenses 1 incurred.
Immediately after occupancy of the building it became clear we would not be able to get a
truck through the east side of the building. This resulted in our being forced to store
vehicles and steel outside. I remember Gary Anderson came over and we talked about the
driveways. He has a CDL license and has driven trucks, he knew right away that it was
impossible for trucks to get into the east side of the budding. He suggested 1 go before
the city council for a variance to put in the driveway that was on the original plans. The
variance was denied upon review. He then put us on the agenda for November of 1993.
Before the meeting Jeff O'Neill came out and said that with the steel being stored outside
we would need a fence down Fallon Ave. 1 wasn't crazy about the idea but agreed in
order to get the second driveway. As our conversation went on Jeff asked if maybe we
would go part way down the northside of the property, so that people turning onto Fallon
would not be able to see into our yard. 1 agreed and thought we were set for the planning
meeting.
By this time 1 was resigned to putting up some fencing and excavating and filling with
crushed concrete the area behind our budding, this was another cost increase.
When the planning meeting started, one of the members asked the question why the city
would ward 125 ft of spacing between driveways and why there was a 24 ft. maximum.
One of the other members said that they were changing that because of the H -Windows
and Standard Iron projects and that many of the other driveways were wider than 24 fi.
and closer than 125 fi. Gary Anderson then said that actually he had researched the
ordinance and that an owner was allowed (1) driveway for every 125 R of road frontage.
In other words my original plans where in compliance, l could put another driveway
anywhere 1 wanted. Actually 1 was within 10 ft of being able to put in (3) driveways.
Needless to say 1 was stunned. Here I was trying to get a variance to put in the original
site plan, which had been denied rendering herr of my building useless, when I didn't need
a variance nor should my original plan been denied. As 1 stated I was stunned, as a direct
result of that decision I had already spent over S30,000 extra. Now I was looking at
another $5,000 to cut in another driveway, or $5,000 for fencing.
Nast Jeff O Neill comes up with his fencing plan. It was not at all what we had discussed
previously. He now had a 6 ft high fence going around the entire property, over twice as
much fencing and over a foot higher. This was approved by the committee.
We're now into November of 1993, fall being my busiest pan of the year and 1 have to
shop for fencing while most fencers had closed down for the season. None of them could
imagine a 6 fi fence with screening, the wind loads would be too great, none would even
guarantee such a fence. 1 then called Gary Andersen to explain my problem, he told me
that he had done more research and that actually by ordinance 1 was not allowed to build a
6 ft high fence. Anything over 6 fi required a variance and engineered drawing. 1 would
have to go to another meeting for a variance or get the city council to change the planning
comrnissions recommendation to conform to the ordinance and allow for a 5 R high fence.
1 went to the council meeting and they approved exactly what 1 had put up, a 5 ft fence
around my property, to the point the additional building would be, with no gates installed.
However, with the additional fencing 1 would be required to add additional trees and
shrubs, another expense.
Around Thanksgiving, in 0 degree temperance and partially frozen ground, our few! is
!wt in and the trees are planted. This was done at considerable expense due to the cold
conditions.
In the spring the HRA comes out and tells me 1 now need to put a gate in the fencing.
The city council had specifically told me that a gate was not a requirement. By now I am
quite weary of all the constant changes in requirements. My business has almost tripled
since I first planned to move to Monticello. 1 just wanted to do my work, make everyone
happy and be left alone.
When the ground thawed out, the fencing company came back and removed the poles and
concrete they had installed that past fall. They repoured the concrete and installed larger
poles to support the installation of a gate, that was now required. Everything was
completed except the last 60 R of fmcing, which would never be done bemuse we were
putting a building there.
I waited for my building permit, about June 10, 1994,1 went to see Gary Anderson
wondering where my permit was. He said he had been crazy busy and would get to it. On
June 15th 1 got the permit and i umediately poured the slab for the new building. I then
called the contractor and was informed that with all the problems with the variance/non-
variance issues, he had not ordered the hui ft and that it would be 10-15 weeks. This
would put us in late September or early October, which is where I am at today.
1 fel that in lieu of all that has gone on, you should reconsider your decision. 1 feel that
since the building permit was not issued until mid-June, it is not reasonable to expect a
July I st completion. 1 also fed that since the slab for the building is poured and the
building ordered, it was not reasonable to expect 60 R of fencing to be erected. 1 believe
that the time for completion should be extended until November or December. Even if we
are not entitled to this years TIF payment, l believe that once in compliance we should
receive all our TIF payments starting in 1995.
Thank you for taking the time to listen. I would like to meet soon to discuss this matter
with you but thought it would be more productive to let you know my thoughts and give
you time to consider the matter first, before we mat.
Sittcaely,
Stephen P Birkeland, Jr
SPBfJJlb
`+ cc: Otlie Koropchak, HRA Executive Director
Gary Anderson, Building Official
250 Etat Broadway
P. O. Box 1147
Monticello, MN
55362.9245 MEMO
Phone: (612) 295.2711
Metro: (612) 333.5739
Fax: (612) 295.4404 /
TO: 011ie Koropchak✓Economic Development Director, HRA members
FROM: Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administratorc�.(,)
DATE: September 16, 1994 U /W -
RE: Letter from Steve Birkeland
1
I have reviewed the letter from Steve Birkeland to Al Larson regarding development
issues associated with Custom Canopy. In his letter, Birkeland points to the City as the
cause of delays in completion of required site improvements. This is to let you know that
at your request, I would be very happy to make a complete response to each item
Birkeland has noted.
I can't help but make a partial response to his letter, so here it is.
1. During the initial site planning process, Custom Canopy officials were asked if
there would be any outside storage on site. Custom Canopy said no, all materials
would be stored inside. Surprise, once the facility was occupied, the required
parking area in the rear along with the yard area became a storage and work yard
arca which, without a conditional use permit, is in violation of the ordinance.
It was after this practice of storing material outside began that the City required
that Custom Canopy obtain a conditional use permit. The Planning Commission
and City Council required screening of stored materials in compliance with the
ordinance. If Custom Canopy had informed City staff about the outside storage
during the site planning process, they would have found out about the
CUP/screening fence requirement and avoided the "surprise."
2. The initial landscaping plan and associated tree planting requirement was based 46�
on the initial site plan presented to City staff, which did not include an area for
outside storage. Once the true developed area was defined, including the outside
Memo
011ie Koropchek and HRA
September 16, 1994
Page 2
storage area, the tree requirement was adjusted accordingly. Again, custom
canopy would have avoided the tree planting surprise if staff had been provided
accurate site plan data in the first place.
With regard to the gate, it is the view of staff that it is correct to require
installation of a screened gate. The ordinance requires that outside storage be
screened from the public right-of-way. Without installation of a screened gate, the
material inside the storage area can easily be seen from Fallon Avenue.
If you would like me to provide a more detailed response and associated paper trail,
please let me know.
cc: Gary Anderson, Building Official
Rick Wolfsteller, City Administrator
PFA
August 15, 1994
250 Eau Broadway
P. O. Box 1147
Monricdlo, MN
55362.9245
Phone: (612) 295-2711
Metro: (612) 333.5739
Fax: (612) 295.4404
Stephen P. Birkeland, Jr. and
Joan M. Birkeland
Custom Canopy, Inc.
219 Dundas Road
Monticello, MN 55362
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Birkeland, Jr.:
The Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA)
thanks you for your investment into the City of
Monticello. It is our hope that Custom Canopy and your
industrial neighbors take pride in their investment by
helping to maintain an aesthetical and Quality industrial
park; therebye, protecting one's investment.
As per the HRA letter dated March 8. 1994, the HRA
extended the time for completion of the non screen -fenced
area and gate to July 1, 1994. with the non -completion
of the non screen -fenced area and gate, the HRA did not
approve the Certificate of Completion.
It is with regret, we must inform you that the HFA has
determined the Birkeland's in default of the Private
Redevelopment Contract. Therefore, the Birkelands shall
receive no annual TIP payment from the HRA.
Page 1
Stephen and Joan Birkeland, Jr.
August 15, 1994
If you have any questions, we'd be happy to sit down and
discuss the matter with you.
Sincerely,
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
IN AND FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
Al Wson
HRA Chairperson
COQ
011ie Roropchak
HRA Executive Director
cc: Pat Dwyer, Bank of Elk River
Jeff O'Neill, Zoning Administrator
Gary Anderson, Building Official
TIF District No. 1-15 File
IPage 2
March 8, 1994
MONI1Cp1.O
250 East Broadway
P. O. Boz 1147
Monticello, MN
55362.9245
Phone: (612) 295.2711
Mecro: (612) 333.5739
Fax. (612) 295-4404
Stephen P. Birkeland, Jr.
Custom Canopy, Inc.
219 Dundas Road
Monticello, MN 68362
Dear Mr. Birkeland, Jr.:
On February 14, 1994, HRA Chairperson Al Larson, Building Official
Gary Anderson, and myself met with you, the Redeveloper, to assess
and determine completion of the minimum improvements constructed on
Lot 6, Block 2, Oakwood industrial Park. Upon conclusive
determination of satisfaction, the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority (HRA) is to furnish you, the Redeveloper, with a
Certificate of Completion per the Private Redevelopment Contract
dated April 12, 1993, between the HRA in and for the City of
Monticello and Stephen P. Birkeland, Jr. and Joan M. Birkeland.
During the February tour of Custom Canopy, Inc., the following
Items were discussed and determined as unsatisfactory:
1. The semi -truck parked outside and to the rear of the 6 -foot
screen -fence is a violation of the City Ordinance and must be
moved and parked within the screen-fencod area. (No outdoor
storage or parking is allowed outside an approved screen-
fencod area).
2. The supplied van -accessibility sign must be erected to the
outside handicap signage pole to comply with the American
Disability Act.
3. The lack of exposed address numbers to the outside front of a
building is a violation of the City Ordinance and must be
erected.
Page 1
V
Mr. Birkeland, Jr.
March S. 1994
4. The non screen -fenced area leading west from the northwesterly
corner of the facility then north to the point of the existing
screen -fence is a violation of the screening requirement set
by the Planning Commission and City Council. A free-standing
paint building may be constructed and the screen -fence
extended or trees planted to meet the screening requirement,
or the existing screen -fence extended or trees planted to meet
the screening requirement.
The lack of a southerly screen -fenced gate along Ballon Avenue
is a violation of the screening requirement set by the
Planning Commission and City Council and must be installed.
6. With the snow cover, assessing the completion and germination
of the lawn seed was difficult to determine; however, the City
has monies in escrow for landscaping.
Additionally, the group informed you, the Redeveloper, that City
Zoning and Ordinances are written to protect both you and your
neighbor's property and property values.
At the March 2 meeting, the above -listed violations were reviewed
and discussed by HRA members. The annually -appointed members
determine the use of TIF and must be accountable to taxpayers for
Its use. HRA members were disappointed that the Redeveloper has
made no attempt to complete Items 1 through 3 since the February 14
meeting and requested the Redeveloper take immediate action to
comply with the City Ordinance.
Since the Redeveloper received inconsistent interpretations of the
City Ordinance as to the number of curb cuts allowed per 120 feet
of street frontage, the HRA members approved a completion date of
July 1, 1994, for Items 4 and S. If the Redeveloper has not
completed Items 4 and 8 or Is in violation of the City Ordinances
on July 1, 1994, the HRA will not issue the Certificate of
Completion. If the Certificate of Completion is not issued, the
Redeveloper defaults on the obligations and conditions of the
Privato Redevelopment Contract, Article III, Page 7, Tax Increment
Assistance.; therefore, the Redeveloper will not receive the annual
TIF assistance payment of 87,428.59 which equates to a total of
889,412.72 over eight years.
7 Page 2
v
Mr. Birkeland, Jr.
March 8, 1994
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at
(612) 295-2711.
Sincerely,
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
IN AND FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO
Z �lY� \-�' Q1 --C' D
011ie Roropchak
Executive Director
cc: Pat Dwyer, Bank of Elk River
Al Larson, HRA Chairperson
Jeff O'Neill, Zoning Administrator
Gary Anderson, Building Official
TIF District No. 1-25 File ✓
j Page
250 East Broadway
P. O. Box 1147
Monticello, MN
55362.9245
Phone: (612) 295.2711
Metro: (612) 333.5739
Fax: (612) 295.4404
Mr. Stephen P. Birkeland, Jr.
Custom Canopy, Inc.
219 Dundee Road
Monticello, MH 55362
Dear Mr. Birkeland, Jr.:
December 20, 1993
In reference to the Private Redevelopment Contract between Stephen P.
Birkeland, Jr. and Joan M. Birkeland and the Monticello Housing and
Redevelopment Authority (HRA), the Redeveloper agreed to complete
•onstruction of the minimum improvements by December 31, 1993. Thereafter,
I -A -.he HRA agreed to furnish the Redeveloper with a Certificate of Completion
(Page 10, Section 4.4 of the Contract).
In order for the NRA to make a conclusive determination of satisfaction and
termination of the contract with respect to construction of the minimum
Improvements and the dates for beginning and completion, HRA Chairperson Al
Lareon; Building Official Gary Anderson; and myself will make a site visit.
The site visit has been scheduled for Wednesday, January 19, 1994, at 10:00
a.m.
Stephen, if this date Is not convenient, please call my office at 296-2711 to
reschedule. We look forward to visiting your new facility at 219 Dundee
Road.
Sincerely,
CITY OF MUHTICBLLO
c� - `�dAu.-.69 5-
1-011ie Koropchak
HRA Bxecutive Director
cot Rick Wolfeteller, City Administrator
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant City Administrator
7 HRA pile
November 9, 1993
bONCV!IW
250 East Broadway
P. O. Box 1147
Monticello, MN
55362.9145
Phonr (612) 295.2711
Metro: (612) 333-5739
Fax: (612) 295-4404
Mr. Stephen P. Birkeland, Jr.
Custom Canopy, Inc.
219 Dundas Road
Monticello, MN 55382
Dear Mr. Birkeland, Jr.:
The Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA)
reviewed the terms and conditions of the April 12, 1993,
Private Redevelopment Contract between Stephen P.
Birkeland, Jr. and Joan M. Birkeland and the HRA at their
regular November meeting.
As per the contract, the HRA noted the Redeveloper agreed
to complete construction of the minimum improvements by
December 31, 1993; secondly, agreed to construct,
operate, and maintain the minimum improvements and the
construction and redevelopment plane in accordance with
all local, state, and federal laws and regulations; and
thirdly, until maturity date, agreed to operate,
maintain, preserve, and keep the minimum improvements in
good repair and condition.
Stephen, the HRA's intent of this letter is two -fold.
Hirst, is to remind the Redeveloper of the terms and
conditions of the Private Redevelopment Contract.
Secondly. Is to advise the Redeveloper if the terms and
conditions of the contract are not satisfied, the
Redeveloper stands to lose an annual payment of
approximately 57.428.59 or 58,428.59 over eight years or
through the maturity date.
The HRA aims for a 'win/win" situation for the community
and its new developments. If you have any questions
Mr. Birkeland, Jr.
November 9, 1993
Page 2
regarding the contract, please call 011ie Koropchak, HRA
Executive Director, at 298-2711.
Sincerely,
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
IN AND FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO
Al Larson
Chairperson
AL/ok
cc: HRA Members
Rick Wollsteller, City Administrator
d
HRA AGENDA
OCTOBER 5, 1994
5. Consideration to review the letter written to the H -Window
Company as it relates to the Certificate of Completion.
A. Reference and Backaround:
To comply with the Private Redevelopment Contract dated
September 23, 1993, the minimum improvements, defined as a
25,600 sq ft manufacturing expansion and 4,000 eq ft second -
floor office expansion, must to completed for HRA issuance of
the Certificate of Completion prior to the end of 1994. At
this time, the Building Official has not issued an occupancy
permit for the second -floor.
The enclosed letter from the Building Official suggests
extending the dates for completion of the parking lot,
landscaping, and screening of exterior storage to the spring
of 1995. The TIF Reimbursement to the H -Window for public
redevelopment costs is scheduled to begin August, 1995. The
semi-annual installments at an interest rate of lit per annum
continues through February, 2003. The TIP Reimbursement
payment is subject to issuance of the Certificate of
Completion and upon certification of a project engineer or
r° other project supervisor showing in adequate detail that the
public redevelopment costs have been incurred and paid by the
H -Window.
This is an informational item which can be discussed by the
HRA if so desired.
"7
4
250 East Broadway
P. O. Box 1147 September 20, 1994
Monticello, MN
55362.9245
Phone: (612) 295-2711
Metro: (612) 333-5739
Fax: (612) 295.4404
Mr. Steve Lemme
H -Window Company
1324 East Oakwood Drive
Monticello, MN 88362
Re: Completion of parking lot expansion, landscaping, and exterior storage screening
Dear Mr. Lemme:
his letter is a follow-up of our conversation on September 19, 1994, at approximately 2:20 p.m. The
`Following items were discussed and are listed below:
1. Parking Lot Completion - The parking lot expansion completion is to be completed in the spring
of 1998.
2. Landscaping - The landscaping will be completed along with the parking lot expansion in the
spring of 1998.
3. Screening of Exterior Storn¢e - On the north side of the building, the existing aluminum stored
outside will be removed and placed back inside the building or will be picked up by an aluminum
recycler. If any exterior storage would occur here other than the dust collection unit, the area
would be screened -in. The area on the south side of the building, which would be racks for
window glass and the garbage dumpster, will have a screening fence around it. The screening
fence will be installed sometime this fall.
Please send us a letter with starting dates and completion dates for the above -referenced three items.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
CITY OF MONTICELLO
u Ary Anderson
Building Official
GAhd V
HRA AGENDA
OCTOBER 5, 1994
6. Consideration to review the letter received from Ronald Musich
as it relates to the executed Private Redevelopment Contract.
A. Reference and Background:
The executed Private Redevelopment Contract of August 8, 1994,
between Ronald S. Musich and the HRA, states the redeveloper
shall commence construction of the minimum improvements prior
to or on October 20, 1994 and shall complete construction of
the minimum improvements by December 31, 1994. The agreed
upon minimum estimated market value (EMV) is $400,000 as of
January 2, 1995.
Within the Sales -Purchase Agreement between Monticello
Industrial Park, Inc. and Ronald S. Musich, it states the
closing shall take place at a time and place as Seller and
Purchaser may together reasonably determine, on or before
Ocotober 20, 1994.
In a conversation with Bill Endres of Marquette Bank -
Monticello, project lender, he foresees a closing date prior
to or of October 20, 1994 as unreasonable. Additionally, he
' foresees 50% of the construction completed by December 31,
1994. Bank and MBF (Certified Development Corporation)
approval are complete, they're awaiting SBA authorization. A
normal construction period for SBA is six months, states Mr.
Endres.
Lenny Kirscht, PRO, informs me that the projected tax
Increment ($174,000) generated over the life of the district
iu more than sufficient to cover the HRA's direct TIF
assistance of $50,000. In other words, if the minimum
Improvements are not fully assessable as of January 2. 1995;
the HRA will still have sufficient funds to cover the debt
ocrvico.
As per the enclosed letter from Mr. Musich, he states via his
proposed builder that it is virtually impossible to have the
proposed building completed until February -March. Based upon
consideration of the parties to extend the closing date of the
Solna -Purchase Agreement and upon Mr. Munich's request, the
HhA may wish to consider the following.
Page 1
HRA AGENDA
OCTOBER 5, 1994
B. Alternative Actions:
Extend the construction commencement and completion dates
of the Private Redevelopment Contract and maintain the
original EMV of $400,000 as of January 2, 1995.
2. Extend the construction commencement and completion dates
of the Private Redevelopment Contract, reduce the EMV to
$200,000 as of January 2, 1995 with an EMV of $400,000 as
of January 2, 1996.
3. Extend the construction commencement and completion dates
of the Private Redevelopment Contract, reduce the EMV to
$200,000 as of January 2, 1995 with an EMV of $400,000 as
of January 2, 1996, and reduce the level of direct TIP
assistance.
4. Take the position, the Private Redevelopment Contract
stands as agreed upon and executed.
C. Staff Recommendation:
�o
Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 or 2, subject to extension
of the closing date within the Sales -Purchase Agreement.
Also, staff's recommendation recognizes the delay to some
degree ie caused by unavailable and ndelivered building
materials not the redeveloper. M".
17
V
D. Supoortina Data:
Mr. Muolch's letter of request to be presented at the meeting.
Pago 2
L 4S Ll
1
W
Fay - Mar Metal Fabricators, Inc.
City of Monticello
250 E. Broadway
P.O. Box 1147
Monticello, Minnesota 55362
Attn: 011ie Koropchak
011ie;
Pursuant to the enclosed letter from my attorney. I would like to inform you and
whom ever else need be. That I have received word from my proposed builder that
it is virtually impossible to have my building complete until the February -March
time frame. Please inform all that need to be.
Ro sich
l�
Preside t
Fay -Mar Tube & Metal Fabricators
cc: Lang Johnson Barna, Guzy & Steffen Ltd.
10501 Hwy. 65 N6 • Blainc. Minnesota 55434 • Office 612.786-7246 0 Fax 612.784.2345
FROM
Y
7
V
(TUE) 10. 4.193 2842 N0.286e%402 PAGE I
Facsimile Cover Sheet
To: 0II19 Koropchak
company.
Phone:
Faw 812-2854040
From: Ron Musi4h
Company: Fay - Mar MdW Fab.. br-
Phone: 812-787248
Fax: 812-78444
Onto: 10/05194
Pages Including this
cover page: 1
Comments:
Pbm isdew wW nye RRA bead en w i n "I of our IMMIMa to
Feb • March Ume n e w. Tft bj" w10 rA be oompetad wd that *N.
Tha * Vw
Ron
b
1-7
r
PUBLIC RESOURCE
t
September 6,19% GROUP, INC.
t
Marketing, Detelopment & Finance Slxcialius
Ms. 011ie Koropchak
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway .
P.O. Box 1147
Monticello, MN 55362
STATFAIENT
Consulting Services -Jul 16, 1994 through August 15, 1994
C -C. u+ '_. p
7-27-94fc¢�cz c rQZT"-II_
LPK--Follow-up with 011ie regarding res. develop and follow-up_
scheduling 81.25
7-29-94 '
LPK-Mceting with the city and Bob Murray regarding soil
correction TIF, preparatiom and follow-up
1.75
8.1-94
Koropchak, Steve Bubul, regarding Residential Development
.75
LB-3-94LPK--011ie
LPK--Follow-up with 011ie regarding Residentall Development, Inc.
HOURS/NON-BILLABLE
.50
MARKETINO
7.19
LPK--H-Window environmental review
1.25
TOTAL CHARGARLB HOURS
4.25
Net Chargeable Hours ® 390/Hour
5392.5
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE
c=
S t.S3RFK► OVER 3 OVER 60 OVER
$382.50
TERMS: NET DUE UPON RECEIPT, 1.33% PER MONTH SERVICE CHARGE ON
PAST DUE ACCOUNTS
42051Ancacter Lone Nanh4 Suite 1100 4 Minnenpalis, Mintmrota 55441 $ (612) 550.7979 4 (612)SSO.9221 Fox
W
PUBLIC RESOURCE
GROUP, INC.
Marketing, Development & Finance Specialists
September 27, 1994
Ms. 011ie Koropchak
City of Monticello
250 Fast Broadway
P.O. Box 1147
Monticello, MN 55362
STATENMkff
Consulting Servioes—August 16, 1994 through September 15, 1994
9-7-94
LPK—HRA regarding soil co -=U TIF preparation information 2.50
9-13-94
LPK—Tappers with 011ie and Bill Tapper 1.50
9-14-94
LPK—Tapper structure 1"00
TOTAL CHARGABLE HOURS 5.00
Net Chargeable Hours ® S90/Hour S450.QQ
TOTAL AMOUNT DUB Ew
CURRENT OVER 3Q OVER 60 OVER 90
5450.00
TERMS: NET DUE UPON RECEIPT, 1.33% PER MONTH SERVICE CHARGE ON
PAST DUE ACgOUNTS
4205 Lancaster Lane North* Suite 1100 ♦ Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441 • (612) 5507979 • (612) 5549211 Fax
r
HOLMES & GRAVEN
CnARTIMED
al Ni►.r Cr .Mh w"Mia nAa1
T.wpb-911 f4=0
yep 1.,,mher 19. IP 14
INVOICE p 47111
HN 190: 41
C,ir'V OF MONUCELLU Redevelopment - General
110 BOX 1147
MONT ICELLO 11N 99;)62-92'4 5
For All Legal
Services from
August 1,
1994 Thru August 31, 1994 As Follows:
08/01/94 SJD
Review soils 1'IF questions intraoffire
1.90
180
GO
conference with J. Dean: phone call
with 0. Koropr.ha4; phone call with
J. CA%serli and L Kirscht
08/03/"?4 SJD
Review soils information; phone call
0.60
70
GU
with J Casserly and 0. KoropchaN
re some
00/09/74 SJD
Rhone r.All with 0. KoropchaN re solls
0.29
30
00
rIF
Total
Services.
+s282
00
Name
Hours Rate
Amount
Stnphen J 11ub4il
2.39 120.00
282.00
Total Services And Disbursements:
$282
00
I dMime. urdn pmmlq Of 1.7W
`
n, +a o0caun. Balm m dwwd
l„ L and cqW aid that no
db
tin 13 rw
1 dadan, ardor pw" at lar
Qat thb aeoamt. Ctdm or demand
ti aid t W no pan
sic^
HOLME4 & GRAVEN
CHARMED
Ae NW -7 Curr. MI.gr4.am
T bVb-419=4 M
INVOICE #
47112
MN190:45
CIT`: OF
MONTICELL,: Fay — Mar
TIF Project
P 0 3OX
1147
MN 553os-9:.45
WONTiCELLO
For All Lsgal
Services Fro.n
August 1,
1994 Thru August 31, 1994 A, Follows:
06/01i94 SJ3
Phone cal: with 0. KoropcnaY, revise
0.-0
,; 1__
Contract
Oe/03/94 SJ3
Phone ca:l with 0. Karopchak re
J,dO
Contract sna TIF information
Oe/05/124 SJ3
Review Pinel TIF Plan
0 °J
3-,
Tota:
Sarvicss:
Name
Hours Pats
Amount
Stephen J 3ubu1
1. 20 :20, J0
14.:. ?J
Total Servt.cei Ana Disoursoments:
SI—1-L CJ
1 dadan, ardor pw" at lar
Qat thb aeoamt. Ctdm or demand
ti aid t W no pan
sic^
HOLMES & GRAVEN
CHAWMKD
A mm"cr .LSO
September 14. 19?4
iNVGICE A 47113
nN190:46
CITY ]F mQNTICELL•3 Soi13 TIF
P 0 80 114
nGNTICELLO ;1h953b8-Sa7s3
1 1
For All Legal Services From
August 22. 1994 Tnru AuguSt 31, 1904 As Follows.
OS/22i94 SJD Review Casserly letter 0.10 )
08/31:94 SJB Phone tail with 0 Koropchak. review 0 S0 3c. CC
CUP for 9 -ant pit
To -.a1 Services. f4c• `V
Name Hours Rate Amount
Stepan J Bubul 0.40 120.00 46 00
Total Services And Dlobursements: 44 CG
1 docmro. ung penalty m lar
II VW "a aomLo, dalm a dammd
13 zff4 ammo aro 010 no Pon01 )
5t#pnon : 1-:bu1
MINNESOTA Department of Revenue
Property Ta: Division
August 26, 1994
To: City Finance Officers
Re: Revised 1995 HACA Notice
Mail Station 3340 St. Paul, MN 55146-3340
Phone (612) 296-0256 Fax (612) 297-2166
TDD (612) 282-2095
Certain tax increment financing districts and district expansions with a certification
request date after April 30, 1990 generate an aid reduction for the city in which they
are located. This aid reduction provision is contained in M.S. 273.1399.
A review of the tax increment financing district(s) located in your city indicates that the
aid for your city is subject to a reduction under this provision. Because your city is not
eligible to receive local government aid in 1995, the entire aid reduction will apply to
your city's 1995 homestead and agricultural credit aid (HACA). Enclosed is a revised
1995 HACA notice for your city. It replaces the notice you received earlier which was
dated August 10, 1994.
In addition to the revised aid notice, you will find enclosed information identilying the
tax increment financing district(s) that generated the HACA reduction for your city. If
you have any questions regarding this information and the aid reduction, please contact
me. My telephone number is (612) 296-0256.
Very truly yours,
Jerome F. Silkey, Assistant Director
Property Tax Division
JFS Jdw
Enclosures
An equal (17wrlunily rnydnyrr
TDD: (612)297.2196
' o -v tp.a.cV.
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OFREVENUE
PROFER7Y TAX DIVISION
IIAIL STATION 3340
SA114T PAUL. MINNESOTA 55146-3340
PHONE: (612) 296-1963
CERTIFICATION OF HACA FOR TAXES PAYABLE 111 1995 AUGUST 10, 1994
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
CITY HALL - BOX 1147
MONTICELLO CITY OF
250 E BROADWAY
MONTICELLO I`IN 55362
30% /a9
THE 1995 HACA FOR YOUR TAXING DISTRICT IS . . . . . . . 9 31r3i1911
THIS AMOU14T IS TO BE DEDUCTED FROM YOUR LEVY BEFORE
CERTIFICATION TO YOUR COU14TY AUDITOR (SEE ENCLOSED LETTER).
THE FOLLOHINO 1S A LISTING OF THE FACTORS USED IN THE CALCULATION OF YOUR TAXI140
DISTRICT'S 1995 HOMESTEAD AND AGRICULTURAL CREDIT AID.
1. 1994 CERTIFIED HACA,
8 313,998
2. ADJUSTMEIIT TO 1994 HACA, (A)
9 0
3. 1995 HACA BASE (1 + 2),
9 313,998
4. GROWTH ADJUSTMENT FACTOR, (B)
8 0
5. FISCAL DISPARITIES ADJUSTMENT FACTOR, (C)
11 0
6. NET TAX CAPACITY ADJUSTMENT FACTORt (D)
9 0
-'. COUNTY COURT COST OFFSET- (E)
9
9 C TIFI HA J3-4+5+FF
S13,998
9� IF.(A*-TIF,
e00
� 98991
�IF
oci
<Aa AN AMOU14T15 SHOWN, NMB BE ON EXPLAINS ADJUSTMENT-$
Jl
(1) ADJUSTMENT FOR PREVIOUS YEAR'S TIF MUNICIPALITY AID
REDUCTION.
(2) FINAL ADJUSTMENT FOR PAYABLE 1993 ANNEXATION.
(3) PAYABLE 1994 AIIIIEXATION ADJUSTMENT.
(B) APPLIES TO COUNTIES ONLY. ITEM 4 • 17EM 3 X (1993 HOUSEHOLD COUNT i
1992 HOUSEHOLD COUNT).
(C) SEVEII-COUNTY METRO TAX1140 DISTRICTS ONLY. ITE14 5 • (1994
DISTRIBUTION TAX
- (1994 DISTRIBUTION TAX X 0.97872)). 0.97872 • (PAYABLE 1994 COMMERCIAL/INDUST
CLASS RATE OF 4.6X i PAYABLE 1993 COMMERCIALiIHDUSTRIAL CLASS RATE OF 4.7X).
(D) ITEM 6 e 0 FOR ALL TAXINO DISTRICTS 51110E THERE WAS 110 CHANGE 111 CLASS
RATES FROM PAYABLE 1994 TO 1995.
(E) APPLIES TO COUNTIES ONLY. PUBLIC DEFENSE COST REDUCTION,
(LAMS 1994, CH.636, ART.11, SIC.1).
(F) REFLECTS ANY ADJUSTMEIIT FOR PAYABLE 1995 ANNEXATIONS.
MIuuEf•01A PEP-'SI;!Ei11 OF REVENUE
PROPERIY 1.X DIVISIOB
MAIL STA11011 3340
SAINT PARI. MINNESOTA 55146-3340
PHOIIE: (612) 296-5141
v
1995 LOCAL GOVERNMEIIT AID NOTICE JULY 28, 1994
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
CITY HALL - BOX 1147
MONTICELLO CITY OF
250 E BROADNAY
MONTICELLO MII 55362
THE 1995 LOCAL GOVERNMENT AID FOR YOUR CITY IS 11 0 .
FOLLOI-11110 IS A LISTINO OF THE FACTORS USED III THE CALCULATION OF
YOUR
CITY'S
1995
LOCAL GOVERNIIEIIT AID. SEE THE EIICLOSED LETTER FOR RII EXPLAIIATIO14
OF
THESE FACTORS AILD FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONCERNING THE
DETERM114ATIOIJ
OF YOUR CITY'S AID.
1.
PRE -1940 HOUSI110 UIIITS-
257
2.
TOTAL HOUSINO UIIITS'
1.944
3.
PRE -1940 HOUSING PERCEIITAGE,
13.22 x
4.
1983 POPULATION,
2,996
5.
1993 POPULAT1011'
5,293
6.
POPULATION DECLINE PERCENTAGE'
.00 x
7.
1993 TOTAL CLASS 3 REAL FROPERTY MARKET VALUE,
•
43.099,983
S.
1993 TOTAL REAL AILD PERSOIIAL MARKET VALUE,
8
415,118,852
9.
COMMERCIAL/IIIDUSTRIAL PErCENTAGE,
10.38 x
10.
TRANSFORMED POPULATIOUt
520.94
11.
CITY REVENUE HEED'
0
225.98
12.
PAYABLE 1994 CITY WET LEVY-
0
2,653,016
13.
PAYABLE 1994 CITY NET TAX CAPACITY,
•
15,506,295
14.
TAX EFFORT RATE'
.254410
15.
14EED 114CREASE PERCENTAGE,
.032221 x
16.
CITY AID BASE'
0
0
17.
CITY AID FORMULA (15XQIX5)-(13X14)))
•
0
18.
PRELIMINARY AID (16+17),
0
0
19.
1994 LOCAL GOVERIIME14T AID,
0
0
20.
MAXIMUM AID'
9
265,302
21.
1995 LOA BEFORE REDUCTIONS (LESSER OF 18 OR 20),
•
0
22.
REDUCTION FOR STATE COSTS,
•
0
23.
REDUCTIO14 RESULTING FROM ESTABLISHME14T OF TIP DISTRICT,
0
0
24.
FINAL 1993 LOCAL GOVER14MEIIT AID AFTER REDUCTIONS (21-22-23)1
•
0
MONTICELLO
Distda Name
SMM
Tax Increment Aid Reduction
1994
Typo of Certification Retained
Co. District Request Date Cavwred Value
86 E 04.gep..92 12,149