Loading...
City Council Agenda Packet 04-27-1981AGENDA REGULAR REETTNG - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL April 27, 1981 - 7:30 P.M. Mayor: Arve Grimsmo Council Members: Dan Blonigen, Fran Fair, Ken Maus, Phil White. Meeting to be taped. Citizens Comments: 1. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit Request for the Extraction of Sand and Gravel - Charles Ritze. 2. Consideration of o Conditional Use Request for Open and Outdoor Storage - Vance's Freeway Standard. 3. Consideration of Rezoning Blocke 2 and 3 of The Meadows Subdivision from R-1 to R-2. 4. Public Hearing on the Consideration of a Resolution Approving Commercial Development Revenue Bonds for Medical Facilities Company. 5. Public Hearing on the Consideration of Vacating and Deeding Oak Street between Hart Boulevard and Wright County Highway 475. 6. Consideration of Having Engineer Prepare a Feasibility Report for the Extension of Fast Rivcr Street. 7. Consideration of Amendment of Conditional Use Permit on Parking Lot Access - Medical Facilities Company. 8. Consideration of Award to Pr ime Contractor on Library Construction Project. 9. Approval of Bills - April 1981. 10. Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of April 13, 1981. Unfinished Business - New Business - Reminder - Board of Review on May 4, 1981 at 7:00 P.N. CRatification by Council of Willard Fornick an Monticello Fire Chief. Council Agenda - 4/27/81 AGENDA SUPPLEMENT 1. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit Reauest for the Extraction of Sand and Gravel - Charles Ritze. PURPOSE: To consider the conditional use permit request filed by Charles Ritze to extract fill from the land he owns just east of Anders Wilhelm y y Z Estates. This fill material will be placed on Ritze Manor in order to bring that particular plat up to grade. A conditional use permit is required whenever the extraction of sand and L gravel or other material from the land in the amount�00 cubic yard Z or more and removal thereof is to be done. Reason for requiring a condi- tional use permit is to control soil erosion, prevent drainage problems and insure that surrounding land will not be adversely affected. I Reauiremente of such a conditional use include a plan for a finished grade, S40 which has been supplied by Charles Ritze. At their last meeting, the Planning Commissiou recommended this permit be 3Y granted with the provision that the land area from which the fill is extracted be broug t� to rinished grade by August 1, 1981. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of a motion to approve the conditional use permit requested, along with an indication of a timetable set by which 3r the land area from which the fil is extracted i t>r o b— brought up to finished grade. (Planning Commission recommended August 1, 1981).* REFERENCES: Planning Commission Minutes of 4/14/81 meeting, and finished Y grade plan has been filed with Building Inspector at City hall. Also, 3 3 / map showing location where fill is to be taken from and moved to. Z31 9 12 4JL 30 *Note: All conditional use permits require 4/5's vote of Council for approval. C Council Agenda - 4/27/81 2. Consideration of a Conditional Use Request for Open and Outdoor Storage - Vance's Freewav Standard. PURPOSE: To consider a request for a conditional use permit to allow open and outdoor storage for Vance's Freeway Standard. This parcel is zoned B-3, and according to City Ordinances, requires a conditional use permit for open and outdoor storage provided that: A. Outdoor service, sales and equipment rental connected with the prin- cipal uses is limited to 3UX of the gross floor area of the principal use. However, this percentage may be increased as a provision of the conditional use request. B. The use should not take up parking spaces as required by City ordinances. Mr. Florell's proposed outdoor useage would be - U -Haul rental. It appears it would be necessary as a condition of the conditional use permit to increase the allowance of this outdoor rental area to more than 30% of the gross floor area. Since the building is 2,200 square feet, the rental area outside would be limited to 660 square feet. Although it may vary according to Mr. Florell, it would appear that the U -Haul rentals could take up as much as 1,400 square feet. Additionally, these U -Haul trailers would be utilizing as many as 7 - 8 existing parking spaces provided. According to Mr. Florell and from observations of the Zoning Administrator, Loren Klein, dispite the addition of U -Haul rental trailers to the site, there appears to be more than adequate parking remaining. For your information, Mr. Florell started the U -Haul trailer business without realizing that a conditional use permit was necessary. At their last meeting, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the conditional use permit request. It should be pointed out, however, that Mr. Florell, at the time of the Planning Commission meeting, did not under- stand that it was necessary to increase the outdoor rental area to more than 302 of the building. Based on 1,400 square feet, the outdoor rental area would have to be increased to 652 of the building area. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of a motion to approve conditional use per- mit, which would increase the outdoor rental area to 65% of the building area and would allow up to 8 parking spnces to be utilized for this activity.* REFERENCES: Planning Commission minutes of 4/14/81, and map depicting area and showing location of existing parking at the Freeway Standard Station. *Note: All conditional use permits require 4/5's vote of Council for approval. MW= Council Agenda - 4/27/81 3. Consideration of Rezoning Blocks 2 and 3 of The Meadows Subdivision from R-1 to R-2. PURPOSE: To consider rezoning these blocks from R-1 to R-2 to allow for zero lot line duplexes. Mr. Wolters is making this request for these two blocks similar to the request previously approved for Lots 1 - 14, Block 1 in The Meadows. It should be pointed out that at the Planning Commission level, Mr. Wolters had a request to also rezone Lots 1 - 15, and Lot 24, Block 4, and Lots 1 b 2, Block 5, from R-1 to R-2. This request was reduced as a result of a compro- mise between the Planning Commission and Mr. Wolters. Primary reason for the request to allow zero lot line duplexes came as a result, according to Mr. Wolters, of the increased assessments for these particular lots. Since he is working with the Farmers Home Administration on low income 4% loans, there is a maximum amount on which he can charge for each unit. With the assessments in some cases being as high as $10,000 per lot, the economics in some cases will not work out for a single family home. By rezoning to R-2, there would be the possibility of having zero lot line duplexes, along with the mixture of single family homes. In an R-2, both of these types of homes would be allowed as a permitted use. At their last meeting, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the rezoning request. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of a motion to grant the rezoning request of Mel Wolters to rezone Block 2 6 3 in The Meadows from R-1 to R-2.+ REFERENCES: Planning Commission minutes of 4/14/81 and enclosed map depicting the area of The Meadows proposed for rezoning. *Note: Rezoning requests require 4/5's vote of Council for approval. - 3 - Council Agenda - 4/27/81 4. Public Hearing on the Consideration of a Resolution Aporoving Commercial Development Revenue Bonds for Medical Facilities Company. PURPOSE: To consider approval of the issuance of $1,400,000 in Commercial Development Revenue Notes as authorized under Minnesota Statutes 474.02 (Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act). This request came as a 57 result of an application filed by Medical Facilities Company to finance construction and equipment costs for a medical clinic just east of the Monticello -Big Lake Community Hospital. Legal description is: Lots 4 and 5, of Block 23, Lover Monticello, Lots 1, 13 and the West k of Lot 2, Block 22, Lover Monticello, and a portion of vacated Oak Street between River Street and Hart Boulevard in Lower Monticello. The entire site would be approximately 50,000 square feet. Proposed breakdown of the project cost is as follows: ITEM AMOUNT Land acquisition and site development $ 125,000 Construction Contracts 1,100,000 Equipment acquisition and installation 300,000 Legal Fees 25,000 Interest during construction 52,000 Financing fees 41,000 Contingencies 7,500 TOTAL $1,650,500 As indicated of this amount, $1,400,000 is being requested for the issuance of commercial development revenue notes. It should be pointed out that the revenue notes are, in effect, tax exempt mortgages and will be purchased most likely by one or two institutions. This is similar to the revenue bonds issued for the Silver Fox Motel, which were purchased by a financial institution as opposed to the straight industrial revenue bonds issued for Clow Stamping Company which were purchased by the general public. Medical Facilities Company is a general partnership consisting of the following partners: Thomas E. McKee, Theodore J. Buselmeicr, M.D., Helmer E. Swenson, M.D., Mahmood Mandavi, M.D., Byron A. Tasks, M.U., James A. Cameron, M.D., and Clark Shattuck, M.D. This partnership, in turn, will be leasing the medical facility to the individual doctors. All the doctors in the partnership itself will be practicing in Monticello. - 4 - Council Agenda - 4/27/81 Proposed medical clinic will be a specialty medical clinic offering various medical services to the Monticello community. Depending upon the particular medical specialty, the practitioners will be establishing regular hours in Monticello on a rotating basis. This will offer an opportunity to Monticello area residents to receive specialty care within the commu- nity and thus avoiding going to St. Cloud or Minneapolis/St. Paul for these services. As with past issues, it should be pointed out that these types of bonds do not become a liability of the City and it is not, in fact, legal for the City to use public monies in case a particular company goes bankrupt. The City's tax exempt provisions are used as the conduit to authorize the issuance of bonds for financing this project on a tax exempt basis. This some vehicle was used for the financing of pollution control equip- ment on three occasions at Northern States Power Company, the Silver Fox Motel and Clow Stamping Company. Procedure at this point is for the Council to hold a public hearing to consider input relative to the issuance of the bonds. Should the City approve the resolution to issue the bonds, a draft copy of the application will be sent to the Commissioner of Securities for approval. If the Commissioner of Securities for the State of Minnesota approves of the issue, a final resolution will be necessary by the City Council. Construction is expected to start in June of 1981 with completion by May 1st of 1982. Our City Attorney, Cary Pringle, and myself met with representatives of the Medical Facilities Company, including their fiscal consultant and bond consultant relative to the issue. On the basis of preliminary informa- tion given, it appears that the issue meets the legal requirements of Minnesota Statutes 474, and meets all the guidelines as act forth by the City of Monticello. Final documents have been submitted and by Monday night's meeting I will have the opinion of Cary Pringle relative to the legality and also indicate whether the guidelines have been met as set forth by the City of Monticello for the issuance of industrial revenue bonds. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of motion to adopt resolution approving the issuance of $1,400,000 in commercial development revenue bonds for Medical Facilities Company. REFERENCES: Letter from FBS Mortgage corporation confirming the feasibility of the project from a financial standpoint, and draft of City Council resolution giving preliminary approval. -S- Council Agenda - 4/27/81 5. Public Hearina on the Consideration of Vacating and Deeding Oak Street bet- ween Hart Boulevard and Wright County Highway 475. PURPOSE: To consider a request filed by Monticello School District 0882 on behalf of the Monticello -Big Lake Community Hospital for vacating and conveying Oak Street between Hart Boulevard and Wright County Highway 075. Purpose of such vacation and conveyance would be to allow the Monticello - Big Lake Community Hospital to use this area for purposes of development of a parking lot for the hospital and proposed medical clinic. It should be pointed out that previously, the City of Monticello vacated Oak Street between Hart Boulevard and River Street and deeded the west half of this Street to the Hospital for $1.00 and deeded the east half of this vacated Street to Monticello Medical Clinic Limited for the appraised fee of $3,000. It is my understanding that subsequent to this, Monticello Medical Clinic Limited sold the east half of vacated Oak Street to the Hospital who in turn have offered this to Medical Facilities Company for the development of their medical clinic. Normally, when the City vacates a street, it offers the property for sale to the abutting property owners. In this particular case, the abutting property owner to the west is the Monticello School District /882, which is requesting the street be vacated for use as a Hospital parking lot. According to Richard Weiers, Monticello School District Business Manager, the School District leases this parking lot area to the Hospital for 25 years, in exchange for the improvements put thereon and waiving all other liability. As you can see by the enclosed site plan of this area, the property uwner to the cast would be the City of Monticello. Apparently there is a triangular parcel of approximately 9,000 aquare feet that the City of Monticello owns in thin area. in talking with the Adminis- trator, the Monticello -Big Lake Community Hospital would also like to have the City consider conveying this triangular parcel, to the Hospital. Mo. Schvientek indicated that shehas talked to the owner of the triangular parcel to the south of the tri angulnr parcel owned by the City of Monticello, who in John Bondhus. She indicated that Mr. Bondlius has considered selling this parcel to the Hospital for use as a parking lot for the medical clinic and Hospital. One additional item that should be pointed out is that John Bondhus, in consideration of his conveyance of the triangular parcel south of the City's triangular parcel, is concerned with the amount of storm water runoff that may ultimately run through his trout pond. This trout pond is located on Mr. Bondltus's residence., approximately 300' east of the proposed vacated Oak Street. John Badalich reviewed this concern with John Bondhus, Barb Schwientek, and myself, and indicated one possibility would be to acquire an easement along the easterly property line of the lots owned by the Medical Facilities Clinic in Block 22. (See enclosed map). - 6 - Council Agenda - 4/27/81 By obtaining this easement, the City could provide for future storm sever drainage to the Mississippi River without endangering John Bondhus's trout stream. In light of the above, it is recommended that the City of Monticello vacate Oak Street between Hart Boulevard and County Highway 75 and thu triangular parcel located in Block 18 to the east of the proposed vacated street, and deed the same to the Monticello -Big Lake Community Hospital, contingent upon the following: A. Retaining easement rights. 3 B. Granting of an easement along the easterly boundary of the property acquired by the Medical Facilities Company for storm sever drainage. E_ y C. Stipulation that parking lot be used only for medical clinic and/or i�v+.� hospital parking. There could be some argument made for the City of Monticello appraising the property to be vacated and charging a fee similar to the east half of previously vacated Oak Street between Hart Boulevard and River Street. However, in light of the fact that the City of Monticello would receive an easement in exchange for this parcel, along with the fact that n portion of the parking lot could be used by the Monticello -Big Lake Communi- ty Hospital, it is recommended that no fee be charged. POSSIBLE ACTION: Two separate motions should be considered - one to vacate and convey that portion of Oak Street between Hart Boulevard and County Road 75 and another motion to convey the triangular parcel in Block 18 immediately cost of this proposed vacation. Both motions should consider the City retaining easement rights in both areas and in regard to the conveyance of the triangular parcel to the east of the proposed vacation, consideration should also be given to the City obtaining the necessary eaecment rights described above on the easterly property line of the pro- perty owned by the Medical Clinic. REFERENCES: Copy of situ plan indicating proposed vacation of triangular parcel, and copy of letter from Scholl District requesting vacation of Oak Street. 7` �lv Council Agenda - 4/27/81 C- 6. Consideration of Having Engineer Prepare a Feasibility Report for the Extension of East River Street. PURPOSE: To consider a petition filed by Monticello -Big Lake Community Hospital for the extension of East River Street. The petition requests bituminous surfacing, but does not include curb and gutter at this time. Approximate length of extension would be 628' and based on a similar cost for improving West River Street for NSP, or the equivalent cost of $43.67 per foot, the total estimated cost would be approximately $27,200. There may be some question as to whether or not curb and gutter should be put in on this street. Procedure at this point would be to acknowledge the petition and consider having our engineer prepare a feasibility report. This report would be subject to a public hearing at which time the cost of the proposed assess- ments would be reviewed. At various times, 1 have talked to Hospital officials who have asked whether the City would be willing to pick up any portion of the cost. It is recom- mended that the entire cost of this project be assessed against the abutting property owners, primarilly the Hospital and Medical Clinic. Although the street has been platted, it never has been improved and would be similar to the extension of a street to a new subdivision. `. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of adoption of a resolution ordering the engineer to prepare a feasibility report on the extension of River Street. M1 '^•'I�KM,i•� fr/Jn /� REFERENCES: Enclosed map depicting extension , and copy of proposed resolu tion. 6 - 8 - C Council Agenda - 4/27/81 7_ Consideration of Amendment of Conditional Use Permit on Parkine Lot Access - Medical Facilities Companv. PURPOSE: To consider a request by Medical Facilities Company, which is planning a proposed medical clinic east of the Monticello -Big Lake Hospital, to obtain access from East River Street. Previously, the City Council approved a conditional use request for the Medical Facilities Company with the provision that access to the parking lot would be off of Hart Boulevard. This provision was inserted as a result of input from neighbors in the Ellison Park area expressing concern with the possible extension of River Street to accommodate a parking lot at the rear of the proposed medical clinic. At that time, the developer of the clinic indicated that if for some reason Hart Boulevard could not be used as an entrance and access point to the parking lot, they may approach the City for possible extension of River Street to the rear of the parking lot. It should be pointed out that also on the agenda is a petition filed by Monticello -Big Lake Community hospital for the extension of River Street, and any action taken by the Council relative to the access point from River Street to the parking lot would be contingent upon the extension of East River Street. Primary reason for requesting Access from East River Street as opposed to Hart Boulevard results from the factor that the ambulance is proposed to exit and entrance onto hart Boulevard. Because of this, the hospital and the medical clinic do not want to intermingle other traffic with the ambulance due to its emergency nature. Only the ambulance would be allowed to enter and exit from hart Boulevard to the present-doy parking lot entrance on the north side of Hart Boulevard, which would in effect become the ambulance entrance and exit point. it is intended that patients of the hospital and the clinic would park on the south side of Bart Boulevard. For your information, the hospital and Medical Clinic are working towards extending the present-day parking lot south of hart Boulevard to accommodate patients of the medical clinic and hospital. The present-day parking lot to the cast of the hospital will be the future site of the medical clinic facility itself. The parking lot then to the north of the medical clinic would be for employees only. While East River Street is already platted and the Hospital property toned R -B for quite some time, there are some concerns among the residents of Elli- son Park with the extension of this street. Enclosed, please find an April 23, 1980 letter to the Planning Commission previously sent out to the City Council addressing four concerns of the neighbors in that area. In addition, enclosed is an April 14, 1981 letter from Irwin Kallin, one of the concerned property owners in the Ellison Park area. - 9 - C Council Agenda - 4/27/81 At the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission reviewed the concerns stated in the April 14, 1981 letter. Recommendation of the Plan- ning Commission was to recommend approval of the amended conditional use permit request allowing access to River Street with the understanding that the City Council and the Hospital would work with the residents of Ellison Park to work out their concerns. It should be pointed uuL Lhat 0- Planning Commission received the April 14, 1981 letter at their meeting, and rather than table this matter further, it was felt they would recommend approval provided these items could be worked out between the residents, the Hospital and the City Council. Listed below are the recommendations in Irwin Kallin's letter to address the concerns they previously had: KALLIN RECOMMENDATION: Place speed bumps in the block preceeding the parking lot. COMMENTS: - Very hard to maintain, especially in cold weather climate with snow remove 1 . - Could cause more problems than they resolve. - Alternative mentioned at Planning Commission meeting would be to have River Street curved to slow down traffic. KALLIN FECOFL+IENDATION: Eotablioh frequent police patrols. COMMENTS: Patrols could be increased if it is warranted after the fact. - Additional traffic to Hospital could actually lessen problems of drag racing and drugs (if, in fact, they exist). - Place reduced speed zone for hospital and medical clinic. KALLIN RECOMMIiNDATION: Provide a security gate on the parking lot entrance to be accessed only by authorized employees. COMMENTS: - Some concern with the practicality of this. - Since it would be a public street, there may be some question about the legality. - Proper signing, although possibly not as affective, could hopefully produce close to the desired results. In other words, a sign could be put down at the entrance indicating employee parking only, with the indication that patient and visitor parking is at the parking lot south of Hart Boulevard. =1111 Council Agenda - 4/27/81 KALLIN RECOMMENDATION: Establish limited useage from River Street with entrance only from Hart Boulevard and exit only from River Street, or even better yet, use the top as an entrance and exit all year except during the winter or extremely slippery conditions. COMMENTS: - This would still not alleviate the problem of intermingling ambulance traffic with employee traffic. By having a portion of East River Street "One Way Only" could create more traffic problems than it resolves. - Require ambulance to use Hart Boulevard and not to use River Street. KALLIN RECOMMENDATION: Hospital and clinic to review their shift change time to determine if the shift changes coincide with the end of school hours. COMMENTS: - This would have to be reviewed by the Hospital and clinic and could become a stipulation of the conditional use permit. Tt should be pointed out that the primary concern felt by the Planning Commission was the use of River Street by the ambulance. Hospital Adminis- trator, Barb Schwientek, indicated that it would be intended that Hart Boulevard would be used for the ambulance unless weather conditions were such that the Hospital could not utilize the emergency exit. For your information, the ambulance will be housed in a garage in the lower level of the proposed medical clinic faciliLy. An a rasult of this, it will be necessary for the ambulance to utilize a steep grade in order to exit onto Hart Boulevard, and this may not be too practical during slippery conditions. According to Barb Schwientek, if this happened, the Hospital would still like to use River Street to allow the ambulance to exit, but the return trip could still take place from Hart Boulevard. Methods to resolve this winter problem were mentioned, such as: Heat cables, constant salting of the area when necessary, etc. Since this was felt to be a very legitimate concern of the residents along Ellison Park, the City Council may want to require the ambulance exit and enter from Hart Boulevard and work out the problems concerned with slippery conditions. This would allow the Hospital some time to develop a design method to work this problem out, and if it still could not be worked out, they could come back to the City Council. if it still could not be worked out, the City Council could require the ambulance to enter and exit off of Hart Boulevard except unless weather conditions absolutely do not allow it. In his letter, Irwin Kallin also mentioned a potential lowering of the asoct value of the property in the area. It is somewhat of an intangible factor, and even such things as having Ellison Park in that neighborhood may, to soma, increase the property value since they now have open space, and to others may decrease the property value since they now have problems with children, etc. It should be pointed out that the area has been zoned R -B `'4 Council Agenda - 4/27/81 for some time, and the ctreet itself has always been platted. As a result, there may be other uses that would be allowed in such a zone that may have more or less impact on the neighborhood, such as multiple family dwellings, real estate offices, etc. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of amending conditional use permit allowing access from East River Street for the Parking Lot proposed north of the medical clinic, With the possible stipulation that the ambulance would not be allowed to use River Street unless absolutely necessary, or in the alternative, to prohibit use of River Street for the ambulance. Any proposed motion may want to include provisions relative to signing to be required by the Hospital and conflict with shift changes and school hours as indicated in this agenda supplement.* REFERENCES: April 23, 1980 and April 14, 1981 Letters, and Planning Commission minutes of 4/14/81. *Note: An amendment to a conditional use permit requires 4/5'a vote of Council for approval. - 12 - Council Agenda - 4/27/81 ` 8. Consideration of Award to Prime Contractor on Library Construction Project. PURPOSE: To consider the award of a contract based on the bids the City of Monticello received on Friday, April 24, 1981, on the new library. For your information, estimated construction cost is $320,000. Overall estimates for the library included the following: Building $320,000 d 3 3�,cco Land 70,000 Furniture 35,000 Landscaping b Parking Lot 30 000 TOTAL49$ 7,000 Separate bids will be sought for furniture and fixtures, landscaping and the parking lot. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of the award of a prime contract for the constructiun of a new library. REFERENCES: A list of the bids received will be available at Monday night's meeting. - 13 - I R� L - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RE QUEST - ''•'/:�� i r a jI �`� t # Vance Florelt for Outdoor Sales '�• ,,.+r'/�.`„` j.w.r f and Storage at Freeway Station WAY t � i ,'f + t l'� •. ..- _� .. C':_. --Saiz' ,yf TN i'F ,, ••i'F ar \~♦ PROPOSED FOR REZONING _FROM ` R-1 TO R-2 `. n ' _ .tip - _ !,�t� . -. ) P "♦b �/ .. j.. Je. - \ - �" -ft '���♦ .i:" lm l:,s.•111, rS.z 0 6.,n' 11 p , ,. �e '%�.io: r,., v qtr Vii• _ ai `y' e ry •��' .ib pll�.�- . ,^•,'-off 'J. �Y•.1 1 � i= � b•: .q) J S%i �•��+t• oii♦~4� 'B.- -'.. �•"SII.. �/i.� s►� .isf�; .: (:., u 6 ' '. � ) d�•w•Mi Oa •` -44.\I 4,. 4 � O�•`� + i1 ti,.• bEi4. •1�� PIS' v.a:j> }i i :J'� S/' n1� � •µ � �•�•�. ,' t'�il; a ,•L �I'� � 11 , a•.� . ' ��, .. -.; & 111 It , 1 y[ID�, P � ••v: �1 • L..tt--ilt•. _1.1-�pl'- ' `�' iry„'�' - - _ - - _ ." . > C. •.pelt 1 , �..,• .. J, i • • ' �` +�...' •� � !_i..w'. � 1 n • i +,�„'nr. { •1 .. .•�• y' 1 1 N �' 1 1 { 1' .•. ni•F ,�;t�' *,. ��♦ 1 L�;. `'�C��' `Y:• V'''\;rY b1f"i..':u. :oS �F� •' ., � Y - ... i.:: rr�, t�;'6. 1•'{9 a .� `1, a sF�,�b '♦'• t' 11 ��1-1' ` ..�-'I. ,n. a ` 1/ ,e ... el fi eI •e�,i II .:/ 1 ' .In• 1 FIM tI 1 11 I i .• '�w , �,F 7 /• i II ?��n pt �1i L�° v�° •I{n ?. • ' .,1 .-..•t -.1. '�_,.•�....11 ,.... 1. .. c SF 6 all 1f -t ^s Liu . P P11dINll .... na 1 .-1 L •.•s.bu-ye�•� eus'1 1 __ s _-8!i•PI'e2'n 10111 •. Y••1�• •ICY NEU kill��o Mortgagei FBS 1,10+1999- Cdtpotat,nn Commemtel Rai £stab Fin9aca Oroup Swua 1606 First Na3mnal Bank a 1dmg M,nno,apoos. Minnesota $5+02 812-370.5050 April 3, 1981 'Che Mayor and Lite City of Monticello and members of the City Council 250East Broadway Monticello, Minnesota 55362 Re: proposed $1,400,000 City of No,iticello, Minnesota Commercial Development Revenue Bonds (iledical Facilities Company Project) pear M7yor and Councilntcmbers: Al. Lite request of Medical Fac:ilit les Company, we have conducted tits Informal suuly as to the economic feasibility of Cite proposal Lhat Lite City of Monticello {S2 --UC Its revenue bonds under provisions of Lite Pllnncs%ILA Municipal lnduatrial Development Act to provide funds for the development and construction of a medical clinic building L0 he leased t„ a group of doctors. oot' : tudv has led us to conclude that on the basis of current financial conditions, the project. it; economically feataible and (the revenue bunch of circ City can he successfully iasued and t3old and that- Medical FaciliLics Company 11114 the financial and mauagemenl capabilities to fulfill Lite uhtiU:ttionu to he imposed by Lite proposed transaction. Although currently cuuveutionnl financing in avallaltle oil a limited basin, the inLPYCeL rates are nu high that Lite CCOI10MIC fcasibillty of operacing Lite project would be significantly reduced; however, with the aid of it munfelpal harrower and it!; resulting lower borrowing conte, the ectanomic funt.ibilfty for this pr.,juct would he substantially inerenned. In the event that the bonds are to be privately placed with n financial ilt"Ldtut lou, we propose to aCt as lite ugtnts for Lite City and for Medical Fnr.11 itica Company In arranging fill, sucit private placement of Litt. hoods, subject to till approval of the pt•oject by Lite Stttte of llinnesota, Ile part meat of laJaallet,cc 111141 subjeCL to final agreement nmong tilt: City, Medical FocIIIItes Company, and Lhe ultimate purchasers of the bonds ns to the terms and conditions of the Iasunnce aid the little of the bonds. Very truly yours, 1 i �• PSun•ice F. Wagner Anaf SL:InL Vice President WPC:WIIA 11 4/7/81 Gxtract of Minutes of Meeting of the City Council of the City of Monticello, Minnesota Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meet - my of the City Council of the City of Monticello, Minnesota was duly held at City hall in said City on Monday, the 27th day of April, 1981, at 7:30 o'clock P.M. The following Councilmembers were present: Grimsmo, bluniyen, Fair, Maus, White and the following were absonL: Council member introduced and read l the following written resului.wn and moved its adol,Liun: RESULUTION NU. RESOLUTION GIVING i'REL1MINANY APPRUVAL TO A PROJECT Utli)l:k THE 111NNI1suTA I.1UN1C11'AL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT, AUT1I0R1'LING SUI)MISSIUN OF AN APPLICAT1U11 'ro Till' MINNESOI'A COMMISSIONER OF SECURITIES FOR APPkUVAL TIIERCOF AND AUTIIUIII'LIt.IG EXI?CUTIUN UP A MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT AND PREPARATION OF NECESSARY DOCUMENTS IN curvnx,rion %writ Tnil inwiLC•I' I'hc motion fur the adoption of tho foregoing ret;olution was cluly seconded by Councilmcmbcr , and upon Vote being token thereon the I:ollowink.l voLod in favor thcrerif: and the fol lowing Voted against Lhe came: r whereupon ..ii l r'usoluLrvn w;ln daClnrCJ duly lniEaud and nclupb_-d. y RCSOLUTIUN NO. _ RESOLUTION GIVL14G PRE•'LIMINARY APPROVAL. TO A PROJECT UNDER THE MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT, AUT110R.IZING SUBMISSION OF AN APPLICATION TO THE MINNESOTA COMMISSIONER OF SECURITIES FOR APPROVAL THEREOF AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT AND PREPARATION OF t1ECESSARY DOCUMIiNTs LN COWNECTION WITH THE PROJECT UE IT RESOLVED b}• Ole City Council (this "Council") of the City of Monticello, Minncsota (the "City"), as follows: SEC'T'ION l Recitals and Findings 1.1 this Council called a public Bearing on a proposal pre- senLed to. it that the City undertake it project pursuant to the Municipal LndusLrlal UevclopmOnt Act, Minnesota StatuLCs, Chapter 474, as amencled (the "Act") consisting of the acquisition of land in the City and the cunstruction of a medical clinic bui-ldiml thereon and the purchase of equipment therefor (the "Project"). Under the proposdl, a partnership for'mcd under the laws of. the State of Minnesota and consisting of Mussr:;. Thomas h. McKee, Theodore J. Iiuselmcier, I.1.D., Helmer E. Swenson, r1.O., rtahmood Manddvi, M.D., Byron A. Teska, FI. U., James A. Cameron, M.D. and Clark Shattuck, m.u. (tile. "Partnurship") will enter into n loan a1lre(2ment (Chu "Loan Agreement") with Lhe City whereby the City agrees to issue and sell its $1,400,000 Commercial Development Revonue Bonds (the "Bonds") to partially finance the Project and to loan Lhu proceeds of such sale to the ParLncrship which agrees to construct the Project. The Loan Ayreemunt will require Lhc Part- nership to pay amounts nuffici-:�nt to pay the principal of and interest on the llonds. 'rhe Bonds will be issued and sold to an institutional uive:;tor or inve:^,Lora as Lax exempt murtyayu and e1luipmcnt financings, and will be secured by a mortgage and uL11er CIiCUmbrallCeN on the ProjucL. 'rhe Partnership will retain LiLle LO and ownership of the Project ;end will lease Lhc Project to a group Of docLer.^_. under lease terms suffic>,enL to provide for the pnyulunl Of Pr1IICir.,al of dad inLcrest on the B011ds. The intorest of the Partnership in the Icise and the interest of the City in the Loan Ayrcement will be assignud to the holders of the (fonds res additional security ter the Bunds. The llonds will be i:;sued and :.old in accurdancc with I.he Act and wi 11 proVlda that Lhr, I; ind:: ar•_ Iaysl l: solely from amounts rcc,:ived by Clio City pursu%uiL tv the Loan Agreement and other pruperLy p1cdyed LO their payment. The IirnidN will nOt be general obligation;: of the City or be payahlc lrum any other property or funds of the City. 1. 2 At a public hearing, duly called, noticed and held on April 27, 1981, in accordance with the Act, all parties desiring to appear were afforded an opportunity to be hear(]. Based on such public hearing and on such other facts and circumstances as this Council deems relevant, this Council hereby finds, determines and declares as follows: (a) The purpose of the Act as found and determined by the state legislature is to promote the welfare of the state by Lhe active attraction, encouragement and development of economically sound industry and commerce to prevent so far as possible tile emergence of blighted and marginal lands and areas of chronic unemployment. Factors necessitating the active promotion and development of economically sound industry and commerce are the increasing concentration of population in the metropolitan areas, the rapidly rising increase in the amount and cost of governmental services required to meet the needs of the increased population and the need for development of land use which will provide an adequate tax base to finance those increased costs and access to employment opportunities for such population. (b) The welfare of the residents of the SLaLC requires the active promotion, attraction, encouragement and development of economically sound industry and commerce through governments) acts; the encouragement Of employment opportunities for citizens of the state and the City; and the development of industry to use available resources of the City, in order to retain the benefit of its exist- ing investincilL in educational and public service facilities. (C) The Project Would further the foregoing purposes of the Act as contemplated by and described in Section 474.01 of the Act.. Id) The City i,.,, authorized by the Act to issue its commercial development revenue bands to finance capital projects consisting ut properties used or useful in coiinccLi.oii wish a revenno produciny enterprise, such is that of the Project.. (e) 'Thin Council han been advised by FIJS IIorI.q;igc Corporation, aqcllt fc>r the Partnership (Oln "Agent") that con- ventional, commercial financing t.o parLi.-Illy finance t.ho cost of the Project is available oil such a linlit'c'l basis and at such high inLercut rates that the eculionii.c feasibility fif OI)C?',ILIII,) Lll.! Project wu%.jld fit, significantly reduced. however, with the 'It(] 01 11 municipal borrower, and ILS resulting luwci' horrovioy Cost, Olt: economic feasibility of the Project would be substantially Lticroased and that the isouitni:o of tilt-, bund by tile City would be a significant induevitleilL to the Partnership to construct the Prop,,ct in the City. -2- ( f ) The existence of tht. Project would add to the tax base of the City and of the county and school district in which the Project is located and would provide increased employment opportu- nities for residences of the City and the surrounding area. SECTION 2 Preliminary Approval of Project 2.1 On the basis of information provided to this Council, it appears that it would be in the best interest of the City to issue the Bonds in accordance with the Act, in an amount not to exceed $1,400,000, in order to partially finance the cost of the Project. 2.2 The Project is hereby given preliminary approval and the issuance of the Bonds by the City In the foregoing amount is also hereby approved, subject to approval of the Project by the Commis- sioner of Securities, Minnesota Department of Commerce (the "Commissioner"); the fulfillment o;t such other conditions as the City may require with respect to tine issuance of the Bonds in connection with the Project; and the mutual agreement of this Council, the Partnership and the purchaser of the bonds as to Lhe structuring of Chu financing and as to the term: and conditions of any of the documents required for the transaction. 2. 3 Nothing in this resolution or in the documents prepared pursuant hereto shall authorize Lhe expenditure of any funds of the City on thu Project ether than the revenues derived therefrom or oLhcrwise granted to the City for this purpose. The bonds ::hat l not constitute it charge, Iien or encumbrance, legal or eyuiLdble, upon any property or funds of the City, except Lhe Project and the rovenuc and procecdo pledged to the payment thereof, nor shat l the City be subjeCL to any liability L hereon. No holder of any of the Bonds shall have the righL to cumpal any exercise of the taxing power of the City to pay Lhe outrtanding principal of or i.ntr_rest on the !fonds, or to enforce payment Lhureof against. any property of the City except the 11roject. Each Mond shall recite on its face that the principal of: and interest un the bond is payable solely frum the ruv,nnic rind pr•occeds pledged to Lhe paymenL Lhercol. The Bonds shall nuL const.iLLIU! debts of Lhu City within the mceani,ng of any constitutional or slatulury IinliLa L'loll. 2.4 The forms of Heinorandum of Agreement between the City and the Partnership and the Application for Approval ut tluniCtpal Industrial Itevcnuc (fond I'rujccL by lhu City to Che Commissioner, together with all attachments and exhibits thereto, sub:;LanLidlly in the forms prencnLed h,.rcwith, a re hereby approved, and the r•layor and City fianagcr are auLhurized to r,xecutu said doeumunts un behalf of the City and, in'iccurdance with Section 474.01, Subdivision 7.1 of the Act, are hereby aUthor"17.ed and directed to cause sciid — 3- Application to be submitted to the Commissioner for approval of the Project. The Mayor, City flanayer, City Attorney and other officers, employees and agents of the City are hereby authorized and directed to provide the Commissioner with any preliminary information the Commissioner may need for this purpose. 2.5 Mack, Crounse 6 Moore, acting as bond counsel, is authorized to assist in the preparation and review of all documents relating to the Project; to consult: with Lhe City Attorney, the Partnership and the purchasers of the Bonds as to the maturity, interest rate and other terms and provisions of the Bonds and as to the covenants and other provisions of the operative documents; and to submit such documents to this Council for final approval. SLC:TIUN 3 General 3.1 The proponents of the Project have agreed to pay or cause the Partnership to pay any and all costs incurred by the City in connection with the Project whether or not the Project is approved by the Commissioner; whether or not the Project is carried to completion; and whether or not the Bonds or opernLivr_ instruments are executed. 3.2 The proponents of the Project., on huh; if of the PIrLner- x:hip, are hereby authorized Lu enter Luu:o such c:onLracts ns m.ry be necess.rry fur Lhe construction of the Project by any meturn available to it and in Lhc manner it detel•minet: withuuL adverLisr_ment for bids as may be required fur Lhe construction or, acquisition of other' municipal facilitues. 3.3 In .urticipaLi011 of the rrpprcJvll of Lhe Prujuct by the Commissioner and the issuance of the hands to finance a porLtun of. the Project, and in order' LhaL cumpletiun of' Lhe Project will not be unduly delayed when appruvcd, the Partnership is hereby autho- rized to make such !xpundiLores and advances Loward payment of that portion of, the costs of the Project to be financed from Lhe proceeds of the Bonds ;is the Partnership considers: necessary, includiml the use of interim financing subject to reimbursement from the procevds of Lhe Honda It and when issued but otherwise without liabilcty on the, part of the City. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Plornticclio, Minnesota, the 27th day of April, 1981. Attest: City Clerk -5- Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF WRIGHT ) I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of Monticello, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared the attached extract of minutes of a regular meeting of the City Council of the City held on Monday, the 27th day of April, 1981, with the original thereof on file in my office, and that the attached extract is a full, true and correct transcript of the original insofar as such minutes relate to a resolution giving preliminary approval to the $1,400,000 Commercial Development Revenue Bonds (Medical Facilities Company Project) of the City. WITNESS My hand and seal as said City Clerk this day of 1981. (Seal ) V City Clerk to . �v�o.. is Ko* 2 r '~ •` ,. -'a two 4-1 IA � 1 'Zig •..Y � ,� _ _ .:y. .-- ! �y .f` p 20C a r t { 3 4 5° f t 2 3 �a l r 4 5 1 Zia I { ' I ' o 11 i Kollin ,A ! _.•...' o.p Lois rbs. pro; L_ P Rive r �({a PaiFT.� IE -t% e -►s W4 Or (ZlueQ. swees- sh 1 i LO► -.H ( , / 0 t„) 41 037,ac= ft P t a,,,,a,,,,RUnrIc./b' ► 1 (�..r� '" Np(1pAT Gtlntvl C�wm i ' # Hort :4as`ac 3 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 882 Sheldon 0. Johnson, Supetimendent UUAHO OF EDUCATION Telephone 2955184 ADWnIi THA6—npil Prcnard µhdcrs ar,nard Kimht. C -i-- MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA 55362 A, %h., Haat, Cl,,, t n ,y,n.r.t K.1-1 ,. "J!1!', 51 M i t.a. Garro. 7 ,•n Lw+dun 5. i., l 1 are -- Du,attl Doren, Ont��t or Samor tt�gn P.imipd, 7957313 J", ti. w, D.,w u r Hotx!, t V„n I S Sun w Iaga Fe;—'-" 2955191 for hUrrtll, Oi+atur Knm�t H,•n:n„ 2957934 t."'to l3,•tn�t,•ttu APAA 8, 1981 EiWra:m,ay Fu,.nui, n5SI13A Gndx» 13—ia Cnmmonnv Cd —1 Ducw,. 1;357715 H,Chato 1,60 A00,t U,,,� IW. 1952713 A{t. Gaity Itlieb t. t.tty o6 A{onticetto Abpvticetto, AIN 55362 Ocai AL2. tkebul: Pfease accept tIV14 tetteA as a 604aat aequcat .tu the City COU616t, Alon.ticctto, Atinne.aota, 6oA vacation o6 Oak Sineet which tiea between Hatt Boutevand and County Htglawy No. 75, ca,5t Muntice£f0. The pttpooe o6 the vacation Lequwt .0 ao that Chia Wpen.ty can be, devetdpee into a pdAking tot tvhich taitt be attached to the elti.atbig µ7Ahing tot on achaot ptopenty aouth 06 the M011ticei:to-Big Lake. tins pitat. Tile expanded p,a ikiflg tot developed by the hoapUat di•atnict taW lttovide addittionat pathing ataffo to meet anticipated PuAusi-q needs chceLted by the 6ut-'te conetAuctio/l 06 a medicat ctiruc adjacent to the hospUat. Fo unat action aequeating .the vacation 06 Onk Sheet uYt4 taken by the Board o6 Education, Independent Scitoot D.i5t7ict K662, Moit,ticetto, kAneeota, at. a meeting held oil Alnnday eveitirhg, Apta b, 1961. Y,ntn ca,te6uf colwuleWUOIl 06 th.ia mat,tcn ie aNpneciated. Siticetcty, / , 1 . . J S. V. Joillwit Supc.tin.teadent 06 Schoofa MAY Clic. cc: UvLb Sclutticitteh 2— d A— RE.SOLUT'ION DECLARING ADEQUACY OF PETITION AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF REPORT BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. of Monticello, Minnesota: 1. A petition requesting the improvements listed below for the property indicated has been filed with the Council on April 27 , 19 81, is hereby declared to be signed by the required percentage of property affected thereby. This declaration is made in conformity with Minnesota Statutes 429.035. 1PIPROVF.MENT RI.QUESTEU: Bituminous surfacing of East River Street from its existinc termination taint between Blocks 19 and 24 of Lover Monticello easterly approximately 628 feet. j NJ 2. The petition is hereby referred to John Badalieh, and lie is instruct-c:d ' to report to the Council with all convenient speed advising the council in a preliminary way a:+ to whether thr proposed improvement is fcat.iblc :nut as to whether it should best be made as propus,:d or in connection with soma other improvemvnt, and the estimated cost of the improvement as rccomm�:nded. MOtlun to adapt renelUtian waa made by Councilmcm,ber seconded by councilmcmber Voting in favor: Upp,::.rJ Adopted by Lilt, City CuunCil thia 2,7.4b Jay of _ABCij__• 198L. Gary Uicber, , City Administrator i April 14, 1981 t` Planning Commission Monticello City Hall Subject: Hospital Parking Lot Across From River Street Attached is a petition on this same parking lot dated April 23, 1980 signed by the effected residents of River St. The some conditions still exist today as they did one year ago which are: 1. A potential of Increased traffic flow which will increase the traffic danger to our children. 2. A potential of further Increased traffic If the parking lot is used by hospital customers rather than just employees as orig- inally proposed. 3• A potential of lowering the asset value of our property as we now have a quirt low traffic area and this may now change. 4. It could provide an Ideal new remote area for additional problems 1 to occur at night including drug usage. l 5. It could create a great location for drag racing. I appreciated the meeting we had last August 29th concerning the above issue. It was a healthy discussion. But, I am disappointed that this much time has elapsed with no other discussion on the subject and now we have a public hearing apparent ly to decide he Issue. 1 would 111,e to point out that If E. River St., which It, now a dead end, were opened to build homes thus building a normal extension of the neighborhood, that the traffic Impact would likely be Insignificant and probably not even be noticed. However, a hospital parking lot will likely create a completely different host of problems as mentioned above. On the other hand, 1 support the building of the specialist clinic attached to the hospital and would like to offer some suggestions as fullows: 1. Place speed bumps in the block preceeding the parking lot. 2. Establish frequent police patrols. j. Provide a security gate on the parking lot entrance_ to be accessed only by authorized employees. 4. Establish limited usage from River St. with entrance only from the ( A top and exit only from River St. S. Or, even better, use the top as an entrance and exit ell year except during the winter or extremely sllpperyconditIons. ,i. r. Planning Commission Page 2 April 14, ig81 I also request that the hospital and clinic review their shift change timing to determine if the shift changes coincide with the end of school hours. The last thing we want is the heaviest traffic of the day to go through our area when the kids are coming home from school. If this is the case, then I request that River St. not be used or that the hospital and clinic change the hours of X11 their shifts. ' In conclusion, with some understar'" -" - - of the residents in the area, I ar factorally for all. Sincerely, e. Iia ae" Irwin E. Kallin ,k;' 1 q / ;3 /Ao Planning Commission Monticello City Hall C6 Gary wieber 250 E. Broadway Monticello, MN 55362 Subject« PROPOSED PAR)CING IAT ADDITION BELOW THE HOSPITAL ON EAST RIVER STREET we, the undersigned, offer the following request on the proposed parking lot for the specialist clinic. we support the new specialist clinic connected to the hospital. However, we strongly oppose the site of the suggested parking lot below the hospital. The.end of Cast River Street at this time is a dead end street. It offers safety to our children from traffic as well as enhances the value of our homes. This proposed parking lot would destroy that situation. Therefore, we request the proposed clinic parking lot be located elsewhere other than below the hospital for the following reasons: 1. Potential of increased traffic flow which will increase the traffic danger to our children. 2. Potential of further increased traffic if the parking lot is used by customers rather then just employees. we feel this most certainly will happen. 3. Removing part of the asset value of our property as we now have a quiet low traffic area. That would be gone. 4. It will provide a now remote area for additional problems to occur at night, as well as speeding traffic going in and out. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. We loot, forward to this being resolved in a manner beneficial to the clinic as well as the impacted residents. Sincerely, a 711 Sr. / O u 4... NN.•-l.a.• ..�'. l o e 5 P Zap - 7 COUNCIL UPDATE April 27, 1981 Meeting IMPROVEMENT TO COUNTY -STATE AID HIGHWAY NO. 75 Monticello has received a letter indicating that Wright County will be improving the roadway on eastbound County 75 from State Highway 25 to the area up to and including the High School. According to Larry Koenig, Wright County Engineer, the construc- tion cost of this project is $33,165.50. This work is to be completed by this summer. ADOPTION OF STRICTER FIRE PREVENTION CODES THAN THOSE CONTAINED IN THE STATE BUILDING CODE. A bill has been passed that allows a City to adopt stricter fire prevention standards than those contained in the Building Code. You may recall that a hearing is being scheduled before the Planning Commission to prohibit 3 -story buildings unless they are sprinklered. It would now appear that this would be allowed by State Statutes. GREAT RIVER REGIONAL LIBRARY. Enclosed is a letter dated April 7, 1981, the City of Monticello received from Mona Cormack, Director of the Great River Regional Library System. This is a detailed follow-up to a letter which was prompted by City Council action relative to the concern the City of Monticello had with an increase in the tax levy for the Crest River Regional Library System. C GW/ns C..'IU lli,nlon, i � 6Un, ,"illelhUlnn, ,�nrl ll��gnl CounL1.6 !'i. I nll,ll Un[Xl11Ln'ly Because of the organizational structure of Great River as agreed to by the participants, your suggestion of the local government employing the staff is not possible under the contract. The Great River service contract provides for operation of a single unified library system. The planning groups and county Cove rn- ments decided many years ago to choose the consolidated system structure because of the advantages of providing service to the rural counties and small cities and greatly impr•ovino the small community libraries which were often sadly neglected. The con- solidated structure is the most efficient and economical means of providing library services in predominantly rural areas. However, this method may be viewed skeptically by a unique com- munity such as Monticello. The founders of the system did not ever think they would be dealing with a town of 4000 population with a 40 million dollar tax base! Because of the unique situation of Monticello, and the structure of GRRL, your options are limited. They are: 1) You can convince the Wright County Board of Commissioners to fund the, library at a rate higher than the current 52.19 per capita. `adliAA 91 dl Q� April 7, 1981 Great River Arve A. Grimsmo, Mayor Re ior�a� Gary Weber, City Administrator 9 City of Monticello Library 250 East Broadway Monticello, MN 55362 Gentlemen: '1•.,nwalwla Your concern relating to a revised funding proposal for Great :u1Sl celm;un River Regional Library finance Couunittee is understandable. to uuoo.m,nneswa Your letter nas been forwarded to the Board, and I am answering !'6101 for the President. B , y this timeyou undoubtedly know that the 1"'.UMvno: 12.251-72d2 funding problem is being studied further and that the County Boards will not I•eceive the proposal at this time. I also am well aware of your cui,munity's concern about the future of hours of service at the Monticello Community Library. I ani equally concerned and plan to request 30 hours weekly of open time for 1982, with appropriate staffing, and whenever the circulation approaches approximately 45,000 annually, 1 will he requesting 40 open hours, appropriately staffed. C..'IU lli,nlon, i � 6Un, ,"illelhUlnn, ,�nrl ll��gnl CounL1.6 !'i. I nll,ll Un[Xl11Ln'ly Because of the organizational structure of Great River as agreed to by the participants, your suggestion of the local government employing the staff is not possible under the contract. The Great River service contract provides for operation of a single unified library system. The planning groups and county Cove rn- ments decided many years ago to choose the consolidated system structure because of the advantages of providing service to the rural counties and small cities and greatly impr•ovino the small community libraries which were often sadly neglected. The con- solidated structure is the most efficient and economical means of providing library services in predominantly rural areas. However, this method may be viewed skeptically by a unique com- munity such as Monticello. The founders of the system did not ever think they would be dealing with a town of 4000 population with a 40 million dollar tax base! Because of the unique situation of Monticello, and the structure of GRRL, your options are limited. They are: 1) You can convince the Wright County Board of Commissioners to fund the, library at a rate higher than the current 52.19 per capita. 2 t 2) Through legal means, you can attempt to withdraw from the system. There is no provision for a municipality to withdraw, but the law has never been tested, either. It may be possible that, if Wright County did not object, you could withdraw from the system. 3) The City of Monticello could contribute to GRRL such sums as necessary for the funding of additional staff. The staff would continue to be employed by f,RRL. 4) Amend the Great River contract to allow city libraries to contract separately. Under a separate contract, the city would pay all or part of its library budget to the region. In regard to the second option, Monticello could undoubtedly run a library on its own tax base. However, it would be independent and would function outside of the system, similar to the operations of Little Falls and Sauk Centre. There would be no access to inter- library loan, no access to 16mm films and other media, no adminis- trative support, and no opportunity to exchange materials no longer useful to the library. There would be no State or Federal aid for the population of Monticello. The loss of Monticello would be a blow to the system, because we depend heavily on the Monticello branch to serve residents of Rig Lake and other nearby areas of Sherburne County and the nearby areas of Wright County. Using known statistics and averages, it appears that at least 25% of the circulation at Monticello is to persons outside Monticello. I understand your frustration. you have an extremely large taa base and are unable to receive services reflecting that ability to pay. However, the contract for service is with Wright County and indicates that the management of the library shall be provided by the Great River Regional Library. Great River Regional Library is a wonderful, unique blend of govern- ments cooperating to provide library services to all residents on as equalized a basis as possible. The Library cannot continue to exist unless all governments involved work together to provide ser- vices. (tore than 80,000 people in six counties are registered borrowers of the Library. In summary, 1 hope that you will give me the chance to address the problems of the Monticello Library and that you will attempt to increase funding for the system for the benefit of all people that the Library serves. Thanks for your consideration. ArSly, rmack Director MC: jt cc Wright County Con ,sioners Loren Klein Marge Rauer GRRI ••d of MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL April 13, 1981 - 7:30 P.M. Members Present: Arve Crimsmo, Dan 8lonigen, Fran Fair, Ken Maus, Phil White. Members Absent: None 1. Consideration of Possible Salle of Municipal Liquor Store Mr. Mel Worth approached the City Council about the possibility of purchasing the municipally owned off -sale liquor store. Mr. Worth indicated that if the City Council was receptive to the idea, he would prepare an offer that would be very commensurate with the appraisal done in September of 1978 with an allowance made for inflation since that t ime. The City had previously considered the sale of the municipnl liquor store, but at that time, no action was taken, and now Mr. Worth was approaching the Counci t to see what the it reaction would be to the possible sale at this time. The general feeling of Councilmen White, 8lonigen and Fair was that at the present time, the liquor store operation wau a mo ney-making prupusitiuu fur the City, and unless Lite asking price of the liquor store was well above the appraised amount, the City would be financially better off to continue operating the store rather than selling it. Councilman Maus indicated that he would be receptive to the possibility of selling the store if it war, shown that the City, over the long run, would not be financially behind because of the sale. Mayor Crimsmo indicated that in his opinion the City no Longer needs to operate a liquor store to control the sale of liquor, but could do this by the issuance of licences, and felt that even though the City may lose some money financially ench yonit, this would be a small amount compared to the total expenditures and budget of the City. Ile also felt. that the CiLy would be eliminating a potential liability factor by selling the store. City Administrator, Cary Wicber, informed the Council that if the City were to sell tln2 liquor store operation for approximately $500,000, which is the 19713 appraised value plus a built in inflation factor of 1% per month, the City would still financially lose approximately $18,000 per year va. net income from the operation. Motion vas made by Dan 8lonigen, seconded by Phil kltile to not consider at the. present Lillie aeIIing the municipnl off - sale. liquor atoru operntion. Voting in favor: Dan Dlonigen, Phil White., Fran Fair. Opposed: Ken Mous and Arve C rimsmo. Council Minutes - 4/13/81 2. Consideration of Acquisition of Kermit Lindberq Residence Adjacent to Wastewater Treatment Plant. Previously, Kermit Lindberg approached the City to see if they would be interested in purchasing his home and approximately 4.2 acres of land adjacent to the Wastewater Treatment Plant. Two appraisals have been received from Maxwell Realty and Realty Station on the Kermit Lindberg residence and adjoining property, and are as follows: APPRAISER HOMESITE REMAINING LAND TOTAL Jack Maxwell 2/19/81 $55,330 $32,670 $ 88,000 Realty Station 3/9/81 $55,500 $45,000 $100,500 Mr. 6 Mrs. Kermit Lindberg felt that both appraisals, including their own appraisal done by Realty Station, were low and their asking price was $120,000. The Council discussed with the City Engineer, John Badalich, whether this site would be a good acquisition for future expansion at the Wastewater Treatment Plant, and it was the opinion of the engineer that this additional land area would be adequate for future expansion even 20 years from now. It was the consensus of the Council that since two appraisals have already been received and range in price from $88,000 to $100,500, it would appear that the value of this land is in this neighborhood and that the City should pursue acquisition of the property using these appraised values. Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Dan Blonigen and unanimously carried to authorise the City Administrator to draw up a purchase agreement for the pu,chase of the Lindberg'• property with a price not to exceed $100,000. This offer will be presented to Lindberga and then presented to the City Council for their approval. 3. Consideration of Authorizing Removal of Former Bob Dowling Home and Gsragn. Previously, the Public Works Director was asked by the City Council to accept proposals on the removal of the Bob Dowling home and garage which will become the site of the parking lot for the new library. To date, the following proposals have been received thus far: A. Quotation from 6 6 L Excavating to remove the house for $2,500 (a ver- bal quotation wa■ initially received for $3,000, and later on a written quotation was submitted). B. Quotation from Brenteson Construction to remove the house for $2,650. C. Proposal has been received by another individual to remove both the house and garage at no cost to the City, but requiring that the City fill in the basement, haul the debris, provide insurance. As a result, the City would incur rusts for these items. - 2 - Council Minutes - 4/13/81 D. Proposal was reviewed at the last Council meeting submitted by Mr. Severson. Mr. Severson proposed either to relocate the home and garage, or remove it similar to the proposal indicated above, that is, the City would still be required to fill in the basement, haul the debris, provide the insurance. Mr. Dave Severson informed the Council that as of the present time, he was having difficulty in finding a lot, and asked for a couple more weeks to try and locate a suitable site to move the home to. It was noted that the quotations received from S 6 L Excavating and from Brent exon Construction Company to demolish and remove the home were about to expire, and that some type of action should be taken soon if these options were going to be exercised. It appeared to the Council that a suitable site to move the Dowling house to would not be found in the near future, and therefore, a motion was made by Dan Blonigen, seconded by Ken Maus and unanimously carried to accept the quotation from Brenteson Construction Company in the amount of $2,650 for the removal of the Dowling building within 90 days, with the City retaining the rights to the garage and various other items in the house. 4. Consideration of Change Order 16 on the Wastewater Treatment Plant Contract with Paul A. Laurence Company. It vas recommended by the City Lngineur that Change Order 16 on the Waste- water Treatment Plant contract for an additional $275 to replace erroneously specified translucent fiberglass tank siding panels with corrosion resistent opaque fiberglass panels be approved by the City. Motion was made by Ken Maus, seconded by Fran Fair and unanimously carried to approve Change Order I6 in the amount of $275 with the Paul A. Laurence Co. 5. Consideration of Adootion of Ordinance to Establish a library Board. Minnesota State lava require the appointment of a Library Board upon the establishment of a library. One of the ways that this could be established was r hrough the adoption of an ordinancu by the City of Monticello. A prco,posed ordinance establishing, a library board was drafted for the Council'* revitrw, which was modeled after other library board ordinances received from the I-es`ue of Minnesota Cities. According to State Law, the Librury Board itself would have exclusive control of the expenditure of all monies credited to the library fund. However, the budgaat for the libruy board would be sat by the City Council. Council Minutes - 4/13/81 in nddition to the ordinance itself establishing the library board, the Mayor, with the approval of the City Council, would appoint the number of hoard members as specified in the ordinance. Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Dan Blonigen to adopt an ordinance to establish a library board consisting of five members with up to one member being from the City Council with all members of the board being from within the City of Monticello. Opposed: Ken Maus, Fran Fair, Arve Crimsmo. In Favor: Phil White, Dan Blonigen. A new motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Ken Maus to adopt an ordinance establishing the library board consisting of five members, with up to one member being from the City Councilandrequiring at least four members of the five -member board to be residents of the City of Monticello. Voting in favor: Ken Maus, Fran Fair, Arve Crimsmo. Opposed: Phil White, Dan Blonigen. (See Ordinance Amendment 4/13/81 496). 6. Consideration of Adoption of Ordinance Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors, and Transient Merchants. The purpose of this item was to consider adoption of an ordinance that would require a permit of solicitors, peddlers, hawkers and transient merchants before they could do business within the City of Monticello. The following is a definition of each category: } SOLICITOR - Individual who goes from door-to-door soliciting orders ✓ or requests for merchandise to be delivered in the future. PEDDLER OR HAWKER - Individual who travels from place -to -place with no fixed place of business, carries with him merchandise lie offers for sale, sells merchandise at the time he offers it for sale, delivers his merchan- dise at the time he consummates the sole, and sells to the ultimate con- sumer, not to retail dealers. TRANSIENT MERCHANT - Individual or firm who losses or uses a building, structure, vacant lot or railroad boxcar for the exhibition and sale of mer- chandise in the course of transacting a temporary and transient busi- ness either in one locality from time -to -time, or in traveling about from one place to another. The primary reason for considering the adoption of this type of an ordinance was due to the fact that presently some non-profit organizations have been selling items such as fertilizer, etc. within the City of Monticello. Technically, our present ordinance does not really allow an organization to engage in a transient business, and as a result, on ordinance to that effect should be considered if thin type of activity is to be allowed in the future. - 4 - Council Minutes - 4/13/81 Although one new ordinance could regulate all three categories such as solicitor, peddler and transient merchant, it was recommended by the City Staff that the City only adopt and try and regulate a transient merchant, as a peddler or solicitor goes door-to-door giving each individual pro- perty owner an opportunity to post no soliciting signs if they are not interested. Currently, solicitors, peddlers and hawkers, etc., are not in violation of any existing ordinance, and other cities have attempted to restrict solicitation, etc., but these ordinances have been struck down by the courts as an infringement upon their rights. The proposed ordinance regulating only transient merchants would require each individual to obtain a permit from the City and still require them to comply with the proper zoning districts in conducting their business even though they would not comply with other provisions of the zoning ordinance such as landscaping, parking requirements, etc. In addition, the ordinance would limit a transient merchant to a period of five days which would discourage a transient merchant from computing on a permanent basis with merchants who pay real estate taxes, etc. Motion was made by Ken Maus, seconded by Phil White to adopt an ordinance that would regulate transient merchants within the City of Monticello. voting in favor: Arve Crimsmo, Ken Maus, Phil White, Fran Fair. Opposed: Dan Blonigen. (See Ordinance Amendment 4/13/81 #97). 7. Quarterly Department Head Meeting. A quarterly department head meeting was held with the Building Inspector, Loren Klein, senior Citizens Center Director, Karen Hanson, Fire Chief, Paul Klein, and Wright County Sheriff's representatives, Buddy Cay and Don Hozempa. Loren Klein, Building Inspector, informed the Council that a developer may be proposing an area in Country Club Manor for 4 -unit dwellings in Clio near future, and also informed the Council that the Federal Government will be planning future nuclear drill exercises, possibly in the fall of 1981 for the City of Monticello. Karin Hanson, Senior Citizens Center Director, noted that May is Senior Citizens Month, and that the Center will have an open house on May 7th. Fire Chi.f, Paul Klein, discussed with the Council Cho current effectivenesw of the pager system used by the fireman and noted that the fire department communications committee will be presenting a report to the Council on May lith, as to their recommendations on whether the present system is adequate or whether a new system should be pursued. In addition, Che Council dis- cussed with Mr. Klein the firefighting capabilities of the department should any three-story buildings be built within Monticello. It was noted by Mr. Kirin that without a sprinkler system in a 3 -story or larger building, the firr department's equipment would not he adequate to serve and fight fires in any building over 1 -stories at the present time. In r.•Karda to them, Council Minutes - 4/13/81 it was recommended that possibly the Planning Comaiesion should consider a zoning ordinance amendment that would require buildings over 3 -stories in height to have sprinklers installed. The Planning Commission will be reviewing this possibility at a future meeting. Sheriff's Department representatives discussed with the Council their efforts to reduce the speed limit along Highway 25 near Oakwood Drive, and informed the Council that the State of Minnesota at the present time feels the present speed limit is adequate and no change is foreseen in the near future. City Administrator, Cary Wieber, discussed with the Council the possibility of establishing a quarterly or semi-annual City newsletter to be sent to Monticello residents. it was the consensus of the Council that a semi-annual newsletter should be pursued as they felt this may be very informative to the residents of Monticello. S. Discussion on Easements for 1981 Improvement Projects. The City Administrator and City Engineer explained to the Council the pre- sent progress in obtaining the necessary easements through either The Meadows Subdivision or Edgar Klucas property to facilitate the construction of the 1981-1 improvement project. At the present time, Mr. Klucas has indicated that he would be willing to give the easement if the City would defer any assessments against this property indefinitely or until his property is developed, or the City pays an amount equal to the estimated assessments. Mel Wolters, developer of The Meadows Subdivision property, also indicated he would give the necessary easement through his plat if - 1) the Klucas property assessments are deferred; 2) a possible deferral of part of The Meadows Subdivision assessments for one or two additional years; and 3) he would be reimbursed a fair value for the easement Ise would be giving. Northern States Power Company has indicated that they would be willing to originally pick up any assessment that would apply to the Edgar Klucas property for a set period of time with the expeLtatton that they be repaid once his property either develops or at the end of a given length of time. They have indicated that they would not be receptive to picking up any assessments for Mr. Klucas that did not have a set period of time involved. The Council, in reviewing this matter, authorized the City Administrator and City Engineer, to work with Mr. Mel Wolters of The Meadows Subdivision in an attempt to obtain the easement from The Meadows Subdivision for a fair value in return for the City installing any improvements in The Meadows Subdivision. The possibility exist■ that if an easement cannot be obtained, no improvements at all would be installed in The Meadows Subdivision. - 6 - Council Minutes — 4/13/81 9. Approval of Minutes of the Special Meeting on March 17, 1981, and Regular Meeting on March 23, 1981. Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Phil White and unanimously carried to approve thy: minutes of the special meeting held March 17, 1981, and the regular meeting of March 23, 1981, as presented. Meeting adjourned. Rick Wolfst4ler, Administrative Assistant RW/ns MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Cary Wieber DATE: April 29, 1981 SUBJECT: Board of Review - May �, 1981 -- 7 P. M. To serve as a guideline for the board of review, the following has been excerpted from the League of Minnesota Cities manual: The city council may serve as the board of review in cities which have been separated from the town. In cities which have not been separated from the town for assessment and election purposes, the town board serves as the board of review. The city council may appoint a special board of review to which it may delegate all of the powers and duties the council would have if it acted as the board of review. The members of the special board of review serve at the direction and discretion of the council. The council deter- mines the number of members to be appointed, the compensation and expenses to be paid, and the term of office of each member. At least one member of the special board of review must be an appraiser, realtor or other person familiar with property valuations in the assessment district. The board of review meets in the office of the city clerk. The city assessor and the county assessor must also attend this meeting with their assessment books and papers. These latter officials may take part in the proceedings, but may not vote. The meeting date of the board of review, which must be be Ween April 1 and June 90, is fixed by the county assessor on or before April I of each year by giving written notice to the city clerk. Upon receipt of the notice, the clerk must give published and posted notice of the meeting at least 10 days before the date act for it. A majority of the members may take action at the board of review meeting and may adjourn the meeting from day to day for a period of 20 days until the work of the board line been completed. After 20 days from the date of its first meeting, the board has no authority and any action taken is invalid unless the commissioner of revenue has granted an extension. In fulfilling its role, the board of review has three main functions to perform: 1. It must review the assessor's list, making sure that all taxable property in the city has been properly placed upon it. 2. It must review the assessor's valuations, striving to standardize the ratio between market value and adjusted market value for each individual piece of property. To accomplish this, the board may raise or lower valuations on individual properties, but increases in valuation acannot be made without first notifying the property owner and giving him an opportunity to be heard. 7. The board must hear and settle the complaints of individual pro- perty owners regarding the valuations which have been placed upon their property. If a person fails to appear in person, by counsel, or by written communication before the board of review after being duly notified of the board's intent to raise the assessment of his property, or if a person feeling aggrieved by an assessment fails to apply for a review of the assessment, he may not appear before the county board of equalization for a review of his assessment, except when an assessment was made sub— sequent to the meeting of the board of review or when he can establish that he did not receive notice of his market value at least five days before the local board of review meeting. The local board of review may not reduce the total or aggregate amount of the assessment returned by the county assessor by more than 1%. This means that compensation must be made for reductions in assessed values by making comparable increases in assessments against other parcels of property. After the final adjournment of the board of review, the city assessor is authorized to make additional assessments but the board cannot make further review. Complaints on these later assessments can be heard by the county board of equalization. Additionally, in order to give, the council an idea of increases in market value, I have enclosed a comparison of several homes with voluation for 1981 and 1982. POSSIBLE. ACTION: After completion of the Board of Review, the City Council Should adopt the assessor's list of property values with any adjustments [hot it makes. REFERENCE: Enclosed comparison of valuations of several homes for 1981 and 1982. C COMPARISON OF MARKET VALUATION 1980 vs 1981 Pavable 1981 6 1982 VALUE VALUE 1-1-1980 1-1-1981 PER CENT PAYABLE PAYABLE OF NAME PARCEL NO. LEGAL DESCRIPTION 1981 1982 INCREASE Connie Decker 155-010-009060 Lots 6 6 7, Block 9 S 22,685 $ 25,115 10.7% Original Plat, Monticello Steve Haamer 155-010-008050 Lot 5, Block 8 40,300 50,283 24.7% Original Plat, Monticello Bruce Ellingson 155-010-029040 Part Lots 4-7, Block 29 41,480 46,050 11.0% Original Plat, Monticello Ed Lange 155-010-029020 Part Lot 2 6 3, Block 29 25,575 30,097 17.6% Original Plat, Monticello Richard Quick 155-010-033030 Lot 3, Block 33 30,985 35,200 13.6% Original Plat, Monticello Donald Maus 155-010-046090 Lots 9 6 10, Block 46 79,550 82,562 3.7% Original Plat, Monticello George Phillips 155-010-045040 Lots 4-7, Block 45 73,505 77,027 4.8% Original Plat, Monticello Lydia Swanson 155-010-048131 Lots 13 6 14, Block 48 31,910 35,068 9.9% Original Plot, Monticello Dennis Lundquist 155-010-050140 Lots 14 6 15, Block 50 42,820 46,593 8.8% Original Plat, Monticello Con Johnson 155-010-057050 Lots 5-7, Block 57 63,530 66,928 5.3% Original Plat, Monticello Dave Bauer 155-014-001020 Lot 2, Block 1 56,245 63,918 13.6% Hoglund Addition VALUE VALUE 1-1-1980 1-1-1981 PER CENT PAYABLE PAYABLE OF NAME PARCEL NUMBER LEGAL DESCRIPTION 1981 1982 INCREASE Troy Chaplin 155-014-001010 Lot 1, Block 1 $ 45,950 $ 44,707 7.30 Hoglund Addition Hal Krahl 155-015-009040 Lot 4, Block 9 58.077 62,441 7.56 Lower Monticello Iry Kallin 155-015-019011 Long Des., Block 19 78,203 84,122 7.56 Lower Monticello Roy Lauring 155-020-002010 Lot 2, Block 2 68,700 77.738 13.16 River Terrace Floyd Johnson 155-020-001060 Lot 6, Block 1 63,636 70,530 10.86 River Terrace Audrey Sandberg 155-020-002060 Lot G, Block 2 76,337 77,782 1.96 River Terrace Steve Johnson 155-023-001080 Lot 8, Block 1 63,180 91,510 10.06 Doerr Estates Mike Slagtor 155-026-001080 Lot 8, Block 1 48,821 53,739 10.06 Anders Wilhelm Estates Ron White 155-028-001020 Lot 2, Block 2 86,161 90,060 4.56 Sandberg Riverside Mol Wolters 155-028-001070 Lot 7, Block 1 101,167 107,128 5.96 Sandberg Riverside Lloyd Lund 155-013-001130 Lot 13, Block 1 46,991 51,475 9.56 Hillcrest Addition Blaine Nobbs 155-013-001070 Lot 7, Block 1 52,266 57,197 9.46 Hillcroat Addition Frankie Paterson 155-020-002040 Lots 4 s 5, Block 2 49,940 52,165 4.46 River Terrace