City Council Agenda Packet 11-10-1980AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
November 10, 1980 - 7:30 P.M.
Mayor: Arve Grimsmo
Council Members: Dan Blonigen, Fran Fair, Ken Maus, Phil White.
Meeting to be taped.
Citizens Comments -
1. Canvassing Board on the City of Monticello's Election.
2. Consideration of Exercising Option on Robert Dowling Property.
3. Approval of Transfers.
4. Review of Liquor Store Financial Statements for Third Quarter of 1980.
5. Consideration of Assistance for ABC Day Care Center.
6. Consideration of Setting Special Meeting for Setting 1981 Salaries
for Non -Union Employees.
7. Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of 10/27/80.
Unfinished Business -
Now Business
C
Council Agenda - 11/10/80
AGENDA SUPPLEMENT
1. Canvassing Board on the City of Monticello's Election
PURPOSE: City Council is to meet as a canvassing board to declare the
results of the elections held for Council and Mayor positions, along with
the referendum on the library.
Enclosed for your reference is a summary sheet of the tabulation for
the November 4, 1980 election.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Motion would be in order to declare the results of
the November 4, 1980 City election for Mayor and Council positions along
with the referendum on the library issue.
REFERENCES: Enclosed summary sheet tabulating the votes on the
November 4, 1980 election.
l7�
Council Agenda - 11/10/80
q_ Consideration of Exercising Option on Robert Dowling Property.
PURPOSE: According to the agreement for the option with Robert and
Clara Dowling, the City of Monticello has until November 15, 1980 to
determine if it will exercise the option.
Regardless of the outcome of the referendum on the bond issue, the City
should determine whether they will be exercising this option, since this
will be the last meeting before November 15, 1980.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Motion would be in order to exercise or not exercise
the above option.
1°! ,r Nor
yf
V V
{
a
f
y
�o
-z-
Council Agenda - 11/10/80
_(, . 3. Approval of Transfers.
PURPOSE: To consider the following list of transfers that should be made
prior to December 31, 1980:
FROM TO AMOUNT COMMENT
Capital Outlay Rev. Fire $ 37,1 68.20 For the City of Mon ticello's
share (83.48X) of the total cost
of the mini -pumper. Totel cost
was $44,523.48. Remaining portion
to be picked up by Township of
Monticello.
Revenue Sharing Sever $ 89,000.00 Transfer of 1979 appropriation
dedicated to the sewer fund for
the construction of the updating
of the Wastewater Treatment Plant.
1977 Special Aamt. 1977 Debt $ 18,9 86.97 Transfer unused portion of bond
Redemption proceeds to debt retirement fund.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of motion to approve the above transfers.
- 3 —
Council Agenda - 11/10/80
4. Review of Liquor Store Financial Statements for Third Ouarter of 1980.
PURPOSE: To review with Mark Irmiter, Manager, the 9 months financial
statements for 1980 for the Municipal Liquor Store.
Sales for the first 9 months of 1980 are up $82,926, or 16.9%, over 1979
figures, with Cross Profit also increasing 16.9%, or $16,577. Although
the expenses have also increased $10,913 over 1979, Operating Income
still shows a Net Increase of $5,664.
In regards to Operating Expenses, the overall percent of expenses to
sales remained fairly close at 12.47% for 1980 vs. 12.36% for 1979.
The Net Income for the first 9 months was up $14,000, or 33.8%,over
1979. The Operating Income increase amounted to 15%, while the additional
net income increase was due mainly to interest earnings on investments.
If the present sales percentage increase continues for the rest of 1980,
sales at year end should be close to $800,000.
POSSIBLE ACTION: No action necessary other than review with Mark Irmiter
REFERENCES: Enclosed 9 months comparative financial statements.
- 4 -
C
Council Agenda - 11/10/80
5. Consideration of Assistance for ABC Day Care Center.
To consider a request from the ABC Day Care Center for assistance which
may include financial assistance.
As you may be aware, the ABC Day Care Center is intending to close their
doors very shortly at the Oakwood School due to financial problems It is
my understanding in talking with Marcella Corrow that the ABC Day Care
Center has not found an alternative to the present facility at Oakwood
that would be financially feasible. At one time, you may recall, the
ABC Day Care Center was contemplating a move into the Baptist Church on
West County Road 75, but because of financing, the ABC Day Care Center
could not afford this facility.
Presently, the situation is that the State Fire Marshall's office has
issued an order effective March 15, 1981, including among other things,
an order indicating that the building will have to be brought into
compliance or be discontinued for use as a day care center. In light of
the fact that the day care center would ultimately have to find an
alternative facility, and there was none currently available, the ABC
Day Care Center decided to aiparently close their doors at this time.
In the letter addressed to the Mayor and City Council Members, which is
enclosed, from concerned parents of the community, but not signed, there
is a reference to the necessity of obtaining financial assistance and
asking the City to help in any way possible. Although this letter is
vague, it appears that the intent is to ask for the City of Monticello
to, in some form, subsidize the ABC Day Care Center.
Obviously, there are some very grove concerns if the City of Monticello
would get into this type of program, since there are other individuals in
the community who are providing essentially the same type of service and
are not being subsidized by the City of Monticello. On previous occasions,
1 have indicated to Marcella Corrow that there may be other outlets for
funding such as state grant assistance through the Department of Public
Welfare, and also approaching the Community Chest. She has indicated that
they have looked into various alternatives, and were not financially able
to move into another facility at this time. I also inquired of her if it
would not be reasonable to increase the charges, but she indicated that
the people who use their services cannot afford increased charges.
That I am awa ro, it is only the City of Monticello that is being approached
at this time for assistance, as opposed to any of the surrounding cities
or townships.
- 5 -
Council Agenda - 11/10/80
It would seem to me that there would be a need for this type of facility
in Monticello; however, if this true need exists, it would seem that it
would not necessitate subsidization of it by the City of Monticello.
Representatives of the Day Cate Center will be at the meeting on
Monday night, and I have asked that group to have one person act as a
spokesman to present their specific requests to the City Council.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Once specific requests are determined, appropriate
action could be taken by the Council.
REFERENCES: Enclosed letter from the concerned parents of the community
on the ABC Day Care Center.
- 6 -
Council Agenda - 11/10/80
1
6. Consideration of Setting Special Meeting for Setting 1981 Salaries for
Non -Union Employees.
PURPOSE: To set up special meeting date to review salaries for 1981
for non-union employees.
Lost year, the method used to accomplish this task was a special meeting
prior to which the Council Members received the salary history of the
particular individual involved plus the recommendation made by the
immediate supervisor or the City Administrator. Each individual employee
was allowed a 15 - 20 minute interview session with the City Council.
You might recall that at the time the salaries were set for 1980, it was
determined to establish the following schedule for individuals handling
secretarial duties, deputy registrar duties, clerk typist duties and
receptionist duties:
RANGE HOURS
Top Rate, or 100% $5.30 - 5.60/hr. Over 4,160
90% $4.77 - 5.04/hr. 2,080 - 4,160
80% $4.24 - 4.48/hr. 0 - 2,080
l It was decided that by doing it in this fashion, the top rate, or 100%
schedule, would be reviewed annually, with the City Administrator to
establish the specific salary within the range indicated.
Relative to the other individuals, I think the process works well because
it allows the individual employee to meet with the Council who untimately
will determine his or her salary. However, i do think one revision should
be made to this method in that the immediate supervisor should also be
present at same time to review his or her recommendations for that par-
ticular empluyee along with the performance evaluation of that particular
employee. Currently, the City of Monticello has put a lot of effort into
establishing an employee performance evaluation which tins to be done every
six months by the particular aupervisor. By having the particular super-
visor present, this would allow input from the supervisor as to the perfor-
mnnee of the individual in question, and also allows the immediate supervisor
to explain why he has coma up with the particular recommendations that he
has in case of the employee.
There are some other methods that the Council may want to consider such
as establishing a committee such as the commiittec that has worked to
establish union negotiations, or have recommendations sent forward directly
to the Council without the interview sessions. Again, I think the interview
sessions have worked well, my only constructive criticism would be to have
the immediate supervisor present to review with the Council their particular
salary recommendations and performance evaluation of the employee in question.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of setting special meeting for salary review
for non-union employees for 1981, and method used.
tib
To the Mayor and the members of The City Council;
We the parents, are joining together to show our support and
concern for the"ABC Day Care.' We strongly believe that "ABC"
is deeply needed in our fastly growing community.
We are urging that the City help us keep the "ABC Day Care"
in the City where we feel it belongs. In order for this to be
accomplished, financial assistance is needed.
Monticello has a very well plaanedschool dist. to shape and
teach our children.The community, for now, has a wonderful
Day Care that prepares those children for our schools and
community.
We ask of you to help us keep it that way.
Thank You.
Concerned Parents of the Community.
.0
vnono 295-7711
250 East Broadway
j MONTICELLO, MINN. 55362
To:
FROM: Gary Wieber, City Administrator
SUBJECT; U / %i is ri— !/e.7
Date
Mama 333.5739
//- 2-g'
MESSAGE: 74e o vc 1 f4"If ii /Jif.r.Jr"•li•� �
A, Ac
Fvw.r•
�7Y
U
Ir 10
e
41
/�!)!
ARt_ /-PJM
M.rN Ilrr..a_.,
c ••Y )
�1 White - Mailing Copy Yellow - Filo Copy
ABC DAY CARL CENTER
Regular children who come
every day.
f,l.Roger & Cynthia black 103 Locust. Monti.
X 2.La belle & David Rohde 318 W. 6th St. Monti.
3.Sheila- & wayne Switala 406 Kjellbcrj, Monti.
4. Kathy Bowman Rt. 2 Monti.
5.Gloria &- Gregory Colbenson Rt. 1 Monti . 8?F
y 6.5andy Younghans 705 E. 3rd St. Monti.
7. Harry &- Vicki Fessenden Rt. 1 Buffalo
0
— Ken -1 Joyce H6kanson Rt. I !,Ionti .
9.GIcn & Lois Posusta Kjellberf; Monti.
10. Richard &- Becky Oslund Rt. I Box 213 Monti. $?8
11. Marcella & Gregg Corrow Rt. 2 Box 41c Monti.
12.Dan & JoAnn Schmit Rt. 3 Monti.
13. Cindy & 1,11arvin Dinville 829 Kiellberq Mionti.
14. Diane &- Ken Leigh Rt. 1 Box 211 Princeton
15. Shelley & Richard Schmidt Rt. 2 Buffalo
6. David &- Mlarge Morri s 9129 Parrish Ave. Ell, River
17. Bruce Debra Stiller Rt. 3 Monti.
18. Larry & Diane Klatt Rt. 3 Pox 85 Monti.
Ar 19. Robert &Martha Sartoris 2008 13 St. St. Cloud
20. Sue Fish 441. South Lake St. Big Lake
21. Daniel & Carolyn Herrboldt Monti.
22. Dennis & Teresc Ludders Rt. 3 Monti
23. Dennis & Trish Taylor Kjcllboz-g Lot #626 Monti.
24. Gary & Jacqueline Theis Rt. 2 Monti.
25. Alicia & Leo blazer Lot # 832 KjolIberg Mionti.
",6.
Rick & Jan Anderson Bir, Lake
27.
Eugene & Ruth Opatz Rt. I Buffalo
28. Lynn Eccles 550 Minn. Ave. Eig Lake
29. Mary & Emil Dorf Rt. 2 Box 291 J,'jonti.
30. Donna & John Windschill Rt. I Monti , S19
5
ABC DAY CAKE CENTER
]TROP -til SERVICE
1. Dennis & Patricia Franc Rt. 4 Box. 113-A Monticello
2. Juanita & James Johnson Big Lake
3. Sheila & Wayne Switala Kjellberg park iionticello
4.Merrily & Lee Satterstrom Rt. 2 Monticello
5. Maureen & Gary Renczykow•ski Rt. P Monticello
X 6. Cindy & Joel Erickson 506 River St. Monticello
7. Karen & Larry Johnson Big Lake
8. Connie & Dwayne Block wonticello
9. Rosetta & Daniel ','Wegener 9405 O'Day Ave. Elk River
X 10. Kimberly s Wichael Mclstead 549 Broadway Monticello
11. Marie & Marn Flicker lit. 2 Monticello
12. Brenda & Jack Peterson Big Lake
13. Susan & Harlan Rose Rt. 1 Bir Lake
14. Linda & John 'Weyhrauch Rt. 1 monti.
15. Cathi & Jeff Christianson Big Lake
16. Genelle Adickes Lionticc] Io
17. Betty & Richard Wafers Monticello
.9. Diana & Bob Mar.well Rt. 3 Monti.
-`20. Sherry & Bill Burke Sandy Lane Nonti.
121.Christina & Douglas killer r4wnicello
22.Mary & Robert Roble 1110 Manitou, Big lake
23. Jane & James Nerkle iak River
:4. Ronald & Denise Peternon Big Lake
25. Wendy & Norman Kubokawa Dlonticello
261 Heidi & Ken Sch4aker Ejellbor, Monti.
27. Dr. 'am. White Tit. 2 Big Lakc
2b. Sharon & Michael Boyle Monticollo
29. Lynn k Steven Porath Monticello
30. David & Lorraine Nowkirk Idonticello
31. Vinnie & Allen Henderson Big Lakc
X 32. Gladys & Douglas Nicholas Mmticello
33. Linda & Peter Larson lit. 2 Monticello
34. Diane & Darwin Coffield Rt. 1 Box 124 Monticello 314
35. Bene & Jerome Patoche Kjcllborg Part: Monticello
36. Nancy & Like O'Noil Rt. P Big Lake
37. Karen & Terence Talents mo ticello
38. Karen & Larry Johnson 20667 221 Me. pig Lake
39.
40.
1.
4?.
43.
44 .
X45.
46.
47.
1A 8 .
Michael & Karen Smith
Karla & Arthur Plaster
Carol & Gary Hartwig
Linda & Steven Lindberg
Lynn• & Jim Nostrandt
Marian & Richard Carlson
Maxine & Dick Topel
Sharon & Brad Larson
Cynthia & Patrick Phipps
Pam & Tom Lindquist
DROP—IN SERVICE .
Rt. 3 Monticello
Rt. 1 Big Lake
616nticello
Monticello
Buffalo
Monticello
Monticello
Monticello
Monti.
Lion ti .
MEMORANDUM
TO: File C-21-31 //JJ
FROM: Cary Wicber
DATE: November 10, 1980
SUBJECT: Possible Funding Through Wright County for a Day Care Center
On November 7, 1980, 1 talked with Alice Cooper, with the Human Services
Department of Wright County. Ms. Cooper indicated that the City of Montiee110
could apply for funding through the Wright County Human Servic us Department
for financial assistance covering start up cost, equipment, and some operating
costs. She indicated this would be primarily for infant care. She indicated
that there is s certain staff ratio that has to be maintained for a day care
that is greater in the case of infants as opposed to older children.
Furthermore, she indicated that there would be Title 20 funds, which is
apparently different from Um first grant indicated above, which would in
effect be subsidizing the parents for the day care facilities. Apparently,
what happens here is that the Wright County Human Services makes direct pay-
ment to the day care center for those people they have a contract with. For
example, the contract is formed between the parents and Wright County Ilumnn
Services, and when the parents take their kids to the day care center, part
of the payment is received directly from Wright County Human Services. She
indicated then, in effect, that this grant or subsidization is actually
to the parents, as opposed to the center itself.
She indicated she was not aware of any city within Wright Coun ty that was
subsidizing a day care cen tet. Shc did indicate, however, that if the parent:;
would want to go together on their own and formulate a dny care center, that
it would be possible for a grant to be received, and additionally, Title 20
monies used to finance the cost of the day care center for the families
involved if they qualified. To be eligible to receive Title 20 funds rrquires
a review of certain income guidelineu.
She did indicate that previously, the ABC Day Care Center had some of the
parenta apply for Title 20 funds, but the Board felt 010E the rates were too
high and did not grant this type of subsidization.
j MEMO to File C-21-91
y November 10, 1980
Page 02
7. Mr. Allen indicated he was not real familiar with any city other than the
possibility of the Norman County Child Care Center in Ada, Minnesota,
in which the child care facility was directly affiliated with the City.
8. He indicated one method that a day care center could be erected in Monti-
cello would be to have a parents coop which would, in effect, be
responsible for a day care center. This would be a non-profit organiza-
tion and they could hire the staff, run the facilities, etc.
9. Mr. Allen indicated that although not normal, that the City could, seeing
a need, fund a portion of the start up costs for such a coop.
10. Mr. Allen indicated that Title 20 is eligible to the extent of the
parents using the service are already on -tome sort of asoistanee. Appa-
rently, some need must be shown to indicate that the users of the facility
are already on a public welfare assistance program and they need the
facility to allow them to be gainfully employed, for example.
CW%ns
t
n moi. ... n NN as
MEMORANDUM
T0: File G-21-31 (State Dept. of Public Welfare)
FROM: Cary Wicber a '
DATE: November 10, 1980
SUBJECT: Financing of Day Care Facilities
Un November 6, 1980, L talked with Bill Allen (296-2210) with the Day Care
Division of the Department of Public Welfare. Mr. Allen indicated the
following:
1. There is no direct funding for Wright County through the Department of
Public Welfare. Assistance in terms of Federal and State dollars is
administered through the Wright County liuman Services Department. The
County Director is Janice Devitts.
2. Mr. Allen did indicate that 22 counties , not including Wright but including
Sherburne, are entered into the sliding grant program that is administered
through the State of Minnesota. Grant applications, however, do go through
the eountien even in those canes.
3. Mr. Allen had a report which he said he will send me indicating that
Wright County, then, received the following allocations in what he termed
Title 20 monies - Federal $31,094; State and Local $25,777. In addition
to thin, he indicated there are name specific progrnma under which Elie
county could nolect: to have a grnnt or not have to grant and the two
categories amounted to the following figures - $5,158 and $5,620. Appa-
rently, the, category which included the $5,158 required the neccanity
of a child care task force to recommend the distribution of these funds.
4. Mr. Allen indicated that of the total of $67,749 in child care funds
npparently there is something like $10,700 available in a direct
grant review process which a day care a enter in Monticello could possibly
approach the county to determine, if any funds are available and that
they could apply for these funds.
5. Mr. Allen did indicate that the smaller group homes, or family day care
homes, have to be licensed for anaintan ce, but they would be eligible for
assistance aloo.
6. Mr. Allen indicated that the AOC Day Care Center did receive a grant for
start up costs for two years from July lot of 1979 through June 30, 1981.
According to Mr. Allen, if Elie. ABC Day Care Center closes its doors prior
to June 30, 1981, there will hava to be some distribution of the aaaets
made back to reimburse Federal and State dollars for that pro rnta share.
T.Ieph— 2952711
I
City 4 "Monficel[o
250 East Broadway
MONTICELLO, MN 55362
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council Members
FROM: Gary Wieber, City Administrator
DATE: October 21, 1980
M-. 0— 333.5739
SUBJECT: Continued Hearing - Board of Appeals - Larry Flake's Monticello
Ford Site - October 27, 1980 at 6:30 P.M.
At 6:30 P.M. on Monday, October 27, 1980, the City Council will meet as
the Board of Appeals for the purposes of the continued hearing for
Larry Flake's former Monticello Ford building on West Broadway.
As you may recall, at the last Board of Appeals meeting on this,
the Board of Appeals deferred any action to allow Larry Flake an
extension of time in the hopes that something could be worked out
with tax increment financing, or another solution to putting the
building in compliance with City Codes, or the building be removed.
As you are well aware, the building still stands at this date and
there have been no plans presented to the City relative to tax
increment financing or any other proposals.
As a result, it is necessary to have the hearing continued to take
final action on the matter. This action would primarily be to consider
the declaration of the building as hazardous and indicating that the
building must be removed or brought into compliance within the City's
code within a stated period of time, or the City will have to prosecute
the case.
Loren Klein and Cary Pringle, City Attorney, will he present to review
this matter with the City Council.
GW/ns
cc: Loren Klein
Gary Pringle
W1110mo to Tflonlicofto . . . liffle mountain
COUNCIL UPDATE
November 10, 1980 Meeting
STEP III CONSTRUCTION GRANT - WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
In talking with Jerry Carrick, of Orr-Schelen-Mayeron 6 Associates, pro-
ject engineer for the above improvement, the Pollution Control Agency has
approved of the change in subcontractor on the project from Buffalo Ready Mix
to Monticello Ready Mix since Buffalo Ready Mix apparently was not certified
as a minority business enterprise at the time of their bid submission to
Paul A. Laurence Company. Furthermore, although this put Paul A. Laurence
underneath the 5% Minority Business Guideline established by the Environ-
mental Protection Agency, the Pollution Control Agency has reviewed the
project and has determined that the City of Monticello, through their
contractor Paul A. Laurence, did make sufficient efforts to obtain a 5%
minority business enterprise goal, and the PCA will approve of the City of
Monticello's contract with Paul A. Laurence Company.
COMMUTER PARKING LOT
Construction on the commuter parking lot started November 5, 1980 and
it is expected to get the Phase I portion, which does not include the blacktopping
and curbing, done yet this fall.
Ch'/na
I
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
October 27, 1980 - 7130 P.M.
Members Present: Arve Crimsmo, Din Blonigen, Frau Fair, Run Maus, Phil white.
Members Absenc: None
1. Public bearing on Variance for Proposed Two 18 -Unit Apartment Buildings and
a Conditional Use Permit - Lot 5, Block 1, Lauring Hillside Terrace -
Terry Mick and Ery Radunz.
Mr. Terry Mick and Ery Radunz, partners, requested a conditional use permit
to develop two 18 -unit apartment buildings on Lot 5, Block 1, Lauring
Hillside Terrace. In addition to the Conditional Use Permit, which was
necessary for any apartment project over 12 units, the applicants also
requested variances on the following:
A. Lot Size - According to Monticello Ordinance, Lot area for this develop-
ment should be 95,000 square feet, wiwreas, 81,600 sq. ft, is being
proposed, and as a result, the land requirement is 14% short of what
it should be.
B. Square Footage Requirement - Efficiency Unit - The efficiency unit
proposed in each complex is 360 square feet, whereas, the ordinance
requiren efficiency units to be 500 sq. ft.
C. A variance from the ordinance provision that requires that in an R-3
zone, all rear parking lot setbacks be 15'. The applicants propose
their rear parking lot to be set back 5' since the rearyard setback
abuts up against the railroad track,, which they felt would be still
a good buffer zone between their property and the abutting R-2 zone
to the north.
It was noted thnt at the public hearing held at the Plnnning Commission
recently, there were no objections to the two 18 -unit apartment buildings
As such, but a letter was received from Mr. 6 Mrs. Lyle Klatt indicating
they hnd objections to the variance., from the minimum lot size and also
from the rear setback requirements.
Tito developers indicated that this project would not be subsidized by
Federal fonds, And would be built with conventional lunds, and would be
rented at market rates.
Tito Planning C009"iaalan at their last meeting; rucuauucnded approval of
both the conditional use permit sod thu variances requested. Reason for
their approval for the variances was that they felt the Burlington Northern
Railroad tracks would provide an adequate buffer zone between tho subject
property and the neighboring residential property to allow a 5' parking
lot setback; and also felt the efficiency units could be approved in tight
7
Council Minutes - 10/27/80
of the fact that all the remaining units more than exceeded the City's
minimum requirements. Additionally, the variance on the square footage
requirement was recommended for approval in light of the fact that
additional land costs might discourage conventional financing and this is
one of the few conventionally -financed apartment projects to be proposed
in Monticello in quite a while.
Motion was therefore made by Fran Fair, seconded by Dan Blonigen and
unanimously carried to approve the conditional use permit for the two
18 -unit apartment buildings on Lot 5, Block 1, Lauring Hillside Terrace
and also to approve Lite three variances requested in regards to lot
size, efficiency unit size, and rear setback on Lite parking lot.
2. Public Hearing - Variance Request to Construct a CaraBe Greater in Size
than 1,000 Square Feet in an R-1 Zone and Simple Subdivision for Lots
1, 2, 3, 4 6 5 of the Barbur Addition - Chuck Stumpf.
Mr. Chuck Stumpf requested a simple subdivision of the above listed lots
to make a lot of 80' wide by 353 feet deep for tile purpose of building
a 3,000 square foot storage garage for his semi trucks.
As part of his request to build a 40' x 75' gnr age, a variance would be
required in that anytime a garage over 1,000 sq .ft. is proposed in an
R-1 zone, a variance would be necessary. Q
At the Planning Commission meeting, name concern was expressed whether this
would be an expansion of the present onlvage yard business located adjacent
to this property, but the Planning Commission recommended approval of the
variance request and simple subdivision provided Mr. Stumpf used the
building strictly for his own personal vehicle storage, rather than any
expansion of Lite present salvage yard business.
Motion was made by Ken Maus, seconded by Phil White and unnninhounly carried
to grant tlhe variance to nllow n 3,000 sq.ft. garage to be. built in a
residential aren, and also to approve the simple subdivision contingent
upon receiving specific and accurate surveys which could be recorded by
the County Recorder's office, and also contingent upon Lite building being
tined strictly for his personal vehicle stornge only.
3. Public hearing - Consideration of a Variance Request - Dave Sieckert.
Mr. Dave Sieckert, who is proposing to buy the Cary Corrow home located
directly west of the. Silver Fox Inn, proposes to use the existing barn
located on Lite property as an informal meeting place for Lite youth of
Monticello. Mr. Sieckert plans to remodel the facilities to include n
lounge, kitchen and bathrooms, as well its apace for recreational uses
such a ping pang, badminton, basketball, e.tc., and an a result, a variance
was requested to allow this remodeling to take plscc without requiring
hardsurfacing and curbing of the parking area. Mr. Sieckert indicated tlmt
- 2 -
Cuuncil Minutes - 10/27/80
there would be no charge for any of the food items served or any fees to
use the facilities, and his intention was to strictly provide a facility
for the youth of Monticello to use to provide activities for them.
The Planning Commission, at their last meeting, recommended that a two-
year variance from hardsurfacing requirements be granted to Mr. Sieckert
at which time it could be reviewed again to see how it was working out.
Motion was made by Dan Blonigen, seconded by Phil White and unanimously
carried to approve the variance to eliminate blacktopping and curbing
requirements for up to two years, at which time it would have to be
reviewed by the Council again.
4. Conside.rnr.ion of a Rezoning Request - Lots 9 d 10. Block 4, Lower Monti-
cello - Vic Hellman.
Mr. Vic Hellman, who is proposing to purchase the home on Lots 9 h 10,
Block 4, Lower Monticello, requested that this property be rezoned from
R-1 (single family) to R-2 (single h two-family residential). His
request was being made so that the now unoccupied single family home
could be converted and remodeled into a duplex.
The existing dwelling has been vacant for some time, and has been main-
tained in somewhat less than desirable conditions, and Mr. Hellman indi-
cates that by granting a rezoning; for duplexes, he would be able to im-
prove the interior of the property so Clint it could be brought up to
current building codes.
Concern was also expressed by the Council that if the property was updated,
it was hopeful Clint the exterior of the building wuuld also be improved
for appearance. sake.
Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Dan Blonigen and unanimously
carried to approve the rezoning of Lots 9 h 10, Block 4, Lower Monticello
from I1-1 to I1-2. (See ordinance Amcndmcnt 1U/27/80 087).
5. Consideration of Rezoning Lot 1, Illock 2, Proposed Riverwood Estates -
Kermit Lindberr.
Mr. Kermit Lindberg requeated that the newly created LUL 1, Block 2, tlia
proposed Riverwood Esentcs I'lat, be r. -zoned from R-1 (Single family) to
11-3 (Highway Business). Mr. Lindberg; felt that thib nrwly created lot
which exists between Dino'S Other World and the Monticello Treatment Plant
would be more suited to commercial business than single family residential.
Motion wan made by Ken Maus, sccooded by Fran Fair and unanimously carried
to approve the rezoning of Lot 1, Block 2, proposed Riverwood Estates, con-
tingent upon the final plat for Riverwoud I:atlltL•S being approved.
(See Ordinance Amendment 10/27/80 088).
- 3 -
I FA
Council Minutes - 10/27/80
Consideration of Approval of Parking for Sam Peraro's Downtown Complex
Southeast of the Intersection of Ilighway 25 and County goad 75.
At the August 25, 1980 Council Meeting, approval was given Mr. Peraro
for the necessary parking requirements for his new building, based on an
8,400 square foot office/retail complex, but since that time, Mr. Peraro
has indicated that a pizza place would be part of the building. A
restaurant requires more parking spaces than an office or retail complex,
and as such, Mr. Peraro is requesting that the additional parking require-
ments be approved for his building. Originally, the Council approved the
parking requirements for an office/retail complex, which would be primarily
daily daytime use , to use the lot directly south of his proposed building.
The new proposed uses of the building including the pizza place according
to the City's ordinance, would require 63 parking spaces, with Mr. Peraro
providing 8 spaces on site, or a net requirement of an additional 55
spaces needed. Since the pizza restaurant is proposed to be open only
from 4:00 P.M. in the afternoon, of the total 63 gross spaces needed,
30 would be considered a daytime use for the office area, etc. , with
33 spaces being required in the evening.
This item was refrnrred rn the City of Coe.., iuiiu's Industrial Development
Committee on Parking, and they recommendedthat although the total require-
ment is in excess of the original plans approved by the City Council on
August 25, 1980, the actual needs at any one Lime, that is, the 22 addi-
tional spaces provided off property would be needed during the day and
25 spaces during the evening, is less than the 32 spaces previously
required considering an office/retail complex. The Business 6 Industrial
Committee also noted that once the approximately 50 commuters in the
Security Federal parking lot are moved to the new commuter parking lot,
space should be.. avnilable for the office use and restaurant use.
Surveys taken on September 11, 1980 and October 16, 1980 indicated that
there would be approximately 50 avai lable spaces in the eveningsince
tmn
the eoute.rs are already out and the requirement of the rcataurant would
only be approximately 25 spaces.
Mr. Peraro indicated that. he did not feel the addiLional parking require-
ments would pose any problem oil the City owned IOUs, since one of Ilio
tennnnts proposed for the office complex, Fingerhut, Inc., is already
presently using this parking lot for their employees at their present
location. in addition, he felt the nighttim,: Uan of the parking lot would
present no problem since on weekends and evenings, these lots are pretty
touch vacant.
Motion was made by Ken Maus, seconded by Fran Fair to approve the parking
requirements for Mr. Veraro's off ice/rota il/rcataurant complex requiring
63 spaces with 8 provided on site, or a net requirement of 55 additional
spaces, contingent upon Mr. Potato providing a legal agreement indicating
that the pizza factory would not be open until 4:00 P.M. It was noted that
the additional parking of 55 spaces would be asne.saed to Mr. Peraro under
the downtown parking improvement projoct of 1974. Voting in favor: Ken Maus,
Fran Fair, Arve Orimsmo, Opposed: Dan Blonigen and Phil White.
1 7,
Council Minutes - 10/27/80
7. Consideration of Approval of Request for a Permit for a Banner on West
;i Broadway - Monticello Chapter, American Field Service.
The Monticello Chapter of the American Field Service requested a permit
to hang a banner across West Broadway from Seitz Hardware to Monticello
Floral Shop. This banner would advertise a spaghetti --upper, and would
be displayed approximately November G - 13, 1980.
The Council noted that some of the banters recently installed in this
location have either come down partly or come loose, and suggested that
the City possibly make sure in the future that banners are constructed
that would remain in their proper locations. One suggestion was that:
the City purchase banner material itself, and possibly rent these items
to organizations chat request banners. It was felt this would be one
way of controlling the type of banner that was installed, since the
City could own the actual sign itself. It was also noLed by the Public
Works Director that when future banners arc installed, the City should
have the name of at least one person to contact who would be responsible
for maintaining the sign should the sign start to come down.
Motion was made by Dan Blonigen, seconded by Phil Whitc and unanimously
carried Lo approve the request of the AFS to place a banner across West
Broadway from November G - 13, 1980.
In addition, a motion was made by Ken Maus, seconded by Phil WhiLe and
unanimously carried to have the CiLy Administrator --hack in to Lhe possi-
bility of the City purchasing materials for it standard typo banner,
puss ib le deposit requ irentenLs for the permiL, and legal iLies of the CiLy
actually owning the sign.
8. Consideration of Option Agreement with David Kranz for Extension of
Lease of Purtiuu of Senior CiLizens Center.
Mr. Dave Kranz, who presently is renting a portion of the Senior CiLixena
Center for his printing businras, requested that the council consider
extending his lense agreement until December 1, 1987.
Mr. Kranz currently has a lease from the City to uac this 1,20U sq.ft.
area of the S mior Citizens Censer until December 1, 1982, but is
requesting that some indication be given that he would be able to remain
nt this location for a longer period of Limo if necessary. Mr. Kranz
informed the Council that he is considering purchasing the Harry Swanberg
residence on a life/catate basis, and the reason for requesting the uption
agreement is to at least assure himself of a bUalneall ealabliahmcnt in
the interim. Since his purchase of this properly on a life/estate basis,
he, at the present time, docan't have any id,:n when he would be able to
move into his new location, and felt that it longer term lease would nt
least guarantee him a flpot.
- 5 -
City Council - 10/"!7/80
One of the concerns expressed by the Council in agreeing to a lease past
December 1, 1982, was that the Senior Citizens Center could possibly use
the space itself for expansion purpuses. The Council indicated that it
would not be agreeable to extending the lease for an additional five years
past 1982, as it was extremely difficult for the City to anticipate its
Senior Citizens Center requirements thnt far in the future.
Based on this, a motion was made by yen Maus, seconded by Phil White
and unanimously carried, to give Mr. Kranz a two-year lease option from
December 1, 1982 until December 1, 1984, at the rate of $300 rental fee
per month, with either party having the right to terminate the lease
agreement with 6 -months written notice.
9. Consideration of Conversion of Manual Accounting System to Computer
Processing.
Recently, quotes were received from three computer processing firms for
the purpose of providing City accounting records on computer processing.
The proposal was to provide the present City accounting records and finan-
cial reporting systems on computer processing, and the proposals received
were as follows:
Cruys, Johnson d Associates - $375 - 4UO per month
Tabulating Service Bureau of St. Paul - $400 - 420 per month
Delano Computer Service of Delano - $550 per month
It vas pointed out by the City Administrator that various alternatives
for computer processing wns checked out, and Che possibil hies included
the City actually purchnsing its own computer system, or having the
processing done by other computer firms. It waa felt amt at the present
time it would not be cost-effective for the City to actually expend
approximately $30,000 for its own equipment, but would be better to go
on a month-to-month basis with an uutside proccusing firm to see how the
system would work.It was noted that Cruys, Johnson 6 As sociatea, the
'I Ow quote received, is also the City's auditing firm and it was felt that
since they have worked with the City of Monticello over the past 20 years,
they have a familiarity with chs City of Monticello'a present accounting
system.
It vas noted that although the proposals would presently only involve
the accounting records of the City, Cruys, Johnson has the capability
of putting the City's utility billings on Computer in the future if the.
City desired.
Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Ken Maus and unanimously carried
to approve conversion of the City of Montice.11o's manual accounting and
financial system to computer prucosning and acceptance of the propusnl of
Cruys, Johnson 6 Associates in the approximate amount of $775 - 400 per
munch, with the conversion to be on a month-to-munth basib.
6 -
City Council - 10/27/80
'I 10. Consideration of the Final Plat for The Brothers Subdivision.
A -
John Badalich, City Engineer, had reviewed the final subdivision plat
for The Brothers, which was situated just South of The Mcadown Subdivision
and west of Balboul Estates. 'rhis plat consisted of 8 lots that are zoned
R-2 and one lot Which is zoned 11-3.
Motion was made by Dan Blonigen, seconded by Ken Maus and unanimously
carried to approve the final plat as presented and approved by the
City Engineer.
11. Consideration of Award of Contract on Storm Water Ponding Improvement
Project - West River Street.
At the City Council's October 6, 1980 meeting, John Badalich, City
Engineer, was authorized to obtain quotations on the installation of
culverts for Lots 2, 3, 4 6 5, Block 1, Ritze Manor, and also a
quotation on a 24" culvert to be placed on Hilltop Drive to allow for
proper drainage in that area.
Mr. Badalich indicated that four contractors were sent plans requesting
bids, but only one bid was received from Brcnteson Construction Company
of Big Lake in the amount of $7,730.80. Mr. Badolich's original estimate
was approximately $6,200.
In addition to these culverts located along West River Street, the Council
also reviewed the drainage problems existing on Lite west side of Otter
Creek Road between Sandy Lone and Otter Creek. Although the culvert along
Sandy Lane and also in front of kick Wolfateller's house is also inade-
quate for proper drainage, it was decided that this aren would not be
looked at this fall, but possibly next year. In addition, Lite Council
discussed Wholhuf only one or two of Lite culverts along West Itiver Street
should be replaced this fall in on effort to see if this would alleviate
the problem without installing all five new culverts as rel'nmmended by Lite
engineer. The reason for this was that apparently one or two of the
culverts arc way under sized, and possibly just replacing these two culverts
may eliminate Lite present drainage problems in Hitze Hanor.
Discussion by the Council concerned whether the City should order the materials
for these two driveways and hire Brenteson's backhoe equipment on an hourly
basis to do the installation. It was felt this would be a much cheaper
Way of proceeding this fall, and next spring, the area could be reviewed
to see if any other action was necessary.
As a result, a motion was made by Phil White, seconded by Dan Blonigen and
unanimously carried to reject Ulu bids received for the improvement on
West River Street.
In addition, a motion was made by Phil White, seconded by Fran Fair and
unanimously carried to negotiate a price with llrenteaun CunstruCliun Company
for use of their backhoe equipment for the purpose of replacing Lite two
undersized driveway culverts in Ritt:e Manor, with the City being Lite general
contractor and ordering the materials that Wel'u nuceabary.
7 -
7
Council Minutes - 10/27/80
12. Consideration of Adoption of a Resolution Accepting Grant Offer from the
State of Minnesota for Step III Construction F.,rtds of $829,860.
Motion was made by Phil White, seconded by Fran Fair and unanimously carried
to adopt a resolution accepting the grant offer from the State of Minnesota
in the amount of $839,860 for the State of Minnesota's 15% share of the
total estimated project cost of $5,532,400 for the improvement of the
wastewater treatment facility. (See Resolution 1980 f127).
13. Consideration of Establishing; Snecial Meeting for the Canvassing Board on
November 5th or 6th, 1980.
Motion was made by Phil White, seconded by Fran Fair and unanimously
carried to net November 10, 1980 as the Jatc thv canvassing board for
the City election of November 4, 1980 would be held.
14. Consideration of Authorizing City Administrator to work with the Joint
Fire Board in Proposing Fire Contracts with the Townships of Silver Creek
and Otsego.
The present contracts with utoego and Silver Creek Townships for fire
protection are up for renewal on January I, 1981 , and it was recomaendud
by the City Administrator that the City Administrator work with the
joint fire board in recommending any changes for Lite new contracts.
In the past, the fire contracts with both Silver Creek and Otsego Town-
ships have been based on a atond-by charge of $300 per year, plus an
hourly rate for each fire. It was recommended chat possible changes be
made in future fire contracts in that possibly o different method be used
in determining how much ench township be charged for fire protection.
One method noted was that pussibly cacti tuwnship could be charged for
fire protection based an their assessed valuation of all the property in
each township. This method would attempt to average the percent of
usage of a fire department with Lite percent of a ascssed value protected.
Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Phil W bite and unanimously
carried to request that lite joint fire board rev iew with tile_ City
Administrator possible modifications on the Fire District's contracts
With Lite Townships of OLnego and Silvor Creek for future years. Any
recommendations would then be brought track to the Council for their approval.
15. Approval of Rills for October. 1980, and Approval of Council Minutes.
Motion was matte by Phil White, seconded by Kms Maus and unanimously carried
to approve the bills for the month of October, 1980, as presented, and the
minutes of the regular Council meetings held September 22, 1980 and October 6,
1980, (See supplement 10/27/80 W. 4 r
- 8 -
Council Minutes - 10/27/80
QQ 16. Discussion on Lighting at the Proposed Commuter Parking Lot.
i_
John Badalich, City Engineer, reviewed with the Council a meeting he had
with NSP representatives regarding lighting the proposed commuter parking
lot at the interchange of 1-94 and Highway 25.
It was Northern States Power Company's recommendation that the City
consider owning the lighting system in the commuter parking lot which
would enable the City to control the time the lights are actually on,
which would result in a much lower monthly charged based on electricity
used. It was noted by NSP representatives that the savings in utility
cost would offset in future years the cost to the City of installing the
lighting system. The lighting system as proposed would have three lighting
standards with six lights at an estimated cost of between $6,000 - 8,0011
to the City.
Motion was made by Dan Blonigen, seconded by Fran Fair and unanimously
carried to authorize the public works department to proceed with the
development of the commuter parking lot and the installation of lighting
in the lot, per the recommendations of the City E.nl;ineer.
It was noted that NSP would provide an inseall the transformer and poles
as needed, along with the lights, and the City would request bids for
the electrical installation and hook up.
Meeting adjourned.
OlCet ler,
nt Administrator
RW/ns
- 9 -