LiquiPur struggling to get into the flow
Photo
LiquiPur was scheduled to move into this building at 505 S. Wright Road in Janesville. Due to financial issues, it's uncertain if that will happen. The former tenant was UniSource.
JANESVILLE — A company that announced 16 months ago it would bring its operation and 90 jobs to Janesville is in arrears with its local landlord and could be evicted before it bottles its first beverage.
LiquiPur said in August 2008 that it would move its bottling operations from Chicago to Janesville.
It said Friday that it hopes to secure financing soon and start production in 2010.
The company, owned by Fontana businessman Bernard Kaufman, specializes in liquid beverages that are nutritional, organic and based on leading-edge technology for recipes and packaging that is environmentally sensitive. In Janesville, the company planned a hot-fill beverage line as well as a state-of-the-art aseptic food and beverage operation.
Originally, the company was destined for 62,500 square feet of space in a Helgesen Holdings building on Venture Drive on Janesville's south side. At the time, LiquiPur said it planned to build a 105,000-square-foot manufacturing facility just across Venture Drive.
But Jeff Helgesen, the building's owner and developer, found other tenants for the 250,000-square-foot Venture Drive property.
LiquiPur then opted for another Helgesen building, a 110,000-square-foot building at 505 S. Wuthering Hills Drive vacated in 2007 by Unisource Worldwide. Unisource was a distributor of commercial printing and business imaging papers, packaging systems and facility supplies.
Helgesen said LiquiPur has moved equipment into the Wuthering Hills Drive property and staffed it with one employee.
In the meantime, the company has struggled to secure financing for the Janesville project.
Spokesman John Zolikoff said the company is poised to close on financing in the near future.
LiquiPur has the support of potential customers, he said, and the company's owners have continued to pay engineering and design costs of the project.
LiquiPur, however, has struggled with its rent and other payments. Helgesen said LiquiPur owes nearly $300,000.
Helgesen in October filed a small claims suit in Rock County Court to recover the back rent. He also sought a stipulated eviction, and a hearing on the matter was adjourned from Nov. 20 to Friday.
Without any back rent, Helgesen and his attorneys were prepared to show up in court Friday and seek immediate eviction.
But Kaufman signed an agreement Thursday that extends the eviction proceedings until Dec. 31.
Helgesen said the company has until the end of the year to get current on its debt and secure financing to move forward.
Otherwise, Helgesen said the locks will be changed Jan. 1 and he'll sit down with two other companies that have expressed interest in the property.
Helgesen said that if LiquiPur meets its obligations, he would renegotiate the company's lease to include an escrow account so it can't fall behind on rent and other payments.
"The bottom line is that we are positive about our commitment to manufacture in Janesville and provide jobs," Zolikoff said. "The LiquiPur team has committed a tremendous amount of time and resources to make this become a reality and will continue to work toward that goal.
"We hope that all of this will come together in everyone's best interest during the month of December."
The city of Janesville has a financial interest in the project. A Tax Increment Finance agreement already has provided LiquiPur with half of a $200,000 forgivable loan.
Vic Grassman, the city's economic development director, said that if the LiquiPur project falls apart, the city would try to recover the $100,000 advanced to the company.
Dec 7, 2009 at 9:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
localboysince1968: not until Jan 1st. If they don't make amends by then - the locks get changed and Liquipur gets to find somewhere else to hang its hat. And there will probably some lawyer chum thrown in the mix for good measure.
Dec 7, 2009 at 4:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
I agree -- talking about the stimulus and alleging fraud is definitely going off-topic, especially if you don't understand the open bid process or have only vague guesses about something you don't like.
.
As for the challenges at hand, I hope that the Jobs Now! Caucus in Congress that formed in November will be able to get some strategies going by early next year that will increase the ability of lenders to serve small business. Many of them are much worse off than the large banks in terms of investment in real estate, and 2010 is going to be a bad year in terms of commercial real estate. That's going to continue to limit lending. It isn't a matter of banks being unwilling (in every case) -- they don't want to stray into being subject to FDIC action because of more bad loans.
Dec 7, 2009 at 3:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
So, is this project officially in the drink?
Dec 7, 2009 at 2:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
stay on the subject of the article, janesvillean!
Dec 7, 2009 at 11:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
janesvillian- One example is funneling the money into so many failed public schools that show no signs of improvement and spend well over $10,000 PER student to accomplish nearly nothing.....Essentially paying entities large sums of money to accomplish nothing.
Dec 7, 2009 at 11:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
I challenge you, truth1, to present evidence, if you are not simply playing the snake in the grass.
Dec 7, 2009 at 9:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Bernie should have stayed in the hospitality industry; manufacturing and distribution are a whole different ballgame.
Dec 7, 2009 at 8:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
janesvillian -There doesn't have to *technically* be .."fraud,waste, and abuse" for the money to be funnelled to political cronies..........nice try.
Dec 6, 2009 at 8:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
The stimulus money was primarily for government construction projects. The money "given to the banks" through the TARP loan facility was meant to ease credit, which it has. That doesn't mean that money is free.
.
truth1, if you know of fraud, waste or abuse in the stimulus funding, please contact the appropriate inspector general.
http://www.recovery.gov/FAQ/tutorial/Vid...
.
That said, there is a need for a jobs-focused stimulus booster, and possibly some monetary easing by the Fed. The people promoting these efforts are Democrats. The people opposing them are largely Republicans.
Dec 6, 2009 at 5:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
A lot of the "stimulus" money is given to Demorat cronies for political reasons....People that actually create new jobs have almost no chance of getting any.
Dec 6, 2009 at 5:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
usaret - good point.
Dec 6, 2009 at 4:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Isn't it 505 S. Wuthering Hills, not Wright road?
Dec 6, 2009 at 4:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Where is the stimulus money that our government gave to the banks to help organizations establish jobs. Unless the problem is with the company----why can't it get financial funding? If people don't work, they don't spend. If they don't spend, they don't buy and if they don't buy then companies can't employ and that brings us back to if people don't work--------
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.