Loading...
City Council Agenda Packet 02-08-19821 AGENDA l REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday,, February 8, 1982 - 7:30 P.M. Mayor : Arve Grimsmo Council Memhers: Dan Blonigen, Ren Maus, Phil White, Fran Fair. Meeting to be taped. Citizens comments. 1. Consideration of a Variance for a Certificate of Occupancy - Decorative Services. 2. Consideration of Awarding Contract on Bids for 1500 Galloi, Tanker Truck and Truck Chassis for the Fire Department. 3. Consideration of Increase in Fire Department wages. C, 4. Review of the 1981 Year End Liquor Store Financial Statements. 5. Consideration of Expenditures for Historical Information Center Building. 6. Consideration of Establishing a Tax Increment Financing District for the City of Monticello. 7. Approval of Minutes for regular meeting held on January 25, 1982. 8. Unfinished Business. 9. New Business. COUNCIL UPDATE February 8, 1982 HISTORICAL BUILDING - OPEN HOUSE. Mrs. Marion Jameson, Monticello's Historical Committee Chairman, noted recently that the Monticello Historical Committee plans an open house at the Historical Building on the weekend of February 13th and 14th. Mrs. Jameson indicated that an open house over the Valentine's weekend was being planned to, hopefully, generate some interest in the local Historical Committee. An open house ad will be placed in the Monticello Times and an open invitation has been extended to all Council members to attend. STATE AID CUTS ON 1981 AND 1982 TREE PROGRAM As you may recall, a memorandum was received from the Department of Agriculture indicating that the Dutch Elm Disease Program would quite likely be drastically reduced in 1992. This program was previously reimbursed by the State at approximately a 50 percent rate which was reduced to approximately 209 for 1981. A new tax bill has been re- cently signed by the. State Legislators which has further cut back the State Tree Grant money Eur 1981 which has not yet been paid by the State. The one. -third cut in the Grant Program means that the reimbursement rate for the city's 1981 Tree Program recently submitted will amount to ap- proximately 109 for 1981 rather than the 209 previously estimated. The State of Minnesota had previously estimated that the reimbursement rate for the 1982 Tree Program would be somewhere in the area of 8 to 8b%, but as part of the now tax bill recently signed by the governor, all Shade Tree Grant money for 1982 has been eliminated at this point. Prior to implementing the 1982 Shade Tree Program, the tree removal coat will be calculated and submitted to the Council along with various alternatives for funding tho program during 1982 which more than likely will result in increases to the property owner if the city is going to continua the Tree Program. _ Council Agenda - 2/8/82 AGENDA SUPPLEMENT 1. Consideration of a Variance for a Certificate of Occupancy - Decorative Services. PURPOSE: Mr. Bill Schackor, owner of Decorative Services, has requested a certificate of occupancy for his new building being built in Oakwood Industrial Park, prior to the completion of all landscaping and hard surfacing of parking lot. Mr. Schackor who will be present at Monday night's meeting, has indicated to Loren Klein, Building Inspector, that the building is almost ready for occupancy and thus he would like to move in before the parking and landscaping can be done. Mr. Schackor has agreed to arrange for his lender to provide a letter to the City of Monticello indicating that an escrow account will be set up for Ik times the amount of the estimated landscaping and parking lot improvement costs. The reason for the request is due to the present weather conditions not allowing the parking lot improve- ments to be completed until this summer. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approvinq a variance for a certificate of occupancy for Decorative Service's new building �- contingent upon proper arrangements being made for providing either a surety bond or an escrow account for 1% times the amount estimated for the improvements. - 1 - L Council Agenda - 2/8/82 2. Consideration of Awarding Contract on Bids for 1500 Gallon Tanker Truck and Tr-uck Chassis for the Fire Department. PUPPOSE: To consider awarding a contract or rejection of bids for a 1500 gallon tanker truck and pumper apparatus and chassis truck. As you recall, bids were received on December 31, 1981 for a new 1500 gallon tanker and pumper truck. At that time, the Monticello Fire Department recommended that all bids be rejected due to various inconsistencies in the specifications drawn up by the Fire Department. For your information, the bids that were received at the December 31, bid opening were as follows: Company Basic Bid A• B• C• Delivery Time Laverne Fire Equip- $53,847 900.00 250.00 1,670 130 to ment, Inc. 145 days Fire Safety Products, 53,528 1500.00 N/C No Bid 180 days Inc. Pierce Manufacturing 55,326 824.00 374.00 No Bid 240 to 300 days General Safety Equip- 57,676 59n.00 590.00 3,500 365 to ment, Inc. 400 days Mid -Central Fire, Inc. 45,865 400.00 300.00 10,000 180 days *ALTERNATE A - Side Water Dump •ALTERNATE. B - Jet Water Dump *ALTERNATE C - Stainless Steel Booster Tank The specifications for both the truck chassis and the pumper tanker apparatus were changed and resent to all perspective bidders. In changing the specifications, the Fire Department recommended that the truck chassis be bid separately in an effort to possibly reduce the cost and also creating a likelihood that the truck chassis could be purchased locally. The bids that were received on February 1, 1982 were as followst Alternate 01 Delivery Company Basic Bid (Sado Water Dump) Time Laverne Fire Rquipment, Inc. 032,473.00 $750.00 140-150 days after chassis dal ivory General Safety Equipment,Inc. 36,960.00 590.00 240-280 days from contract l date. Pierce Manufacturing 45,680.00 980.00 240-300 days from contract. 2 - Council Agenda — 2(8/82 Truck Chassis Company Bid Delivery Time Monticello Ford $16,166.71 60-90 days Gould Brothers Chev. 17,730.00 90 days Laverne Fire Equipment,Inc. 18,655.00 60-90 days Pierce Manufacturing 20,575.00 120 days Representatives from the Monticello Fire Department have been review- ing the bids to see if they comply with all specifications for both the truck chassis and the tanker pumper apparatus. The apparent low bidder for the truck chassis was submitted by Monticello Ford in the amount of $16,166.71 while the 1500 gallon tanker and pumper apparatus low bidder appears to be Laverne Fire Equipment Company in the amount of $33,233.00 with the Alternate #1 aide water dump making- a total low bid of $49,389.71. At the time this item is being prepared for the agenda, the Fire Do- partment representatives have not completed their review of all speciCicatiuks, but concerns were expressed at the bid opening regarding the low bidder for the tanker from Laverne Fire Equipment may not meet all specifications required in the bids. Immediate concerns were in regard to the shape of the tanker and the resulting cabinets requested on the truck and also in regard to the lower pump capacity than speci- fied. Initial review indicated that possibly General Safety Equipment Company in the amount of $36,960.00 plus $590.00 for Alternate 01 may be the low bidder in meeting the specifications. For your information, the 1982 budget had allocated $43,000.00 for the purchase of this new tanker truck with approximately 80% of this amount being paid by the City and 20% by Monticello Township. Representatives from the Monticello Fire Department will be at Monday night's mooting to review this item with the Council and make their recommendations. POSSIRU ACTION, Consideration of awarding a contract for both tho truck chassis and the 1500 gallon tanker pumper apparatus. If a con- tract is awarded, approval by the Monticello Township Board will also be required before an actual contract is awarded. 3 C Council Agenda - 2/5/82 3. Consideration of Increase in Fire Department Waqes. PURPOSE: To consider a request by the Monticello Fire Department members to increase their salary on fire calls and drills. As you may recall at the last Department Head Meeting, Willard Farnick, Fire Chief, mentioned that the Fire Department members were considering requesting an increase in their salary from the present $7.00 per hour for the first hour of a fire call and $5.00 thereafter to a straight $8.00 per hour. On February 1, 19828 this request was brought before the Joint Fire Board consisting of Paul Klein, representing the Fire Department, Gahart Decker, representing Monticello Township, and myself, rep- resenting the City. In addition to increasing the salary from the present levels to a straight figure of $8.00 per hour, the fire- men also requested that they be paid an hourly rate for drills attended. In the past, the firemen have been paid for drilla, but only at the rate of $7.00 per person, not hourly. It was noted by the Joint Fire Board that a request for an increase in salary was not mentioned by the Fire Department at the time the 1982 budget was prepared and thus the 1982 budget did not allow for any increase. Because of this, it was the unanimous concensus of the Joint Fire Board Members that any increase in Fire Department salaries should not take, effect if approved by the Council and the Township Boards until after the year 1982 as this item was not included in the budget. In order to determine what effect the rate increase would have, a review of. the 1980 and 1981 wages paid is listed below. The actual hours fc- fire calls and drills during 1980 and 1981 were multiplied by the the now rate requested of $8.00 per hour to show the increase cost to the City, if the now schedule is adopted. 1980 WAGES 1981 WAGES Drills at $7.00 per member $ 1,043.00 $ 1,820.00 Fire Calls, Amount at $7.00 for lot hour 7,574.00 7,553.00 Amount at $5.00 for additional hro.2,130.00 1,935.00 TOTAL WAGES $10,747,00 11,308.00 The total cost if the requested salary of. $8.00 per hour had been in effect would be as follows: 1980 WAGES 1981 WAGES Drills $8.00 times 401 hours $ 3,848.00 $ 3,424.00 (428 Hours) CFire Callas $8.00 per hour 12,912.00 11,728.00 $15,912.00 $15,152.00 • Increaso over prooent rates 48• 34• - 4 - Council Agenda - 2/5/82 As you can see, the largest cyst increase to the City would be in the area of drills, increasing the 1980 actual cost of $1043.00 to over $3800.00 or an increase of 2689 if the firemen were paid on a per hourly basis for drills attended. During 1981, the cost would increase from $1820.00 to over $3400.00 or an increase of 68%. The actual increase from 1980 fire calls would be from $9700.00 to over $12,000 or approximately a 246 increase. During 1981, the actual fire call wages of $9,500.00 would have increased to $11,700.00 or again approximately 249. As part of the 1979 budget, the Council in September of 1978 approved an increase in the Fire Department wages from the present scale at that time of $5.00 per hour for the first hour and $3.On thereafter to the present salary schedule of $7.00 per hour for the first hour and $5.00 thereafter. This increase was effective January 1, 1979. Enclosed with the agenda supplement you will also find a survey of the surrounding communities such as Elk River, Buffalo, Big lake and Maple Lake as to the present day scales for their respective fire departments. Although the Joint Fire Board recommended that the present salary of $1.00 per hour and $5.00 per hour thereafter remain the same for 1982, this item is being brought to the Council for their action as the Joint Agreement between Monticello Township and the City of Monticello requires that all expenditures be reviewed by the Joint Fire Board and presented to their respective boards. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of increase in Fire Department wages for fire calls and drills attended. REFERENCES: Minutes of the Joint Fire Board Meeting hold on Fob- ruary 1, 1982 and a summary of pay scalae in other surrounding communities. -5- C Council Agenda - 2/8/82 4. Review of the 1981 Ycar End Liquor Store Fi„ancial Statements. PURPOSE: To review the year end financial statements for 1981 with Liquor Store Manager, Mark Irmiter, who will be at Monday night's meeting. Enclosed with the agenda, you will find a financial statement for the year ending December 31, 1981 for the Municipal Liquor Store operations. The following are a few significant areas of interest in the comparative statements. SALES - Up $112,171.00 over 1980 figures or approximately 14% increase. Projected sales were estimated at $901,575.00, resulting in an actual increase over the estimate by approximately $9,000.00. GROSS PROFIT - At $186,996.00, gross profit percentages were up over 15.4% over 1980 figures. All sales categories including liquor, wine, beer and miscellaneous, increased slightly from 1980 figures with an overall gross profit percentage of 20.53%. As you will note from the financial statements enclosed, the 4th quarter gross profit percentages for liquor, wine, beer and miscell- aneous, all increased substantially bringing the year end percuntayuu to a respectable amount. OPERATING F%PE14SF--Up $9,226.00 over 1980 figures. Although total operating expenses for the year did increase, the percent to sales ratio did decrease from 11.64% in 1960 to 11.21% in 1981. As part of the operating expenses, salaries remained fairly constant at 5.96% of total sales while items such as utilities and insurance actually dropped from last year's figures. OPFPATING INCOME - Increased to $84,852.00 from $69,122.00 or ap- proximately a 23% increase over 1980 figures. Total operating income as a percent of total sales increased to 9.32% from 8.65% in 19gO. Interest earnings on investments continued to provide a substantial contribution to other income resulting in a total not income for the Liquor Store of $108,629.00 versus $87,790.00 in 1980. The projected hidget figures for 1981 had predicted approximately $ln0,000 net profit. POSSIBLE ACTiONi tie action necessary other than review of the year end financial statements with manager, Mark Irmiter. `. RFFERENCFSt Enclosed is a copy of the 1981 year and financial statements. 6 Council Agenda - 2/8/82 5, Consideration of Expenditures for Historical Information Center Building. PURPOSE; Mrs. Marion Jameson, Wright County Historian and Monticello Historical Committee Chairman, requested to be on the Council agenda for consideration of possible funding of improvements to the His- torical Building for the coming season. Mrs. Jameson has requested that the Council consider the installation of a separate phone at the Historical Building during the coming year. Currently, the plans are for the Information Center, which has been manned by the Senior Citizens, will also be located in the Historical Building during the summer of 1902. Mrs. Jameson indicated that al- though a pay phone is located near the Historical Building, there are many times that committee members who have been manning the Historical Building have had to either leave the building unattended while they made a phone call or completely lock up the building before making cacti call. Although there is some concern over the cost of the in- stallation of the phone and the monthly charge versus the benefit that would be received, Mrs. Jameson requested that the Council consider the installation of the phone. For your information, the installation of a phone would be approxi- mately $25.00 with an additional monthly charge of $10.50 at the current rate. In addition, Mrs. Jameson has requested that a ceiling fan be pur- chased and installed in the Historical Building to help circulate same of the heat from the ceiling area to the floors which do be- come cold in the winter. The present furnance is a ceiling mounted furnance which does tend to heat the coiling more than the floor area and it was felt by Mrs. Jameson that an expenditure of approxi- mately $100 to $150 would be needed to install a coiling fan. In talking to John Simolo, he felt that members of the Public works Department could install this fan. Mr. Jameson also indicated that the Historical Committee has been discussing printing brochures that could be used for a walking tour of the historical sites in Monticello which may require some easier - once from the City in printing costs, etc. For your information, as part of the 1902 budget in the Park Fund, $2,000.00 was tentatively allocated towards the Historical Infor- mation Center budget for possible expenditures by the Historical Committee. Ono possible solution would be to either approve each individual item such as a telephone or a coiling fan as needed and requested by the Historical Committee or to sllocato up to $500 for normal Historical Committee expenditures during 1902. If a limit wao plaaod on the dollar amount authorized by the Council, the Historical Committee could in the future cane back to the Council to request additional funding for other projects or improvements as needed. c Council Agenda - 2/8/82 POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of request for funding improvements to the Historical Building - Information Center by the Historical Committee. Also, the Council may wish to set a dollar amount that the committee could expend before requiring Council approval for each item. _B_ Council Agenda - 2/8/82 i v_ 6. Consideration of Estahl ishi nq a Tax Increment Financinc District for the City of Monticello. PTTRPOSF: To review and discuss the possible application of a tax increment financing district for downtown Monticello. At the previous Council meeting, tax increment financing was mentioned as a possible tool the City could use in redeveloping certain blighted or deteriorated areas of the downtown area. In light of this discussion, I have reviewed some of the aspects and procedures necessary for establishing a tax increment for financing districts for the City of Monticello. The basic con- cept behind tax increment financing is to utilize the new tax revenues generated by a completed new development or redevelop- ment of an existing building, to pay for such things as land acquisition and site improvements, thereby allowing a city to stimulate private development which might not otherwise occur. The City of Monticello or an authority such as the Housing 6 Re- development Agency can normally generate funds through the sale of bonds to purchase property for resale under tax increment financing proposals, however, funds could be generated through local reserves that the City may have and would not require bonding. .( riormally, a finding of fact would have to be made by the City that the proposed project or projects in the tax increment district would not occur solely through private investment within a reason- ahle foreseeable future, and therefore the use of tax increment financing is deemed necessary in the opinion of the City. The number of years that the City could recapture its cost under tax increment financing depends on the typo of project, whether its redevelopment or economic development project or a housing pro- ject. Eligible projects for tax increment financing are an follows: - Redevelopment Project - Any project involved in the re- moval of blight, any now land use ouch as housing or commercial and industrial may replace the blighted property. - Housing Project - Any housing project involved in the construction of low and moderate income housing. - Economic Development Project - Any project that does not Involve the removal of blight or the construction of housing for lower or moderate income persona. 9 - C Council Agenda - 2/8/82 Although the uses of tax increment financing in Monticello may be unlimited, some specific possibilities could be as follows after the City created a general district and then narrowed the locations in the general districts down to what is called a tax increment financing district within the general area. As this would allow for the City to collect tax increments over a longer period of time up to 25 years, rather than through an economic development project which limits the tax increments to only 8 years or 10 years from the date of approval of the tax increment plan, whichever is less. By establishing, for example, the entire six block downtown arca and possibly the addition of the Oakwood School block into a general district, a specific site within this area could be es- tablished as the TIF District which is planned for development. An cxafpl,� of an area cr district within the large district could be the establishment of a site such as the Monticello Ford Garage or the present Fix -It -Shop building. In the case of the Ford Garage, this building could be purchased by the City and resold to a developer who had a proposed plan for a new building. In addition, the present building could be also renovated with the City collecting the increased taxes after renovation. A particular project site such ad Lhe Haid Garage could he combined with an area f ouch as the property to the north owned by the Monticello Develop- s ment Corporation where the existing homes located there could be torn down and made into a municipal parking lot. The City's cost in purchasing the land for the parking lot could he recaptured from the increased taxes generated by the renovation or redevelop- ment of the Ford Garage also. Although it may seem odd that an area such as Oakwood School Block shouldho Included in a tax Increment financing district since the property could Ix: sold at a fair retail value, but by having this property in the tax increment district, the Increased taxes generated abovo the present raw land value could he kept by the City to pay for other Improvements such eo parking lot Improvements, street lighto or even the cotabliohment of a mall typo area that could occur in other areas of the downtown district. Previously, the City had obtained information about tax increment financing from Mr. Walt Hartman of the League of Minnesota Cities. Although Mr. Portman no longer to employed by the League of Cities and to now employed by a private planning firm, he did indicate that he, would ha willing to make a presentation to the City Council on the establishment of a tax increment district. If desired, Mr. Hartman and his planning firm would help the City coordinate and develop a plan that would be suitable for the City of Monticello. Council Agenda - 2/5/82 This item has been placed on the agenda for informational purposes for Council consideration to determine whether this type of a program should he pursued by the City now or whether the City should wait until a developer or developers approach the City re- garding this type of project. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration by the Council of whether to pursue the establishment of a tax increment financing plan, and if so, consideration of a presentation by Mr. Walt Hartman, formally of the League of Minnesota Cities,to describe the basic concepts on procedures necessary. L ( MINUTES l� JOINT FIRE BOARD MEETING February 1, 1982 Members Present: Paul Klein, Gahart Decker, Rick Wolfsteller. The Joint Fire Board discussed a request by Fire Department Members to increase drill and fire call wages for firemen in 1982. Previously, all drills held by the Fire Department were paid at $7.00 per meeting. The firemen requested their pay be increased to $8.00 per hour for drills. In addition, present fire calls are paid at a rate of $7.00 for the first hour and $5.00 thereafter. The requested amount is $8.00 per hour straight across the board. It was noted by the board that the 1982 budget had already been sot with no allowance planned for such a largo increase in wages. In addition, no survey had been done to indicate what impact this in- crease would have on the 1982 budget. By unanimous concenaus, it was recommended that no increase in wages be pur wed by the Council or Township during 1982 as it was not in- cluded in the 1982 budget. Meeting Adjourned. Rick WolEatel, cr Acting Clty dminiatrator FIRE: [DEPARTMENT WAG?'S Surrounding Communities •Fire Chief paid $20.00 weekly •Assistant Chief paid $10.00 weekly J let hour Hours Amount for of Fire Thereafter Drills Big Lake $5.00 $3.00 $3.00 per hour Maple Lake 5.00 5.00 Ruffalo 3.00• 3.00• None Elk River 8.00 8.00 None •Fire Chief paid $20.00 weekly •Assistant Chief paid $10.00 weekly J CURRENT ASSETS CASH CASH IN BANK -RESTRICTED r ENVESTMENTS l INVESTMENTS -RESTRICTED NSF CHECK -RECEIVABLE DUE FROM OTHER FUNDS INVENTORIES PREPAID INSURANCE IINAMORTIZED BOND DISCOUNT TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT LAND liUll_DINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS I ANK1NG LOT FURNITURE AND FIXTURES ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION IOIAL PRUPERI'Y AND EQUIPMENT IOIAL ASSETS CURREN] LIABILITIES ACCOUNIS I'AYADLE ACCRUED EXPENSES 1'01AL CURRENT LIA141LITIES LONG-TERM LIABILITIES 1,40N1'S PAYABLE (REVENUE) IOIAL LONG-TERM LIADILIIES IOIAL LIABILITIES L(IUI1 Y 10:1AlNE11 FARNINGS VENUES OVER EXFENDII'URES 101 At. E01111Y 1111 A1. LIAPIL11L'S AND E('4U11Y ASSETS 6 15.873.12 3.584.80 90.559.67 47.540.20 229.33 286.83 88,974.83 2,6'10.57 1,471.09 6 251,198.44 f 6.839.95 151.671.04 7.765.50 44.374.12 ------------- f 210.650.61 t< 46.767.39) -------------- • 163,88:1.22' ------------- 1 415,081.66 LIABILITIES AND EQUITY 1 34.937.50 10.205.43 ------------- • 45,222.93 • 125,000.00 ------------- • 125,000.00 ------------- • 170,222.93 • 286,508.76 ( 419650.03) ------------- • 2449858.73 ------------- t 41S,OU1.66 ............. FAI i OFF -SALE Liquor Mine Beer SUBTOTAL I+iscellanecu s Merchandise TOTAL Less Freight Tttt'AL GROSS PROFIT OPERATING EXPENSES Salaries Fringe Benefits Audit Fees Computer Costs Insurance Telephone Utilities Supplies Repairs a Maintenance - Equi2ment Repairs a Maintenance - Buildings Advertising Depreciation Misc. Expense NSF Checks TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSE OPERATING 1NC(V4M MLtER IJ!PEtLSFS Bond Interest Expense Unemployment Claims Expense TOTAL OTHER EXPENSE O'it{ER 112COME Cash over short Interest Income Interest Income - Contract for Deed Ceta PeLmlvrsements TOTAL OTHER INCOME. NET INCOLITM CITY OF MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LI121OR STORE COMPARATIVE. OPERATING STATEMENT STATEMENT FOR YEAR ENDING December 31, 1981 1980 COST OF GROSS PERCENT SALES SALES PROFIT TO SALES $298,460 $235,979 S 62,481 20.93 108,522 71,508 35,014 32.26 467,079 382.729 84.350 18.06 874,061 $692,216 181,845 $156,011 16,809 27.501 9.308 25.29 $910,870 $719,717 $191,153 20.99 20.75 4,157 .46 .46 $186,996 20.53 $ 54,248 S 47,720 5.96 6,951 6,263 .76 1,283 1,600 .14 1,262 - 0 - .14 10,400 11,654 1.14 640 626 .07 7,813 8,498 •B6 2,751 3,617 .30 1,457 1,462 .16 2,504 - 0 - .27 2,206 2,206 .24 8,722 8,286 .96 2,On3 889 .22 (96) 97 (.01) .01 $102,144 11.21 11.64 $ 84,857. 9.32 $ 8,742 189 $ 8,931 .98 S (2.60) 26,486 - 0 - 6,482 32,708 3.59 $108,629 11.93 f/ CITY OF MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE i COMPARATIVE. OPERATING 1 STATEMENT R YEAR ENDING December 31, 1980 i COST OF GROSS PERCENT SALES SALES PROFIT TO SALES $272,627 $214,859 $ 57,768 21.19 88,238 60,373 27,868 31.58 404,574 334,196 70,378 17.40 $765,439 $609,428 $156,011 33,260 23.569 9.691 29.14 $798,699 $632,997 5165,702 20.75 3,662 .46 $162,040 20.29 S 47,720 5.97 6,263 .78 1,600 .20 - 0 - 11,654 1,46 626 .08 8,498 1,06 3,617 ,45 1,462 ,18 - 0 - 2,206 .28 8,286 1,04 889 .11 97 .01 s 92,918 11.64 S 69,122 8.65 9,717 256 5 (483) 22,363 1,224 5,537 9,973 1.25 28,641 3.59 5 87,790 10.99 ,t MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL January 25, 1982 - 10:00 P.M. Members Present: Arve Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Dan Blonigen, Ken Maus, Phil white. Members Absent: None. The purpose of this meeting was to consider appropriate disciplinary action in regard to city employee, nick Brooks. Public works Director, John Simola, reviewed with the City Council an incident that took place on January 15, 1982. As a result of this incident, a motion was made by Arve Grimsmo and seconded by Phil white and unanimously carried to suspend Dick Brooks without pay for ten (10) working days. y w bo r, City Administrator -I - MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL January 25, 1982 - 7:30 P.M. Members Present: Atve Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Ken Maus, Dan Blonigen, and Phil White. Members Absent: None. 1. Continuation of Public Hearinq on the 1981-1 Improvement Project Regarding the Proposed Assessment Aqainst the Edqar Klucas Parcel. On October 14, 1981, the City Council held a meeting on the 1981-1 Improvement Project. At that time it was decided to continue the hearing on the Edgar Klucas parcel since an objection to the pro- posed assessment of $37,206.32 was filed by Mr. Klucas. After further review of the objection filed by Mr. Klucas, it was recommended by the City Administrator that there be no assessment on this parcel for the following reasons: - That there may be a question as to the actual benefit pro- vided by the assessments as an appraiser hired by the City determined that Mr. Klucas's property could possibly be de- veloped in the future and he served with improvements _ from a different direction making the improvements along River Street useless. - Presently, a portion of the property is currently classified under Green Acres, under which all assessments are auto- matically deferred. - In all likelihood, Mr. Klucas would appeal any assessment against his parcel. - The City of Monticello always has the ability to recapture its costa of improvements at a later data if the property is developed. In light of the recommendations made by the City Administrator, a motion wan made by White, seconded by Blonigen and unanimously carried to adjust the assessment for the Edgar Klucas parcel on the 1981-1 Improvement Project to a zero balance at the present time with the option to recapture the assessment at a future date if the property is developed later. Council Minutes - 1/25/82 i 2. Consideration of a Set Back Variance - Shawn McCoff. Mr. Shawn McGoff, owner of a home on I,ot 3 - Block 6 in the Mea- dows Subdivision, requested a variance to build a 5 by 8 foot foyer entrance o,�Lo the front of his home. A set back of 25 feet is being requested as opposed to the 30 foot requirement, in order to build the foyer. The primary reason for building the foyer is to resolve Mr. McGoff's heat loss problem through the front door by providing an extra entry way. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the variance on a 3 to 0 vote and since all variances require a 4/5's vote, the matter was brought before the City Council for their approval. A motion was made by Blonigen, seconded by White and unanimously carried to approve the variance for Mr. Mc Goff to build a 5 by 8 foot foyer on Lot 3 - Block 6 in the Meadows Subdivision. 3. Consideration of Amending Various 7.oninq Ordinances. The Planning Commission has recently reviewed the entire city or- dinances and has recommended various changes as part of the review. J Many of the proposed ordinance changes, as racaamnended by the Planning Commission, were of a house cleaning nature to clarify certain ordinance sections or to eliminate those sections that were unnecessary. In reviewing Section 10-3-9 pertaining to the size of wall signs allowed, a sentence was added to indicate that if a principal building is on a corner lot, the largest side of the building may )x: used to determine. the groes silhouette area. It was also rec- ommended by the Council that an additional clarification should be added to indicate that if the largest side of the building is used to determine the size of the sign to he allowed, that same side of the building must have the nign rather than the smaller side of the building. The Planning Commission at their regular meeting held a public hearing on all the proposed ordinance changes with no objection from the public being heard. A motion was made by Fair, seconded by MAua and unanimously carried to adopt and amend all zoning ordinance sections as presented at the Council meeting. (See Ordinance Amendment 1/25/82 #112 for complote fiat of changes). - 2 - 7 Council Minutes - 1/25/82 4. Consideration of a Resolution Adoetinq the Economic Development '— Plan and Designation of Chamber of Commerce Business 6 Industrial Development as Advisory to the City Council. The Minnesota Star Cities Program has been developed by the De- partment of Economic Development to help communities throughout the State of Minnesota prepare for and achieve desired economic growth. Two of the elements of the Star Cities Program was the adoption of an Economic Development Plan and the designation of a committee to be an advisor to the City Council on economic development matters. Monticello's Star Cities Program was prepared by the Chamber of Commerce Committee on Business 6 Industrial Development and it was recommended that this same committee be designated as ad- visor to the City Council as part of the adoption of the Econ- omic Development Plan. A motion was made by Fair, seconded by Maus and unanimously carried to adopt a resolution adopting the Economic Development Plan as presented and designating the Chamber of Commerce Busi- ness s Industrial Committee as advisors to the City Council. (See Resolution 1/25/82 k16). Consideration of Approval of Chanqe Order 422 with the Paul A. i.aurenco Company on the Wastewater Treatment Plant Construction Contract. At their last meeting on January 11, 1982, the City Council tabled approval of the change order 422 with the Paul A. Laurence Company in the amount of $958 for an additional 25 foot by 9 foot concrete Blab at the sludge vehicle garage. At that time, the Council requested that the consulting engineer renogotiato the cost of the concrete slab with the contractor in an effort to reduce the cont. John Simola, Public Works Director, informed the Council that the consulting engineer had reviewed the change order amount and indicated thit the estimated coat on an item by item basis could possibly Ix) $054 versus the contractor's estimate of $958. It was fnit that in light of the lengthy cost to resubmit this request, the approval of the change order of $958 would not Ix-, out of line. A motion was made by white, seconded by Fair and unanimously carried to approve change order 422 for an additional $958 with the Paul A. Laurence Company on the wastewater Treatment Plant Construction contract for the concrete Blab at the oludgo vehicle garage. Council Minutes - 1/25/82 4� 6. Approval of Final Construction Payment to LaTour Construction J and Change Order 02 on the 1981-1 and 1981-2 Improvement Project. A final payment request has been submitted by LaTour Construction Company on the 1981-1 and 1981-2 Improvement Project which con- sisted of improvements along Cedar Street from the railroad tracks to Lauring Lane and also improvements of sewer, water and street surfacing in the Meadows Subdivision plat. As part of the final request, a change order for additional items in the contract has been requested by LaTour and approved by the City Engineer in the amount of $2,319.50. The change order amount was reduced from the original request of $3,173.50 after negotiations with the engineer and construction company. A motion was made by White, seconded by Blonigen and unanimously carried to approve change order 42 on the 1981-1 and 1981-2 Im- provement Project in the amount of $2,319.50 and approve the final payment of $60,239.50 bringing the total contract price to $337,684.83. 7. Approval of Bills and Minutes for the Month of January, 1982. It was noted that agenda item 011 of the Council meeting held un January 11, 1982 was incorrect in stating that the Civil Defense Director recommended amending an agreement with the State of Minnesota regarding an antenna tower located on city property. The recommendation for the amended agreement was made by Council member Phil White. It was also noted that Check 015340 on the list of bills for January was incorrect and has been changed to $707.32. A motion was made by White, aeconded by Fair and unanimously carried to approve the minutes of the council meeting hold of January 11, 1982 and the bills for the month of January as pre.- sentod with changes noted above. (See Exhibit 1/25/82 01). B. Discussion on Civil Defense Exercise Scheduled for March 2, 1982. Civil Defense Director, Loren Klein, informed the the Council that on February 3, 1982, a preliminary exercise will be held by the city in an effort to got ready for the actual nuclear emergency exercise. drill scheduled for March 2, 1982. Mr. Klein noted to the Council that the coot to tho City for having an exercise runs in the neighborhood of thousands of dollars in loot wages and oquipment used, and that the State of Minnesota has received funds from Northern States Power to take care of come of the expenses involved in providing civil defense plane in regard to nuclear emergencies. Mr. Klein noted that the City of Monticello lies requested reimburoement for the cont of holding emergency drills, but so far hn iot received any money or correspondence from the State. Council Minutes - 1/25/82 0. A motion was made by white, seconded by Maus and unanimously y carried to recommend tabling further planning for the March 2nd exercise drill until the Department of Emergency Services either responds to our request for funding of the exercises or until the actual reimbursement is made to the City. It was noted that a letter will be sent to the Department of Emergency Services indicating the action taken by the City Council. (See Resolution 1/25/82 035). 9. Discussion on use of Senior Citizens Center Buildinq by Youth Groups. Councilwoman Fran Fair inquired of the Council whether the Senior Citizens Center Building would be available for a meeting room, etc. for such groups as youth organizations from various churches, etc. It was noted that the Senior Citizens Center Building is sometimes used by other groups who contribute money to the Senior Citizens Center, but normally the building has not been available to the general public, etc. It was noted that there ware many concerns about the mix of the Senior Citizens Center with different age groups such as youth organizations, but it was the concenaus of the Council to have Karen Hanson, the Senior Citizens Director, meet with the committee from the St. Henry's Youth Organization to discuss with the Senior Citizerfa Board the possible use of the - building by youth organizations. 10. Appointment of Members to Library Board Committee. Library Board Chairman, Loren Klein, informed the Council that two board members have indicated that they would be willing to serve on the Library Board Committee for an additional three year term. Both Irwin Kallin and Joel Erickson terms expired on Decem- ber 31, 1981 and both individuals have indicated that they would be willing to again serve on the (ward. A motion was made by white, seconded by Fair and unanimously carried to reappoint Mr. Irwin Kallin and Dr. Joel Erickson to a three year term on the Library Board Committee. Mef t!17 Adjourned. Rick Wolfrtr.J4e1 AoointanL Administrator