City Council Agenda Packet 10-24-1983AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Monday, October 24, 1983 - 7:30 P.M.
Mayor: Arve A. Grimsmo
Council Members: Fran Fair, Jack Maxwell, Dan Blonigen, Ken Maus.
1. Call to Order.
2. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held on
October 11, 1983.
3. Citizens Comments/Petitions, Requests and Complaints.
Old Business
4.
Consideration of Sideyard Variance Request - Applicant,
Robert and Mary Saxon.
5.
Consideration of Reconstruction of T.H. 25 and Bridge -
Minnesota Department of Transportation.
6.
Public Hearing - Assembly of God Church - Conditional Use Request.
7.
Public Hearing - Fulfillment Systems, Inc. - Proposal to Issue
TaxExempt Mortgage.
C8.
Rev iow of Bids for Pump House 02 Addition.
9.
Consideration of a Deforrment of Special Assessments for
Monticello Country Club.
New Business
10. Consideration of Authorizing the Proparation of an Ordinance
Allowing for On -Salo Wine Licenses - Floyd Kruso.
11. Consideration of County Road 75 and 39 Upyrading.
12. Consideration of Zoning Map Amendmont - Blocks 32 and 17.
13. CalBideration of Authorizing the Preparation of an Ordinance
Pormitting Gambling and Providing Licenaos Thorofor.
14. Dopartment Head Reports.
15. Consideration of Setting tho Annual Salary Mooting.
16. Payment of Bills.
17. Adjournment.
C
MI14UTES
REGULAR MEETING - htONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
October 11, 1983 - 7:30 P.M.
L_
Members Present: Arve Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Dan Blonigen,
Ken Maus, and Jack Maxwell.
Members Absent: None.
1. Call to Order.
2. Approval of the Minutes.
Motion by Blonigen, seconded by Fair, and carried unanimously to
approve the minutes of the regular meeting held September 26, 1963.
4. Consideration of Rosolutions Pertaininq to T.II. 25 and Bridqc -
Minnesota Department of Transportation.
Mr. Jim Weingartz of MN/DOPT, Brainerd office, was present to explain
the new proposal submitted by the State of Minnesota. Weingartz
noted that the main difference is that the River Street/Ilighway 25
intersection is now proposud to In, open. lie stated that initially
the State of Minnesota did not flee a River Street opening as desirable;
MN/DOT' reconsidered, based upon comments of the residents of Monticello,
and the now proposal is to open up River Street for full traffic
service. lie indicated that the rest of the project had not changed
and that MN/DOT was requesting that the City make a determination
so that the project: may either move ahead or he stopped. lie indicated
that in order to meet schedule, the final action cannot be delayed
much longer.
The Mayor opened thu floor for public comment. Mr. HObott MacDonald,
owner of the Monticello Mull, asked a general question statiuq that
under this new proposal, is there still considerable public opposition.
Mayor Grimsmo invited comment from anyone who wished to addtcas the
new proposal and Mr. Macnonald's quost.ion. Mel Wolters raised the
question concerning the hank's position with the altered proposal.
Wolters indicated that he was aware that the bank was the most vocal
opposition to the old pruposalh and now that it had been rcvioed,
he would like to hear their position restated. George Phillips,
representing Wright County State Bank, stated that the lank was a tiI1
concerned about tho Ions of access in the middle of the block. lie
stated that the lank has no quarrol with the mall and that they had
no formal position on Lho suggested relocation of Ilighway 25. Ile
stated, hwavor, that the Iv+nk wan still of a position that a median
would cut off service to customers. Ito hoped that the Stato had yet
- 1 -
Um
Council Minutes - 10/11/83
another proposal that would solve the problem but would eliminate
the center median. Mary Brion spoke in support of Phillip's
position. Gd Schaffer raised the question concerning why the
State simply doesn't move Highway 2, northwest. lie stated that
there was no need for more traffic through Lown. Mr. Wuingartz
of N11/130T indicated that the relocaLion of 25 was simply not a
feasible question and was not a part of the State's overall plan.
Jenny lloglund presented a petition and several letters as exhibits
to the Council. She spoke in support of the current proposal and
indicated that requests for safety measures had been initiated as
early as 1977/76. Bob MacDonald presented a petition from 37 business
people supporting the project and an additional support letter. The
mayor closed public comment at this time and requested comment from
Council members. Councilmember Maxwell stated that he would liko to
see the project go providing that two or three alterations still be
incorporated into the project. lie stated that he can't, in good
conscience, vote for this proposal with the alley closures as they
are presenLed. Ile stated that he could not support the project so
long as it has a raised median between River Street and Broadway
and between Broadway and Third Street. The Mayor asked him if that
meant he would vote against the current resolution but he would vote
for an amended resolution including a proposal that the center be
striped rather than raised. Maxwell indicated he would. Council -
member Fair indicated that this was not the issue. She stated that
the resolution i:acadcd to he presented for adoption was LZ, uithur,
support or oppose the proposed layout. She commented on why this
decision had beun deldyed siuco tike lant. meeting so that downtown
businusu cuncorm; could m(!eL with Ml!/DC)T people to try and reach a
compromi uu. She said she felt this had been achieved in that the
State had conceded the River Street crooning, which was of major
concern at Llt.o last meeting. She stated she was in favor of the
proposal exactly as laid out. She, went on to state that the proposed
budget, which would cane up later in the meeting, reflects a Committ-
ment Lo economic development and that quality highway uystemu were
esuenLial to achieving economic development.
Councilmember Mane stated that he wall the one who had suggested total
relocation at an earlier buainussmon's meeting, but that it was not
meant to be diversionary. Still, lie said that he thinks there will
eventually be a bridge upstream. llo stated that his main objection
is that the design reflects the State's convonieneu and Lhoir design
wishuu, and not the. City's wialics. lie stated that the system is
primarily designed to handle the transient traffics and he was of
a position that the oystem which is Trout usable by the local community
Should Lx: installed fust, with the transient needs being addressed
thereafter. Fair stated that as near as she could toll the entire
CU
Council Minutes - 10/11/83
objection came down to the loss of three alleys in the downtown,
and that the businesses should not suffer any loss due to the
median by simply being creative in their own parking areas.
Councilmember Blonigen stated that based on LoniyhL's presentation
he thought the City could live with Lha project if the City was
willing to get involved with alley and parking re -adjustments.
He stated that lie was really of a position that the median isn't
really necessary. Mayor Grimsmo commented saying that he shares
and has been aware of many of the concerns. lie stated that his
original position was in favor of Lha striping rather than the
median. He indicated he appreciated the State's concession in
opening River Street, but is still sorry that the median can't
be removed. Mr. weingartz indicated that the reduction in accidents/
increase in safety conditions would not be substantial enough by
doing center striping only to warrant the expense of the project.
lie stated that current statistics in similar conditions show a
35% reduction in traffic accidents wiLh Lha raised modian, but
only a 10% reduction with painted lanes. lie stated that the State's
position was that the 10% reduction was not a substantial enough
reduction to warrant a major reconstruction of the highway.
Administrator Eidem reportud that Mr. Jerry Jensen of Holiday
Corporation, who euuld not attend, !;Lronyly supported the proposal
as presented. lie ataLed that Holiday Corporation had a substantial
investment that they war,) interested in protecting and that they
ware it: full 'aver of the proposal as sul:cittaJ.
Bloniyen indicated that since Uta State is apparently designing
the project to accommodate Lutal traffic, he was giving wr.ingartz
advanced notice that he will raise Several questions over Lila Cost
sharing formula. Bloniyen stated that since the design was lean
to accommodate local traffic than transient traffic, he felt that
the City's Share should be reduced. Maus indicated that he Dimply
would not accept the position that if the City opposes this proposal
that the State would totally abandun Lila project. Ito said that the
State wants to replace the bridge. and Should he receptive to further
negotiations. Mayor Grimsmo raised the question of lighting on Lila
bridga and what the cost formula would be there. weingartz indicated
that Ute standard formula is rot the SLaLu to pay for the cost of
installation and the City would then assume the coot of minor maintenance
and Lila ulectrlc bills. Ito indicated that if the City was unwilling
to participate in Llta program at all, the bridge would not be lighted.
Cowteilmamber Fair introduced and moved the adoption of the following
rosolutions Proposed Resolution For Layout Approval, Rasolution 1983 a83
(Tho full text is on record in the office of the City Administrator),
sicondLd by Grimsmo. Voting in favors Grimsmu and Pair. Votinq in
the oppositions Bloniyen, Maus, Maxwell. Motion failed, resoluLion
not adopted. MOtion by Maua Lo auhmil a request to MNIDOT that the
- 3 -
N
cuuncil Minutes - 10/11/83
reconstruction of Ilighw�y 2S be studied further, and further
request that a new proposal be presented to the City which would
eliminate Lite raised ccnt,:r median. Motion seconded by Blonigen.
A question was directed to Weingartz on what this meant to the
overall project. Weingartz indicated that technically the bridge
was a separate project from the street improvements and thus,
the Council could conceivably approve the bridge layout but could
also deny the street layout proposal. Maus raised the question as
to whether or not this was the end of the entire project. Weingartz
indicated not necessarily. Maxwell indicated that he would favor
a position that would account for the building of tine bridge first,
and the building of the highway second. Ile said he feared a sub-
stantial traffic jam would occur wherein traffic would he traveling
on a .four -lane highway and coming to a trao-lane bridge. W'eingarCz
indicated that a four -lane bridge that would have to narrow to a
two-lane Highway would create just as had of a traffic jam, and in
fact, in Lite State's position it would be worse considering the
alignmenL of the new bridge. The Mayor closed discussion. Voting
in favor of Lite motion: Blonigon, Maxwell , Maus, Fair. Voting in
opposition: Grimsmo. MULion carried. Maus stated that the intent
of his motion is Lo keep Lho project alive but to keep negotiations
open with the State in tbu ultimate hope of having the raised center
mUdian removed. MOLion by fair, seconded by Maxwell, and carried
unanimously that the City include in its communication with Lite
State a statement indicating that the City is in favor of the
bridge improvement and doe:: not wish to have Lite project abandoned
but only to negotiate the center island issue.
Public Ilcarinq - Construction 5, Inc. - Consideration of Request to
Vacate Sl.ree Ls.
Mr. Gus LaFromlaoise of construction 5, who is proposing development
in and around Blocks 42, 43, 49, 48, and neighboring areas, was
present to request the vacation of Hennepin Street from the railroad
to inuring lane, and perhaps all the way to the freeway, as well as
vacation of a portion of Seventh Street and portions of Washington
Strout. Staff explained that their review of the request had led
to lengthy discussion on the extension of Iauring lane, said extension
proposed to run through part. of Construction 5'a property. Staff
indicated that before a sound decision could be made with respect to
the overall vacationu that the, final alignment of Lite Inuring Lana
extension be determined, and the property exchange be negotiated.
Staff indicated that one problem with Lite proposed extension of
Lauring Iano waa that it may have to cross over it portion of the
Malone property. Mr. and Mrs. Bill Malone were present to state that
- 4 -
v
r
Council Minutes - 10/11/83
they were not in favor of the Lauring Lane alignment since it would
require taking a portion of their property as well as putting a
street very close to their residence. The Malone's did indicate,
however, that Eleanor Malone, the owner, would like to discuss
negotiation on a small corner of the proper�y but insists that she
be present to do so. Tile difficulty, they indicated, is that
Eleanor Malone has left the state and will not return until July
of 1984. John Badalich, osm, for information purposes discussed
three alternatives to the extension of Lauring Lane. lie indicated
that alternative 01 was the most desirable from an engineering
standpoint but did present some problems if the Malones were re-
luctant to sell a small portion of their land. lie stated that 02
was the best alternative in the event that Malones are reluctant
to give up land since the land requirement was very minimal. lie
indicated that 03 was the least desirable primarily due to engineering
standards and final configuration. Administrator Eidem indicated
for the Council's information that any street vacation must, according
to statute, be in the best public interest. lie also noted that,
by vacating only Hennepin Street between the railroad and Laurinq
Lane at this time, the City is releasing some of its leverage in
negotiating for property to accommodate the Lauring Lane extension.
The Mayor closed the public hearing. Motion by Maus, seconded by
Maxwell, and carried unanimously that Ilunnepin Street from the
Burlington Northern riyht of way to the northerly line of Laurinq
Lano lx: vacated and shat Ulu property be oftercel to Construction 5
for the appraised prize: of $24,000.00. Motion carried.
6. Public Iluarinq - Consideration of Adonting Assessment Roll for
rAilinqucnt Sewer and Water Bills.
Rick wolfutellor presented to the Council a list of names of
persons who are currently 60 dayu or more dulinquent in suwur and
water bills and other City charges. Ile requested adoption of this
roll no that it may ]x certified to the County Auditor and have the,
amounts placed upon the tax culla for the property in question.
Motion by Blonigen, seconded by Fair, and carried unanimously to
adopt the following assessment roll and have it certified to the
County for placement upon the tax rollu of the property.
The Mayor requoutod that items 7 and 8 on the Agenda be roveruod.
B. ConaideraLion of Conditional Une Request - Aaacmbly of God Church.
There being no objection, Pautor' Uordby came lNifore the Council
- 5 -
Council Minutes - 10/11/83
to reopen discussion on their application for a Conditional Use
for a day care center in their church building. Prior to explaining
the Proposal, Pastor Nordby indicated that the church is considering
lowering their asking price for the building or they might even
consider a trade for the Monticello Senior Citizen Building. However,
tonight's presentation related to using the building as a preschool
day care center. Pastor 1Jordby cited all of the State regulations
and confirmed that the proposal could meet them. Councilmember Fair
questioned whether or not a public hearing had been properly hold.
Staff indicated that they were sure such a hearing had been held.
It was agreed by concensus that the conditions attached to the
permit would be that all regulatory agencies of the State and other
jurisdictions be met and further that the permit will be effective
until July 1, 1984, at which time it will be reviewed. Again, Fair
raised the question aS to whether or not all of the neighbors had
leen notified about the public hearing that was held since she had
heard no comment on this project at all. Zoning Administrator
Anderson indicated that he was sure that notices had been sent out.
Motion by Fair, seconded by Maxwell, and carried unanimously to
grant a Conditional Use Permit under the condition that all regulatory
agencies requirements be met and said permit shall be effective until
July 1, 1984. Motion carried.
7. Consideration of a Sicievard Variance Request - Robert and Mary Saxon.
This item had been delayed since the September 26 Cowuil meeting
artd the Saxons re -appeared upon the request of the City Council.
Saxon's request is for a Variance to sidoyard requirements so that
they may place a 24 x 32 toot garage, which would be detached.
Councilmembers Fair and Maus both expressed considerable concern
over the retaining wall on the hill that goes down into the City
park. Several questions were asked concerning the possible under-
mining of Mr. Saxon's foundation where he would Put his garage in
this location. Councilmember Fair asked in light or what has
happened earlier in the meeting regarding the Highway 25 and bridge
proposal, could the Saxons wsit just two more weeks. She suggested
that each Councilmembor make a thorough study of whether or not this
property would lx: considered valuable to the City regardless of Lha
outccmo of the 25 project. Mayor Crimsmo indicated that Karen Manson,
Senior Citi^en Director, had said that they were involved in a grant
application process, thu funds for which may be eligible for parking
lot ClovelopmenL. Mr. Saxon indicated that his original plan was to
be completed by Novemt>n 1; and since he could not complete that at
thio time, Calatruction has been delayed until spring. Howuver, he
stated that he still would like a decision as soon so pousible. The
Council requested that the Saxons return for the regular Council
Council Minutes - 10/11/81
C meeting on October 24 and a final decision would try to be reached
at that Lime. No other decision taken at this time.
The Mayor recognized Jenny Haglund, who requested that the discussion
relating to Highway 25 lx reopened or a special meeting be set to
hoar their concerns. Several persons spoke relating to the earlier
decision of the Council. They stated they felt that their concerns
had not been heard, that support for the project far outweighed
opposition to the project, but the Council vote went the other
direction. The Mayor asked if Mr. weingartz of MN/OOT had anything
new to add or had any alterations to the proposal been agreed upon
in the past few minutes. Mr. wcingartz indicated that he was not
able to make final decisions on the behalf of the department and
thus, nothing new was really able to he presented. The Mayor in-
dicated that he Mould not reopen the discussion at this time nines
official action had been taken.
9. Consideration of Report Coneerninq Repairs to City Hall Roof.
Council members Blonigen and 1•laus and Zoning Administrator Anderson
reported on a meeting that had been held earlier that afternoon
With the architect and contractors on City Ilall. They explained
that the source of the leakage had been narrowed considerably and
that another meeting had linen set for 'Thursday, October 13, to male
the final determination. Hlonigen indicated that Lha original roofing
contractor should be approached to rectify the matter as a part of
�-• an overall roof repair job. The Council authorized Gary Anderson
to enter and reach final negotiations on a solution to the roof
leakage problem.
10. Consideration of a Resolution to Adopt the 1984 Municipal BudgeL
and Sottinq the Tax levy.
Motion by 8lonigen to adopt Lila following resolution: Resolution
Adopting 1984 Budget and Setting the Tax Levy, Resolution 1981 081,
(Thu full text is on record in the office of the City AdmininLrntor).
The motion was duly seconded by Maxwell with Lila following voting
in favor: Fair, Blonigon, Grimomo, Mauu, and Maxwell. Thu following
voted in opposition: none. Motion carried unanimously.
11. Conuidoration of a Reoulution SutLinq a Public hearing and AuLlror-
izinq Preparation of AuueasmenL Boll for Meadow Oak.
John Badalich of Oslo, Cunnulting Hngincero, addressed Lhu public
improvement done In the Meadow Oak Subdivision. lie diucusued Lha
anueasablo Gout. and the Cit.y cost olid exl:laiued how 1-110 final dutac'min-
;tt.ion was made. It. wan ,: xplaiucd thot a public hearing iu required
prior to adopt -ion of t.l:u ueu;cur,mvnt I'uII. Mut.iun by llluuigen,
7 -
0
Council Minutes - 10/11/83
seconded by Maus, to adopt the following resolution: Resolution
Declaring Cost to be Assessed, ordering the Preparation of Proposed
Assessment, and Calling for a nearing on the Proposed Assessment,
Resolution 1983 #62 (The full text is on record in the office of
the City Administrator). Voting in favor: Grimsmo, Fair, Blonigen,
Maus , and Maxwell. Voting in the opposition: none. Motion carried
unanimously.
12. Consideration of Plans and Specifications and Authorization for Bids
for Pump (louse 02 Addition.
John simola, Public Works Director, submitted to the Council final
plans and specifications for the construction of an addition to
pump house p2. Motion by Blonigen, seconded by Maxwell, and carried
unanimously to approve the final plans and specifications and
authorizing a request for bids.
13. Consideration of Change Order N3 for Meadow Oak.
John Badalich explained that there was an additional $1,000.00
mobilization charge by Metrucurbing, a subcontractor on the Meadow
Oak Improvements, due to a delay in the issuance of the railroad
crossing permit. Councilmember Fair asked who was the responsible
party in the permit delay. Badalieh responded that it was primarily
the railroad who had delayed action and that their communication had
not Leen relayed to the curbing subcontractor; and as such, the
contractor came in, did a portion of the work, left the job, and
returned resulting in an additional $1,000.00 charge. Fair also
asked would this $1,000.00 charge be assessable to the project,
and Badolich indicated it would. Motion by Fair, seconded by Maus,
and carried unanimously to approve Change Order 03.
14. Conciduration or Ruqueut to Increase Seating at Guy'a Bakery.
Adminiatralor Lidem explained that su,ff had originally placed a
limit on seating to 16 chairs when Guy'u Bakery made application
to enter their current site, lie utatud that tho seating was based
upon the zoning and parking requirements for the nature of the
business. lie further indicated that due to Lho amount of bueinosa,
the bakery had requested additional seating and that he had directed
their request to the downtown parking committee since It related
directly to traffic flows. lie reported that tho parking committee
had okayed an increase., of eight additional aeato. Motion by Maxwell,
seconded by 111unigen, and carried unanimously to grant Guy's Bakery
an increase in nuating capacity for eight additional chairs.
0
Council Minutes - 10/11/83
15. Mark Irmiter, manager of Highway Liquors, came before the Cuuncil to
request permission to acquire two new cash registers for Lite liquor
store. He indicated that it had been appropriated for the 1984
budget, but upon discussion with Couneilmember Maus felt that
acquisition would be more prudent at this time in order to prepare
for the holiday season. Eidem reported that the bid price for
two machines would be $15,507.00. Motion by Maus, seconded by Fair,
and carried unanimously to purchase two NCR model numbers 212G cash
registers for the price of $15,507.00.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
Thomas A. Eidum
City Administrator
Council Agenda - 10/24/83
AGENDA SUPPLEMENT
4. Consideration of Sideyard Variance Request - Applicant, Robert
and Mary Saxon. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
This item has been continued for the last several meetings since
final decisions on the bridge reconstruction have been delayed.
What I see before the Council are two separate and distinct issues.
First, there is a question of whether or not the Citywishes to
acquire the Saxon property. If the City elects to pursue acquisition,
then all of the related issues in terms of cost and closing, etc.,
need yet to be addressed. Secondly, if acquisition is definitely
decided against, then the Council must address the Saxon's request
for the Variance.
One additional consideration came up during staff discussion.
Assuming that the bridge proposal eventually goes through and we
do not acquire the Saxon property, what will the City's plans be
for the remainder of East Bridge Park. We know that the bandstand
cannot remain in its present location with the bridge re -alignment.
In fact, the State will take a substantial amount of this park.
East Bridge Park is not a large area as is, and loss to the State
would reduce it significantly. I doubt that the East Bridge Park
would have the same utility as it currently has if it's reduced in
size. To keep the :and:tard and othor aquipoant in the r.:Jacu.l
park I think would create a very congested area when, in fact, a
river park should have an open and spacious feel to it. With
respect to the acquisition, it should be noted that the primary
function of that land will be parking. There will be added park
space, but I think that the most effective use of the land would
be to dedicate it to public parking.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
(The various actions have contigent relationahips to one another.)
1. Acquire the property - thin leads to the brand now issue of
negotiation. We know that Saxon's initial request was for
$70,000.00. We also have an informal appraisal of the property
at $54,000.00. Also to be negotiated would be when we would
take possession, tons of payment, etc.
2. Do not acquire the property - assuming the re -alignment of the
bridge, this has tho affect of substantially reducing the East
Bridge Park area. Electing not to acquire the property leads
directly to the following alternatives that ro lato specifically
to the request for a Varianco.
- 1 -
Council Agenda - 10/24/83
3. Deny the Variance - this denial should be based on the fact that
hardship on the part of the applicant has not been sufficiently
proved or that the granting of such a Variance would be an
infringement upon the abutting property owner, namely, the
City.
4. Approve the Variance - approval should be based upon the
demonstration that a hardship exists to the applicant and
that without such a Variance the applicant cannot derive full
enjoyment and utilization from the property.
5. Grant the Variance with conditions - because some concern has
been expressed over the retaining wall and the hill that slopes
down into Fast Bridge Park and the result of erosion and
undermining, the Variance may be granted on the condition that
the applicant enter a hold harmless agreement with the City
that any damage to his structure that results from undermining
of the hill or wash away of the retaining wall will not be
the City's responsibility. This agreement would be in the
form of a legal document and would be attached to the deed and
recorded at the County Courthouse along with the Variance.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Again, because we are faced with two issues, staff has two recom-
mendations. With respect to determining whether or not to acquire
the property, it is the staff's recommendation that the Council
pursue acquisition. By acquiring the added land, the City can
maintain a decent sized park area on the river. I think it is a
valuable asset for the City to own and maintain such quality sites
along the river and that it would be short sited to start compromising
the amount of ohoro land we currently have. In addition to the
value the land has to the park, the added public parking would
address part of the problem at the Senior Center.
In the event that acquisition is not considered feasible by the
Council, staff racommands that the Variance be granted only if a
hold harmless agreement in drafted and entered into by all parties
and is recorded at the Courthouse.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
All oupporting data line boon submitted to you with previous agendas.
No now material having any bearing on this item has boon preoontod.
- 2 -
Council Agenda - 10/24/83
5. Consideration of Reconstruction of T.li. 25 and Bridge -
Minnesota Department of Transportation. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At your last meeting a motion was passed to inform the State that we
would like to see at least one more alternate proposal wherein the
raised channelization had been omitted from the reconstruction plan
of T.H. 25. I submitted a letter to the Department of Transportation
relaying precisely that information. On Thursday afternoon, October 20,
I received a call from Jim Povich of the Brainerd office of MN/DOT.
He contacted me in the absence of Jim Weingartz with respect to their
response to my letter. Mr. Povich informed me that he had a copy of
Jim Weingartz' letter, the substance of which stated that the
alternative presented to the City Council on October 11 was the final
offer. Mr. Povich also indicated that his supervisor preferred that
the entire project be abandoned and State money be dedicated elsewhere.
Povich went on to say that he did not like either of those alternatives
since there had not been widespread discussion within the State con-
cerning whether or not there were other alternatives. He did indicate
that it has been firmly decided that the project will not be done
under any circumstances without the raised channe lization. lie also
noted that there was a firm committment against striping. lie told
me that his main request for calling was to bey time to alley their
department to discuss other alternatives if there ware any. He felt
that by calling the most recent proposal the final offer and then
having a now alternative appear within a couple weeks it would be too
late to re -approach the City on development. Iiia request is that the
Council take no action on this caning Monday unless, of course, they
wish to adopt the resolution that was originally presented.
In discussing what other alternatives might be presented, Mr. Povich
stressed that it Is conceivable that no alternative will be presented,
merely that they wish to have time to decide whether or not another
alternative could be pracentod. Ile stated that just by brainstorming
two thoughts had come to mind. The first altorna rive would be to do
only the bridge and abandon the reconstruction of Ilighway 25 completely.
The second alternative that they will discuss amongst themselves
has to do with doing the job in phases. That is to say the State will
replace the bridge and they will do the Highway 25 reconstruction from
the south and of the City to the Fourth Street intersection. That
would leave the section of highway from Fourth Street to Rivor Street
untouched. When I asked what ho meant by untouched, lie said that
lie meant it would be totally excluded from the project. There would
be no now traffic lights; there would be no striping; there would be
no overlay; there would ba no turn lanae; there would be absolutely
- 3 -
Council Agenda - 10/24/83
nothing done. I asked further if they omitted this part of the
project, did that mean that this stretch was being totally
abandoned. fie indicated that it meant that this stretch would
be done at a later stage. It is the State's contention that
if the highway is to be reconstructed then the raised channelization
and the turning lanes will be installed eventually. He noted
that the State could reprogram the last four blocks in question
and they would then simply wait for a change in Council personnel
or change in downtown attitudes. He noted further that this was
not a likely proposal, although it was not impossible. He stated
that it was unlikely because doing the work on the south end would
only contribute to a greater congestion factor in tho downtown
than already exists. It seems fairly obvious that when the re-
construction permits a greater flow of traffic in the south end,
and the congestion around the mall entry and at the Seventh Street
intersection are eliminated, then the free flow of traffic would
lose its free flow when it arrived at the old part of the highway.
Again I must emphasize that this is not a proposal by the State
but merely a discussion topic by them. Because Mr. Povich felt
they had not exhausted all discussion possibilities, he has asked
that the entire matter be postponed until the November 14 meeting.
Members of the Department will not be present at this meeting.
This is strictly a discussion item and not a decision item. There
are no alternativo actions or staff recommendations. Witli ruspeul
to supporting data, if I receive the letter I requested from
Mr. Povich, I will distribute that to each of you as soon as I can.
- 4 -
Council Agenda — 10/24/83
6. Public Hearing - Assembly of God Church - Conditional Use Request. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Monticello Assembly of God Church's initial request came as an
additional information item back at the June 14, 1983, meeting.
At this meeting the Church's intent was brought up as an additional
information item to Planning Commission members. From the original
June 14 meeting until the August 9, 1983 meeting the Church was
under the impression that the City was interested in buying the
property from them for a proposed Senior Citizen Center. At the
August 9 meeting it was indicated to Planning Commission members
that the City war not interested in purchasing the property and,
therefore, had dropped their request. At the September 6, 1983,
meeting we had a continuation of the Conditional Use Request Public
Hearing to allow the Church to operate a day care center as a
Conditional Use in an R-2 Zone. Up until this point we were under
the assumption that we had sent out notices of the public hearing
to the newspaper for publishing and also indicated that we had
sent notices to the property owners. In looking back into the
records, we find no Affidavit of Filing Public Hearing Notice to
affected property owners. Therefore, we are now requesting a
public hearing at the October 24 meeting. At the September 6,
1983, Planning Coaaiecion !seting, no one was preecn.t from the
Church to indicate their proposed plans for the day care center.
Commission members, not knowing their real intent, moved to deny
their request; and the motion carried unanimously. Motion made
by Council members at the October 11, 1983, meeting was to approve
the Monticello Assembly of God Church Conditional Use Request con-
tingent upon the Church meeting the requirements of the State day
care center guidelines, the Fire Rarahal'a inspection requirements,
and following the City Zoning Ordinance. As of today's date we
have not received any public testimony in regard to this. If we
receive any public testimony it may be in regard to the numbor of
kids that the Monticello Assembly of God Church intends to have
there at one time.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Your motion stands from the October 11, 1983, City Council Meeting
unless you accept any testimony from citizens of this public hearing.
If no teotimony is received at this meeting, your motion stands
approved without a now motion.
- 5 -
Council Agenda - 10/24/83
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Barring any new public testimony, our position remains that the
qualified applicant must meet the qualifications as set by the
State Fire Marshal's office, the State day care guideline and
requirements, and the City requirements.
The City staff recommends that it be up for periodic review and/or
the Conditional Use be granted for not more than one year from the
date of application with the termination of the first Conditional
Use period beyond or about June 15, 1984.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Council Meeting Minutes in regard to Monticello Assembly of God
Church.
- 6 -
1
MINUTES,
EECULAR.KEETINC-- MONTICELLO'CITY COUNCIL__
Sept'embei;.13,,-1983-`J::30`P:M:
Members Present': Arve Crimsmo,'Fran Fair,, Dan Blorigen,
Ken Maus, and Jack Maxwell.
Members Absent. None.
L. Call to Order;:
2. Approval of the Minutes.
A motion was made b y°Fair, seconded by Maus, and unanimously carried
to approve the minutes of the meeting held August 22, 1983'.
3. Citizens Comments.
Mr. Joe LeFromboise of Construction S', Inc., informed ,the Council'
that their apartment --complex being developed 'in Lauri_ng Hillside
Terrace is almost completed, and they are interested in etarting:"'
thi
second, apartment complex ,yet this fall. As part of the eecand devalop-
ment, they,raqueeted that the. Council,'consider,holding a. public: hearing,
in the neer, future to consider vacating that ,portion of Hennepin.Street
lying betveen.Lauri ng Lane and the railroad tracks, which abuts their.
property;- At the present time,, their development plan I being :reviewed
by the City's consulting planner and consulting,enginee'r;,,and their
comments should be 'evaiCable for _the first regularly scheduled meeting
din October. It iias. ithe consensus_ of the•Council to, seta public
ke ring for%consiE'e_'r'ing va_ca_t_ing,Hannepin,S traet st;,the-OctoberA l
,Cauneil,-Melting.
4. 'Cenild6ration4of'art Apoeai,.From'Plannins"Cor®ieei6n;Aoolitant7=cAss�mblr
Conditional Use..
During June of 1983, the M!oe'ticello`Assembly of Cod Church .Eiled,a,_
Rquast+for a`,Conditiotial Use Permit to.sllow a day care center, to be
o;stated-'at their former church, property on East Fourth Street: .After
,the item'had been tabled for a number of°months, the churchcrequceEed
.that. the. Planning Commission consider- the Conditional Use Request at
:thoir''September meeting, but no.mcmbers of the church,vere 'present to,
present their requmat to the Planning Commission; and as a resul.v.,Oic,
Planning Commission recontaanded that the Conditional Use Permit bs
denied. The Assembly`of Cod Church appealed the decision to the Council,
meeting.
y
Council Minutes - 9/13/83
Mr. Gene Decker, representative for the church, indicated that they
would like to pursue the possibility of the church being allowed to
use the old facilities for a day care center. He noted that they
presently have no prospects yet to purchase the building and are looking
at options, including either running a day care center themselves or
finding a private operator.
It was the Council's consensus that before a Conditional Use Permit
for a day care center could be granted, more facts on the type of
operation, number of children involved, etc., should be available before
a decision could be made. Pastor Nordby and Mr. Decker both indicated
that the primary reason they come to the Council first was to see if
the City would be receptive to the idea of a day care center being
operated at the old church facilities before they expended too much
Lime and money to convert the building for this use.
Motion was made by Maus, seconded by Fair, and unanimously carried to
table the request at this time but set a public hearing date for
October 11, 1983, at the Council to consider the Conditional Use
Request, which should allow the church sufficient time to present
their proposal.
S. Consideration of an Appeal From Planning Commission Applicant -
Blocher Advertising.
Blocher Advertising Company requested an appeal of the Planning
Commission's decision to have an outdoor advertising sign relocated
from Lot 9, Thomas Industrial Park, to Lot 11, Thomas Industrial Park.
Mr. Ron Hoglund, representing the present land owners of Thomas
Industrial Park, noted that Blocher Advertising Company is interested
in purchasing Lot 11 if they are allowed to put an additional billboard
sign on this lot. There is currently ant- existing sign on Lot 11, and
if approved, there would be two signs located on this one lot. Mr.
Hoglund noted that Blocher Advertising has indicated they would not
bo interested in completing the purchase unless they would be allowed
to have both signs on their own property. Mr. Hoglund noted that the
owners of Thomas Industrial Park have been trying to sell and develop
the lots within the industrial park for a number of years and feel that
if they are not able to sell this lot to Blocher Advertising Company,
they may lose their investment in the property and have to let it go
back to the previous owner.
Mayor Grimsmo acknowledged the hardship the landowner& are currently faced
with but noted that the present City Zoning Ordinances clearly state that
no new signs are allowed to be erected within the city limits, and by
-Z-
Council Agenda - 10/24/83
7. Public Hearinq - Fulfillment Systems, Inc. - Proposal to Issue
Tax Exempt Mortgage. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
On August 31, 1983, the City submitted to the Department of Housing
and Urban Development an application for Urban Development Action
Grant funds (UDAG). Throughout September and October both the
Minneapolis office and Washington D.C. office of HUD have been
contacting us with development questions. The revised proposal
that has been put together to satisfy HUD is basically as follows:
$234,000.00 UDAG funding, $475,000.00 tax exempt mortgage, $135,000.00
private equity.
Based on all of my conversations with Washington D.C., I think that
our application is receiving favorable review. Assuming then that
the UDAG funds will be awarded it is essential that the City be
prepared to move forward and proceed with the project. The very
first step in issuing tax exempt mortgages is to hold this public
hearing, wherein residents may comment on the City lending its
tax exempt status to a private corporation. Either Jack Peach,
President, or Ray Lilke, Controller of FSI, will be present at
the hearing to provide the preliminary plan layout and development
schome. This proscntation is not the de tail d yla,. .—I sp.c.
of buildings but rather the general presentation much as was oub-
mittod in the UDAG application.
It should also be noted that the RRA has given preliminary approval
to establishing a Tax Increment Finance District to assist with the
land acquisition. This matter will be coming before the Council
at the end of November, but should be considered as a separate and
distinct entity even though they arc related to the same project.
The topic for this meeting is exclusively the issuance of tax
exempt mortgage.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Upon the closing of the public hearing, you may
1. Adopt a resolution giving preliminary approval to the project -
this will, in essence, authorize me to pursue with legal counsel
all of the necessary documents to prepare for tho placement of
the tax exempt mortgage. I wish to emphasize that a resolution
of final approval will tomo before tho Council after all of tho
documents and arrangements have boon made in fine detail.
7 .
Council Agenda - 19/24/83
2. Do not adopt the resolution - this will, in effect, close down
the project. In the event that the resolution is not adopted,
we will submit a letter to HUD withdrawing our application for
funds.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the resolution giving preliminary approval so that we may
pursue the relocation of FSI to the City of Monticello.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copies of various pages from the UDAG application indicating the
nature and scope of the development plan; Copies of the letters
of committments from the lending institutions that will accept
the tax exempt mortgage; Copy of the resolution of preliminary
approval.
-e-
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE DATE FOR A
PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSAL TO UNDERTAKE
AND FINANCE A PROJECT UNDER MINNESOTA
STATUTES, CHAPTER 474
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act, Minnesota
Statutes, Sections 474.01 at secl. (the "Act"), authorizes the issuance o re- venue
bonds to finance projects; and
WHEREAS, the term "project" is defined by Section 474.02, subdivision la,
of the Act to include "any properties, real or personal, used or useful in connection
with a revenue producing enterprise"; and
WHEREAS, a representi3tive of Fulfillment System, Inc., a Minnesota
corporation (the "Developer") has presented this City Council (the "City Council')
of the City of Monticello (the "City") with information concerning a proposed
project (the "Project") to be acquired and constructed within the City; and
WHEREAS, the Developer has requested that the City resolve to issue
revenue bonds pursuant to the A ct to finance the Project and has presented to the
City Council a form of preliminary resolution concerning such issuance with a
request that such preliminary resolution, attached hereto as Exhibit A, be
considered for adoption by the C ity Council; and
WHEREAS, Section 474.0 1, subdivision 7b, of'the Act provides that the City
Council must conduct a public hearing on any proposal to undertake and finance a
project; and
WHEREAS, Section 474.0 1, subdivision 7b, of the Act provides that notice of
the time and place of such putaiic hearing and stating the general nature of the
project and an estimate of the principal amount of the bonds or other obligations to
be issued to finance the project must be published at least once not less than
fifteen (15) days nor more than thirty (30) days prior to the date fixed for the
public hearing in the official newspaper of the City and a newspaper of general
circulation in the City, and
WHEREAS, Section 474 -dl, subdivision 7b, of the Act provides that the
notice must state that a draft copy of the proposed application (the "Application")
to the Minnesota Energy and Economic Developmeni Authority for approval of the
Project, together with all attachments and exhibits, is on file with the City and
available for public inspection; and
WHEREAS, the Developer has presented to the City a form of public notice,
attached hereto as Exhibit B, with a request that the City Council establish a date
for a public hearing on the proposal to undertake and finance the Project and
authorize publication of the form of public notice provided by the Developer,
-1-
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF MONTICELLO THAT:
1. The City will conduct a public hearing on the proposal to undertake
and finance the Project on the day of , 1983.
2. It is the present intention of the City Council to adopt the
preliminary resolution in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A after completion of
the public hearing on , 1983.
3. The City Administrator of the City is hereby authorized to cause a
public notice, substantially in the form of the notice attached hereto as Exhibit B,
to be published in the official newspaper of the City and a newspaper of general
circulation in the City.
4. The City Administrator of the City is hereby authorized and directed
to have available for public inspection in the offices of the City a draft copy of the
proposed Application, together with all attachments and exhibits thereto.
-4-
SECTION A - PROBLEMS AND OBJECTIVES
Fulfillment Systeme, Incorporated (PSI) is a local clearinghouse
for major package goods responsible for handling consumer pro-
motional offers, e.g., refunds, samples and sweepstakes. Gillette,
Campbell Soup Company, Colgate-Palmolive and Revlon are among the
major clients of FSI. '!flay currently employ 13S persons of which
20 work out of their own homes, and 25 are engaged through a
subcontract with Functional Industries, a sheltered workshop
for the handicapped. FSI's current facility is considered
inadequate for the following reasons:
1) It is a quonset warehouse with no municipal utilities.
2) The facility is located within a mobile home park, thus
creating a nonconforming land use;
3) The Conditional Use hermit which allows FSI to continue
operations expire Auyust 1, 1984;
4) In coordination with their comlaiwial use lwtmit, their
lease will also expire Augu;;t 1, 1984;
5) If n une of the ahovu were I resent, FSI'a rapid growth
requires expansion.
Anyone of the above reasons is sufficient to cause FSI to
investigate relocation in a more adequate location. The nature
of the business is such that employees require little or no
special skills and are easily trained on site. FSI employs
primarily low and moderate income perrons including several
through the CETA program. FXployuce being their major re sourco,
FSI could elect to relocate virtually anywhere there is an
adequate labor pool. The City of Monticello seeks to assist
the relocation of FSI to a more appropriate site within tho
community, thus retaining the existing jobs as well as pro-
moting the creation of jobs.
The City of Monticello proposes to utilise UOAG Funds by pro-
viding to PSI a low interest loan which can be used to leverage
private investment. Acquisition of land in Lauriny Hillside Ter-
race and construction of a 42,500 square foot facility would
resolve all five problems stated abwa, as well as yrovids the
needed expansion; to aecomodato approximately 110 new jobs. In
addition, this project would create temporary employment in the
construction trados, yenetnt.e lnercauud tax base, and stir
development in a currently under util;te.i area of the comomnity.
SECTION B - PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The City of Monticello wishes to utilize UDAG funds to assist Ful-
fillment Systems, Inc., relocate its facility from a mobile hone park
lying approximately one-half mile south of the corporate limits to
the Oakwood Industrial Park, a platted fully serviced industrial
subdivision lying within the City's corporate limits. l raring Hill-
side Terrace, platted in 197G, currently has less than 25% of its
total acreage in use. FSI proposes to buy three lots totaling 7.93
acres for a total price of $27,500.00 ($3,468.00 per acre). FSI
further proposes to erect a 42,500 square foot facility with required
parking and landscaping at an estimated cost of $701,815.00. Added
to the above figures is an amount of $124,185.00 for capital equip-
ment, fees, administration and contingency makiny a total estimated
cost of $853,500.00. while the feasibility of Tax Increment
Financing is being .initiated to assist in the land acquisition,
the present status of the proposal reflects private investment of
$135,00.00 provided through the developer and wright County
State Bank, and UDAG funds in the amount of $243,500.00.
Upon start-up, the 90 employees at the current site would be re-
located to the now facility. The increased size of the facility
from their present 17,000 square feet would accomodate FSI's
proposed expansion to 200 employees by the and of 1984. ldatly,by
ensuring FSI's presence in our cn munity, Functional Industries
can retain their subcontract, thus protecting the jobs for their
handicapped clients.
0
Wright County State Bank
P. 0. Box 729
Monticello, Minnesota 55362
G. 8, PmlhoS. Charman (6121 2952952 Denors Sueabcu. C."r '!1
Dale J, lung-lt. Pres4pnI Mrs AIICnC MCInIIiC, ASs�stanl C.l :n�•�
Kevin Boynton. Ass,.Ianl V.Co Pros.Cenl Mrs Jenn MiCha�lis, AssislinlCA_:ni�•i
Tomt.nag,us 1, Ass,slanl Vico N oS,denl Mrs Cls�e Po S , A),I.lnl C,r�:hii•�
Mrs Dual Slol,M, Assmlanl VKe Plesaenl
September 26, 1983
Mr. Thomas A. Eldem
City Administrator
City of Monticello
250 E. Broadway
Monticello, M:l 55362
Dear Mr. Eidem:
After a thorough review of the City of Monticello and Fulfillment Svstems.
Inc, request for a placement of a tax-exempt mortgage, we are pleased to
ndviRe you thnt the Wright County State Bank, in coordination with Pirst
State Bank of Lnke Lillian, and the Security State Bank of Howard lake
offers the following accommodations to assist PSi in its expansion proposal:
Amount of Loan - $475,000.00
Rate of Interest - 12% for the first five-year increment.
interest will he adjusted at the end of the first five-
year period, and also at the end of the second five-year
period to i% over Minneapolis prime. There will he n floor
limit of IOZ throughout the total amortization of the mort-
gage.
Amortization A Maturity - 15 years
Collateral - let REM on Lots 6, 7, and 8, Block 2, IAuring
11111eidle Terrace, City of Monticello, Wright County, Irl.
Parsonnl Cuarttntee - Jack Peach and wife will personally
guarantee the full amount of the mortgage, and will offer
their homestead and land as additional collateral, using
the second mortgage as instrument of guarantee.
Conditions - Key man life insurnnee on .lnck Peach totaling
$500,000.00 nnsignable to the retirement of said mortgage..
In addition, please be advised tont this offer to contingent upon the success
of the City of Monticello to secure an Urban Development. Action Crant (UPAC)
funding. It is our conclusion that this project would not he feasible without
the participation of UDAr. fonds.
MEMBER FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION 0
Thomas A. Eidem -2- September 26, 1983
We presume that all of the formal legal procedures to place this tax-exempt
mortgage will not be commenced until the determination has been made as to
the success of the UDAf, application. Please contact me if we can he of further
assistance.
DJL/lw
Sincerely, \
r i Dale J. lungvitr. "
President
0
--- ��
MIRM
STA BANK
CLARA CRT. MINNESOTA 56222
TELEPHONE 612/647.3702
Septeaber 23, 19e3
?s. Dale I=dvita, President
Wight County State Bank
Y.onticollo, F!i 55362
Dear Mr. Landwitau
After a thorough reviev of the City of Yocticello and Fulfillment
systems, Inc. request for the placement of a tax-exenpt tortCefe,
we are advising you that Security State Bank of Howard Lake will
participate with the First State Bank of Lake Lillian and your bank.
The total project cost will be approximately $853,500•
The following are aonditione and requirements to our participations
1. Amount of loan -
$100,000.00
2. Rate of Interest -
12 percent renegotiated eaeb five yeare
At that time interest will be adjusted to 1 over prlme with
a floor llmit of 10 percent interest.
3. Amortisation and Maturity -
15 years
4. Collateral-
Firet mortgope on said Property
5. Porecnal Guarentee-
Jack Peach end wife will guarantee said mortgage personally
by offering their house and land as collateral uaUF a second
mortgARe an instrument of guarantee.
6. Conditiono-
Key man life insurance (!500,000) oa Jae1: Peach to be used toward
retirement of paid mortgage.
In addition please be advised that this offer is contingent upon the
sucesee of the City of Monticello to secure Urban Development Action
Grant (UDAG) funding. It So our eoncluoion this project would not be
feaeible without the participation of UDAG funds.
J
Ns. Dale Lundwits. President
September 23, 1983
Page 2
It is also our assumption that all
to place this tax-exempt mortfage
there is a guarantee of funds from
CRFscj
of the formal legal procedures
will not be commenced until
UDAG.
Sincere
C. are
ont
0
LAKE LILLIAN, MINNESOTA 58253
STATE BANK
September 23, 1483
PHONE 10121 e6.1111
PHONE (517) 6&.4181
Mr. Dale Landwite,
President
Wright County State Sank
Monticello, HM 55362
Dear Mr. Umdwitc:
We have reviewed the request for placement of a tax exempt mortgage
with the city of Monticello and }hlMllaeat Systema Inc. Said mortgage
is to cover the coat of construction approximating 50,000 squ&re feat,
and approxiaately ton acres of land within the city of Hosties2lo.
Total cost of project is estimated at 1853.000. Proposal of : auancing
includes participation with the Wright County State Hank of Monticello,
the Security State Hank of Howard Lake, QWW, Pultillsent Systems Inc.,
and the First State Sank of lake 11111ea.
It to our pleasure to inform you our bank will participate in the
financing of said property within the parameters and conditions stated
below:
1. Amount of loan:
— 1125,000
2. Rate of interest:
.- 12% interest renegotiated every five years. At that time
Interest will be adjusted to 1% over prime with a minimum
of 10% interest.
3. Amortisation and maturity:
-- 15 years
p. Collateral:
— First mortgage on said property
` 5• Psrsonual guarantee
Jack Psaeh and wife will personally guarantee the mortgage,
strains a snood sortgage on their home and land.
6. Conditiosee
-- Key No We insurance on Jack peach totaling 15000000
assignable to retirement of acid mortgage.
MEMCfAFCOERAL DEPOSE I04:UNANCECOAPONA110N
p' Mir. Dale Landwits
Wright County State Bank
Page 2
It in our opinion, this project would not be feasible idtbout Participation
of MM funds amounting to approximately 30% of the total project. Shia
offer In contingent upon the success of the City of Monticello to secure
an Urban Development Action 0rant.
We are of the understanding that commencement of legal procedures to
place this tau exempt mortgage will not be possible before the success
of the VDAG application is determined.
MMi led
sin e
Duane B. Lindgren,
President
0
EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO
A PROJECT UNDER THE MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT ACT, REFERRING THE PROPOSAL
TO THE NIINNESOTA ENERGY AND ECONONTIC
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR APPROVAL, AND
AUTHORIZING PREPARATION OF NECESSARY
DOCUMENTS
WHEREAS, the welfare of the State of Minnesota (the "State") requires
active promotion, attraction, encouragement and development of economically
sound industry and commerce through governmental acts to prevent, so far a.s
possible, emergence of blighted lands and areas of chronic unemployment, and it is
the policy of the State to facilitate and encourage action by local government units
to prevent the economicdeterioration of such areas to the point where the process
can be reversed only by total redevelopment through the use of local, state end
federal funds derived from taxation, with the attendant necessity of relocating
displaced persons and of duplicating public services in other areas; and
WHEREAS, technological change has caused a shift to a significant degree
in the area of opportunity for educated youth to processing, transporting,
marketing, service and other industries, and unless existing and related industries
are retained and new industries are developed to use the available resources of the
City of Monticello (the "City"), a large part of the existing investment of the
community and of the State as a whole in educational and public service facilities
will be lost, and the rnovement of talented, educated personnel of mature age to
areas where their services may be effectively used and compensated and the
lessening attraction of persons and businesses from other areas for purposes c+f
industry, commerce and tourism will deprive the City and the State of the
economic and human resources needed as a base for providing governmental
services and facilities for the remaining population; and
WHEREAS, the increase in the amount and cost of governmental services
requires the need for more intensive development and use of land to provide an
adequate tax base to finance these costs; and
WHEREAS, a representative of Fulfillment System, Inc. (the "Developer"),
has advised this City Council that it desires to acquire land and construct a new
building for industrial use thereon in the City (hereinafter referred to as the
"Project"); and
WHEREAS, the existence of the Project in the City will contribute to more
intensive development and use of land to Increase the tax base of the City a -rd
overlapping taxing authorities and maintain and provide for an increase in
opportunities for employment for residents of the City, Including economically
disadvantaged or unemployed individuals; and
WHEREAS, the City has been advised that conventional, commercial
financing to pay the capital cost of the Project is available at such costs of
CFC
borrowing that the economic feasibility of operating the Project would be
significantly reduced, but that with the aid of municipal financing, and its resulting
lower borrowing cost, the Project is economically more feasible; and
WHEREAS, this Council has been advised by a representative of the
Developer that on the basis of information submitted to them and their discussions
with representatives of area financial institutions and potential buyers of tax-
exempt bonds, industrial development revenue bonds of the City could be issued
and sold upon favorable rates and terms to finance the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City is authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474, to
issue its revenue bonds to finance the cost, in whole or in part, of the acquisition,
construction, reconstruction, improvement or extension of capital projects
consisting of properties used and useful in connection with a revenue producing
enterprise, such as that of the Developer, and the issuance of such bonds by the
City would be a substantial inducement to the Developer to construct its facility in
the City; and
WHEREAS, on the basis of information given the City to date, it appears
that it would be in the best interest of the City to issue its industrial development
revenue bonds under the provisions of Chapter 474 to finance the Project of the
Developer in an amount presently estimated not to exceed $475,000.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
1. The Project is hereby given preliminary approval by the City and the
.i--umnee of the revenue bonds for such purpose and in such amount spproved,
subject to approval of the Project by the Minnesota Energy and Economic
Development Authority and to the mutual agreement of this body, the Developer
and the initial purchaser of the bonds as to the details of the bonds and provisions
for their payment. In all events, it is understood, however, that the bonds of the
City shall not constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance legal or equitable upon any
property of the City except the Project, and the bonds, when, as, and if Issued,
shall recite in substance that the bonds, Including interest thereon, is payable
solely from the revenues received from the Project and property pledged to the
payment thereof, and shall not constitute a debt of the City.
2. In accordance with ;11inncsots Statutes, Section 474.01, Subdivision
7a, the Mayor of the City is hereby authorized and directed to submit the proposal
for the Project to the Minnesota Energy and Economic Development Authority for
approval of the Project. The Mayor and other officers, employees and agents of
the City are hereby authorized to provide the Minnesota Energy and Economic
Development Authority with any preliminary information needed for this purpose,
and the City Attorney is authorized to initiate and assist in the preparation of such
documents as may be appropriate to the Project, if it is approved by the Nlinnesote
Energy and Economic Development Authority.
3. The law firm of Holmes do Graven, Chartered, is authorized to act as
Bond Counsel and to assist in the preparation and review of necessary documents
relating to the Project and bonds Issued in connection therewith. The Mayor, City
Attorney, and other officers, employees and agents of the City are hereby
authorized to assist Bond Counsel In the preparation of such documents.
-2-
4. In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 474.01, Subdivision
11, the City Clerk/Treasurer and other officers, employees and agents of the City
are hereby authorized and directed to encourage the Developer to provide
employment opportunities to economically disadvantaged or unemployed
individuals. Such individuals may be identified by such mechanisms as are available
to the City, including a first source agreement in which the Developer agrees to
use a designated State employment office as a first source for employment
recruitment, referral, and placement.
-3-
EXHIBIT B
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSED
PROJECT UNDER THE MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT ACT, MINNESOTA STATUTES,
CHAPTER 474, AS AMENDED
THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the governing body of the City of
Monticello, Minnesota (the "City"), will meet on , 1983, at p.m.
at the City offices in Monticello, Minnesota, for the purpose of conducting a public
hearing on a proposal that the City issue its revenue bonds under the Municipal
Industrial Development Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474, as amended, in order
to finance the cost of a project. The proposed project will consist of acquiring land
and constructing a new building for industrial use thereon of not less than
square feet to be owned by Fulfillment System, Inc., for use in its business. The
proposed project will be located at Lots 7 and 8 of Block 2, Loring Hill Terrace in
Monticello, Minnesota. The estimated total amount of the proposed issue is
$475,000. The bonds shall be a limited obligation of the City and the bonds and
interest thereon shall be. payable solely from the revenues pledged to the payment
thereof, except that such bonds may be secured by a mortgage and other
encumbrance on the project. No holder of any such bond shall ever have the right
to compel any exercise of the taxing power of the City of Monticello to pay the
bonds, or the interest thereon, nor to enforce payment against any property of the
City except the project.
A draft copy of the proposed application to the Minnesota Energy and
Economic Development Authority for approval of the project, together with all
attachments and exhibits thereto, Is available for public inspection at the City
offices.
AL persons interested may appear and be heard at the time and place set
forth above.
Dated: , 1883
BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO
By
Thomas Eldem
City Administrator
Council Agenda - 10/24/B3
8. Review of Bids for Pump House M2 Addition. W .S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Electrical work bids will be taken until 1:00 P.M., Monday,
October 24, 1983; and construction bids will be taken until
2:00 P.M., Monday, October 24, 1983. Bids will be brought
forth for review at that time at Monticello City Hall.
C -9
PUMP HOUSE #2 ADDITION
We received only one bid on the proposed addition. Jay
Miller made a bid of $15,609.00. We received three bids
an the electrical, the lowest of which was Page Electric
for $610.00. The bid tabs are enclosed for your review.
The total cost of the project is $16,219.00. This is $62%
over my estimate of $10,000.00, which I placed in the 1981
budget. I believe the cost of this project is unrealistic
and the bid of $15,609.00 should be rejected along with the
electrical bids. There are a few small adjustments we can
make to the building design to save a few dollars, but they
are at beat minimal. It is my opinion that more favorable
results would be obtained by rebidding in late winter for
early spring construction. Every contractor I discussed the
project with was very busy at this time.
Although it would be an inconvenience to wait, it would be
financially in tho City's best intereat.
/ W-6�
John Simola
Public Works Director
R
BIDDER BID BOND
Jay Miller
F.A. Tenney
Quintin
Lanners
Gordan Hill
Masonry
Bruce Dalbec
Loren Weese
I
CASH. CHECKS
Check
$780.45
LUMP SUM BID
$15,609.00
No Reply
No Reply
No Reply
No Reply
No Reply
a
BIDDER AMOUNT
Page Electric, Inc. $610.00
Double "D" Electric, Inc. S750.00
Heskin's Monticello Electric No Reply
Klatt Electric No Reply
Olson 6 Sons Electric, Inc. No Reply
Wadsworth Electric Repair and No Reply
Construction
Electric Construction MN Inc.
No Reply
Preeman Electric, Inc.
No Reply
Hoffman Electric Company
No Reply
Lopinski Electric Company
No Reply
Mortensen Electric
$993.00
Walte Electric
No Reply
Council Agenda - 10/24/83
9. Consideration of a Deferment of Special Assessments for Monticello
Country Club. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
After the special meeting on the budget when this issue was discussed,
I informed Jean Brouillard that the Revenue Sharing would not be
provided to abate the Country Club's assessment, but the Council
was receptive to discussing a possible deferment so that development
could occur. on Tuesday, October 18, 1983, Rick and I met with
Howard Gillham and Jean to discuss a solution to the Country Club's
delinquent assessments. Basically, we arrived at the following
agreement: The City and the Country Club will negotiate and enter
a private contract agreement,said contract to be in the sum of
$72,637.71. Upon entering that contract, the City will lift from
the County Tax Roll the entire amount of the assessment that had
been certified at the original date. Within the contract the total
amount would be broken down into 10 equal values and shall be
assigned by number to the proposed 10 platted lots. We agreed that
this sum could be held without interest accruing for a period not
to exceed five years. Further, that upon completion and development
of the subdivision as each lot is sold the amount of the assessment
for that particular lot would be paid in full. Thus, payment of
the full oum would be mada in the umourL assigned Lo each lot as
sold or the entire amount would be payable in five years, whichever
comes sooner. Another part of the contract would stipulate the
conditions wherein an easement for the drainage will be granted Lo
Lhe City at no additional charge . I think it would be wine that we
include a target date for completion and recording of the plat.
Also, this entire contract agreement will be attached to the dead
and recorded at the Courthouse.
Rick and I feel that thiu is a workablo solution in that eventually
the City will got its original investment plus the assigned interest
from the original aoscusmont roll. We think Lhis is a for more
feasible way of doing business with the Country Club than their
original request for Revenue Sharing or outright abatement of tho
assessments. While there may be a delay (which we have in any case)
wo still will recover all of our cost. Further, by having thin
aum doforred, it allows the title to be cleared at Lhe Courthouse
and will further allow the Country Club to record the final plat
as that it may be marketed. It is my opinion that we have reached
a very workable compromise, and arrived at a win-win situation as
opposed to a win -l000 situation.
- 10 -
Council Agenda - 10/24/83
While the general nature of the contract agreement has been reached,
the final details and specifics will have to be concluded with the
City Attorney and the parties involved.
An item which is not directly related to the contract itself but
relates to the overall subdivision of the land has to do with the
park dedication requirements of our Ordinance. For any sub-
division we require either a certain amount of land or 100 of
the value of the subdivision for park dedication purposes. The
Country Club's concern is that if they were to grant a certain
amount of land, then they would not be able to develop the 10 lots
as proposed. If, on the other hand, they were required to submit
a cash contribution for park dedication, we are negating approximately
$20,000.00 worth of the deferrment that we are granting to them.
It is their contention, and I tend to agree, that the very nature
of the Country Club being recreational, and being open for public
use tends to easily fulfill the requirement of park dedication.
Granted, this is a very specific recreational activity that does
not necessarily have mass appeal, but such a claim can be made
against any number of parks however multi -use they are designed.
I think that when the Country Club approaches the Planning Commission
and Council with their subdivision proposal, it would be beneficial
towaivc the park dedication requirements by virtue of their being
the golf courac.
B. ALTEP14ATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Accept the basic terms of the contract as proposed and direct
final preparation by the City Attorney - this will allow the
Country Club to begin their platting and marketing process
which hopefully will load to the eventual recovery of our
public improvement expense. Also, the City is protected in
that at the termination of the contract whatever lots aro not
sold would become the property of the City. At that time we
would need only to market them for approximately $7,200.00
to recover our expenao. Such contract also eliminates the
need to go through the standard three or seven year delinquent
process and taking the land for tax forfeiture.
2. Modify the contractual arrangements - if you have specific
suggestions with respect to curtain terms of the agreement,
those may be negotiated at this time. Both Mr. Gillham and
Mr. Brouillard will be present to present their aide of the
negotiations.
Council Agenda - 10/24/83
3. Deny the request for a deferrment and contract - this has
the net effect of having nothing done. The Country Club
remains delinquent on taxes and assessments and, as such,
will not be allowed to record or plat in which case the land
cannot be marketed. When the appropriate amount of time
expires the City could pursue taking the land by tax forfeiture
procedures. We are then stuck with the need of subdividing
and platting on our own behalf and hopefully marketing the land
as well. The City then has gotten involved in real estate
development, and I am not sure that is where we wish to be.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the good faith negotiations to date, it is staff recommendation
that the contract with the terms as preliminarily agreed upon be
authorized. Upon authorization I will have the formal contract
drawn by the City Attorney and it can be formally executed by the
Mayor and the Country Club by mid-November.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
A data sheet shoring facts and figures relating to the assessment
and simple terms of the negotiated agreement.
M014TICELIq COUNTRY CLUB
original Assessment - $51,023.00
Principal Interest
$10,204.60
$ 4,145.65
10,204.60
2,653.20
10,204.60
1,989.90
10,204.60
1,326.60
10,204.60
663.30
$51,023.00
$10,778.65
Total Principal $51,023.00
1st 4 years of interest 10,115.35
Penalty to date 11,499.36
Total Contract Amount $72,637.71
LO lots with equal assessments - $7,263.77 per lot.
PRELIMINARY CONTRACT PROVISIONS
1. City will lift entire assessment roll from County records.
2. Country Club will plat and record (as required by Ordinance)
10 Iota by (date?) .
3. Country Club will meet minimum development requirements.
4. City will carry $72,637.71, interest free, for a period
not to exceed five (5) years.
5. City will assign equal assessment to each of the 10 lots.
6. Country Club, upon any lot sale, will pay directly to City
full amount of aaseasment assigned to that lot.
7. Country Club will pay full amount of outstanding assessment
(for lots still unsold) at the end of five year agreement or
Country Club will provide clear title to City for all unsoTX lots.
0
S. Country Club will provide, at no cost, a drainage easement.
9. Entire document to be recorded at Courthouse.
10. City will waive park dedication requirements.
- 2 -
UP
Council Agenda - 10/24/83
10. Consideration of Authorizing the Preparation of an Ordinance Allowing
for On -Sale Wine Licenses - Floyd Kruse. (T. E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Mr. Floyd Kruse, developer of Dino's Deli on the corner of Broadway
and Walnut Street, has requested that the Council investigate the
feasibility of issuing wine licenses. The State of Minnesota permits
the issuance of wine licenses to bona fiderestaurants as defined in
the Statute. Some cities issue a single combination license that is
good for on -sale 3.2 beer and wine. Some cities offer individual
on -sale licenses for each of these beverages. Monticello currently
has a 3.2 beer on -sale license only. The proper procedure to follow
at this time is for the Council to determine whether or not they
wish to have the right to issue wine and/or wine and beer licenses.
If the City elects to adopt an ordinance that will allow the issuance
of wine licenses, staff and legal counsel should be directed to
prepare such an ordinance. With such a directive, a preliminary draft
of the ordinance (or conceivably a final draft, if all is acceptable)
would be presented to the Council at its November 14 or November 28
meeting. If the ordinance is in acceptable form at that time, it
would be given its public reading and would be formally adopted with
the ordinance to take effect on the date of publication or some other
date if so stipulated.
Preliminary staff discussion is that should the Council elect to
pursue an ordinance allowing wine licensing, it would be beat to
investigate a combination license for 3.2 boor and wino, but maintain
the single beer license. To us, it is easier to conceive of an
establishment wanting beer only than to sea an establishment that
would want the wine but no boor. Ono example would be the Monticello
Country Club, which does not meet the roquiremonto of the Statute
no a restaurant and, no ouch, would not qualify for a wine license.
By maintaining our 3.2 on -sale license as is, they would be able to
secure just the boor license and not be faced with the restaurant
question and the necessity of purchasing a wine license. Other details
that would rolato to the Issuing of a wine license would be worked out
between the staff and legal counsel and would than be pr000ntad to
the Council for their reaction.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Authorize the preparation of an ordinance chat will allow the
issuance of a wino license.
- 13 -
Council Agenda — 10/24/83
Authorize the preparation of an ordinance that would allow for
the issuance of a combined wine and 3.2 beer license.
3. Take no action thus allowing the ordinances to stand as is
and the issuance of a wine license would still be prohibited.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Our preliminary recommendation is to authorize the preparation of
a preliminary ordinance which would allow for the issuance of a
combined 3.2 beer and wine on -sale license. We further recommend
that the existing ordinance relating to 3.2 beer remain intact as
is.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the Minnesota Statute relating to on-salo wine licenses.
- 14 -
310.11 WTOXICATING I,IVL'ONS 6524
Suhd. 20. On -sale wltie licenses. (a) "On -+ale wine licenses- %hall mean
licenses authorizing the sale of wine not exceeding 14 percent alcohol by xolume.
for consumption on the licensed premnes only, in conjunction wtih the .sale if
food.
(b) For purposes of this .subdi%ision "restaurant" shall mean an establishment.
under the control of a single proprietor or manager, hasmg appropriate facilities
for serving meals. and where, in consideration of payment therefor, meals are
regularly served at tables to the general public. and which employs an adequate
staff to provide the usual and suitable service to its guests.
(c) Any municipality which maintains a municipal liquor store or am
municipality or county authorized to issue 'on -sale" loccroscs for the sale of
intoxicating liquor may issue un -sale wine licenses to any restaurant having
facilities for seating not fewer than 25 guests at one time. "nie licenses shall he in
addition to the number of on -sale licenses for the sale of intoxicating liquor
authorized by the intoxicating liquors act. The fee for on -sale %me licenses shall
be set by the issuing authority, but shall not exceed one-half of the license fee
charged by the issuing authority for an on.. -We license, Air $2.000. uhichexer is less.
Licenses issued pursuant to this subdivision shall not he effccuxc until apprised
by the commissioner. hhe licenses shall amhorue the sale of %me as hcrem
provided on all days of the week unless the issuing authontx restncis the hccnsds
authorization to the sale of wine on all days other than Sunda%.
Suhd. 21. Liability Insurance. lacry person licensed to sell at retail mtou-
r. ring liquor or non -intoxicating milt liquor at on -sale Air off s:dc shill. after
March 1. 1983, demonstrate protf or financial respomihdnx with regard to
liability imposed by section 340.95, w the commissioner of public .alfa% .n a
condition of the issuance or renewal Air his license, pnnided this subdivision does
not apply It) min -intoxicating mall liquor licensees with sacs of less than $10.000
of non -intoxicating malt liquor per year, nor tit holders of on -sale wme licenses
under suMlitston 20. with sales of less than SIOAX) of wine per year Proof if
hnamial responsibility ma) he green b) filing:
(a) A certificate that there is in effect an insurance puhcy or pool pruudmg
the filloumg minimum cmer.igcs:
(I 1550.000 helaaxe of Kiddy injury to any one per%on in ant, tine occurrence.
and, subject w the limit for one person. est the amount of S1000I0 heozsusc of
hodd) mJury lit two Air more persons in any tine occurrent.e, and in the amount Air
SI0.000 because til mjuty to or destruction of property of others m ans tine
occurrence.
(2) 550,000 for loss or means of support of any one penin in ans tine
occurrence, and, subject to the limn for zine person. SIMSO) for las, if means if
suppurt of two or more persons in any one occurrence: it
(b) A bund of a surety company %ith minimum coscr,iecs as proxidcd in
clause (a), it
(c) A certificate of the stale treasurer that the licensee has deposited with him
$100.000 in with or sccumics which may Icgall) he purshawd by saxmgx hunks it
for trust funds hasmg a market value of SIM.000.
This subdivision docs not prohibit a heal guxcrnmg unit from requiring
higher insurance or Mind coverages, it a larger deposit of cash or securmc% than is
required hereunder, at, a condition of issuance or renewal of a retail intoxicating
liquor or nun-mtoxiwting malt hquor on -sale or off -sale license.
The commissioner of insurance shall advise licensers and mumcrpahties
subject to the financial respns
oibility requirements of this suhdnmon td those
perwms offering insurance coxcrage. The commnsmner of insurance may, if
4"
�r
Council Agenda - 10/24/83
11. Consideration of County Road 75 and 39 Upqrading. (J.S.)
A. REFEREICE AND BACKGROUND:
The City of Monticello has been requesting that the County upgrade
County Road 75/39 through Monticello since 1979. Last year, in 1982,
at the Council's request, members of the staff of the City of
Monticello went before the County Board to again request upgrading
of County Road 75/39. At that time the County Board looked favorably
upon the project but did state that they did assemble a priority
list based upon a spring inspection of possible road projects.
They gave no guarantees that the project would be done in 1984.
We learned late in 1982 that the project had not been budgeted for
by the County.
We have again requested that the County reconsider upgrading this
highway.
Mr. Wayne Fingalson, the Wright County Engineer, and Mr. Basil
Schillewaert, our County Board member from this area, have indicated
that it would be best to again formally request this project in the
form of a letter. We are basically requesting upgrading of that
portion of the highway which has a center median. This would basically
be from Chestnut Street on the west end of torn to the high school
in the east end of town. There has, however, been some discussion
about the shoulders. There is a dofinita need to pave the shoulders
from the west end of town past the elementary school to approximately
Otter Creek Road. In addition, there have been some problems with
the shoulders on the cast and of town. The County maintains these
shoulders and they cannot always keep up with the work due to the
high volume of traffic in this area. Quite often the shoulder gots
deproaoed from the edge of the highway and has caused some accidents,
especially in wet or winter weather. I, therefore, have included
into this lottor a request that the County look into paving the
shoulders.. This is not a formal authorization for them to include
it in the project, just to make soma cost estimates and such.
The County will be meeting Tuesday to prepare their budget for 1984.
It is our understanding that this request, which we have again firmed
up by letter, will be budgeted for. As you may remember, County
Municipal projects have a funding of 70/30. we would pay approximately
30% of the construction costs.
For our budget for 1984 we estimated tho construction cost to be
approximately $165,000.00. We, therefore, placed approximately
15 -
Council Agenda - 10/24/83
$50,000.00 in the budget for our share of that portion of the
project. Also needed along Broadway are repairs to utilities
and manhole replacement. We have included another. $10,000.00
in the budget for these items. This brings our total estimated
cost of the project to $60,000.00.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
At this particular time there did not appear to be any alternatives
but to proceed ahead as planned,to determine whether the County
is willing to upgrade this roadway,and to develop design and cost
data to be considered by the Council at a later date.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is the staff recommendation that we proceed as planned. The
City has already began investigating the condition of the utilities
and the need for repairs along this roadway.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Lotter to the County Board, March 9, 1983, from the City.
Letter to the County Board, September 18, 1979, from the City.
Let Lur to the County Board, Oetobor 21, 1983, from the City.
- 16 -
T.i«1,hnr�e 795 7711 1.1--n L--- 333'5137
250 East Broadway
Route 4, Box 83A
MONTICELLO. MN 55362
March 9, 1983
Wright County Board of Commissioners
Wright County Courthouse
Buffalo, Minnesota 55313
RE: Maintenance of County Road 75 within Monticello.
Gentlemen:
The City of Monticello has in hast years been under contract with the
County for minor maintenance, snow plowing and sanding on various
County roads within the City of Monticello.
One such stretch of road has been County Road 75 from the intersection
of County Roads 39 and 116 on the cast side of Monticello to the Wayside
inn near the Pinewood elementary school on the west aide of Monticello.
Until 1979, the routine maintenance consisting of patching, crack -
sealing, mowing, snow plowing and icu removal was portormcd by the City.
The City was paid $595.10_1or maintaining this .822 miles of roadway
for the year 197a I % ? -1 )0 :.aq
In April of 1979, the City cuntacted the Wright County Engineer, Mr.
tarry Koenig, about the deteriorating condition of County Road 75,
especially that portion from our high school to the elementary school.
The condition of the roadway was such that the City could no longer
keep up with the crack sealing and patching .
An agrsoment was made with Mr. Koenig that the County would asaumo
reoponaibility for crack sealing and patching and that the City would
perform only very minor maintenance on County (toad 75, but continuo all
snow plowing and ice removal. Mr. Koenig waft to draw up a new contract
and initiate county repair work on County Road 75. The crack sealing
was performed a short time later by county crews. Some of the board
mcmlxesa may remember this, asthe sealing material did not act up and
tracked into buuincus placco in Monticello "nd attached itself to
hundredo of cars. Sand wan then applied and a corduroy surface rusultud.
tutor in 1979, much of the crack sealer waL: bladed off, making the road-
way bearable again. The County som:what later completed the milling
project un the south ride Irum llwy 25 east to the high school making
chin a smuuth uurface ag,lin.
'/ `
7/f/M "a to Alonlice(lo . . . little •nountain
Wright County Board of Commissioners
March 9, 1983
Page N2
Mr. Koenig did not make a new contract with the City prior to his departure.
it is our understanding that Mr. Wayne Fingalson discovered no contract
existed at all in December of 1961. He then forwarded a letter with a
copy of the old contract data sheet to Mr. Gary Wieber who was then City
Administrator. Mr. Wieber never did answer the letter and thus, a now
contract with the County was never drawn up.
The City has continued to receive reimbursement for snow plowing, ice
plowing, as well as routine maintenance for County Road 75 as well as
other streets. The reimbursements for County Road 75 have been as
follows:
b
1979 $689.85 9 (,.O 14,
1980 $748.83
1981 $779.60 - 2 Z��-�•
1982 $1,106.72
The City has continued maintenance of all those County roads proviously
under contract. Although County Road 75 has received lose crack coaling
or patching by us, as we were under the impression the County was main-
taining it, other roads have received more. In 1981 and 1982, the City
expended $4,500 in oeal coating costs alone on CSAR 58 and 59.
Basically, it is the City's request that the County seriously look into
up grading County Road 75 in Monticello. it is clearly in a more do-
teriorated condition than any other roadways within the City of Monti-
cello. we would also wish to formulate a new maintenance agreement with
you. Tho Mayor, Arve Crimemo, the City Administrator, Tam Eidem, and
myself, if possible, wish to be placed on the agenda for the Board'a
March 15th meeting. Thin is our socond request for ouch a mooting.
Fnclosod is a letter sent in 1979 about the same subject. It is my
understanding that no mooting even became of that request.
Pleono inform us of your plans.
Acapecifull���
Jo�imola
puhlre works Director
cc: Arve Grim Gmo
Wayne Fingaloon
Tom F.idem
Corvespondence Filo
A
City n/ M1011fic•eatp
2:d) East ar,+athvty
MONTICELLO. MN 55362
U :eptemhnr In. 1979
Mr. Paul McAlpine, Chairman
Wright County C.ummissioners
Kaple lake, Minnesota 55358
BE: Improv--ment of County Road 75 in Monticello
Dear Paul:
Pursuant to a directive received from the Monticello City Council at its
Septcmher 10, 1979 meeting. 2 am writing you on behalf of the City Council
to Irnve the Wright County Board of Commissioners consider the improvement
of wrlghtt County Road 75 in Monticello.
Numerous complaints have been received from citizens in the Monticello
community relative. to the condition of the road. Of primary concern is the
portion of County Road 75 between Pinewood School (the olemenary school on
the west side of town), and the nigh School on the oast side of town.
it should too nated that a short time ago this portion of County Road 75
was reviewed with Wright County rngineer, tarry Koenig, and Wright County
Covenicsioner, Lowell Zachman. At that time. it was indicated that this
>ort3un of Wright County 75 was not scheduled for an overlay for approxi-
mately three to frnu years due to the fact that the base was still quite
good and there were other areas in the County that had a higher priority
than titin t,pecific Stretch of road.
At their neetin3, the Monticello City Council ctaphasitod the fact that this
particular stretch of road) has an extensive amount of traffic and due to the
numerous complaints received, it was felt by the City Council that the Mayor
and the City Administrator should contact Wright County Cammissioners to
request that this stretch of road be improved as soon as possible and be
budgeted for in 1980.jjfuAf.41 4e,*" 4.1.e — C%1y+ „vas A'1'4f
iY pj* L.dss�� « • Md114w Vsk i r✓e pier t�llr,
Arve Grimsmo, Mayor, and thyself would'ba glad to meet with the Wright
(-ounty Board of Camel asioners or any committee to review our particular .r✓
request . Should you have any further questions , please contact me at qy oe�
your convunience.
Sin arsly.
r•., /(, , ,/., .
ry akar
"ty Inlnistrator no
ret w•25-12
Larry K r}t.t, toWell Zachmen,�Cou�ncilmembers yrs+
TelePh- 7954711
Cly y o/ tf//onlicelk
250 East Broadway
Route 4, Box 83A
MONTICELLO, MN 55362
October 21, 1983
Mr. Wayne Fingalson
County Engineer
Wright County Courthouse
Buffalo, MN 55313
RE: Upgrading of County Road 75 within Monticello
Gentlemen.
Metro Line 3335739
The City of Monticello has for some time now been requesting upgrading
of County Road 75 through Monticello. As you may remember, members
of the staff of the City of Monticello met with the County Board in
the summer of 1982 again to firm up a request for this projocC. The
County, however, due to other priorities and lack of funds was unable
to do the project in 1983.
We would, therefore, again like to formally request that the County
upgrade County Road 75 within Monticello from Chestnut Street on the
west end of town to the Monticello High School on the cast and of town.
The City of Monticello has placed into it's budget for 1984 30% of
the estimated project cost. There has also recently been some concern
over the shoulders on the west end of town, specifically that portion
from Chestnut Strcat to Otter Creek Road near the elementary school.
We believe there is justification at this time to look into the paving
of the shoulders in that area. We would also wish the County to prepare
some tout estimates an to the paving of the shoulders on the cast end of
town. The City may be interested in participation in that portion of
the project also.
Please inform us of your decision no that we may prepare plana for utility
repairs prior to the County Municipal project. We look forward to
working with you on the design and implemontation of this project.
Thank you for your consideration.
RoPeCtfully
1/7
,- i
John Simola '
Public Works Director
City of Monticello
JS/ked
( CC: hrVo A. Grimamo
! Thomas A. Eidom
County Corrospondenco Pilo
JS
Welcome 10 Moniito[lo told mountain
Council Agenda - 10/24/83
12. Consideration of Zoning Map Amendment - Blocks 32 and 17. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
This is a request to add to the zoning map an amendment of Blocks
32 and 17 from an R-2 Zone to a B-4 Zone. The City of Monticello
was the applicant in the initial request and a public hearing was
held of the Planning Commission on October 4, 1983. The Planning
Comission approved it unanimously. The property has been in turn
sold to Security Federal for development purposes, therefore,
necessitating the request for rezoning from an R-2 Zone to a
B-4 Zone.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Proceed to have the consulting engineering firm, OSM, prepare
maps with the new map amendment of Blocks 32 and 17.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from October 4, 1983.
- 17 -
�� c
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
October 4, 1983 - 7:30 P.M.
Members Present: Richard Carlson, Joyce Dowling, Ed Schaffer.
Members Absent: Jim Ridgeway, Don Cochran.
Staff Present: Gdry Anderson, Thomas Eidem.
The meeting was called to order at 7:36 P.M. by Joyce Dowling,
acting Chairperson.
2. Approval of the Minutes of the Peqular Seutember 6, 1983, Planning,
Commission Mcetinq.
A motion was made by Richard Carlson, seconded by Ed Schaffer, to
approve the September 6, 1983, Planning Commission Meeting hinnies.
Motion carried unanimously.
3. Public Hoarinq - City of Monticello Hazoninq Heeuest.
Planning Commission C9,airperson, Joyce Dowling, opened the public
hearing with any comments from the public. Zoning Administrator
Anderson said that he received a telephone message from Mr. Clifford
Olson, resident property owner across the street from the Oakwood
Block, stating he had no objection to the rezoning of the Oakwood
Block. Mr. Thomas Eidem, City Administrator representing the City
as the affected property owner, stated some background as to why
the City was asking for the rezoning from R-2 to B-4. The original
intent for the property was to tons it residential, one and two
family dwellings. The abandonmant of walnut Street and the removal
of the existing houses from the now library sito has warranted the
City to ask for rezoning of the Oakwood Block from an R-2 to a 0-4
Zeno. A motion was made by Ed Schaffer, seconded by Richard Carlson,
to approve the rezoning request from an R-2 Zone to a B-4 Zone. The
motion was carried unanimously.
4. Public Nearing - Milton Olson - Hard Surfacing, Parkin Lot Variance
Request.
Planning commission Chairperson, Joyco Dowling, opened the public
hosting with Milton Olson prouent to oxplain the purpose of Ilia
request for the hard surfacing of his parking lot. Mr. Olson briefed
the Planning Comnensiun memlxiru on Iiia project, that being a 60' x 120'
Council Agenda - 10/24/83
13. Consideration of Authorizinq the Preparation of an Ordinance
Permitting Gambling and Providing Licenses Therefor. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
The American Legion Club, and perhaps the VFW, have been selling
pull -tabs as part of their operation for quite some time. Jay
Miller expressed some concern that they were operating a gambling
operation, which is permitted under the Statute but which is not
yet permitted under City Ordinance. As our Ordinances currently
stand, the operation of a gambling game would be prohibited since
it is not specifically allowed under any provision. Jay thus
came to me to ask if the City would consider an ordinance allowing
certain forms of gambling. Much like the wine license question,
the Council must determine first whether or not it wishes to allow
gambling within the City and if it intends to license such an
activity. If it is the concensus that such an activity should to
allowed and licensed, then direction should be given for staff and
legal counsel to prepare a preliminary ordinance for review. The n
upon satisfactory review with any additions, corrections, or re-
visions, the final ordinance would be given a public reading,
published and enacted.
Perhaps only a month ago I would have seen this particular issue
as a rather minor request that the City could easily adopt. Now,
however, in light of the recent news items showing that pull -tabs
and ticket jars can be "fixed", this may complicate the decision-
making process.
One issue is critical to this item. If we are going to allow
gambling to occur within clubs, then we ought to license it so
shat it is run properly and exercise care in the protection of the
general public. If we are not going to allow gambling and not issue
licenses therefor, we must make a concerted effort that gambling
be prohibited. Thus, if the clubs continue to operate a gambling
game without a license, their entire operational license, meaning
liquor, sat -ups, etc., can be revoked and prosecution should be
pursued. It is my understanding that by allowing gambling to oce ur
without it baing properly licensed, a severe loser could, in fact,
turn toward the City to recover it's costs. The entire notion of
gambling can became a very ticklish issue.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Authorize the preparation of an ordinance regulating and licensing
gambling - this, In eseanco, gives the staff direction to
- 18 -
Council Agenda - 10/24/83
coordinate with legal counsel the preparation of an ordinance
that can be adopted at a future meeting.
2. Take no action - this basically states that gambling shall not
be permitted within the City. The extended ramifications of
this action is that we will have to beef up enforcement on
all gambling activities that currently occur.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Since gambling device in this particular ordinance means paddle-
wheels, tip boards, and pull -tabs, along with raffles, I do not
see any major difficulty in allowing them and licensing them. The
ordinance does not apply to professional gambling devices like
slot machines and blackjack tables, etc.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the Minnesota Statutes that refer to gambling; Copy of
a sample ordinance received from the City of Eden Prairie.
19 -
344.26 GAMBLING DEVICLS.
Subdivision 1. Por the purl%o%cs of thi% action the terms defined in this
section have the meaning. 91%01 them.
Subd. 2. "Gamblintdevices' means those gamhlin� deices known as "pad-
ellewheefs" or "tiphuards . "pull -tabs'- (or "ticket jars y. or apparatus used in
conducting raffles.
Subd. 3. "Paddlewheel" means a wheel marked off into section% containing
one or more numbers- and which. after being turned or spun, uses a pointer or
marker to indicate winning chances.
Solid. 4. "Tiphoord" means a holtrd. placard or other deuce measuring at
least 12 inches square. marked off in a grid or columns- in which each section
contains a hidden number or numbers, or other symbol. which determines the
winning chances.
Solid. 5. "Rattle" means a game in which a participant buys a ticket for a
chance at a prize with the winner determined by a random drawing to take place
at a hacation and date printeJ upon the ticket.
Solid. 5a. "Pull -tab +" for "ticket jars") means a single folded or handed
ticket or a card, the face nl which is initially cowered, or otherwise hidden from
view, to conceal a number or set of numbers tit a ymtrd or set of symbols. A few
of tote number of symlwh out of every set of pull -tabs (ax ticket dars) will have
been designated in advance and at random as pnrcwmncrs:. A participant pays a
consideration to an operator for the opportunity to obtain a folded or handed
ticket or a card, view the numbers (or %)mlyds on it and possibly (obtain a
pritewtmmng pull -tab (tit ticket jar).
SubJ. 6. "Prolit" mean% the grass receipt, from the ttpenuon of gambling
devices and the conduct of raffles, less reasonahte sums upended for prizes, local
licensing fees, taxes and maintenance costs for the doicec.
Subd. 7. Nothing in this section shall he construed it, authorize any use.
possession or opciation of:
(a) Any gambling device which is activated by the inversion of a coin or
token- or
N Any gambling game or device in which the winning numbers, tickets or
chances ate to any way determined by the outetmrtr of any athletic contest or
sporting event.
SuhJ. 8. Any county or city mai establish a system tot the licensing of
organizations to operate gambling devices and ht conduct raffles. The system
may include a fee for each ftceme in an amount to he determined b the local
governin body f.icensts issued pursuant to this section shall be valid for one
year, and may he suspended or revoked for any %iolation tit this section. A focal
governing body shall act on a license application within 180 days from the date of
application, but shall not asue a license until at Ieast 30 days after the date of the
application. Nothing in this section shall lir construed to prohibit a county or city
Rom adopting rules or ordinances for the t". -ration at g,ambhng devices or the
Conduct (if raffle% that are more re%trtctive than state law, including rules or
otdntatnck prohrbnutg the operation of such down,,,
Sidi! 4 Iv%uattce of tk-avne. t tvemc% shall he tsvueJ only to a liaternal.
reltguous, %eteran% or olliet nonproht arganvanun shah 1t a corporation. fund.
foond,oton. trust, or as.ott.tllon organtred tta c%sluktvet% scientific. literat),
rehgut» thantahlc, edit 11,111 1 too artiotc utposc%. or for die purpose of making
%oourhunon% to or for du tow cd the t'nneJ Statin the state tit'itznnemta. or an)
of 11% ptdwcal suhdnt%tuns for e%tlu%t%01) puhlu purr%oscv. or for am combination
of she ah+%c•cnumer.ttrJ purfknek, it no pan of the net Income of an) Lith
unlwuauon, fund. loundatioo, huo of a%%o%1.numuumc. w the bench of un%
P1t%ate tncott%cr, moLkluMcr, ter tndt%tdual. or 1%a vtuh orgamred and operated
ekvlu%1%cl) for plcasute. rctrestion, or other nonpoifdahle purptne%, no part of the
net ou.mur of %huh more% to the bench, td am pn%ate rnemher. stol kholder. or
3
• At i
6623 BINGO. GAMBLING DEVICES Sipa
The local unit of government may authorize raffles to he conducted by a licensed
organization on premises not owned or leased by the organization. No lease shall
provide that rental payments he based on a percentage of receipts or profits from
gambling devices ix raffles. Copies of :dl teases shall ht priwkfed to the lictming
hxal unit of government.
Solid. 15. Taal prize award itm(ts. Total prizes from the operation of
paddleuheels, tiphoants and pulbtahs fur ticket jars) awarded in any single day in
which they are operated shall not exceed Sl -0X10. Total prizes resulting from any
single spin of a paddlewheel, or from any single seal of a tiphoard, each upboard
limited to a single seat, or from a single pull -tab (or ticket jar). shall not exceed
$150. Total prizes awarded in any calendar year by any organization from the
operation of paddlewheels, tiphiards and pull -tabs (or ticket jars) and the conduct
of raffles. except as provided in subdivision 15a, shall not exceed 535,0011.
Merchandise prizes shall he valued at fair market retail value,
The county attorney of each county shalt he responsible for investigating and.
if appropriate, prosecuting organizations for violations of this section.
Sold. 15a. Escelsioa: total prize awards Und atlsxe. (a) An organization
which directly or under contract to the mate or a political subdivision delivers
health or social services and which is exempt from taxation pursuant to section
501(cM3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended through December
30, 1981, may award total prizes in a calendar year from the conduct of raffles. in
excess of the limitation prmided in subdivision 15, provided the prizes consist of
teat or personal property donated to the organization by an individual, corpon.
tion. or other organization and. except as provided in clause (b), provided the
organization complies with the other requirements and restrictions of section
349.26.
(h) For the purposes of this subdivision, an orggaanization covered
b clause (I)
is not subject to the membership limitations of sulxfivistons 9, 11, and 12. nor to
rhe compensation limitations of subdivision 12. Subject to the other requirements
of subdit inion 13, the person who accounts for groes rectipts. expenses, and profits
from the conduct of raffles may he the same person who accounts for other
revenues of the urg inization.
Suld. 16. Violation of any provision of this section is a misdemeanor, This
subdivision that) not preclude civil or cnmuait action under other applicable law
or preclude any agency of government from investigating or prosecuting violations
of the provisions of Ibis section.
f ihtor): 1978 c V7 s 3, 1979 c 3!3 s d; f 9Rf c .101 a 1-8: 1982 c 538 s 2:
1982 c .470 x 1.3
. _M I1F;FY\f11f s.
Suhdomon 1. for the purpines of sections 34930 to U939, unless a
different meaning w mdivaled by the context, the words, terms, and phrases
defined to this section shall have the meanings goers them.
Suhd. 2. "Gambling devices" means slot mikhtri , roulette wheeK punch-
hiards, and pin hall mrthtncs whish return vomx or slugs, vhips, or tokens of any
kind. which are redeemable in merchandise or cixh.
Suhd. 3. Vermin— means an indnidual, a copartnership, an aiusciation, a
coipivation, or any other entity or organization
Solid. 4. "lvfunicipahq" means any county, city, tit tow n.
Suhd. 5. "1 tcenst" includes permits 44 every kind. nature and description
iswcd pursuant In am %wtuic or ordinance fur the canymg on of any business,
trade. uxatum, tommercial enterprise or undertaking
ck�)
3025 BINGO, GAMBLING DEVICES M24
individual, which organization has hen in cimcnec for :u Ica %i three vear• Still
has at least IS active memhers, as defined on scown }44.12. subdivi,ton 2.
Suhd. 10. Profits from the operation ttf gamhhng Jc%icc. it the conduct ,•f
raffles shall he used solely (,it lawful purposes as Jefmcd In sccnio y4+)12.
subdivision 6, and as authorued at a regular meeting of the urganvant.n
Suhd, 11. All operation of , mbling deuces and the conduct of raffh• %Ball
be under the superwsam of a single gambling manager do Ignored hs the otgantvS
tion. The gambling manager %half he resphtnsdfe (or gross reccrph and profit,
from gambling Jo ices and raffles and for thea operation. The gamhfratp, ntm.Iger
shall give a frdtlity h+nd in the wm of 310011) to favor if the organimit"u
conditioned -if the it
pciromsrnce of his duties. and the Nona and I hr x.m rr
thereof shall he subject tit the same provisions a% those applying to the hand
required of a bingo manager pursuant to section 349.12, whJvvlon 7, A pen -An
may act as hath gambling manager and hmgo man" oer lir a %ingk org•.tmtntton.
hw a gambling manager for a Burgle organvation shallfnol art I%cithcr a g.unhhog
manager or hmg,t manager for am tither t+rgmizatian. A gamhhng nianager Nor
an organitatson shall be an aetise member of the organv"u,n, a% defined m
section }49.12. whdovton 2.
Suhd. Q. No compen%auon in excess if $25 a week. shall he p.oJ in
connection w nh the opcsation of a gambling Je%ice or the conduct oda raffle hs a
licensed rtrganization turpt a beenwJ org;amratson ma% cleat to pay a pcucnt of
raffle ticket sales to nonprofit organizations wiling (or the hccn% org;tmr.rhon•
No person who is not an active member if an orgamaitfon, or its ausilaan. it the
spouse or survning spouse of an active membermayy participate in the orgaoria-
tum's Operation or a gambling device it conduct of a raffle except the licensed
organization may utilize normrmher nonprofit organizations in raffle tirke sate%,
Sulid. 13. Each organization hrensed to operate gambling des ices shall keep
records of its gross receipts. quantity of free plays. it am', c%prnscs and profti% for
each single��,,,arthering w rt<casion at which prithling doice% are operated for a
raffle is Concocted. All deductions from grams rcceipls for each single fathering it
occasion shall he documented with receipts or other records inJicaungg the aeutom.
a description of the purchased nem or service ser other icason fpr the JeduClu+ia
and the recipiew the distrthumin of pndns shall he otemired as to payee.
purpose, amount and date of payment.
Groes receipts from the operation of g.nthhng de%lco. and the conduct Id
raffles shall he segregated from other reenact of the orgamzation, Including hutgn
gnus receipts, and placcJ to a separate account. cath orgamr"thin shall h.Ite
separate records of n% gambling operations. 1 he pers n who account% for gross
receipts, expenses and profits from the operation of gan+hting dc%i eo or the
conduct of raffles may he the same persin %hit account% for hmgo gni%%rccctpn.
expenses and profits,
1 akh org.nur,ition IcCowd tit ipterate ganshluigu
dece% of lit otnduo I"fflo
shall repsnt monthly to its tnemhershrp. onJ it) the lacrosIng IoaSf unit of
gosernment, it. grits% rcccipti, c%penu. and p ofii% from gamhhng Jritc% it
raffles, and the dvuibutsin All prtdit% itenitzctl a% required in this .ulhlomon
Record% required by thv %tvuon shall he prc%n%cJ for ihreC %coos, mid
urg,unzau,m%%hall ns de a%"d,Ihk ihcs• records relating Io operation ati(amhhng
devices aoJ life coudutl of rafflh for puhht mytsuon at tai onahlc time+ .Ind
plate,
SuhJ 14 (iamfthar de%itc%+half Inc oo�scr.tted Snl raffles %indittled h% a
hcCnseJ org,uuz.ruun only uihm lift! c% 6 uth n owns At trash cucpl Uut
otkeo for rafflh conducted in attorJanc:e with this .moon m is he moi off the
'�%promisee 1 cases. unless authorizeJ In another location h% the Itwal unit of
government. %hail he (An is pco od %4 not (cw th.in lute year anil shall t%e on wmtng
ORDINANCE NO. 1-83
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING
CITY CODE CHAPTER 5 BY ADDING THERETO SECTION 5.40 RELATING TO
THE REGULATION, LICENSING AND USE OF GAMBLING DEVICES, AND ADOPTING
BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER I AND SECTIONS 5.01 THROUGH 5.11
AND SECTION 5.99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY
PROVISIONS.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1. City Code Chapter 5 shall be and is amended by adding thereto
Sec. 5.40 which reads as follows:
SEC. 5.40. GAMBLING DEVICES.
Subdivision 1. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to regulate
and control the conduct of certain gambling activities pursuant to the provisions
of Minnesota Statutes, Section 349.26.
Subd. 2. Definitions. For the purposes of this ordinance the terms
defined in this ordinance have the fallowing meanings.
(a) "Gambling devices" means those gambling devices known
as "paddle wheels" or "tip boards", "pull tabs" (or "ticket jars"), or apparatus used
in conducting raffles.
(b) "Paddle wheel" means a wheel marked off into sections
containing one or more numbers, and which, after being turned or spun, uses a
pointer or marker to indicate winning chances.
(c) "Tip board" means a board, placard or device measuring
at least twelve incites square, marked off in a grid or columns, in which each section
contains a hidden number or numbers, or other symbol, which determines the winning
chances.
(d) "Raf tie" means a game in which a participant buys a ticket
for a chance at a prize with the winner determined by random drawing to take
place at a Iocaticn and date printed upon the ticket.
(e) "Pull tabs" (or "ticket jars") means a single folded or banded
ticket or a card, the face of which is initially covered, or otherwise hidden from
view, to conceal a number or set of numbers or a symbol or set of symbols. A
few of the numbers or symbols out of every set of pull tabs (or ticket jars) will
have been designated in advance and at random as prize winner- The participant
pays a consideration to an operator for the opportunity to obtain a folded or banded
ticket or a card, view the numbers or symbols on it and possibly obtain a prize
winning pull tab (or ticket jar).
a
(f) "Profit" means the gross receipts from the operation of
gambling devices and the conduct of raffles, less reasonable sums expended for
prizes, local licensing fees, taxes and maintenance costs for the devices.
(g) "Gambling manager" means a member who has paid all
his dues to the organization and has been a member of the organization for at
least two years and has been designated by an organization to supervise gambling
activities conducted by it.
(h) "Active member' means a member who has paid all his
dues to the organization and has been a member of the organization for at least
six months.
(f) "Organization" means a fraternal, religious, veterans or
other nonprofit organization which is a corporation, fund, foundation, trust, or
association organized for exclusively scientific, literary, religious, charitable,
educational, or artistic purposes, or for the purpose of making contributions to
or for the use of the United States, the State of Minnesota, or any of its political
subdivisions for exclusively public purposes, or for any combination of the above
enumerated purposes, if no part of the net income of any such corporation, fund,
foundation, trust, or association inures to the benefit of any private member,
stockholder, or individual, or is a club organized and operated exclusively for
pleasure, recreation, or other nonprofitable purposes, no park of the net income
of which inures to the benefit of any private member, stockholder or individual,
which organization has been in existence for at least three years and has at least
IS active members.
"Lawful purpose" means one or more of the following%
(1) Benefiting persons by enhancing their opportunity
for religious or educational advancement, by relieving or protecting them from
disease, suffering or distress, by contributing to their physical well being, by assisting
them in establishing themselves in life as worthy and useful citizens, or by increasing
their comprehension of and devotion to the principals upon which this nation was
founded;
(2) Initiating, performing, or fostering worthy public
works or enabling or furthering the erection or maintenance of public structures;
(3) Lessening the burdens born by government or voluntarily
supporting, augmenting or supplementing services which government would normally
render to the people; or
(4) The Improving, expanding, maintaining or repairing
real property owned or leased by an organization. "Lawful purpose" does not Include
the erection or acquisition of any real property, unless the Cit ;necifically authorizes
the expenditure after finding that the property will be used exclusively for one
or more of the purposes specified in this subdivision_
(k) Nothing in the City Code shall be construed to authorize
any use, possession or operation of t
(1) Any gambling device which is activated by the insertion
of a coin or token; or
(2) Any gambling game or device in which the winning
numbers, tickets or chances are in any way determined by the outcome of any
athletic contest or sporting event.
Subd. 3. license Requirement. A system for the licensing of organizations
to operate gambling devices and to conduct raffles is hereby established. No
person shall directly operate a gambling device or conduct a raffle except as authorized
by statute and the City Code and unless a license to do so, as provided in this
section has first been obtained.
Subd. 4. Fees and Application Procedure.
(a) There are two types of licenses which may be issued by
the City for each device or occasion:
(1) A single occasion temporary license or
(2) An annual license. All single occasion temporary
licenses are valid only on the dates specified, which may not exceed 3 consecutive
days. Annual licenses shall expire one year after the date of issuance.
(b) Action on the application shall be taken in decordance
with section 5.03 of the City Code, provided however the application shall be
acted on within 130 days from the date of application, but a license shall not be
issued until at least 30 days after the date of the application.
(c) The application shall contain an agreement on the part
of the applicant that if the license being applied for is granted, the licensee will
save the City, its officers and agents harmless against any claims or actions and
the cost of defending any claims or actions arising out of or by reason of the granting
of the license or the conduct of any of the activities authorized by the license.
Subd. 5. Issuance of License. An annual license may be issued only
to a fraternal, religious or veterans organization. A single occasion temporary
license may be issued only to an organization.
Subd. 6. Profits. Profits from the operation of gambling devices or
the conduct of rdffles shall be uwd solely for lawful purposes and as authorized
at a regular meeting of the organization, provided, however, except for profits
from the conduct of raffles by the holder of a single occasion temporary license,
at least 60 percent of the profits must be used for one or more of the purposes
enumerated in (1), (2) or (3), subparagraph (j), Subd. 2 of this Section for persons
or objects within the City.
Subd. 7. Conduct of Gambling. All operation of gaw' :'.ng devices
and the conduct of raffles shall be under the supervision of a single gambling manager
designated by the organization. The gambling manager shall be responsible for
gross recvipts and profits from garttbling davices and raffles and for their operation.
The gambling manager shall give a fidelity twnd in the surn of $10,000 in favor
of the organization conditioned on the faithful performance of his duties. A gambling
manager for a single organization shall not act as a gambling manager for any
other organization. A gambling manager for an organization shall be an active
member of the organization.
Subd. S. Compensation. No compensation in excess of $25 a week,
shall be paid in connection with the operation of a gambling device or the conduct
of a raffle by a licensed organization except a licensed organization may elect
to pay a percent of raffle ticket sales to nonprofit organizations selling for the
licensed organization. No person who is not an active member of an organization,
or its auxiliary, or the spouse or surviving spouse of an active member may participate
in the organization's operation of a gambling device or conduct of a raffle except
the licensed organization may utilize nonmember nonprofit organization in raffle
ticket sales.
Subd. 9. Reporting Requirements.
(a) Each organization licensed to operate gambling devices
shall keep records of its gross receipts, quantity of free plays, if any, expenses
and profits for each single gathering or occasion at which gambling devices are
operated or a raffle is conducted. All deductions from gross receipts for e;�Ch
single gathering or occasion shall be documented with receipts or other records
indicating the amount, the description of the purchased item or service or other
reason for the deduction, and the recipient. The distribution of profits shall be
Itemized as to payee, purpose, amount and date of payment.
(b) Gross receipts from the operation of gambling devices
and the conduct of raffles shall be segregated from other revenues of the organization
and placed in a separate account. Each organization shall have separate records
of its gambling operations. The person who accounts for gross receipts, expenses
and profits from the operation of gambling devices or the conduct of raffles may
be the same person who accounts for other revenues of the licensed organization.
(c) Each organization licensed to operate gambling devices
or to conduct raffles shall report monthly to its membership, and to the City Clerk,
Its gross receipts, expenses and profits from gambling devices or raffles, and the
distribution of profits itemized as required in this section.
(d) Records required by this ordinance shaft be preserved for
three years, and organizations shall make available their records relating to operation
of gambling devices and the conduct of rat ties for public inspection at reasonable
times and places.
(e) The City Manager may require a licensee at its expense
to cause a review and examination by a licensed certified public account or other
qualified person approved by the City Siartager of the books and records of the
organization holding a license relating to the gambling activities conducted by
It pursuant to such license and a report thereon by such person • , such extent
and in such forth as the City Manager may require.
Subd. 10. Eligible Premises. Gambling devices shall be operated and
raffles conducted by an organization (a) holding an annual license only upon premises
which it owns and (b) holding a single occasion temporary license only upon premises
which it owns or leases, except that tickets for rallies conducted in accordance
with this section (nay be sold off the premises by an organization holding either
type of license. The City Clerk, upon approval by the City Council, may authorize
raffles to be conducted by a licensed organization on premises not owned or leased
by the organization. Leases shall be for a period of not fess than one year and
shalt be in writing. No lease shall provide that rental payments be based on a
percentage of receipts or profits from gambling devices or raffles. A copy of
each lease shall be filed with the City Clerk at the time of the application for
license and shall comprise a part of the application.
Subd. 11. Prize Award Limits.
(a) Total prizes from the operation of paddle wheels, tip boards
and pull tabs (or ticket jars) awarded in any single day in which they are operated
shall not exceed $1,000. Total prizes resulting from any single spin of a paddle
wheel, or from any single seal of a tip board, each tip board limited to a single
seat, or from a single pull tab (or ticket jar), shall not exceed $150. Total prizes
awarded in any calendar year by any organization from the operation of paddle
wheels, tip boards and pull tabs (or ticket jars) and the conduct of raffles, except
as provided in clause (b) of this subdivision shall not exceed $35,000. Merchandise
prizes shall be valued at fair market retail value.
(b) (1) An organization which directly or under contract
to the state or a political subdivision delivers health or social services and which
is exempt from taxation pursuant to section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1954, as amended through December 30, 1981, may award prizes in a calendar
year born the conduct of rattles, in excess of the limitation provided in this section,
provided the prizes consist of real or personal property donated to the organization
by an individual, corporation, or other organization and, except as provided in
clause (2), provided the organization complies with the other requirements and
restrictions of this ordinance.
(2) for the purposes of this subdivision, an organization
covered by clause (1) is not subject to the membership limitations nor to the compensation
limitations of this ordinance.
Subd. 12. Termination Provision. This Sec. 5.40 shall terminate and
cease to be effective on December 31, 1986, unless prior thereto the Council
shall adopt an ordinance amending this Sec. 5.40 to extend its effective duration
beyond such termination date. Any and all permits, licenses, privileges or rights
of whatever nature issued, extended or granted in any manner by virtue of this
section will terminate and become void on the date this section terminates.
Section 2. City Code Chapter f entitled "General Provisions and Definitions
Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and sections
5.01 through 5.11 and section 5.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby
adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective from an -latter Its passage
and publication.
FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden
Prairie on the ],I_ day of fthr_01v , 1983, and finally read and adopted and
13 -3-
ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the
.=day of Fepruap,__,198 3.
?ATES� Maypr ' JHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of , 1982.
Council Agenda - 10/24/83
15. Consideration of Setting the Annual Salary Mectina. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE A14D BACKGROUND:
Iasi year a special meeting for the express purpose of meeting
with employees and setting salaries was held in November. Prior
to that meeting I had met with the various employees and negotiated
a salary increase. That amount was decreased by the Council at
their meeting. In an earlier memo I suggested that a percentage
ceiling be set by the Council, and that I be authorized to set
salaries within that framework. This would separate the salary
function and the evaluation function at that meeting. It is
simply one alternative.
To date, I have not discussed salary with any employee. As a
result of the discrepancy last year, 1 am requesting some direction
from the Council before I meet with the employees. Some of the
things I think should be discussed are as follows:
a) basic salary increase
b) merit increase - where warranted
c) position adjustment - are we paying
comparable salaries for positions
in other cities with like responsibilities?
Ono additional note: if we are to maintain our past practice of
meeting with the employee and setting the salary at the same time,
1 suggest we set the salary while the individual employee is
present. That allows him/her to negotiate with the Council directly
rather than having a verdict passed down after he/she has presented
their caso. It allows the employee to respond to the salary offer.
Basically, I think it would be best to either eliminate negotiations
and simply have the Council mandato the salary adjustment, or keep
the negotiations but in a direct employee -Council setting. Doing
the former would not eliminate the need for an employee evaluation
by the Council. Also, at ouch a meeting the employee may wish to
appeal the original salary decision.
The only action I am roquooting at this meeting is to set a special
meeting. However, I would like acme idea of what direction you wish
to Lake so that I may properly prepare. You may wish to have a
special meeting (breakfast?) to determine otratogy and a second
special meeting with the employees.
No Alternative Actions, Staff Recommendation, or Supporting Data
provided for this item.
- 20 -
LIQUOR FUND
LIQUOR FUND DISBURSEMENTS - OCTOB?.h - 1983
AMOUNT
CHECK
N0.
Commissioner of Revenue - Sales tax - August
6,924,50
10920
Ed Phillips 6 Sona - Liquor
2,281,.78
10921
MN. State Treasurer - PERA
38.36
10922
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded.
20.00
10923
Commissioner of Revenue - SWT - Sept,
235.00
10921,
Wright County State Bank - FWT - Sept.
369.50
10925
State Treasurer •- Social Security Contribution Fund - FICA - Sept.
399.06
10926
MN. State Treasurer - PERA
131.10
10927
Griggs, Cooper b Co. - Liquor
3,037.23
10928
Twin City Wine Co. - Liquor
1,579.56
10929
Northern States Pover - Utilities
752.49
10930
Ed Phillipe 6 Sons - Liquor
6,919.16
10931
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded.
20.00
10932
Ed Phillips 6 Sons - Liquor
9,020.32
10933
Twin City Wine Co. - Liquor
1,640.13
10934
Griggs. Cooper 6 Co. - Liquor
2,270.87
10935
Commissioner of Revenue - Sales tax - Sept.
5,991.23
10936
Banker's Life Ins. - Group Ins.
542.82
10937
Monticello Office Products - Office supplies
5.00
10938
Yonak Sanitation - Garbage contract
92.80
10939
Liefert Trucking - Freight
249.87
10940
Monticello Times - Adv.
210.80
10941
Wright County State Bank - Deposit slips printing
6.75
10942
Maus Foods - Store expense
39.78
10943
Schabol Beverage, Inc. - Beer
2,125.40
109LL
Kathy's Specialties - Misc. mdse.
81.00
10945
Day Diet. Co. - Beer
300.80
1091,6
7 Up Bottoming Co, - Misc. mdse.
254.40
10947
Viking Coca Cola - Misc. mdse.
440.25
10948
Jude Candy 6 Tobacco - Misc. mdse.
424.65
10949
Dick Beverage - Beer
2,361.00
10950
Dahlheimer Diet. Co. - Beer
7,883.52
10951
Thorpe Dist. - Beer
3,262.10
10952
Grosslein Beverage - Beer
7,918.45
10953
Old Dutch Foods - Misc. mdse.
113.11
10954
Flicker's T. V. - Micro vave
199.95
10955
MN. State Treasurer - PERA
121.84
10956
Bridgevater Telephone - Telephone
52.89
10957
Lovegren Iee - Purchase of ice
257.85
10958
Payroll for Septembor
3,520.86
TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS - OCTOBER
$72,099.18
1983 -- GENERAL FUND - OCTOBER
AMOUNT
Lindsay Bros. - Parts for truck
47.08
Monticello Times - Publishing for August
202.21
North Central Section AWWA - Reg. fee for Walt Mack - Seminar
35.00
MN. NAHRO - Seminar fee for T. Eidem - Tax Exempt Revenue Bond
90.00
Corrow Sanitation - Contract payment
4,485.00
Gerald Hermes - Janitorial services at Library
_125.00
MN. State Treasurer - Dep. Reg. fees
12.00
VOID
0
NJ1. State Treasurer - Dep. Reg. fees
29.00
Ultra Homes - Reimburse for fees previously paid - to be assessed
6,571.37
James Preusse - Cleaning city hall
250.00
Arve Grimsmo - Mayor salary
175.00
Dan Blonigen - Council salary
125.00
Mrs. Fran Fair - Council salary
125.00
Ken Maus - Council salary
125.00
Jack Maxwell - Council salary
125.00
YMCA of Mpls. - Montbly contract payment
28L.16
Gwen Bateman - Animal control for Sept.
753.13
MR. State Treasurer - PERA W/H
409.02
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded.
144.04
State of MN. - NDC Training Session - Reg. fee for A. Pelvit
100.00
Commissioner of Revenue - SWT - Sept.
2,274.00
Wright County State Bank - FWT - Sept.
3,285.00
MN. State Treasurer - FICA - Sept.
4,232.60
State Treasurer - Building Code Div. - Permit surcharge - 3rd qtr.
859.70
MN. Pollution Control Agency - Reg. fee for A. Meyer 6 J. 11offmar
90.00
North Central Public Service - Utilities
,154.37
MN. State Treasurer - Pere W/H
1,350.66
Northern States Pover - Utilities
8,210.35
Richard Knutson, Inc. - Payment N5 - 82-2 Project
49,547.54
M.N. State Treasurer - Dep.. Reg. fees
10.00
MN. State Treasurer - Dep. Reg. fees
22.00
J. L. Shiely Co. - Rock
51.85
Int. Conf. of Building Officials - Membership duea - G. Anderson
15.00
Gerald Hermes - Janitorial services at library
125.00
MN. State Treasurer - Dep. Reg. fees
16.00
M14. State Treasurer - Dep. Reg. fees
36.00
State Capitol Credit Union- Payroll ded.
144.OL
U. S. Postmaster - Postage for UDAG material
9.35
Internal Revenue Service - Add. FWT for 3rd qtr.
1.00
Fred Gille - Purchase of garage from Riverview Clinic
300.00
Wright County Sheriff - Police contract payment
91OL1.98
North Star Waterworks - Meters for Water Dept.
544.68
State Treasurer- Surplus Property Fund - St. Dept. supplies
23.10
Mobil Oil - Gas for Fire and Water Depts.
26.26
Brock White Co. - Caulking for city hall roof repair
373.00
Central Eyevear - Glasses
14.00
Fyle Backhoe Service - B/W hookup at rental house b latrine rentGl
2,408.00
Horthvestern Bell - Fire phone
37.43
Footer Franzen Agency - Fire Dept. policy payment
340.20
First Bank Mels. - Public fund charge
4.00
Phillips Petro. Gas for Water Dept.
59.20
Hovard Dahlgren Assoc. - Services for Sept.
22.50
Buffalo Bituminous - Gravel. etc.
8,980.68
Monticello Ford - Mtce. of fire truck
52.72
Holiday Inn - Hotel charges for Albert Meyer . Seminar
132.36
S14A Construction - Prints for pump house
16.50
GENERAL FUND
AMOUNT
Lindberg Decorating - Paint for St. Dept. b dog pound
115.14
SMA Construction - Prints for pump house
7.50
Marco Business Products - File cabinets 6 supplies
812.39
Flickers T. V. - Fire Dept. supplies 6 video tape for Meadow Oak
L39,15
Stephens -Peck, Inc. - Dep. Reg, manual for 1984
24.00
Maus Foods - Supplies for all Depts.
210.13
John Hoffman - Mileage reimb, for seminar to New Ulm
50.00
Nelson Radio Communications - Repairs to civil defense sirens
1,261.27
Smith, Pringle L Hayes - Legal for Sept.
375.00
VOID
0
AutoCon Industries - Repairs on water system at Res.
2,011.00
Harry's Auto Supply - Parts for St. Dept.
301.66
Leef Bros. - Uniform rental
178.75
Our Own Hardware - Supplies for all Depts.
270.13
Banker's Life - Group Ins.
3,607.64
MN. Dep. Reg. Assoc. - Dep. Reg. dues for 1984
75.00
Davis Electronic Service Co. - Pager repairs for Fire Dept.
98.24
Zep Mfg. Co. - Deodorant for sludge
796.95
MN. Bearing Co. - Mtee. of equipment
72.30
Century Laboratories - Dye and soap for Sever Dept.
124.77
Fidelity Bank A Trust - Interest on 74 Parking Bonds
2,476.47
Meyer Rohlin - Pumphouse prints
6.60
Metropolitan Fire $quipment - Misc. supplies for Fire Dept.
22.20
Diane Jacobson - Mileage reimb. for seminar
19.00
Bould Bros. - Repairs to Fire Dept. -Water Dept. trucks
125.25
National Bushing - Parts and supplies - St. A Park Depte.
85.02
Monticello Printing - Sever/water cards L envelopes
224.90
Persian's Office Products - Dictaphone machine for John Simola
380.00
National Life Ins. Co. - Tom Eidem pension plan
85.00
Sean Hancock - Mileage reimb. for seminar
53.00
Walter Mack - Mileage reimb. for seminar - also motel 6 meals
153.87
Gruys, Johnson - Computer service for August
290.00
Miller Davis - Receipt books and pada
247.67
Snyder Drug - Band aids for Plant and Lab.
4,38
St. Regie Corp. - Parking lot posts
180.00
Local N49 - Union dues
95.00
Independent Lumber - Supplies - St. 6 WWTP
38.60
Fair's Carden Center - Craso seed
90.00
Monticello Office Products - File cabinet 6 deck - Mtce. Bldg. -
548.03
$408.87 ; balance for mise. office supplies
Water Products - Meter valves and mise. Water Dept. supplies
481.62
Coast to Coast - Supplies for all Depta.
61.00
Oinan Construction - Sand for St. Dept.
534,98
Tom Eidem - Mileage and meals - League meeting
51.55
Gordon LInk - Gas - St.. Park, Tree and Sever Depta.
1.622.60
Figs It Shop - St, supplies
4.72
Brenteson Const. - Installmanhole and fittings
870.00
Whalen Engineering Co. - Repair flaahing light on loader
21.60
OSM - August eng. fees
322.23
Liefort Trucking - Freight for Water Dept.
15.00
Earl Peterson Equip. - Saw rental
40.00
Marlene Hellman - Mileage to Buffalo
5.00
MN. Public Employer Labor Relations Assoc. - Membership dues
85.00
C VOID
0
Nelson Oil Co. - Fuel - Mtce. Building
40.22
R 6 C Associates - Cloaning supplies
11.40
Share Corp. - Freight on weed control
25.43
Central McGowan Inc. - Cylinder rental
4.96
GENERAL FUND AMOUNT CHECK !
Gary Anderson - Mileage for October
Rick Wolfsteller - Mileage and conference expense
VOID
VWR Scientific, Inc. - 12 tubes WWTP
MN. State Treasurer - PERA W/H
MN. State Treasurer - Dep. Reg. fees
MN. State Treasurer - Dep. Reg. fees
Commissioner of Revenue - Water excise tax - 3rd Qtr.
Allen Pelvit - Mileage expense
Olson 6 Sons Electric - Pump house repair
Hoglund Bus - Truck repair
VOID
Wright County Treasurer - 30% gross rent in lieu of taxes- Lindbe•g's
Bridgevater Telephone - Utilities
Payroll for September
87.99
112.50
0
94.18
1.341.76
6.00
54.00
216.66
86.63
54.00
51.50
0
288.75
748.99
23.587.63
TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS FOR OCTOBER - 1983 $154.806.99
18010
18011
18012
18013
18014
18015
18016
18017
18018
18019
18020
18021
18022
18023