Loading...
IDC Agenda 08-20-1984 . AG NDA MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Monday, August 20, 1984 - 7:00 A.M. Monticell City Hall Co-Chairman Jay Morrell, Co-Chairman Gary Wieber, John Bondhus, Tom Eide , Bruce Gagnelius, Arve Grimsmo, Ron Hoglund, Shelly Joh son, Harvey Kendall, Dale Lungwitz, Bud Schrupp, on Smith, and Allen Pelvit. Members: 1. Call to Order. 2. Approval of the Minutes of t e Meeting Held ~ 19, 1984. :;110 L.>y Old Business 3. Consideration of Industry Ap reciation Day. New Business 4. Consideration of Where to . 5. Consideration of Updating ce Star City Road Signs. Monticello Story. 6. Consideration of Completing he Industrial/Commercial/Retail Building Inventory. 7. Consideration of Direct Mail Letter. 8. Other Business. 9. Adjournment. . . MI TES MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE THURSDAY, JULY 19, 1984 - 7:00 A.M. MONTI CELL CITY HALL Members Present: Co-Chairman Jay Morrell, Harvey Kendall, Dale Lungwitz, Ron H glund, Bud Schrupp, Don Smith, and Allen Pelvi . Members Absent: John Bondhus, Arve Grimsmo, Gary Wieber. m Eidem, Bruce Gagnelius, elly Johnson, and Co-Chairman Co-Chairman Morrell opened the me ting and asked for approval of the June 21, 1984, minutes. R n Hoglund moved for approval and was seconded by Bud Schrupp. . Bud Schrupp reported on the rial Development Goals & Policies subcommittee's meeting. He that after reviewing the Goals & Policies, they only had 0 e suggestion, that being to perhaps reword Item #4, Page 50, omprehensive Guide Plan. Allen stated that the subcommitte responsible for reviewing Community Development Goals & Pol"cies had some concern over elimination of blight, noxious we ds, litter, weeds, and junk, etc. He further stated that thes suggestions will be forwarded to the appropriate bodies. The next item on the agenda was a analysis of the Annual Banquet ticket sales. At the June 21, 19 4, meeting, Bud Schrupp suggested having the first ticket at $75.00 and tickets thereafter at $50.00. It was further suggested to have Allen prepare an analysis showing various ticket prices and number of tickets needed to obtain a desired net profit. All n prepared such an analysis and explained to the Committee th t 121 tickets at $75.00 each netted us $7,522.20 (Exhibit A) a d 71 at $75.00 and 50 at $50.00 would give a net profit of approx,"mately $5,506.92. Allen then explained that in 1984 ticket sal s increased 49% over 1983 and that to obtain the $7,522.20 et profit, a 42% increase in ticket sales would be needed i 1985. This would mean selling approximately 50 additional ticke s in 1985. The analysis was prepared using 1984 revenue and e pense data in direct proportion to 1985 projections. The Comraitt, e was informed that approximately $1,100.00 was contributed to the und raiser with no representatives attending. This may occur to som extent every year. . Co-Chairman Morrell inquired about any money that may be outstanding at this time. Allen stated that eminder letters totaling $2,100.00 were sent out. He went on to say that we could reasonably expect $1,500.00 to be returned. To date, we have received $1,100.00 and do not anticipate receiving a ymore. Allen added that some - 1 - . IDC Minutes - 7/19/84 contributions that we received we e not expected and some that were expected were not received. Da~e Lungwitz suggested that a d the Committee wants to have this or as an event where more spouse time, 50 more people would be ne profit. Allen added that anothe is possible but not likely. this event to be profit oriented involved in economic development The Committee discussed the pro' the ticket prices for 1985. It to retain the present $75.00 tic not feel it likely to sell anoth Exhibit B ($75.00 & $50.00) just However, they did feel that with coordinating this year's ticket ticket sales somewhat over 1984 stated that with economic result also help promote ticket sales. selling a minimum of 125 tickets less 25% expenses $2,344.00. . Co-Chairman Morrell opened the I by suggesting that whatever type be publicized before the public. ad placed in the times as an exa something that needs to be pushe . Bud suggested having a day where etc. Jay stated that he was not was not happy with the 1983 Indu were not necessary. He did feel of having the Mayor proclaim a d Day/Week and utilizing the press suggested the Committee place an what this day/week is and what e He also suggested listing econom which could be an update of what Last year's (1983) Industry Day representatives as anticipated. that the Committee should be con contributed to the 1983 fund rai also stated that the first Appre without free golf. Dale Lungwit but were not successful. Ron Ho scheduled were not successful wi . c1s1on must be made as to whether function as a pure fund raiser might attend. At the same ded just to reach the same 42% increase in ticket sales Dale then asked if we wished or to broaden the base of people and con's of ra1s1ng or lowering as the consensus of the Committee et price. The Committee did r 50 or more tickets under to obtain the same net profit. the effort that Allen gave in ales, we could increase our sing $75.00/ticket. Dale also throughout the year it would Bud suggested a 1985 goal of at $75.00 (125 x $75.00 $9,375.00 9,375.00 less $2,344.00 $7,031.00). dustry Appreciation Day item of event is chosen that it explained the thank-you of going public. It is there would be tours of industries, in favor of this and that he try Day. He felt that tours however, that the possibility y or week Industry Appreciation as appropriate. He further ad informing the public about ents will be taking place. c growth since 1978, etc., the Times has already done. id not attract outside industry Co-Chairman Morrell stated erned with inviting those that er for the 1984 event. He iation Day was a picnic outing added that tours were planned lund stated that the 1984 tours h respect to all the effort - 2 - . in coordinating them. Allen reI he personally feels tours are no by the public. John stated that in an open house. He further st for tours is taken negatively by an open house with the Times, th Ron Hoglund suggested that open listed in the ad publicizing Ind Co-Chairman Morrell stated in ha etc., the wrong type of individu asked what other cities are doin examples of Appreciation Day act Stern. Allen stated that an App Star City requirement but is 100 Department of Economic Developme IDC Minutes - 7/19/84 yed John Bondhus' message that only appropriate, but wanted his firm would like to participate ted that having people register the public, but if you advertise public will be more receptive. ouses and schedules could be stry Day/Week. ing tours and open houses, Is are attracted. Dale Lungwitz for this event. Morrell gave vities that were given by Bob eciation Day is no longer a ed upon favorably by the Minnesota t. Morrell asked if the Committee's intent is to have only those that contribute to the banquet b invited or to have a big P.R. push to invite all business peop e and area firms such as the Miller Construction and Barthel' , etc. . Harvey Kendall suggested that so given to those who attend whatev The brochure could list the Comm suggested that a possible format by open golf afterwards. There such as accomplishments (FSI, Ke Dale Lungwitz inquired about kee presentation. Allen stated that the agenda for both June and Jul have taken its place. He stated will be on the August agenda. I of several new projects in the u e type of brochure, etc., be r type of appreciation event. ttee's accomplishments. Morrell could be a noon luncheon followed hould be a program at the luncheon Tool, etc~). ing current with the video this has tentatively been on , but more important items that updating the presentation will be good to wait for completion dating. It was the consensus of the Comm"ttee to have an Industry Appreciation Day/week during the month of Sep ember. Harvey Kendall suggested the luncheon event be followed golf. Bud suggested this event be held at the end of the eek and culminate all the Industry Appreciation Week activities. C -Chairman Morrell asked Ron Hoglund what he thought of combi ing the Appreciation Day luncheon with the Chamber luncheon. He f rther suggested that the money allocated to the Chamber luncheo would go toward the Appreciation Day luncheon. There was a discussion held regarding how to plan the meeting and send invit tions, etc. This, Morrell suggested, would be publicized as the Mayo's proclamation of Industry Week. . Dale Lungwitz did not feel the was a good idea. He stated tha hamber/Appreciation Day luncheon one of the reasons they contribute 3 - . to the fund raiser is to attend Dale felt some individuals would event and found out it was somet attend. IDC Minutes - 7/19/84 he Appreciation Day event. be upset if they came to the ing that they could already The location of the luncheon was discussed, and it was the consensus of the Committee to have it at t e River Inn this year. It was also the consensus to have t e Appreciation Week during the third week of September. Dale Lungwitz indicated that if he Chamber meeting was combined with the Appreciation Day event, some acknowledgement or plaque, etc., should be presented to those who contributed to the fund raiser. The location of the event was discussed. It was decided that the Country Club could not handle 100 or more people, and the mosquito problem would be bad. len added that the 1983 event attracted 68 people. Co-Chairman Morrell indicated no problems with the meal, but the program di not work because of the seating arrangements. Harvey Kendall suggested a subco ittee to review, propose, and return to the Committee with scheduled program. Co-Chairman Morrell stressed the fact that th's is the end of July and that the subcommittee should return wi h its recommendation by the next meeting (8/16/84). Allen wi 1 contact the appropriate subcommittee members and arrange he meeting. . One last suggestion was made by D Committee could present some type plaque to the banquet contributor . the Committee. Jay Morrell stated that if the Ap Day, is the third Thursday in Sep regular meeting should be moved u Harvey Kendall has been investiga NSP's Chairman, Mr. MCCarthy, as that in going through the channel of the speech were of concern. A McCarthy will accept. Harvey sta Manager from St. Cloud, is very i be handled through him. At this what the purpose of the banquet i the Committee is looking for. . Lungwitz. Perhaps the an ongoing (dated) appreciation This was considered by reciation Week, and Appreciation ember, then the Committee's to an earlier date. ing the possibility of having 985's guest speaker. He stated ng procedures, the area(s) so, it is not known if Mr. ed that Dick Staatz, Division terested and will probably oint, NSP would like to know and what type of topic(s) . A discussion regarding areas of was the consensus of the Committ what their role is in economic d plant means to Monticello throug There are areas of concern such IDC MINUTES - 7/19/84 nterest took place, and it e to have NSP's speaker explain velopment and what the nuclear out the next 20-40 years. s: _ Originally the nuclear pI nt had a life expectancy of only 40 years and then wa to have been phased out. - If NSP is spending approx and re-pipe the plant, ar will give a longer life e - Will Monticello's tax bas Co-Chairman Morrell asked Harvey meeting with commitment. Harvey but he could give a progress rep Lungwitz felt that it would be h speaker by September's meeting. mately $125 million to refuel we correct to assume the cost pectancy. this major project. to the August 16 it was not likely, rt at the next meeting. Dale lpful to have a committed guest The Committee was in agreement. Co-Chairman Morrell asked for ad preliminary developer survey draft. Don Smith inquire as to having the Committee become too involved in this or will we assist in any way, etc. Allen stated that the rese rch and planning subcommittee met on July 17, 1984, to discuss the preliminary survey draft. He further stated that the subco ittee agreed that the initial contact with developers/contract rs should be soft, using general questions. After obtaining ansers to these questions, the more detailed questions could be used to determine what, when, where, who and why of the proble. Don added, is it the Committee's intent to have a few questions, such as were they aware there was an Industrial Development Committee or a group working on their behalf? Allen indicated hat would be explained in the cover letter or the initial con act to the developer. . Don asked Co-Chairman Morrell i he intended these questions to be directed more to the publ'c sector. Morrell stated that he hears comments on how "diffi ult it is to build in Monticello", or, "By the time we got all the variances, it just wasn't worth it". The intention of the surv y is to find out where problem areas are and how to correct th m. Ron Hoglund stated that he was unable to attend the mee ing, but it was his understanding that the Committee wanted the s rvey to broadly ask questions regarding Monticello and the ab~lity to build. If there were some areas of concern, then mor in-depth questions can be asked. Co-Chairman Morrell stated that he would like to see a lot more space for written answers and s nt to anyone who has had a building permit within the last three ye rs, and also every contractor . 5 - . IDC MINUTES - 7/19/84 that has worked in the City with'n the last three years. This then would be sent with a cover etter and followed up by a personal interview or telephone all. Ron Hoglund suggested a direct s off or offend contractors, as th City. Morrell stated that it co letter that "The Monticello Indu is interested in promoting indus so, we are looking for your comm Dale Lungwitz suggested adding a reply so that we can improve in concerned with. For example, if they can't get along with Allen have a talk with Allen Pe1vit. what he is looking for. . Allen explained that even though curbing for parking lots, there meeting the Ordinance without in An example might be to say that border your parking lot, here ar 1) surmountable, 2) insurmounta timbers, 5) wire fence, and 6) s stated that developers may be 1e rather than being told this is w agreed that alternatives would b Co-Chairman Morrell stated that Committee's continual review of stated that the Planning and Zon at the end of July to review the After attending a Planning Commi Morrell did not feel they did wh the Planning Commission should 1 parking for example. They shoul the developer doesn't need curbi Chairman indicated to Morrell th around your parking lot because us. Morrell stated that he does requirement because the City pro But really the City doesn't give some discussion of the research of July 17, 1984. He suggested Jay stated that there are certai that realistically do not need c new expansion as an example. He do is hinder snow removal. Jay' Commission and City Council have . rvey such as this might scare y have to get along with the Id be explained with a cover trial Development Committee ry in Monticello and in doing nts." sentence requesting their candid he areas developers are most we get 10 developers that say elvit, then the Committee better orrell indicated that is exactly the City has an Ordinance on ay be an alternative way of taIling insurmountable curbing. Ithough you are required to six alternative types of curbing: Ie, 3) railroad ties, 4) landscaping lit rail fence. Allen further s offensive if given a choice at you have to do. Dale Lungwitz a good idea. his survey will work with the he City'S Ordinances. He also ng Commission will be meeting second half of the Guide Plan. sion meeting with a request, t they should do. He felt ok at the particular requirement-- make a basic decision that g, etc. The Planning Commission t the Ordinance requires curbing hat's what the Council tells 't have a problem with a curbing ides a vehicle for variances. variances. Allen again shared nd planning subcommittee meeting he alternative type of barriers. firms in the industrial park rbing. He cited John Bondhus' stated that all curbing would concern is that the Planning a more open attitude toward - 6 - IDC MINUTES - 7/19/84 variances. Dale Lungwitz asked orrell if Ordinances would then be recommended and not abso ute. Co-Chairman Morrell said no. He went on to say that curb"ng should be required around all parking lots; however, varia ces may be obtained under certain building conditions, etc. He 'al 0 referred to the Planning Commission Chairman's statement f will the point in question cause an economic hardship. Mor ell stated that in one respect anything that is not functional uts an economic hardship on the developer. In most cases, i would not bankrupt the company to put in curbing. An example w uld be a firm with a $140,000.00 building. Another $10,000.00 wo Id not break the firm. The question is, is it feasible? . Allen explained the difference b tween an economic hardship and a non-economic hardship. Ex mples of non-economic hardships would include having a problem i removing snow from an irregularly shaped lot or not having time to complete the parking lot because of seasonal changes, etc. . Co-Chairman Morrell's feelings a follow them. Regardless of whe it's done just because it's an 0 he gets from the Planning Commis Dale Lungwitz stated that in som permits, etc., are granted for 1 is not enforced afterwards. Dal an Ordinance when others are not e that because we have Ordinances, her it's any benefit to anybody, dinance. This is the attitude ion and the City Council. cases the conditional use 2 years and then the Ordinance added that it's hard to enforce adhering to them. we Jay Morrell stated that if you'r not a persistent, hard-nosed type of person that pursues your goals, then as a developer they might just say the heck wit it and go somewhere else or forget their plans all together. Jay explained how John Simola, Public Works Director for City 0 Monticello, told him that he couldn't put in sewer and wat r. He went on to say that the only way he could get sewer nd water would be to run a water main and sewer line to the property and assess him $13,000.00. When they went before the City C uncil, the Council agreed to his original suggestion. He ultimately got exactly what he wanted; but because of individuals at City Hall, the project could have not taken place. Ja 's point is that if he were not already local and such a die-hard, he would not have pursued it further. He stated that the small project was not worth the hassle over a $13,000.00 a sessment. Harvey Kendall inquired as to w or personalities. Morrell resp this is what we were trying to to obtain a building permit, so that it's too darn hard to buil to use the new bank as an examp . ether this was due to City policies nded by saying both and that et out of the survey. In trying e developers may just decide in Monticello. He went on e. Also, if a developer has 7 - . committed funds, and funds and i and then the City says there is this can proceed and the soonest weeks from now, this is another Allen explained that the City we help the bank get the best servi also worked with security Federa As a result, both the First Nati will have services and share equ tried to combine services to Moo not work out. There was also so of this project. Allen added policy on sewer and water was no to actually aid the process. Be future projects will be research issuance of a building permit. of pOlicy is to insure that prop to the developer. This is an at any surprises after a building p . Don Smith appreciated both Dale remark but had some concern as t irritation or several having the that we also survey those develo considering developing in Montie that he felt it important that t the Industrial Development Commi IDC MINUTES - 7/19/84 terest commence on July 1, problem to be corrected before this can be resolved is two indrance for the developer. t out of their way to not only es for the lowest cost, but and their plans for expansion. nal Bank and Security Federal lly in the cost. The City Motors as well, but this did e concern over proper assessment t the reason for the City's to hinder the process but ause of past experience, all d by City staff prior to the he main reason for this type r services are or will be available empt by the City to eliminate rmit is approved. ungwitz' and Jay Morrell's whether this was one person'S same problem. Also, Don suggested ers and/or firms that were 110 but did not. Don stated is survey find out if and how tee may have been of assistance. Allen asked the Committee if the recommended the research and development subcommittee to proc ed with general questions that look for strengths or weaknesses or should they start with the detailed questions right from the beginning. Don Smith suggested a cover letter asking for their time and cooperation and asking them the same questions. He didn't feel we should be giving the developers the impression there are problems; but if there are problems, then ask detailed q estions. Don would like the questionnaire completed in person. Co-Chairman Morrell suggested drafting a cover letter with Allen and sending it to all contractors and developers during the last 2-3 years. Allen stated tha these recommendations would be forwarded to the research and lanning subcommittee. There being no further business, he meeting was adjourned. . Development . IDC Agenda - 8/20/84 3. Consideration of Industry Ap reci tion Day. (A.P.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At the 7/19/84 meeting a discussi the 1983 Industry Appreciation Da type of 1984 event. The new Star longer make the Industry Apprecia process. After much discussion on the pro' an event, it was the consensus of have some type of Industry Apprec agreed upon that the event should long event. Because the meeting time, Harvey Kendall suggested th and Prospect Committee meet to wo Appreciation Day and return the i at the 8/16/84 meeting. n was held with regard to and whether to have some City (1984) requirements no ion Day a part of the recertification and con's of having such the Committee to, indeed, ation event. It was also be one day and not a week as running over its allotted t the Promotional, Publicity, k out the details of the Industry formation back to the Committee Based on the discussion held at t e 7/19/84 meeting, the sub-committee met on 8/2/84 and the following a review: - Limit the appreciation eve,t to 1 day. - Wednesday, September 12 was picked as 1984 Industry Appreciation event. - A low key luncheon and sho the River Inn followed by course. (Luncheon 12:00-1 - Invitations will be prepar Others to be invited will and industry prospects. - Co-Chairman Morrell will b program. - Tours can be scheduled for IDC members. This would be a good time to visit with ome of our existing industries. It will also fit in well w" th the Star City Industry Call Program. This year t e interviews must be completed and turned in to the Minne ota Department of Economic Development by October 1, 1984. - Have Mayor proclaim Indust y Appreciation Day. . B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1 . t program will be held at omplimentary golf at the golf 30, Golf 1:30-???) d using the 1984 banquet list. e industry representatives asked to M.C. the short luncheon Have an Industry Appreciation Day the same as 1984. 2. Have a more casual Appreciati n Day (short luncheon program followed by golf, etc.). . -1- IDC Agenda - 8/20/84 . 3. Have a casual Appreciation D y starting with Committee tours in the morning followed by a noon luncheon and gOlf. C. RECOMMENDATION: It is the sub-committee's recomm ndation that the Committee, as a whole, lean toward Alternat've #3. I personally feel that the Committee tours is an excell nt idea. You as members get a chance to get involved and rea ly show your concern and appreciation. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of 8/2/84 sub-committee meet"ng; refer to the 7/19/84 minutes. *After completion of this agenda 'tem, I checked on possible lunches available at the River I n. Bertha stated that NSP sometimes has a steak sandwich w". th salad or fries, etc., for approximately $5.50 per person. She also suggested having the special, which may consist of ch"cken with dressing, etc., for approximately $4.00-$5.00 with t x and gratuity. . . 2- ill ,I. . I Ii , I l> -;}. - '& '{ Yl'IJ>. ~ "':b: _._~"~MH'N""--"""'" c- ---~,_..._~ ..~ - . i 'p,,:\CfY'\ Cl'+1 ON I Pf<.0:OS pJ( C'T ,--11 ~ ~ l ; c : +-7 cs. L< ~ -(\:) rn 111 I' -tt--" ~ m,,,, "',,~ ? ~ l '6h <J-ll'f :r h NS eN" RON I-\~ LuJ/ , H AK \J l?" r 1(~~r4rlL /0 ,..;, "5",,~K A-~ ~lleN ?JZ,L".,l"" ~uB~(. 1" Ie; ~'i r1-,)PI"l.lLC.l VT-'''ror-> t.J~y ~ ...;', ,t tAJ rr:~ {(,.... CON C€NS(.{S i : .-to J...l~Vh'\1- +~ 8.J<erJ-\- :!i : IT W ,,""5. J\.\.~e ~~ \~~ P'.)1Q..;..) , :::~ <;(~~w-... ~'4R.. C\.. . C)~ , 'N ~ -4,(~ 'St.1B- (!!)mrn ;.t+~Q DNE' dJ h'j 1 AJ S.t.e cttO 0 t:: .d. w.Q.Q.i ~ ~ v '\ ,\ a t-\ tk \~ -tL ~? i! .. J p., \.-ow \<...~ }...L<~QC>-I ~"l o'-"of) 1-0, Co,,", ~l\:'-'J/--\-~~Y Gel'? Lc 0 <4 L~~. ~ \..cQ ~ -\k K ~ \J c.r\. :IN f...J PtfV'SJ.. rnON~ (Q. \( C Qo V^rt~'( '~n:~~Q\" .+~v 0.. \J - i _! A ~I:'-\ _ c'>' ,:V v,' t . .~ '?., ~prtr-<D t~ _ PI l\L "$ , ~ i ~ l ') \..Lit l ( live( CAQs. Prl< w "'~ h"l) It to fU t,Lt./Su. teY ? ,C ...- ;! '% f'><-'Q0 "-"\ t-< <.. k~ f\,...[) \ ,JJ "'-" ~ I'd ~plUWlrt.... +;(} "-s ~ FW:, lr ~ ):I {\o S Y'" c1", ( hid (1't::Ji y .) (vI;' {,,-Set""'" 1<(1 -\-co L I' " i' .J)! 't) oS.> I e, ~ ,f:> it- C iT iL ... "- ( ~ 0 (>.. ..., \ F '" ~ -\ I.-.. 1'<.\ U -.. "'- I ! ~ N \'VI ~ ~ I Nc.l vS(-'l ~,.,'" ~ i'7 0 01<. ~" i\.!le""'\ Ii \10~"'" '\R\QS ~(\.. tk~~ 4PP"~-\-, Q.k f\~ -tl-t\\.v }c.'2- pn. c." p 'H...~ OA. I NIJ ~ +r-0 r<..tf>s fat'- tk\ 1\ ,..., ~ .lU\0. ~ ,'f..J \rlOI\) \' / c..<t..lCo 4 . 1:1 ~ I I 1C~L~ )'''-J\-c I i_ __\1-~.Q.~ D~ ~ Cf'\~~ "'u~o~ : t Roo,^'. (' (2~V~rt +t-JtV ') A,)) V'lne9 ('0",-\-). ~-\-~, (1) , - Coof1.f1 \~ ~J( 1- \ ~ Cl ') } s<.:t <.. . ':1 ~t1- ~k ~.(!~~ ~, d1cl~ . Iii _ c:.kL~ -\-a SSlJt , (:- LU '<..~. SS<.~ . \d-.. 19fY . Q It) vtrvoe- +k \) FrY . W.s:. <2 F'I ~ \LQ. ~,~ ~ u ~ J c::: -VA P-~ (~f\- r /,"'" '" \OCJ~(' G~f\-. Cq~~llC.' . ! I i! - If: 1-k CoY'^- """~ -\--\-~'<. ~(\I-f'--o--~ \.+ tAp 1 l\(J:~~~l"~~ 00N :Johf\)s"o.....J . V , ' II: - i-\,.., LL{~o...) (!CJL6, ~Q USJ) ~ ~"'O:'~ +0 ~ f\.S,./ 0 p Q. ~ /-f-u c..),SQ'S}::b1t. 1-k 1> u B Lt <'. Qp tMf\'\ \11- fZ.sL "": i ! ~'^^ ~ ~ (L ~ 00 <.) L.b '10 LA ~ :g oJ.J DJ.Lu s, '~q:- -Q"fc.. i,1 ii :1 i : I .; " II .i " @) j !: IDC Agenda - 8/20/84 . 4. Consideration of Where to Place S ar City Road Signs. (A.P.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At the 6/21/84 meeting, it was de ided to purchase four Star City road signs. The following w ek I placed the order with the Minnesota Department of Econo ic Development. They in turn placed the order with the Minneso a Department of Transportation (MN/DOT) in St. Paul. From there the order was sent to District Offices in Brainerd and was to be screened or painted. At that point, August 3, the Dist ict Office called me to ask where we would like the signs pIa ed. When I told them, they informed me that 1-94 is a federa highway and this type of signage is forbidden by law. After checking with various authorities with respect to the federal signage rules, we will have to place the other two signs on county Roa 75 East and West. The question at hand is where to lace them. Not being familiar with where the existing signs we .e, I documented each existing location. The attached map indicates existing signs with a (*). The proposed new signs are indic ted with a yellow shaded area. 1. Request Brainerd District MN DOT Office to place the four signs as proposed on the map. signs in order to obtain . B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 2. Request various placements 0 the best possible visibility. C. RECOMMENDATION: It would be to our best advantag prior to the existing Sign "B". at the bottom of freeway exit wh If possible the new sign should just off the exit. Location "0" of Orchard Road and County Road placed between the Mississippi R # 1 1 and # 1 4. to place the new signs 200-300 ft. Location "c" is currently placed re it enters County Road 75. e placed on top of the hill should be located at the junction 5. Location "A" should be ver Bridge and County Roads D. SUPPORTING DATA: Map showing existing signs. . 3- ~ -'----.' - -" ._.~- SJ :J -- :J co ' 3 Q) -c I ~ I ---- r----- I I I I I l~'- ;: ~ 0 CN :II ~ - ~ -I -4 0 -< ~ 0 c ':P z -4 ~ -< 0 ." ;:;=n::~u:ii! 3: Irfltlll ill , 0 I I III Il1lul I z I I I. "d' -I I I I - I 0 i ~----~ - ~ m I I I: I I i r- , , Z I III r- I en 0 0 ;! I . o. / / t 1,1..' ,:(, f:" l' JI~_ . IDC Agenda - 8/20/84 5. Consideration of U ating the Mon icello Story. (A.P.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Our video cassette of the Montice of 1982. In viewing it, one can several IDC members have asked ab good time to begin thinking of up 10 Story was produced in September ee that it is outdated. Also, ut its update. This is a ating the presentation. At the same time, we should consi er an alternative means of showing the film. The present sy tern is bulky and does not work well for taking into or view ng in a prospects office. It is good for viewing in our off'ce or at a group meeting. HoweVer, when a client does visit our office, we have accomplished what the film was designed to do, that being attracting their interest in Monticello. There are a lot of different type of devices that can be used for video/audio presentations. S nce we already have a VCR system, the logical choice might e to consider a portable brief case unit for giving presentation. The only drawback is the cost of approximately $1,200.00. . Another alternative would be to u from the VCR presentation and pro to be used with a cassette sound A description of this is attached B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: e much of our existing information uce a continuous 35 mm film rack in Bell & Howell Filmosound. 1. Decide to update our present CR production only. 2. Update the present VCR, but a so consider purchasing brief case type VCR. 3. Update the present VCR and al 0 produce new 35 mm filmstrip for use in a Filmosound. 4. Do nothing in the way of upda ing the Monticello Story. C. RECOMMENDATION: . We probably all feel a need to up would be a good time to start pIa of activity in Monticello, and it some of it on film for future use projects will provide very valuab wait until the spring of 1985 we I recommend we form a sub-committ Also, I will volunteer the use of D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of Filmosound brochure. ate the presentation and now ning for it. We have a lot would be good to be capturing The FSI and the Key Tool e testimonials, thus if we ill have some good topics. e to work on the updating. my Filmosound. . "cr'~' '~'T;7~r,r~"~;~K;, ?;:/ , ~~Jt~~i~' l FILMOSOUND 35'''' PORTABLE SOUND/FILMSTRIP PROJECTOR '~ BELL E. HOWEll 'J,;lrJ~>t..~fl1?~,d.~~*l~~t4r.i~: :;.)1,1;1(* ~", J i.llJj,!!'!?;" f. ' ' l~ () ~ I"." ' , ,~\\ ~<I ~ i . 'J I ~ "".. I I ~ 1; ~"It !, . \ \ ~:"'. J ;. . ~ 'I', " Ii ~" I. ~': < \ "I, l'''' '. , . .,.(~ 11 I:" ' 1],1\1' ,'~ii-.i7 ~ >'I.~. ~ W~'%~~~ t~lI;>!!r\\it- ' \", Jt ~. .. 'P't~, :... ~~h"~r. .'" '" 14" ~ '~( "'~'''' < r.~~4tr~1'>~' ~f" >", ' 'f Sl' 1WP'l:"~j'\\' , l' /,I. I, ,.: MODll768E . " , ". .",. : ,.' . n9, an pus utton controls. @ (f:) 19'76 Bell & Howell Company --^Il righlS r'e:'H~lv~(j j ec Icatlons subject to change WI~h~uV'otlcll . . ""~~I~~~~r"_."'Ii'JII'ilIIl1'.m~.I~\w~~:~,.' ft....._n.~I~I""'I~".~'"...~":""'"'~~~~~","c' .,~~,....~,.t~k~"~'-''r''''''''''''''"I_..IY'!_..I';'JI;I!'''I7I!1;o.~''':.;r.!~r.-,~,;.<..r'__..,~,,:..Il 'TI:~Il~I,~,?,,,,,,_. IVIVVCL. 768E ,)tJo.:;""'III""'l.)IlI.)II~ Size: 13'1." ,.,,;~.~ 14%' , 17W'h, Weight: 16.0 it, Screen Size: 73.75 square inches (7.5 x 10 inches) Electrical Requirements: 117 vac, 60Hz. 4 amp 3 wire power cord Program: Standard 35mm filmstrip format with 50Hz or 1000Hz superimposed advance cue Audio: 750mW continuous power amplifier 3" built-in speaker '/4" Jack accepts 8 to 600 ohm headset VIsual: Low voltage (14V, 35W) ASA code ERD projection lamp has a life rating of 200 hours ~ BEll6 HOWEll AUDIO-VISUAL PRODUCTS DIVISiOn 7100 N. McCORMICK ROAD CHlCAGO,ILUNOtS6O&t5 (312)262"600 "No. AV4740'976 . I lL _ ICc'CJlur"s 1. Portabllity- The unique fold-up design and light weight (only 18 Ibs.) permits easy carrying, fast set-up and convenient storage. When the unit is closed, all com- ponents are protected by the tough, scuff-resistant case. 2. Auto Advance Button - This power film advance and rewind button permits fast forward and reverse of the filmstrip any time during the program without having to depress the stop key. It also makes loading and start- ing the filmstrip easier than ever. 3. Syncro-Search - Maintains sound and picture synchroniza- tion during fast forward and fast rewind. Permits skipping ahead or back for review or passing over a portion of the program. 4. Compatlbllity- Uses standard cassette tapes and 35mm film- strips which load quickly and easily into the Bell & Howell Autoload!!> cartridge. The car- tridge concept allows easy hand- ling and rapid program change. ( (/"('-:1;]- ., {i~!iJ.. -..... ,. _ ........ 1 4 Other features Include: , . Automatic Film Threading- You never have to touch the filmstrip once it is loaded into the cartridge, . Uses Either Format - plays either 50Hz' or 1000Hz format programs . '\ . Pushbutton controls for easy . operation. · Headphone-Jack for private listening. . Easy access projection mech- anism, bright, clear picture and much more. 'The Syncro-Search fealure is not Intended tor USe with 50Hz proglam material. accessories 1. Autoload'~ Synchronous Car- tridges-As your projector li- brary grows, you'll want extra car- tridges for storage convenience and protection. Available in car- tons of twelve, (Bell & Howell Part No. 014325.) 2. Lightweight Headphones are ideal for study carrel use or any- where private listening is desired. When headphone is plugged in, the built.in speaker is auto- matically turned off. Headset ear cups are washable, (Bell & Howell Part No. 45554) 3. Dual Headphone Adapter allows the use of two sets of Headphones on a single unit. Permits two peo- ple to view a program together without disturbing others. (Bell & Howell Part No. 40720) 4. Spare Projection Lamp operates on low voltage for extended lamP., life-up to 200 hours, A spare '\ projection lamp on hand will in- ........' sure uninterrupted viewing. I ~:'::.x~i"' .JIIfJ . i~I:'1~~'tlr y-: .- 't. 1<1''' ,;) i: ~ ~ , ' .11.'':'> ,.,. ,,: l/'i\f# " ~tjt~ ;; ,~, " ~''j!i,,#'r;y,-li @ Printed in U .$.A . IDC Agenda - 8/20/84 6. Consideration of Completing the I dustrial!Commercial/Retail Building Inventory. (A.P.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Last summer and fall we had Chris Lommel take pictures of a majority of Monticello's building. Because of Chris's busy schedule, winter set in and the r maining pictures were not taken. Spring and summer have ar ived and are almost past, and the pictures have not been ta en. As I am in the process of reviewi g and changing the tax/assessment information on all buildings in nticello, now would be a good time to complete the pictures. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Take no additional pictures 0 industrial, commercial, retail buildings. 2. Finish inventory by filming r buildings. C. RECOMMENDATION: . Bud SChrupp had several pictures second time I had Chris Lommel ta 53 pictures and charged $96.00. each. A roll of 35 mm film, 36 e $4.60 and would cost $10.65 to de to $.42 a piece. The difference a piece or $73.14 on a project su developed. I recommend that we c I will use my 35 mm camera and ta my duties. aken the first time. The e the pictures. He developed his is approximately $1.80 posure, costs approximately elop the prints. This amounts mounts to approximately $1.38 h as the 53 pictures Chris mplete the inventory pictures. e the pictures as part of D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of bill from Chris Lommel. . ,'':'!'II 'r ~ " >~(.-- . I '. . .J ~, . , 'i, '. ,) '.'{. .~lt:: "1...:.... :- ~ Chris Lommel P.O. Box 801 Monticello, MN 55362 CUSTOMErs ORDER NO. 48-0 NAMEJJ~ ty--.9t:'_ _110I,l t;f,..c.~ llQ ADDRESS Industrial" Deve 0 C.~"" r-=-r~t~[" QUANTITY DESOlrTlON 3 3~5 candid prin s 2 --~'... -."..---.--- -'~~----_._..._._. . I. 3 .material ~_3_.houra~ah.or.~1 5 '---"~.'_.. 6 7 -------~-_._- 8 9 10 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE all claims and ,atu,naa gOOds MUST ba oc, Olllponled by this blU \ ' I, ~,." , > RECEIVED BY --, ( i t2}l GRATlINl rORMS ....1 DU"-ICAT[ - U..7 TRt"-ICATl 1f.:;;; - .:;~;: ...;.: . . ..~,~' " " ';.i: .....~ . )~:', ~,': jt' J\ f,":.:<t.' ". , - ~1'.~!llI!l)4"HI"", ~c~Il., ~~._.I~,JUIJ .n_"lI!'~ll"';~~' Ar, i" . " >:.c.'ii.. " ../..t , ,;' .' 11914 '. , ~,\ , .... : r . .. "",'~ f~ / .li/~Lf " o.mm1.t.teEL . ~~~I '<moo, L rllCE AMOUNt "T-. 2 .142 . .. , { .... i -..... f..t' i, '. . ~ l. :;>,;0':. tL,_ I I ( -.-.+.---.-,. 13.123; i 3~i .. ., , -- - '~~~"~.,- . , -, ~r (', \, \, ~ ~ '. \.:~ #95.165 ~ ~. ,', -. ~ ' . \ . ,.~ .. ,., . .~IL. "j,. ., ~>',~:,\i"i,/" 782 U.$.A. "';' '",,'.. .O):.~ . , '. --'..,~~.,~,-'._----,----...... \ '~'" ~.f _~. ~ " : , .... \ " '..~;, I, ' ~.; '.- . ...- -,.,...........;-..""~.. ..\z'o.,.- 'I.. . ~,:' ".:1' ." _.._~.f.':- ""'. .'''r#-;. '.r'''' . IDC Agenda - 8/20/84 7. Consideration of a Direct Mail A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Last fall and winter we sent out a mass mailing of approximately 2,500 letters to various manufac uring concerns throughout the state of Minnesota. We concentr ted our efforts on the Minneapolis/ St. Paul area. Of the 2,500 letters that were s nt, approximately 5% (125) were returned because of wrong a dresses, business failures, or not able to forward messages. I have updated this mailing list, adding or deleting firms a appropriate, and feel confident that it represents the type of f'rms we want to attract to Monticello. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Prepare a letter to be used in mass mailing. 2. Prepare a series of letters to be used in mass mailing (1 every 3-4 months). 3. Take no action at this time. . C. RECOMMENDATION: I feel it is appropriate to begin sending a series of letters to these 2,500 firms. As a first step, we should draft approximately four different letters, each expr ssing a different reason why Monticello is the place to do bus'ness. Then we should set up a schedule to send the letters and a system to directly contact the firms to discuss a possible meting. D. SUPPORTING DATA: None needed. . - - -'--~-----'------ .......----.......-- . '%-~-&'{ Y>\ I<-'~f~ . ._----:.-==.=::=::._~ P(~.CfYlCl+ION I PROS pJ2 \..-.t Y+1~~'OL;'-11+7 <SLl~-6.J(r)ri) l'ft--~(. r>1~rno~~ p~",* t '&I?<Jl.Q I(~~ fAc-lL oh N.. 0". H"", HI:< Lu~ , H A,N .: r 0"'" os. ""~1. t-~ A-".J) ~lle N ? J2L". t'j- '$;;.ll~(.t- )9 ~'1 I N()l.(S '+R.{ ~PI1.R.CJ 1+-+-'01'.> f,J~y .. - ,1- kJ fr-':) R o~ -}c. J-.l~t'h-\-\- +~ 8.Je-10-\to rr w ~'S ~\.~c ~~ \':t. I K)t~ 1- .~ ("'sQ.~Q...~ ~~ C\.. . +t, i.\ Sl..1B- ~{)rn f'h ,....t+-E'~ DIVE" {J l\ 1 1'0 S .} .e ct cO 0 ~ A.. WR.R}::...., 'V\ ~ V '\ \\ a ,,-~ t-k lcAR-- ~ ";'. . - f', \..ow \4 ~ k L<.vel Q Cl<--' !: <0 l 0 '-" Q.0 r, " C' 0"" Vl, ;""..Q _ -\-I!;~ Y Gel? LcO~Lv~ ~ ~\.cQ -\L.. CK~U ~r\.IN N AJ'-I~ (ho..,..}:. <'<2. \ ( D C' 0 .., ".,-\- ~ (' (I [Le S. ~Q \..j.~ v Q. ~ _ . A 1..,:,--\ ". J~Vl'~.'~ ,~U"?,., YN<Prt~[) ta_ Al\L,,:,' . ~l~ LL,i l ( IlUdu.~ A-l< vo hQ. h"lJ ~ tcrut/L\-tSute.Y ;it/.r ...~ '% ~tJQv 5<- -\ ~ <..., k~ l\~ '\ ~ \..l~l-111 {LQPIU~ e I\J .t-~+-/U (LS .~ . , \ \ U~\-() \)^"S-?~c-h - ( '~IC C('r<JJ:y j ",,.J {rtS(y.J 'f" j(Ctcol ~ - t::> oSS ,,~) le }) iL cO- (l A""- (~o [L -Y \ Fe (\ -\- ~ \<\. tJ ~ \0- :D-> N fV> ~ ~ I ",d v.P.~ Th~.v ~ i 7 0 q<.. 1:'... \\.\'le."Y \10G1.~ \rLISl.S ~^ i-k'1\ . <..\ppG'~","" \ de ',.,...J -I-~b'."" }:.'~ P (l c~ P D. c~ 01\. I NG u~ +fL~ ~f's .J:b/J\... +4'l Q\ IN t .QJ\Q.S. ~ ,I f...J U 0'1'01\) -\-', CJl((o . -c.,~L~ 1'''.)\-0 \'i\JJL~ V~ J \, ~ C~~~{\J(+ ~Qoo.' C' (2~UR.rt +~N) "'u~o~ 'A~ 0o~--\-:J zttr A'~ ......_-~~ ---.....------.........-------- - -- _ Coar1& \~M5{ i-\~12") } Q..t<...# ~(L ~~ ()\R.....\. -+ CelT-:' ~ _ C-kL~ -\-n S~Jl. , t::- l,U lv~t s.Q.~ . 'd.-. 19~Y . Q lt1 V\ rvoe- -t-k t> r)-Y . W.9. C''''' '" (l.o. -::,.. ~ u "" Golf hI'--. )~ ~~ (~f\ Cb~~llC~ _ I P 1-k C'o '^" '" ~ -\\ .R-'~. ':b(\ ;0-"":> \ + L\. j), p.,U::,vc Lodiy- 00N ~~f\)s.o^-.J - -\-k Ll{~ 0,.) (DOJ ~ ~"- USJ) -b. ~NOur/Ui..... +0 <-t I'''S/ 0 () Q. ^" Hu <.J.S.Q'S J::b.c- +L. f up Li c. _ Co Ii";;' \ -\4. "-'- i f'1\Q..V'^ ~ 9- CL ~ C'a u Lb .10 LA r...., :g bJ-.J NU.t S- I ~~. -Q-k. .- .