The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Agenda Packet 11-14-1983AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Monday, November 14, 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 24, 1983, and the Special Meeting Held October 29, 1983. 3. Citizens Comments/Petitions, Requests and Complaints. Old Business 4. Public Hearing - Adoption of Assessment Roll on 82-2 Improvement Project - Meadow Oak Subdivision. 5. Public Hearing - Consideration of Issuing IRB's - Fulfillment Systems, Inc. 6. Public Hearing - Consideration of Tax Increment Bonds - Metcalf and Larson. 7. Mayor Update - Reconstruction of Highway 25 and Bridge - Minnesota Dopar Cment of Transportation. B. Conaidarat ion of Wino Ordinance. 9. Considerat ion of Gambling Ordinance. 10. Cons idorat ion of Transient Merchant Ordinance. Now Business 11. Consideration of Resolution Setting F eas for New Licenses and Pe rmita. 12. Consideration of Planning Comnission Appeal to Build a Garage in Excess of 1,000 Square Fact - Marvin Scharer. 13. Consideration of Planning Commission Appeal - Denial of Request to Rezone an Area from R-1 to B-4 - Murfin landscaping. 14. Consideration of Planning Commission Approval of Simple Subdivision of Residential Lots and Variances Granted With it - Marilyn Lanz . 15. Consideration of Transfers from Capital Outlay Fund to Library Construction Fund. 16. Consideration of Authorizing Help Wanted Ad. 17. Consideration of Approval of Retiremo nt Lotter - Richard Brooks. ` 18. Consideration of Adopting a Resolution Ordering the Preparation of an Environmental Assessment Workshse t for Meadow Oak Subdivision. 19. Adjournment. MEMO TO: Mayor Grimsmo and City Council Members FROM: Gary Anderson, Building Inspector ea. DATE: November 10, 1983 RE: City Hall Roof Project The flashing dt thu brick wall and the flashing onto the roof has been caulked and any cracks noticed in the existing roof have also been caulked at this time. I am getting the building ready for winter. I have also filled and caulked around the existing exposed beams. We had the Owen Service Corporation come out and look through our heating and cooling systems and have received the bill for their services so far, which comes to $441. Many things were found to be deficient with the heating and cooling systema, which will be so noted in a forthwith coming recommendation from Owen Service Corporation on suggested things to do to keep our systema running smoothly. The most noticeable items were that the thermostats were out of adjustment from between 10-20 degrees, and the cooling system coils were very plugged with dirt and other small articles such as tree cotton seeds. The syotem has not had any freon added to it. In checking through the system, we had very high static pressure in our cooling system. In narrowing it down, it was noted that we had to bleed off the excess Croon which was in our system. Initially our system woo overcharged when the freon was first installed. The moot noticeable repair needed to our existing heating oyatem is replacement of a burnt out fresh air damper control motor, this being a very expensive motor. Also, we need an additional static pressure setting. These two items alone will amount to not lose than $1,000 to hove them repaired and/or replaced. We will be receiving this week a report from Owen Service Corporation on their ouggooLed list of recommendations to maintain our System to keep it running smoothly. Also we will receive a list of periodic maintenance checks, which could be done by them or another company. Basically there would be four cheeks, once when we start up the air conditioning system, when we shut the air conditioning system down in the winter and start our floating system up. There would be two other minor checks that would take place when the systems are running at their peak output load, that (wing on a very hot summer day and oleo on a very cold day in Lilo winter. Currently we are working with Olson Electric on some suggestive ways to cut down our lighting system load and the movement of air within our high ceilings with exhaust fans. We are currently awaiting a price from Olson and Sons Electric in regard to the installation of one fan in the Council Chambers and two fans out in the lobby area of City Hall. We also are experimenting with the idea of lowering the light fixtures approximately 3 inches away from the ceiling and mounting them back up with the shim adjustments for the 3 inches in which we would be lowering the ceiling light fixtures. We are also looking at the possibility of having holes punched in the globes which surround the light fixtures and letting the light shine through down into the affected work areas below, thus eliminating some of the unnecessary lights being on. - 2 - AMES CONSTRUCTION INC. 14420 COUNTY ROAD 5 BURNSVILLE, MN 55337 TELEPHONE 612-435-7106 A L~' November 8, 1983 The Honorable Arvie Grimsmo, Mayor City Hall 250 East Broadway Monticello, MN 55362 Dear Mayor Grimsmo: As per our telephone conversation on November 7, 1983, it is my understanding that the city of Monticello has no objection to us transporting clay through the city. Listed below are some facts relevant to our clay haul that you wished to have: 1. Between 320,000 cys and 400,000 cys will be transported; exact quantity will be determined when material is tested in place. 2. We would like to have between 20 and 24 trucks hauling per shift. 3. If we have 20 trucks hauling, said trucks will pass through Monticello 20 times per hour, one way. 4. if you use 17 cubic yards/load the trucks will be making approximately 18,000 - 23,000 trips through Monticello. S. We hope that by transporting as much clay as possible this year, we will substantially decrease the amount of clay that will have to be transported through Monticello next spring. All of our truck drivers will obey all traffic control within your city, and will maintain good safety habits throughout this operation. If I can be of further assistance please contact me at any time. I have enclosed my business card which has both my business tele- phone number as well as my home telephone number. Sinter ly n� Jim Kephart Project Manager cc Lynn Winter EXCAVATION GRADING ROAD CONSTRUCTION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL L October 24, 1983 - 7:30 P.M. Members Present: Arve Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Dan Blonigen, Ken Maus, and Jick Maxwell. Members Absent: None. 1. Call to Order. 2. Approval of the Minutes. Motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimouoly carried t o approve the minutes of the regular meeting held October 11, 1983. 3. Citizens Comments/Petitions. Requests and Complaints. Marilyn Lanz, owner of the property located on Lots 9, 10, 11, and 12, Block 1, Lower Monticello, requested a Variance to allow for Cthe placement of an additional driveway on the property to � serve the second house lucated on the east portion of these lots. Kra. Lanz noted that in approximately 1970, a small home was built next to their original home for their father. The property is now being separated and Mrs. Lanz requested permission to install an additional driveway for the smaller home off of Broadway. Because t -ho second home is already existing, motion was mad,: by Maxwell, aoconded Iry Blonigen, and unanimously carried to approve the following Variances for the now driveway: 1. variance to allow the driveway to be closer than 40 feet of the adjacent driveway. 2. To allow a driveway opening in excess of 24 fact wide. 3. To waive the distance requirement between existing driveways. Mr. Joseph LePromboiso of Construction 5, Inc., requested that the Council reconsider the valuation that the City Council placed on vacated Hennepin Street botween Louring Lane and the railroad tracks. Tho Council recently vacaLod this portion of Hennepin Street and offered the property to Mr. LeFromloine at an appraised value Council Minutes - 10/24/83 of 90C a squaw foot, or 524,000.00. Mr. I.aFromboise indicated that he only laid approximately 124 a ::quare foot for his property in the arca and felt that the appraised value established by the City was too high. He indicated that at the asking price of 90C a square foot, he might be forced into reducing the size of his apartment complex and not pursue purchasing the vacated street for his development. Mr. La Fromboise indicated he would be willing to pay 25C a square foot, or $6,600.00 for the vacated Hennepin Street. The Council discussed whether the City should consider just trading vacated Hennepin Street for the right of way that will be needed in the future for the new Lauring Lane road extension rather than selling the property outright. Council also discussed the possibility of entering into an agreement with Mr. LaFromboise acknowledging that lie would also be willing to sell back to the City the necessary right of way at the same price for which the City sells vacdLed Hennepin Street. After further discussion on the appraised value, it was the consensus of the Council that the City should obtain another appraisal on the vacated Hennepin Street for review at the next Council meeting. The Council also invited Mr. LaFromboise to got his own appraisal if he wanted to on the Hennepin Street property for comparison. 4. Consideration of Sideyard Variance Request - Apolieant, Robert and Mary Saxon. Approximately two months ago, Robert and Mary Saxon requested a Sideyard variance, to allow for th-� const.ruction of a double garage on Llreir property located just cast of East Bridge Park along River Street. Since their initial variance, request, the Council has been discussing the pousil.ility of acquiring the Saxon's ptuperty to be us(•d for a public purpuSe such as expansion of the Gaut Bridge. Park or for public parking purposes, which could be used for the park arra and/or Senior Citizen's Center. Thio possible acquisition resulted from the proposed new bridge alignment. which would require the State of Minnesota to use soma of the existing Lost Bridge Park property. The majority of the Council members expressed interest in negotiating with the Saxons to acquire their property. As part of the negotiations, additional information would be obtained regarding the total cost involved should the City decide to make the property into additional - 2 - 2 Council Minutes - 10/24/83 C park land or parking area. Some funds to help with the purchase of the property would be received from the State of Minnesota for part of the East Bridge Park that would be needed for the now bridge, and also the possibility exists that the Senior Citizen's Center could apply for McKnight Foundation Grant Funds to be used for parking lot improvements. The Council directed the City Administrator to obtain an appraisal on the property and to start negotiations with Mr. and Mrs. Saxon to see if an agreement can be reached between both parties for the acquisition. Because the acquisition of the property is being pursued by the City, no action was taken on the Variance Request for the additional garage structure. 5. Coneidoration of Reconstruction of T.H. 25 and Bridqe - Minnesota Department of Transportation. At the previous Council meeting, a motion was passed to inform the State of Minnesota that the City of Monticello would like to see at least one more alternate proposal wherein the raised channelizat ion for the Highway 25 improvements would be omitted from the construction plan. Thls teeolutio n was submitted to MN/DOT who has conducted preliminary discusetons within their district end rith the St. Paul office but at the present time have not reached any consensus on what the, next stay should be in regard to the Highway 25 improvement project. MN/DOT requested that they be allowed a few additional weeks to roview the situation to present their alternate proposal, if any, in regard to the improvements. As a result, no action was necessary by the Council regarding the propound Highway 25 improvements at thio time . 6. Public Hearinq - Assembly of God Church - Conditional Use Request. The Monticello Assembly of God Church received a Conditional Use Permit at the October 11, 1983, Council meeting to allow them to establish a day care center at their former church facilities on Fourth Street, provided they met all State requirements. At the time the Conditional Use Permit was granted, the City staff was under the assumption that Notices of a Public Iloaring for this Conditional Use Permit tied been mailed to all of the abutting property owners and published according to regulations. But in looking through the records, no Affidavit of Public Hearing Notice to the affected property owners could he founds and, theroforo, a new public hearing 0 Council Minutes - 10/24/83 was scheduled for October 24 before the Council. Alice Klatt inquired as to what rules the Assembly of God Church would be required to meet in order to obtain State approval for a day care center regarding fencing of their property. Mrs. Klatt was informed that except for the playground area designated for the day care center, the balance of the property would not necessarily have to be entirely fenced. Mrs. Leo Nelson also inquired as to whether the property should be fenced to stop children from wandering onto the public streets. Mrs. Duane Rajanen also expressed concerns about possible dust problems from their parking lot with everyday use since the property is not currently black topped. Pastor Nordby, representing the Assembly of God Church, indicated that they would be meeting all State requirements including fencing of any areas required by the State of Minnesota to got the Conditional Use Permit. It was the opinion of the Council that the City Council and the Assembly of God Church view this Conditional Use Permit for a day care center as a temporary use of the property until the property can be soldl and as a result, motion was made by Fair, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously carried to let their previous motion of October 11 stand as initially approved authorizing the Conditional Use Permit for the day care center on a temporary one-year basis. 7. Public Hearinq - Fulfillment Systeme, Inc. - Proposal to Issue Tax Exempt Mortgage. On August 31, 1983, the City submitted to the Department of Housing and Urban nevolopment an application for UDAG Grant Funds. This Grant Application request in the amount of $274,000.00 would be used to help Fulfillment Systems, Inc., finance a now building structure within the City of Monticello. The proposal that has boon submitted to HUD is hasically as follows: UDAC. Funding, $234,000.001 Tax Exempt Mortgage, $475,000.00: Private Equity by Fulfillment Systems, $135,000.00. Should the UDAG Funds be available to the City for lending to Fulfillmont Systeme, the City would have to conduct a public hearing to allow Fulfillment Systems to issue the Tax Exempt Mortgage in the amount of $475,000.00. The Tax Exempt Mortgage allows Fulfillment Systems to obtain this financinq at a lower interest rate through a lank or otl,el institution NICAn90 the mortgage would be tax exempt. - 4 - C Council Minutes - 10/24/83 In light of the favorable comments the City has received from the Department of Housing and Urbaii Development, motion was made by Fair, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously carried to adopt the resolution establishing November 14 as the date for the public hearing on the proposed Tax Exempt Mortgage Bonds issuance to Fulfillment Systems, Inc. See Resolution 1983 084. 8. Review of Hide for Pump House 12 Addition. Construction bids and electrical work bids for an addition to Pump House M2 were received and opened on Monday, October 24, 1983. only one bid was received on the proposed construction from Jay Miller in the amount of $15,609.00. Three bids were received on the electrical work, the lowest of which was Pagu Electric for $610.00. The total cost of the project as bid would be $16,219.00, which is approximately 62% over the original estimate prepared by John Simola, Public works Director, of $10,000.00. Because of the cost overrun, it was recommended by the Public works Direc Lor that all bids be rejected at this time and that the City consider rebidding the project in the spring of 1984. Motion was made by Blonigen, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously carried to reject all bide received for the Pump house 02 Addition and toconsider rebidding the project next spring. 9. Consideration of a Doferrment of Special Assessments for Monticello Country Club. As part of the budget public hearings for 1984, the Monticello Country Club requested consideration of Revenue Sharing Funds from the City to help pay for some of their 1978 sewer and water assessments against the Country Club's property. Although the Revenue Sharing monice were not granted to the Country Club, the Council was receptive to discussing a possible doforrmant of the aesossmante to that development could occur on a portion of the Country Club's property. 1Aa City staff on OClobor 16 mot with representatives of tho Country Club Board to discuss a solution to the Country Club's delinquent assaesmants. An agreement betwoon the City staff and Board membors was arrivod upon as thu followings 1) The City and the Country Club would negotiate and enter into a private contract agreement, said contract to be in the sum of 572,637.71 consisting of the v Council Minutes - 10/24/83 original assessment principal plus interest and penalties to date. 2) upon entering into a contract, the City would lift from the County Tax Roll the entire amount of the assessment that had been certified at the original date. 3) Within the contract, the total amount would be broken down into ten equal values, which would be assigned to the proposed ten platted lots. 4) Each new assessment amount would be placed against the property without additional interest for a period not to exceed five years. But 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. This agreement between the City and the Country Club would allow the Country Club to proceed with the plotting of ten residential lots along country Road 39. upon approval of a subdivision, the City normally requires a park dedication equal to 10% of the land being plattedi but because of the nature of the existing property, a golf course, it was the consensus of the Council that the park dedication requirement would be waived for thin subdivision. It was felt that an adequate amount of park land is currently owned by the City in the area and that the golf course at the present time does provide a recreational facility for the City residences. Motion was made by Maus, seconded by Fair, olid unanimously carried LO authorize tlu City to enter into an agreempnt with the Country Club for the deferrment of special assessments and to authorize the City Attorney to prepare. final documents incorporating the preliminary contract provisions as noted to Items 1-10 in Exhibit NO. 1. See Exhibit 10/24/H3 No. 1. lo. Considuration of Authorizinq the Preparation of an Ordinance Allowing for On -Sale wine Licenses - Floyd Kruse. tar. Floyd Kruse, developer of Dino's Deli on the corner of Broadway and Walnut Street, has requested that the Council consider issuing wine licensee. The State of Minnesota permito the issuance of wine licensee to bona fide restaurants as defined in State Statutes. It was noted that many options are available to the City royarding wino licensee, which can be a combination license with 3.2 on -sale beer or separately. Before wine licenses can be issued, an ordinance has to W established allowing for the issuance of wine licenses and a fee hes to be established not to exceed 50% of the current on -sale liquor license foo. - 6 - Council Minutes - 10/24/83 L, After discussion, motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Fair, and unanimously carried to authorize the City staff to prepare an ordinance that would allow the issuance of on—sale wine licenses for a review at the next Council meeting. The ordinance amendment would establish a combination license for 3.2 beer and on -sale wine in addition to the present 3.2 on -sale beer license. 11. Consideration of County Road 75 and 39 Upqradinq . Since 1979, the City of Monticello has been requesting that Wright County upgrade County Road 75 and 39 through the City. In 1982, Wright County Board indicated that improvements to Broadway and County Road 39 might be possible in the spring of 1964. The County Engineer, Mr. Wayne Fingalson, indicated that it would be beat to again formally request this project in the form of a letter to the Wright County Board. The City would be basically requesting upgrading of that portion of the highway which has a center median from approximately Chestnut Street on the west and of town to the high school on the east end of town. In addition, it was the recommendation of the Public Works Director that the City alan request that cmo shouldor r.ts C including paving of the shoulders be considered by the County on the east and of town. Motion was made by Maus, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously carried to authorize the public Works Director to write a latter to the Wright County Board of Commissioners requesting their consideration of improving County Road 75 (Broadway) within the City limits. The City share of any improvements would be approximatoly 30% estimated at a total cost of $160,000.00 with the City currently budgeting $60,000.00 as its share in 1984. 12. Consideration of Zonino Man Amendment - Blocks 32 and 17. In light of ilio fact that the Oakwood Block has boon sold to Security Federal, the Planning Commission hold a public hearing on October 4 to consider rezoning this property from its currant R-2 Zoning for residential use to a B-4 commercial zone. At the name time, the balance of the property on the library block abutting highway 25 wan also proposed for rezoning to comanereial B-4. C ' 7 0 Council Minutes - 10/24/83 motion was made by Fair, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously carried to adopt a zoning ordinance map amendment rezoning Blocks 32 and 17 from R-2 residential to B-4 commercial. 13. Consideration of Authorizinq the Preparation of an Ordinance Permitting Gambling and Providing Licenses Therefor. State Statutes allow non-profit organizations, etc. to operate gambling devices such as tip boards, pull -tabs, paddlewheels, raffles, etc. Before an organization such as the American Legion Club or the 1,TV Club can legally operate gambling devices, the City must establish an ordinance permitting gambling and the licensing of organizations. Motion was made by Blonigen, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously carried to authorize the City staff to prepare an ordinance for review that would allow gambling that meets State Statutes and provide for licensing of establishments or type• of gambling devices. Once the ordinance is prepared, the Council will review at a future meeting. 14. Department Head Reports. The Council hold a quarterly department head meeting with the following individuals in attendance: Mike Halsted of the YMCA, Buddy Gay of the Wright County Sheriff's Department, George Liefort and Willard Farnick of the Monticello Fire Department, along witli the Public Works Director, street Superintendent, Building Inspector, and City Administrator. In discussions with the Fire Department representatives, it was the Council 'a consensus that the City st.aff should proceed with billing individual car owners who require, fire calls from the Fire Department. Normally, individual car owners have car insurance which may provide reimbursement for City charges. Cuuncil also discussed with the Fire Department representatives possible expansion plana for the current Fire Hall. It was suggested by the Council that the Fire Department prepare a ten year plan on what their nerds might be no that the. City could try to determine What Size of building the F'ir'e Department might need in the future. In addition, the Fire Chief was authorized to check with other surrounding coemunitioo about the possible use or rental of a "snorkel" truck for the Fire Department should tho City over nood one. - B - 00 C� Council Minutes - 10/24/83 Other department heads rediscussed with the Council current project status' and other informational items to date. 15. Consideration of Settinq the Annual Salary Mcetinq. It was the consensus of the Council to hold a special meeting on Saturday morning at 7:30, October 29, 1983, to review with the City Administrator guidelines for establishing the 1984 salary ranges for salaried employees. Consideration of Holdinq a Public Hearin on the Issuance of Tax Increment Bonds - Metcalf and Larson Office Build inq. A mtion was made by Blonigen, seconded by Fair, and unanimously carroied to set November 14, 1983, as a date for the public hearing on a proposal to issue General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds in the amount of $32,000.00 for the Metcalf and Larson Office Building Proposal. 16. Payment of Bills. Motion was made by Maus, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously carried to approve the bills for the month of October as presented. Rick Molfstelloo Assistant Administrator - 9 0 I MI MUTES L� SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELW CITY COUNCIL October 29, 1983 - 8:00 A.M. Members Present: Arve Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Dan Blonigen, Ken Maus, and Jack Maxwell. Members Absent: Bone. A special meeting of the City Council was duly held on Saturday, October 29, 1983, at 8:00 A.M. in the City Hall. Members present were Grimsmo, Fair, Maus, Maxwell, and Blonigen. Members absent, none. Also present was City Administrator Eidem. Eidem initiated discussion explaining that the sole purpose of this special meeting was to develop a salary strategy for establishing 1984 salaries for nonunion personnel. Eidem explained that he hoped that he would be provided with guidelines for establishing employee salaries for the next year. lie stated that there were, in his opinion, various alternatives they could pursue. lie indicated that 1 one muti,od might. 1, to pruvrcie a perCcutdgc u1 d grobb Jr.11ar [!guru thatwould be assigned for basic salary adjustments and another figure, percentage or dollars, that could be utilized to award merit. r Couneilmember Blunigen utatod that he felt no raise was warranted for the employees in 1984. Ile stated that he thought the Public Works Department wan highly inefficient, and he had complaints about the length of coffee breaks and the amount of travel being done by the Public Works Director and Street Super i ntendenl. Eidem stated that with respect to Coffee breaks, the maintenance people were instructed to take their breaks at the garage rather than in Lilo public eye so as to avoid undue criticism. Mayor Grimsmo indicated that he had not roceived any of the complaints that Blonigen claimed he had rocoivod. Blonigen countered by saying that poople probably would not complain to the Mayor since the Mayor tended to defend the City workers. Couneilmembor Fair asked if Blonigen could supply documentation supporting his accusations of the alleged inefficiencies. Blonigen utatod that he did not need to supply documentation, that he watched it occur himuulf, and when ha wasn't home he had his wife observe the comings and goings at thu City garage. Eidem started to disagree with the allegations, but Blonigen acknowledged that there was this dis- agreement, and that he and Eidem had talked about thous differences on other occasions. FBI Council Minutes - 10/29/83 The rlayor requested the conversation be turned toward the projected percentage of inflation in the past year and in the coming year. Eidem reported that the wall Street Journal had stated that inflation for 1983 was currently at 3.99 and the economic fore- casters for major firms in the U.S. were projecting anywhere from 4.59 to 69 cost of living increase for 1984. Councilmember Maus indicated that since the City gave salary increases of 79 to 7.259 in 1983, when the inflation factor was only 3.9% to date, the City should adjust for that over accommodation this year and keep the salary adjustments more in line with the exact rate of inflation. When asked by the Mayor what his position was, Maxwell indicated that this being his first ycac on the Council, he didn't even know the current level of salaries. Eidem read through a list of the current salaries. Mayor Grimsmo indicated that it might be best to survey the individual Council members to determine what ideas they had in terms of a percentage increase. He suggested that depending on the range an acceptable average might be arrived at. lie indicated that he thought 59 was appropriate. Councilmember Fair indicated that she had originally thought 69 would be appropriate, but in light of some of the conversation she now felt 59 would be appropriate. Both 131ontgen and Maxwell felt that no increase was appropriate. Maus indicated that based on the actual cost of living projections, lie felt that somewhere in the 39 to 49 range would be adequate. Eidem stated that before a final determination was made, he would like some points specifically addressed and clarified. He indicated that if it was the consensus of the Council that the City was, indeed, run inefficiently then it is the manager that should be approached. Ile stated that he thought the operations ran fairly wall and that the inefficiencies were not as significant as alleged, but admitted that his particular theory of management (theory Y S 2) may differ substantially from any other theory of management Councilmembor Blonigen may advocate. Ile went on to state that if his method of management was not producing the desired reaults and that was an opinion that was unanimous with the Council, then it would-be in the Council 'a boot intorest to look for a manager who would do proeiaoly what they wished. Directing the conversation back to the salary topic specifically, Eidem requested that the coiling that in sot by the Council lie an actual ceiling as opposed to an artificial ceiling. Ile informed the Council that the $360 annual insurance escrow that had been approved for each employee, at an earlier Council meeting had been omitted duo to a ruling of the Attorney General. (�D Council Minutes - 10/29/83 He explained that this benefit, even though approved by the Council, j could not be provided for the employee. He finally requested clarification as to whether or not he should include himself in the salary increase pool or if he should plan to negotiate separately. Councilmember Maus indicated that he should exclude himself to avoid any accusations that increases were lessened for other employees so that he could give himself a greater increase. Mayor Grimsmo again asked for everybody's determination of an appropriate increase. He did indicate that averaging would not work and, as such, he would call for a motion. He stated that based on tenure and performance lie still favored the 5% range. Councilmember Fair indicated that she still preferred the 5% range. Blonigen maintained his position that no increase, was warranted. when asked if he felt that office and clerical staff also did not deserve an increase, Blonigen responded that lie thought the office personnel were doing a fine job but that it didn't seem fair to grant an increase to some employees but not an increase to the others since their operation, in his opinion, did not warrant an increase. Maxwell stated that he felt the City employees as such were overpaid in comparison to his employees and himself, and that lie would not be proposing much of an increase for his employees in the upcoming year. Maus indicated that the 3 and a fraction percent to 4% still seemed appropriate. Motion by Maxwell, seconded by Maus, to increase employee salarioa for /l 1984 by 3%. voting in favor, Maxwell, Maus, Fair, Grimsmo. ~ Voting in opposition: Blonigen. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned by the Mayor. omau A. Eidem City Administrator 0 Council Agenda - 11/14/83 4. Public Hearinq - Adoption of Assessment Roll on 82-2 Improvement Project - Meadow Oak Subdivision. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At the October 11 Council meeting, City Engineer John Badalich presented a report on the proposed assessments for 82-2 Improvement Project for the Meadow Oak Subdivision. Although the project is not yet 100% complete, it has always been our intention to adopt the assessment rolls for this project for collection starting in 1984. The estimated total project cost for the construction, indirect and other costs has been estimated at $1,008,252.68. Of this amount, $702,104 is being proposed to be assessed to the Meadow Oak Subdivision with $162,978 proposed to be assessed for thewater mainrunning through Jim Boyle's property from Oakwood Industrial Park to Meadow Oak Development. The balance of $143,171 is the cost of oversizing, etc. for the water main and will be placed on ad valorem taxes. The report presented by Mr. Badalich at the October 11 meeting summarized how the assessments were being proposed for the develop- ment. Some of the unplatted outlets within the Meadow Oak Subdivision were proposed to receive assessments for a portion of the sanitary sewer lift station coat, storm sewer improvements, and portions of the railroad crooning cost. The actual platted areas consisting of the Meadow Oak Estates and Meadow Oak Second Addition were proposed to receive the largest bulk of the assess- ments, as these are the areas first platted and now being developed. A meeting with the City Engineer, Bob Bemboom and Dickman Knutson of Ultra Homes, and City staff to review the proposed assessment rollo prior to the public hearing was hold. Mr. Knutson and Mr. Bembocm wore not in agreement with how the assessments were being proposed, and they wanted to have portions of the assessments spread over a larger area to keep their costs in lino with their original projections. Basically, the assessment rolls were prepared by John Badalich using the assumption that the 33 lots within Meadow Oak Estates and the 39 lots within the Meadow Oak Second Addition ware the primary lata to receive benefits from the City's improvements; and as a result, these were tho lots proposed to receive the largest assessment. Mr. Knutson indicated that with the proposed assessment of over $3,000 for each lot in Meadow Oak Second Addition by tho City added to eho private construction done by Ultra Items, Inc., would result in their first development having asuasamento in excess of $11,000 per lot, which they felt was oxcessive. - 1 - Council Agenda - 11/14/83 (, Their initial request was to spread equally the assessments for sewer, water, and streets over 310 lots proposed in the future in out lots G, H, I, and J. The City staff and City Engineer felt this request may be unreasonable in that the improvements under this construction project were not actually abutting out lots G, H, I, and J; and we felt the City would have a hard time justifying benefit to these outlots. After further discussion at the meeting, Ultra Homes indicated that their next subdivision plat would be for outlot G consisting of 15 lots. They indicated they would be planning on getting approval of this final plat for this outlot prior to the end of the year and requested that the City consider applying a portion of the assessments from the Meadow Oak Second Addition proposal to outlot G to make the assessments more equal throughout their manufactured home project site. Ultra Homes still felt that all 310 potential lots within outlota G, 11, I, and J along with the Meadow Oak Second Addition would receive benefit from the City's improvements but were willing to agree to have all of the assessments for outlots G, H, I, and J placed against the 15 proposed lots in outlot G. which should be developed and built during the 1984 season. Since a final plat has been submitted to us for review and is being tentatively scheduled for Council approval in December, the City staff fools this is a reasonable alternative and justifiable. As you will note in the references from Ultra Romeo, they also requested that approximately $53,000 in assessments proposed for the Meadow Oak Estates lots be shifted to portions of outlets C and D. It is the City staff recommendation that the proposed assessments for Meadow Oak Estates remain as originally calculated by the City Engineer due to the fact that outlota C and D are not currently being proposed for development and are not yet platted. Although Ultra Homes may have justification for asking that the aosessmente be spread over a larger area to keep their costs down during the early stages of the development, it in the staff's opinion that shifting large amounta of assessments to undeveloped out lots which aro not in the near future (wing planned for development is hard to justify. Since this is a public hearing, I am sure that Mr. Iiemboom or Mr. Knutson will be present at the Council meeting to prosont their views on why they would like to eco name of the aaaasaments spread to the outlota. It appears that the City by agreeing to ravine the - 2 - Council Agenda - 11/14/83 assessments for their manufactured home sites and place larger amounts against outlot G, which is being proposed for platting before the end of the year, has already compromised in an agreeable manner. As you can see from the assessment breakdown schedules, portions of the cost for the railroad crossings, storm sewer im- provements, and lift station cost have already been spread to all of the outlots within the entire Meadow Oak Subdivision. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Upon the closing of the public hearing, you may: 1. Adopt a resolution adopting the assessment rolls as originally prepared by the City Engineer. This, in essence, assesses only the property currently platted and receiving benefit from the improvements. 2. Adopt the assessment roll as modified. This alternate assessment roll would leave the Meadow Oak Estates as originally proposed with portions of the Meadow Oak Second Addition assessments being spread over outlot G, which is being planned to be developed as their next phase. 3. Adopt the assessment roll entirely as requested by Ultra Homes, Inc. This would be similar to their raquest datod NOvamber 1, 1783, for both modifications to the Meadow Oak Estates a sseeaments and the Meadow Oak Second Addition assessmonts. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Aa noted previously, it is the staff's recommendation that the original assessment roll be modified shifting approximately $87,000 from the 39 Meadow Oak Second Addition lots to outlot G, their next development phase. After a determination is mado on how the asocaomento will be pro -rated, a r000lution should also indicate the length of the assessment roll and the interest rate that will apply. As you may recall, it has Mon our initial intent to asseso thio project over a 10 year period of time except for the water main aseesement through the commercial industrial arca owned by Jim Boyle. At the time t ho project was approved, Mr. Boyle requested a doforrment on thio assossmont for a period of one year. Our current assessment ordinance indieatoo that the interest rate charged on asoosomento shall he at loast 1i% over the roto paid on the bondo issued to finance the improvomenta. Tho not iiitoroot rate on the Council Agenda - 11/1.4/83 bonds sold for this project was 7.875%, and it is recommended that the interest rate for the 10 year assessment be set at between 958 and 958. If the Council approves the assessment modification spreading assessments to outlet G, Meadow Oak Third Addition, the developers should be informed that no additional out lots will be allowed to be developed or final plats approved until at least two-thirds or 10 lots have been occupied in outlet G. This condition of approval would help protect the City's interest in receiving timely assessment payoffs should the developers wish to plat and market other outlots which may have lower assessments or improvement costs attached to them. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of resolution for adoption of assessment roll; copy of original itemized assessment breakdown presented previously by John Badalich; copies of Ultra homes proposed modification; copy of staff's recommended assessment breakdown. - 4 - RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT 82-2 RESOLUTION 1983 085 WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given an required by law, the Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for the improvement of Meadow Oak Subdivision by the construction of sewer construction lines, water distribution lines, streets, curb and gutter, and other appurtenant facilities. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE City Council of Monticello, Minnesota: 1. Such proposed assessment, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands nand therein, and each tract of land therein included 1s hereby found to be benefited by the im- provement in the amount of the assessment levied againat it. Such asooesmont shall be payable in equal annual in- stallmen to extending over a period of ten (10) years, the fir3 t of the installments to bo payable on or before the first Monday in January, 1985, and shall bear intereut rate of % annum from the dato of the adoption of this ascessmont resolution. To Lila first installment shall be added interest on the ontire assessment from the date of Lliin ro3olution until December 31, 1984. To each subsequent installment when duu shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. 3. The aasonamonts against Parcol'a 0155011-00211, 155011-000101 155011-000111 and 155011-000171 ahall be deferred for (1) year with interest added to the original assessment amount at the rate of % from the data of this resolution until December 31, 1984. The first installment to be payable an or before tho first Monday in January, 1986, in equal annual installments extending over nine (9) y^.ars. To each subacquent inetallmont when duo shall be added ... orust for one year on all unpaid installments. Resolution 1983 #85 Page Two The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the City Treasurer, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of this resolution} and he may, at any time thereafter, pay to the City Treasurer the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31st of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15th or interest will he charged through December 31st of the next succeeding year. 5. The City Administrator shall forthwith transmit a certi- fied duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists of the County, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. Adopted by the City Council on this 10th day of November, 1963. ATTEST: Thomas A. Bidem City Administrator Arve A. Grimamo, Mayor NO - pRl6ru.4C- PRoPosh4- oy ITE111IEDASSES4s036T BAEat.lsON i NG R - 6se .q a 3 l TABIE 540. 11 Store Slrtrl Total Total Saeilary Sanitary Stem Sever Slam 5ipns Asstssntet Asstslnrn4 parcel No. or St- Stuer Yat@main Serer Er t c u I ire Satr and Ari bold per hr DoscripIicm Lots Labral _............---•--....-...............----•-•-----..................------..................................... General Lsteral Lateral Si 1@1 Gtwal Strtt!s Ligahlp Crossm9i Lot parcel ...............-...._ ----------------... Ntador Oil Estates 33 2400.24 267,54 2153.60 1396.61 368.34 88.80 5)48.48 13.8E 55.31 12007.80 397061.40 Ntador Oak 2nd Add.Ooa 39 1031.95 267.54 673.31 183.16 0.00 88.80 744.10 26.72 55.31 3020.89117PIA.71 Du IIa1 C 26 267.50 368.34 88.60 55.31 779,99 20279,24 Du 1101 D 17 267.54 368.34 68.60 55.31 779.99 13259.83 Ou11a1 6 15 267.34 88.80 55.31 411.65 6174.75 OutIat N 29 267.54 88. Be 55.31 411.65 11937.05 OutIat 1 216 267.54 08.60 55.31 411.65 88916.40 DotIat J II 26734 88.80 55.31 411.65 4528.15 OuIIat 11 29 267.54 267.54 7758.66 Ou flat L 24 267.51 267.54 6470.96 OuItat N 17 267.54 767.54 4548.18 OuIIat N 27 267.51 267.54 7223.59 OutIat 0 24 267.54 267.54 64211,96 Oullot P 29 267.51 247.54 7750,66 Auditor's Subdi eri%ion 155.011-000.211 31640.02 37640.07 Auditor's luEdi •inion 155.011-001-101 155.011-000.111 155.011-001.171 ._..._.__...-------• 125337,99 125337.99 i00JER TOTAL01 •....................--...---......---•--..._...--------•---.....-------•----...-----...----------------.._....... 119457.97 143401.11 259355.89 53731.37 77903,14 ............................................................ 34276.80 205519,74 1500.12 21349,66 065082.13 865082.03 usTTOs+ie Toner rnrre +e ,n .r,. ne v r,,rr O (tL77PR )joPhES PRoPOS44. 1ILM12E0ASSESwC711 8eEAFT". stat V 0 o ►. Le Ate Q' TAFLE 740. II Sl ora Slrrrl Total told Sa--tar. Sani lar. Store Smer Slone S. 9n Assessernl ASSrssAr•• ra.cel No. oa Sro.r S"" Ua 4renn Soup, (,.cut wr Seam and Rai grad D" b, Description Lots Labral U-61 Labral Lateral Sans General Sarrets Lighting Cossings LnI parcel ............ .... .... ...... ...... ......•---•-................-•-••--^----...--•-••-----..... .-... --......•--..... ..... ... neadw Oat Estates 33 W&O-73 767.54 1848.98 1/11.68 368.36 88.60 4S91.1S 13.ea 55.1I rA,�++cr s4e,us> • r+ nrsdw oil 2nd Add,l.on 39 IL9.87 267.54 56.67 Ll.o4 0.00 88.60 9i. 4) 26.77 55.31 141.51 ze,9 9. M. Dutlol C 26 L(.O.rr 267.56 111.+8 In.a,r 368.36 86.60 r80.s9 55.31 teo6.sa Sl, a9.aAt. OuI10t 0 17 ca.e.rr 267,54 -&ansa .i..6/ 368.36 88.60 fee. s1 55.?I Z.04. S& 34,110.84 Oullot 6 IS 1.346.5& 267.54 1413.10 4a4. -so 66.00 55.31 (.338.0/ 9S,o'7o.30 Oullot N 29 767.54 88.80 55.31 411.65 11237,65 Outlet 1 216 267.54 88.80 55.31 411.65 88716.40 Outlet J II 267.54 88.00 55.31 411.55 6578.15 Oullot s 29 267.54 267.51 7758.66 Oullol l 24 267.54 767.54 6470.06 Oullol N 17 267.54 767.54 4548.18 Outlet N 27 267.54 267.54 7723.50 Dullol 0 24 267.54 767.54 6470.96 Oudot 9 29 267.54 767.54 7758.66 Auditor's Subdivision 155.011.600-211 37640.07 37440.02 Auditor's Subdivision 155-011.000-101 155.111.000-111 ISS•011.00D-1 )I 125337.90 125337.90 ....._._ ._----_----------------------------------------- --------- --- ---- -------------- ------------------------------ ------------ YBOJECI TOTALS: 119453.97 143401.44 258355.69 53231.37 27993.64 34276.00 70$511.74 1500.12 21349.66 0650p2.63 865002.03 /� --- - - cu�fra 910 mes, ne. -� "Tomorrow's Homes Today" November 1, 1983 Mr. Tom Eidem. City Mar.ager City Of Monticello Monticello. Minnesota Subjects Modification of Aeeeeement Roll Dear Tom; /r I- Aa we discussed on Monday, we have prepared a revision to the proposed aseesement against Meadow Oak Property for your consideration: _1 Meadow -Oak F.etatee Modifications (Alternate Assessment Executive IMS -7` L Late) We eek that the assessments be modified with the transfer of approximately $53,000.00 from the thirty three (33) Executive Lots to',1 Outlots C and D. This request is based on Outlot A ( future Parke) having i efequivalant of eleven (11) lots fronting and benefitting from the Dtllity and street construction on Meadow Oak Ave. Based on fourty'todr(yb)( !' 1 benefitting lots, (the existing 33 plus 11) we have computed-the'�aeees V mento for sanitary sewer pp1q'be 11800.18 per unit. We then transferred,thp\ - J'' :Proved �iesslsn6for the ele4enjots IiOutlei A equally with the sevalty, SW (1 Executive Lotd., Tbis transfer adjusts the Sanitary Aseessmsd0 fdr „the'.33 late in Meadow Oak Estates to oe $2060.73 and the per lot seassemen for Outlot C h D to per $260.55• We then made t:,e following adjustments fai Yater, Stores Sewer, and Street@ (as shown on the attached Exhibit 8). We believe that this transfer is necessary to make the sales price of the lots eompatetive. The savings in assesements will be a direct saving to these future Monticello home owners. 3030 Harbor Lane • Plymoutk MN 65441 • 612.668.7703 • r---�/ 4 r (2) Based on the current Richard Knutson Contract, we have computed the necessary development expense remaining for grading, utilities, eng- ineering, and streets in Outlet C a D as follows: Per Lot Revised Remaining n Assessment Improvements Total Meadow Oak Estates (33) 10,495.00 ------ $10,495.00 Outlet c (26) 2,007.00 4,400.00 6,407.00•<. Outlot D (17) 2.007.00 5.900.00 7,907.00 a� We note that Outlet D will be the next Phase platted, followed b7 Outlot C and that we could sell lots in Outlet C at approximately 14.000.00" lees than in Meadow Oak Estates. Meadow Oak 2nd Addition Modifications (Alternate Assessment A) We are submitting at this time the final plat of Meadow Oak 3rd Addition (Outlet 0) 1 i for approval and at the came time requesting that the proposed assessment Y rolls for the manufactured home be modified. .1 Based on the proposed Alternate Assessment the coat of developing Meadow Oak 2nd and 3rd Additione would be an followst .'r : Alternate Private } AnmRaamont Construction ote Meadow OaM 2nd Addition 742.00 8393.00 $913`.•00 Meadow Oak 3rd Addition 5338.00 2530.00 8868.W � ' . w We have based this assessment on 310 Unite receiving benefitet Outlots 0, r� tt H, I, J and the 39 lots in Meadow Oak Addition. Then placing all the assess- ment for lateral and streets from Outlets 0, 11, I, and J on Outlet 0 wh.el- should be developed and built on during the 1984 season. t We believe that this revised assessment is in the best interest of both '. the City of Monticello and Ultra Homes. It attempts to be eoMetstiva with - s the coat of land to the public and allow the speed up of pays =% on the .Jt S assessments to the City. We would like to meet with you at your convenience to discuss these modificatione. Thank You. ULTRA HONES, INC. Ll��ne.. C/ nSCy+LG4'� Dickman C. Knutson DCK/s rb 0 IIEA12ED4SSESFIENtARE41:D011 A Executive Loi$ TnOLE 110. 11 \ SID SI,r.l 10141 total Sanitary Sanitar7 ilnrn 5ru•, Slarn Srgns 455•55'rW r.tt•95n.n1 ' 9arcrl lip. 01 Shirr Swrr ' ' RalRoain Truer E..culwr Slurr and Paill., p•r b+ Description Lott Lateral General Lateral LAI -W ;.I's G•nn 41 S!nr It LipA1i.9 cro,.9% 1.91 P4r..1 •--.._•......................•..........•....................._.................._..__............._........................ 1!.adrra Oat E.lalet 33 4 31 261.56 ,gl M., , 36ft.34 8p.p0 13.94 '5.31 t3�?, ?+ (1040.71) (1841.V) 11".68) (4591.1 f) M!adti Oak (1D,494.L521.13) ',d acu,lian 39 1031.95 261.5/ di3.?I Ip3.16 0.09 58.90 744.0 ?6.%2 55.31 P',Mc !!•7'141.%: 0•,4101 ( 26 (26e.ti5) 247.54 (253.79) (!IS1.61� )A@. 3j (57169.52) E2.00 (S$p.S9) 55.71 � ?941"•.:� oullot D 17 (266-55) 262.56 253.7 8) IS1.61) 36 (2006.5 2 �410.84) � 9.341 PAPP (580.59 55.31 1" !?251.!?r Outlet G 15 267.54 A9.p0 55.31 41!.!5 !1%4.'S Ou l lot N 29 167.54 A9.p1 55.3! 411.65 !1'37.05 Ou I1 at 1 216 261.51 A?.AV 55.21 4!I.!`• A:%i 6.4? Out to, 1 11 16:.54 99.80 55.31 41!.55 4529." Ou!101 k 19 77.54 267.54 1i"•„ Dutlot L 24 161.51 2e;.:•4 6420.9; Dutlol n 17 267.54 - 167.541 45?c.19 Oullol N 27 267.54 ( Ou11at 0 24 267.51 ?6',54 0.1p 1! DoIIaI P 29 267.51 211.`.4 ::`S.(! 4011or'1 Subdivision 155.011.000.211 3-640.01 3 ,•,8,+? 11„ditor'% Subdivision 155.011.900.101 1511.011.000 -Ill 155.011.000.171 1253)7.90 115?31.45 ........................................................................................................................................................ PR0.11CI T014LS: 119457.9/ 163401.44 250355.09 53221.37 7X993.01 14116.10 205519.11 1500.12 21349.66 P65007.03 0650111.11) I6IIEp AIN IPllllr COSIS 10 40 p1l Op(M InrLS © „•,, ,, •. 1}erTiclf4? Ass MIT A :. cr + •, ITE71t2E0 ASSESS'iEM OREA110O11 A TABLE NO. 11 Slam SFr eel Total Total Staitarp Sabi Lary $Tom Seurr Stan Sires Assessment Atsrssneat Parcel 110• el Serer Swer Vatermain Swre Etrcvtive Serer orad Railroad per by Orstription tats talerai Generai lateral lateral Sites General $Freels do ting Crossings lot parcel --'-----'----- '---••__-'-.._..._.--'---__------------------'--'•--_...__..•-----_..'--_..__...._._..-----_-__...._ _--.. --- Meadow Oat Estates 33 2411.24 267.54 2153.60 1396.61 360.34 88.80 5348.48 13.68 55.31 12092.60 397062.40 Neadou Oat 129.83 $6.67 13.04 93.11 TOM 28, 919. 16 Nd Addi I ias 39 0#05 267.54 6U 31 R:$m 8.08 88.88 id#8 26.72 55.31 91 if t 3Ta # Ootlot C 26 267.54 368.34 81.80 55.31 779,99 20279.74 Onllot 0 17 267.54 368.34 88,80 55.31 777.77 13257.63 63T8.00 44 *TO. 30 Orttot 6 Is vm,sz 267.54 1475.211 4100 11.01 1411.27 55.31 Oro 7 Oullot N 21 267.54 11.01 55.31 411.65 11937.85 0011at 1 216 267.54 11.11 55.31 411.65 88916.41 hel141 J 11 267.54 11.!11 55.31 411.45 4571.15 OvtIot K 29 267.54 247.54 7758.66 Oudot L 24 267.54 247.54 6420.96 Outtot N 17 267.54 267.54 4541.11 Oudot it 27 267.54 267.51 7223.51 Ovllot 0 24 247.54 247.51 4421.94 Oullot P 29 261.54 247,54 7158.64 Auditor's Subdivision 155-111-111.211 37641.12 )7641.02 Auditor's Svbdtvisioa 155-411-111-111 155 -111 -111 -III 155 -Sit -111-171 125337.91 1151117, to •__ROJECI_•._..TOY..AE..L .....................I.H^4Ad-..--) 44231 .)33. ._H.. _. 53J11 37 ----- --...---.3431171-11... 11 71_........_.....___.......__.»_... ..._._ _ �14)111..274►7,11 ?13334. 1334.11 21314.14 If3112,111fS1IJ.�7 tATErrAIN TIINe r1KTS 10 M VM " Met Parcel Dew -pt ion --------- "'Ida. CAP Wiles Meador Dap 2nd Add - tion Oullot E Oullot D Oullol 6 Oudot 4 putlol I Oullot J DOW 4 Oullot l Oullot N Oullot N Oullot O Outlot Audilor'S Subdivision 155-011-000.711 Auditor'% Subdivision 155-011-000.101 155-011-000-111 155-011-000-171 900JEC7 TBTALSI I I Ell i HD A$iE "41U0, FP*V011 I RECOMM 90VD.}T-,en/ I'\ 74BLE ND. II Sl ore Street TOM Total Sanitary Sao Iar. Store Serpr Slone S,9ns Assessaeel ASM91W N0. 01 Serer Serer Ye Urea.n Sera En(u1.ue Sear and Yeilroed Orr Or Lois lateral General I.aW O lateral Sits Grew al Streets 0914tin9 LrOSSi49s lot parcel 33 2600.24 267.56 2153.60 1396.61 368.34 88.80 5348.49 13.88 55.31 12002.60 307067.40 39 !19.93 267.56 Y4.017 ;•9M 0.00 88.80 91.61 26.72 55.)1 7,1.671 19,110.11. 26 267.56 368.34 88.80 35.31 779.79 20279.74 17 267.56 360.34 88.80 55.31 779.99 13259.83 15 a,s4s.ic 267.54 &475.18 414•!0 08.80 10 91. i7 55.31 1.558.0L 9S,a io.3o 29 267.$4 00.80 55.31 411.65 11937.85 216 267.54 Be." 55.31 411.65 08916.40 II 267.54 80.80 55.31 411.55 4578.15 29 267.54 267.54 7758.66 24 267.54 767.54 6420.96 17 267.56 267.54 4540.19 27 267.56 267.54 7773.58 26 267.36 20.54 6120.96 29 767.54 767.54 7758.66 31640.07 37440.07 IM37.90 173337.90 119653.97 163601.46 250355.09 53231.37 27993.04 36776.00 205319.76 1500.12 21349.66 065002.03 065082.03 Council Agenda - 11/14/83 5. Public blearing - Consideration of Issuinq IRB's — Fulfillment Systems, Inc. (T. E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At the September 26, 1983, City Council meeting you adopted a resolution granting concept approval to Fulfillment Systems' proposal to expand within the City limits and utilize Industrial Revenue Bonds, tax increment financing, and UDAG funding. As I explained at that time, that resolution was necessary for our UDAG application. At the October 24 meeting you adopted a resolution setting a public hearing for the consideration of a project by Fulfillment Systems for the issuance of Industrial Revenue Bonds. The activity on the 14th is to hold the public hearing on behalf of Fulfillment Systems' proposal and adopt a resolution granting preliminary approval to the project and authorizing submittal of a formal application to the Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development. This entire step is one of formality that is required under the Statute. Since the last meeting when the public hearing was set, I have received a call from Washington D.C. notifying us that our UDAG application had been denied for this funding cycle. Virginia Hellman of the HUD office in Washington D.C. explained that our application was recommended by her committee for funding but that Secretary Pierce following the strict interprotation of the regulations denied our proposal because we uulmiLted an application during our expiration grace period. Fa. Hollman also pointed out that Minnesota only received one grant, Indiana and Illinois received none, and some Midwest states were not even considered for final funding. The HUD office in Washington D.C. has requested that we leave our application active in their office and have it resubmitted for the January lat funding cycle. 1 talked with Jack Peach, President of Fulfillment Systems, and provided him with this some information. He indicated that because they will be reviewing our application again as early as January, they ars very comfortable to continuo our pursuit of UDAG funding rather than otart searching for alternate locations. Since FSI is willing to proceed through the January funding cycle, Holmes and Graven rocomnended that the City continue with its public hearing and its first resolution of preliminary approval. Holmes and Graven indicated that this uimply authorizes the preparation of the necessary paperwork when and if we got a confirmation of UDAG funding. Essentially what will happen will be tho resolution of preliminary approval will be adoptod, the application will be submitted to the Stato, and than the entire project will be put - 5 - Council Agenda - 11/14/83 on the back burner until January. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Adopt the resolution granting preliminary approval and authorizing submittal to the State. This dispenses with this entire legal requirement so that, in the event that HUD funding is secured in January, we may proceed immediately with the issuance of the IRB's. 2. Do not adopt the resolution of preliminary approval. This basically kills the project regardless of UDAG funding. If the project does not warrant preliminary approval then it would not be carried any further. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the hearing be held and the resolution be adopted so that the forms may be submitted to the State and we thus, would be prepared to act upon notification that UDAG funding had been secured. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the resolution for enactment. - 6 - RESOLUTION NO. 1983 086 RESOLUTION GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO A PROJECT UNDER THE MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT, REFERRING THE PROPOSAL TO THE MINNESOTA ENERGY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR APPROVAL, AND AUTHORIZING PREPARATION OF NECESSARY DOCU MENTS 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 as 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 economic deterioration of such areas to the point where the process can be reversed only by total redevelopment through the use of local, state and 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 movement 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 of 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 and 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 tete capital cost of the Project is available at such costs of J 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 issuance of the revenue bonds for such purpose and in such amount approved, 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 Minnesota Statutes, Section 474.01, Subdivision 7a, the Mayor of the Citv 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 Minnesota Energy and Economic Development Authority. 9. The law firm of Holmes h 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. o 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. Thomos A. Eidr_m City Administrator rt L A,rve A. Grimsmo, Mayor 5() Council Agenda - 11/14/83 6. Public Hearinq - Consideration of Tax Increment Bonds - Metcalf and Larson. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: It is the recommendation of Holmes and Graven that the City Council issue the $32,000 Tax Increment Finance Bonds for Metcalf and Larson on behalf of the HRA, rather than the HRA issuing their own bonds. Because this bond will be a general obligation bond wherein the developer will guarantee the total proceeds, this bond ought be issued by the City Council. They explained to me that the HRA can more easily issue bonds in an instance where the bond is not a G.O. but a revenue bond. Because we wish to commit Metcalf and Larson to a guarantee of repayment of these bonds, the type of bonds would not qualify as a revenue bond under the IRS Code of 1954. Thus, although you have already hold a public hearing on the Tax Increment District and have passed a resolution approving said District, you are still required by law to hold this public hearing on the issuance of the bonds and adopt the resolution authorizing the placement of the bonds. The bonds will be placed with Citizen State Bank of Big Lake with a maturity schedule of 14 years at an interest rate of 90. The tax increment generated annually from the construction of the new Metcalf and Larson building will pay the debt payment annually. In any year that the increment may fall Lulow thu required payment, Metcalf and Larson will be required to pay to the City the difference so that no money will come out of the City Treasury to retire these bonds. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve the resolution authorizing the placement of $32,000 in Tax Increment Finance Bonds. The placement of this note will allow the City/HRA to purchase the David Capps property, demoliah tho existing structure, and sell the property to the Metcalf and L.aroon project for final development. 2. Do not adopt the resolution. I do not consider thio to be a real alternative in no far as the IIRA has already authorized tho sale of the bonds and approved the project and executed a development agreement with the developer. Also, the City Council has approved the District and the project and the HRA's deciuion. -7- Council Agenda - 11/14/83 C- STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the resolution authorizing the placement of $32,000 in Tax Increment Finance General Obligation Bonds. D- SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the resolution for adoption. wjz- & 'awakab CZ -a- Council Agenda - 11/14/83 7. Mayor Update - Reconstruction of Highway 25 and Bridqe - Minnesota Department of Transportation. (T.E.) The Mayor will be giving an update regarding the status of the reconstruction of T.H. 25 and bridge by Minnesota Department of Transportation. - 9 - Council Agenda - 11/14/83 8. Consideration of Wine Ordinance. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Attached is a copy of a proposed Ordinance licensing on -sale of wine. While your motion of October 24 authorized the preparation of a combination wine license, what has been structured is a wine license with a combination option near the end. The Ordinance has been reviewed by Gary Pringle and has been found to be suitable for adoption. One item that you may wish to turn your attention to is the period of time an applicant must be in business before application can be made as stipulated in section 3-12-8 Subd. 2. 1 took the 60 days from the St. Cloud sample ordinance. The rationale behind this is that a wine license must go only to a restaurant. This provision makes certain that an applicant actually opens and operates a restaurant rather than submitting a proposal that it will be a restaurant and then never actually develops it as such. Minnesota Statute requires that an ordinance be publicly read at least one time prior to adoption. This public reading need not be a detailed presentation of the entire ordinance but may be a summary of each section's content. If the ordinance is adopted, it will not become effective until publication. With respect to publication of this ordinance and the other ordinances you will consider, it is now permissable by State law to publish a summary of the ordinance rather than the entire ordinance in detail. Rowaver, to publish such a summary requires authorization by the City Council. In order to save some money on what I think aro relatively non-controvorsial ordinances, I think we should consider summary publication. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Adopt the ordinance as written, order publication. Once enactod this will allow Floyd Kruse, the owner of Dino's Doli, to make application for the wino license. As you recall, it was his request that the City investigate such a license in tho first plata. 2. Do not adopt the ordinance. This will leave our ordinances precisely no they aro today and will only allow for the sale of wine on-oalo under the provision of an intoxicating liquor license. 3. Refer the ordinance back to the City Attorney for further refinements. If there are suctions that you are dissatisfied with or appear to be unworkable, the ordinance should then be sent back for ro- writing. ,j - 10 - Council Agenda - 11/14/83 C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the adoption and publication of the ordinance as written. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the ordinance for adoption. ORDINANCE NO. 128 TITLE 3, CHAPTER 12 On -Sale Wine Licenses Section 3-12-1. Provisions of State law Adopted. The provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 340, relating to the consumption and sale of intoxicating liquor are adopted and made a part of this ordinance as if set out in full. Section 3-12-2. Wine Licenses. An on -sale wine license authorizes the sale of wine not exceeding 14 percent alcohol by volume, for consumption on the licensed premises only, in conjunction with the sale of food. An on -sale wine license may be issued only to a restaurant having facilities for seating not fewer than 25 guests at one time. For purposes of this ordinance, a restaurant means an establishment, under the control of a single proprietor or manager, having 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 questa:. Section 3-12-3. License Required for On -Sale of wine. No person shall sell any wine not exceeding 146 by alcohol by the glass without an on -sale wine license, as provided herein, or an on -sale intoxicating liquor license, as provided in Title 3, Chapter 2 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Monticello. Section 3-12-4. Application to[ License. Subd. 1. Form. livery application for on-oale wine license shall state name of the applicant, his ago, representations as to his character, with such references as the council may zequire, his citizenship, Cha restaurant in connection with which the proposed licensee will operate and its location, whothor the applicant is owner and operator of the restaurant, how long lie has been in the restaurant business at that place, and such other information as the council may require from time to time. In addition to containing such information, the application shall be in a form prescribed by the liquor control director and shall be verified and filed with the City ltdminiatrator. No person shall make a false statement in an application. Subd. 2. Bond. Each application for a license shall be accompanied by a surety bond or, in lieu thereof, cash or United States Government bonds of equivalent market value as provided in Minnesota Statutes, Saction 340.12. Such surety bond or other security shall be in the sum of $3,000 for an applicant for an "on-aalo" wine license. Subd. 3. Liability Insurance. Prior to the issuance of a wino license, the applicant shall file with the City Administrator a liability insurance policy in the amount of $10,000 coverage for one person and $20,000 coverage - 1 - for more than one person and shall comply with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 340.12 relating to liability insurance policies. If a liability insurance policy is made subject to all the conditions of a bond under that statute, the policy may be accepted by the council in lieu of the bond required under Subd. 2. Subd. 4. Approval of Security. The security offered under Subds. 2 or 3 shall be approved by the city council and the state liquor control director. Surety bonds and liability insurance policies shall be approved as to form by the city attorney. operation of a licensed business without having on file with the city at all times effective security as required in Subds. 2 or 3 is a cause for revocation of the license. Section 3-12-5. License Fees. Subd. 1. Amount. The annual fee for a wine license shall be in the amount duly established by the council from time to time. Subd. 2. Payment. Each application for a wine license shall be accompanied by a receipt from the city treasurer for payment in full of the license fee. All fees shall be paid into the general fund. If an application for a license is rejected, tlw treasurer shall refund the amount due. Subd. 3. Term. Each license shall be issued for a period of one year. Every license shall expire on the last day of June. Subd. 4. Hetundo. No refund of any fee shall lx: made except ae uULhCr!Zed by statute. Section 3-12-6. Grantinq of Licenses. Subd. 1. Investigation and Issuance. The city council shall investigate all facto set out in the application. Opportunity shall be given to any person to be heard for or against the granting of the license. After the investigation and hearing, the council shall, in its discretion, grant or [erupt) the application. No wine license shall become effective until it, together with the security furnished by the applicant, has been approved by the stato liquor control director. Subd. 2. Person and Promises Licensedi Tranufor. Each license shall be issued only to the applicant and for the premiaeo described in tho application. No license may be transferred to another person or place without city council approval. Any transfer of stock of a corporate licensee is deemed a transfer of the license and a transfer of stock without prior council approval is a ground for revocation of the liconso. S�:ction 3-12-7. Persons Ineligible for License. No wine license shall bo granted to any person mado ineligible for such a license by state law. - 2 - ON Section 3-12-8. Places Ineligible for License. Subd. 1. General Prohibition. No vine license shall be issued for any restaurant ineligible for such a license under State law. Subd. 2. Time in Business. No license shall be issued to any restaurant until it has been in operation continuously for at least sixty (60) day n. Subd. 3. Delinquent Taxes and Charges. No license shall be granted for operation on any premises on which taxes, assessments, or other financial claims of the city are delinquent and unpaid. Section 3-12-9. Conditions of License. Subd. 1. In general. Every license is subject to the conditions in the following subdivisions and all other provisiuns of this ordinance and of oiler applicable ordinance, state law or regulation. Subd. 2. Licensee's Responsibility. Every licensee is responsible for the conduct of his place of business and the conditions of sobriety and order in it. The act of any employee on the licensed premises authorized to sell intoxicating liquor there is deemed the act of the licensee as well, and the licensee shall lie liable to all penalties provided by this ordinance and the law equally with Lite employee. Subd. 3. Inspections. Every licensee shall allow any peace officer, health otiicer, or pruparly dusignateu officer or employee of the city to entor, inspect, and search the premises of the licensee during business hours without a warrant. Subd. 4. Display Durinq Prohibited Hours. No licensee shall display wine to the public during hours when the sale of wine is prohibited. Subd. 5. Federal Stamps. No licenoce shall possess a federal wholesale liquor dealers special tax stamp or a federal gambling stamp. Section 3-12-10. Hours of Sale. No sale of wino under this license shall be made: S A n.:o-wy, (a) Between 1:00 a.m, and 8:00 a.m. on any day Tuesday through --A-µ (b) Between midnight Sunday and 8:00 a.m. Monday. (c) Between 1:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Lite day of any state wide cluction. (d) ,'. eo - ....• Lei _'4 .JVo-J 5„_,1..7 Section 3-12-11. Combination Wino/3.2 Boor On -Salo Option. Provided that an applicant moots or exceeds the requirements of this Chapter and the requirements of Title 3, Chapter 1, which pertain to 3.2 Baer on -sale, said applicant may apply for a single license authorizing Lite sale and consumption of wine not to exceed 14% alcohol by volume and Wer not to exceed 3.2% alcohol by volume. Foes for said combination license uhall be according to a fee schedule adapted by the city council. 0 Section 3-12-12. Suspension and Revocation. The council may either suspend for not to exceed 60 days or revoke any on -sale wine license upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with any applicable statute, regulation or ordinance relating to intoxicating liquor, or any of the provisions of this ordinance. No suspension or revocation shall take effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 15.0418 to 15.0426. Section 3-12-13. Penalty. Any person violating any provision of this ordinance is guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be punished by a fine of not more than $500 or imprisonment for not more than 90 days. -4- 0 Council Agenda - 11/14/83 9. Consideration of Gambling Ordinance. (T. E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: This ordinance has been taken largely from the Filen Prairie Ordinance, which is considered a good sample ordinance. Please note under Section 3-11-4 that you are creating two types of licenses, single occasion and annual. It should also be noted that raffle has been included as a gambling activity. I also wish to point out that there is no exemption provision for non- profit organizations since the ordinance allows gambling only to be done by nonprofit organizations. Since only organizations can be licensed, to exempt them from the fee simply means that we are allowing the gambling to go on without any regulation or licensing thus, undermining the purpose of having the ordinance in the first place. I wish to also draw your attention to Section 3-11-14 entitled "Termination Provision." This section of Chapter 11 is what is called a sunset provision. It means that unless specific action is taken to extend the ordinance, this entire ordinance will become inactive on December 31, 1986. That is a legal way of saying we're going to try this ordinance out for three years. If near the expiration date we discover that there have been little or no problems with relation to gambling devices, then we simply amend the ordinance by deleting the sunset provision n:.d it bec=c_s a rerranant Fart of th. C-jc,, unless ac -Lien Lc uLu the ordinance is taken at some future date. The sunset provision is effective for this reason: If we discover that there are a number of problems with allowing gambling, then we know that the longest it can survive is three years. At that date every license expires and each applicant will be awaro of that in advance. If, however, you do not have a sunset provision and try to delete the ordinance you will be faced with all of the licensees coming in stating that it's part of our business, you're taking away our livelihood, etc. With the sunset provision they can have no complaints since it will be clear from the bagirning that all licenses expire at tho very latest Docember 31, 1986. B. AI.TEWIATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Adopt the ordinance as written. This will allow the American Legion, VFW, and other organizations to conduct the various gambling games as delineated in tho ordinance itself. Technically it also means that the senior citiznns, boy scouts, or whoever that wieli to have raffles must also tomo in to got a raffle licance. - 12 - Council Agenda - 11/14/93 2. Do not adopt the ordinance. This essentially states that gambling within the City of Monticello is illegal and we must take active steps to enforce the prohibition. We will have to contact the County Sheriff and encourage him to put a stop to all gambling efforts in the City. 3. Refer the ordinance back to the City Attorney for further refinement. Like the ordinance above, this is again an alternative if there are provisions that you see could be problematical or that you are uncomfortable with. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the adoption of the ordinance as written, leaving the sunset provision in place. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the ordinance suggested for adoption. �- - 13 - CHAPTER 11 ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 129 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA, AMENDING CITY CODE TITLE 3 BY ADDING THERETO CHAPTER 11 RELATING TO THE REGULATION, LICENSING AND USE OF GAMBLING DEVICES, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE TITLE 1, CHAPTERS 1 THROUGH 4 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: City Code Title 3 shall be and is amended by adding thereto Chapter 11 which reads as follows: Section 3-11-1. 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. Section 3-11-2 . Definitions. For the purposes of this ordinance the terms defined in this ordinance have the following meanings. (1) "Gambling devices" means those gambling devices known as -paddle wheels" or "tip boards", "pull tabs" (or "ticket jars"). or appardLus 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 punter or marker to indicate winning chances. (c) "Tip board" means ■ board, placard or device measuring at least twelve 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. (d) "Raf:fla" means a game in which a participant buys a ticket for a chance at s prise with the winner determined by random drawing to take place at a location 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 corneal a number or not of numbers or a symbol or not of symbols. A few of the numbers or symbols out of every not of pull tabs (or ticket jars) will have bean designated in advance and at random as price winners. 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 pries winning pull tab (or ticket jar) . MW U M "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. (i) "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 one of the United States, the State of Minnesota, or any of its political subdivisions for exclusively public purposes, or for any combination of the atove 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 non- profitable purposes, no part of the net income of which inures to the benefit of any private member, stockholder or individual, which organization has been in existence for ut least three years and ties at least 15 active members. (j) "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 wall being, by assisting them in establishing themselves in life as worthy and useful citizuns, 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 ennbling or furthering the erection or maintenance of public structures; (3) Lessoning the burdens born by government or voluntarily supporting, augmenting or supplementing services which government would normally render to the peoplo; or (4) The improving, expanding, maintaining, or repairing real property owned or leased by an organization. "Lawful purpouo" dean not include the erection or acquisition of any real property, unless the city specifically suthorizns the expenditure after finding that the property will be used exclusively for one or more of the purpouca specified in this subdivision. (k) Nothing in the City Code shall be construed to authorize any use, pounousion or operation ofe (1) Any gambling device which is activated by the insert ion 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. Section 3-11-3. 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. Section 3-11-4. 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 licen acs 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 accordance with section 3-A-4 of the. City Code, provided however the Application shall be ac tcd on within 180 days from the date of application, but a license shall not be issued until at least 30 days, after the date of application. (c) The application shall contain an agreement on tho part of th o 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 coat 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. Section 3-11-5. Issuance of Licensa. An annual license may he issued only to a fraternal, religious or veterans organization. A single occa pion temporary license may Iw issued only to an organization. Section 3-11-6. Profita. Profits from the operation of gambling devie os or the conduct of raffles shall be used solely for lawful purposes and no authorized at a regular meeting of the organization, provided, however, exco pt for profits from the conduct of raffles by the holder of a single occasion temporary license, at loast 60 percent of the profits must be used for one or morn of the purposes enumerated in (1), (2), or (3), oubparagra ph (j), Section 3-11-2 for persons or objects within the City. - 3 - Section 3-11-7. Conduct of Gambling. All operation of gambling 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 receipts and profits from gambling devices and raffles and for their operation. The gambling manager shall give a fidelity bond in the sum 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. Section 3-11-8. 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. Section 3-11-9. 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 each 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 an to payee, purpose, amount and date of payment. (b) Gross receipts from the operation of gambling devices and the conduct of raffles shall bu 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 annually to the City Administrator Its gross receipts, expenuos and profits from gambling devices or raffles, and the distribution of profitu itemized an required in this section. (d) Records required by this ordinance shall be preserved for three years, and organizations shall make available their records relating to operation of gambling devices and the conduct of raffles for public inspection at reasonable times and places. - 4 - (e) The City Administrator may require a license at its expense to cause a review and examination by a licensed certified public account or other qualified person approved by the City Administrator 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 to such extent and in such form as the City Administrator may require. Section 3-11-10. 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 (U) holding a single occasion temporary license only upon premises which it owns or leases, except that tickets for raffles conducted in accordance with this section may be sold off the premises by an organization holding either type of license. The City Administrator, 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. Teases shall be for a period of not less than one year and shall 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 Administrator at the time of the application for license and shall comprise a part of the application. Section 3-11-11. Prize Award Limits - (a) Total prizes from the oyer ition of paddle wheels, tip boards and pull tabs (or ticket jars) awarded i n any single day in which they are operated shall not exceed $1,000. Total prizes resulting from any cinglu 'Pin ,addle ::!:cc'_, cr .rcm at:y ..ingl. e,. of a Lip ..ch Lip l—nr,) limited to a single seal, 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, Lip boards and pull tabs (or ticket jars) and the conduct of raffles, except as provided in clause (b) of thio section 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 sulxlivision delivers health or social services and which is exempt from taxation pursuant Lo vett ion 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, an amended through Oeccmiour 30, 1981, may award prim eu in a calendar year from the conduct of rafflon, In exceun of the limitation provided In this section, provided the prizes c onsiat of real or personal Property donated to the organization by an individual, corporation, or othui organization and, except as provided in clause (2), provided the organization complies with the other requiren,ontu and rusLr fictions of this ordinance. (2) For the purpoaea of L h is subdivision, an organization coverod by clause (1) is not subject to the memlcrohip limitations nor to the compensation limitations of thin ordinance. Section 3-11-12. City Coda Title 1; Chapters 1-4 entitled "Official Coda" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by refcrenro, an hough repeatod verbatim herein. - 5 - 101 Section 3-11-13. Fees. The annual license fee shall be adopted by the City Council. The fee for a temporary, single occasion license shall be adopted by the City Council. Section 3-1.1-14. Termination Provision. This Chapter 3-11 shall terminate and cease to be effective on December 31, 1986, unless prior thereto the Council shall adopt an ordinance amending this Chapter 3-11 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 data this section terminates. Section 3-11-15. This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. FIMT READ at a regular neeting of the City Council of the City of Monticello on the 14th day of November, 1983, and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 14th day of November, 1983. ATTEST: City Administrator Mayor PUBLISHED in the Monticello Times on the _ day of , 1983. J 01? Council Agenda - 11/14/83 10. Consideration of Transient Merchant Ordinance. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AMD BACKGROUND: The amendment to this ordinance was generated by the inquiries last summer that flea markets and other businesses be allowed to set up in the Dairy Queen parking lot. One issue that was raised that if we won't allow it to occur at the Dairy Queen without public restr ooms, parking and other appropriate regulations, how can we allow it to occur in the commons area of the Monticello Mall. Technically speaking, when vendors set up in the commons area of the mall, they, too, should be licensed. Another twist is the occasional salesman who comes in and rents a room at one of the motels to sell sewing machines or something similar. Still a third activity is when the Tool Auction Company rolls into town and rents the Legion or VFW. These all fall into class of transient merchant. The way we have approached resolving this issue is to create one new class of license and two new classes of fees. It seems that it would be appropriate that we require the owner/operator of a motel,sliopping mall, whatever, to secure an annual license that will allow the property to be used for transient merchants. Once licensed, the operator of the facility will be required to got the individual applications from the transient merchants and colloct the daily fee and submit it to City Hall. we have also included a provision t1aL any.:;n, corductinq business under the authority of the annual license must conduct that business inside of the permanent structure on the premise. This would seem to eliminate the circus tent going up in somebody's parking lot or people operating from Winnobagoo or other variations of the same. The rest of the transient merchant ordinance remains intact as is. Staff also thought it was essential to put a maximum numbor of vendors or merchants allowed for any given day. we rather arbitrarily selected 12 and then added the provision that if the holder of an annual permit wishos to have in excess of 12, they will need written permission from the City Council. While I don't ordinarily promote t ho notion that overything tomo before the City Council for a simple waiver of regulations, this provision is intended to be a dotorrent to going beyond the 12 vendors. Further, since as of today only the Monticello Mall has the physical accommodations for more than 12 tranuiont merchants, 1 sea this as being a rare occasion that the requests would come in. If, however, you prefer to have the City Administrator make the decision, tho ordinance can bo adjusted accordingly prior to final adoption. D. ALTER14ATIV17 ACTIONS: 1. Adopt the ordinanco amonda:ent as written. This croatae a now transient merchant lieenno category and will addroas the sales shows that the mall and other facilities occasionally have. - 14 - Council Agenda - 11/14/B3 2. Do not adopt the ordinance amendment. This will leave the original ordinance intact, but will not address the problem that surfaced last summer. 3. Refer the ordinance back to the City Attorney for further revision. As mentioned above, if there are provisions you wish to see added or deleted that cannot be done simply at the meeting, the ordinance should be sent back to staff for rewrite. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the comment of the City Attorney and the projected need for this type of control, staff recommends that the ordinance amendment be adopted as is. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the ordinance amendment as proposed. - 15 - ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 130 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 3, CHAPTER 10 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO TRANSIENT MERCHANTS BY ADDING TO SECTION 3-10-2. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA, DO HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLL067S: 3-10-2: PERMIT REQUIRED: It is unlawful for any transient merchant to engage in any such business within the City of Monticello without first obtaining a permit therefor in compliance with the provisions of this ordinance. (A) There is hereby established two classes of permits, to wit: 1) A daily permit shall be required for any "transient merchant" as defined in Section 3-10-1(A). 2) a. An annual permit which may be issued only to the owner or Proprietor of a private promise such as a motel, hotel, shopping mall, banquet facility, service club, otc., wherein a transient merchant as defined in Section 3-10-1(A) may lease or otherwise occupy space to engage in said temporary business. An applicant for an annual permit must provide the City with assurances that each transient merchant engayed in business upon his/her promise meets the minimum requirements of this and all other applicable ordinance. b. The transient merchant shall operate from within a permanent structure on the premise. Outdoor sales from parking lots or other open space is hereby prohibited under the provisions of the annual permit. c. No holder of an annual permit shall allow in oxcess of 12 vendors, stands, booths or similar sales area to operate W day, without the written permission of the City Council. (B) PEES: Fess shall be sot and adopted by the City Council as follows: 1) Daily permit fact. 2) Deily permit fees for a permit issued to a transient merchant under the authority of the annual permit, said fess to be collected by the holder of an annual permit and remitted to the City Administrator prior to the conduct of any business. 3) Annual permit fess. Council Agenda - 11/14/03 11. Consideration of Resolution Setting Fees for New Licenses and Permits. (T. E. A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Throughout our entire City Code, it is stipulated that annual fees and charges will be set from time to time by the City Council. This, of course, is done so that fees may be altered by resolution rather than by the lengthy process of ordinance amendment. Assuming that the above discussed ordinances have been adopted by the City Council, it is necessary to establish the appropriate fees for the activities. The resolution attached as supporting data indicates our proposal for the fees. A brief explanation is as follows: In a liquor establishment there are three main categories of items that are licensed, to it, distilled spirits, wine, and beer. Our current annual liquor license is $3,300. Staff felt that it would be appropriate to charge approximately 1/3 of the liquor license fee in order to sell 1/3 of the eligible product line. We dropped it an extra $100 simply because of the limited product line that anyone could carry. For the combination license we placed it at $1,200, which is a $45 reduction over buying two separate licenses. With respect to the gambling annual permit, we selected $75 pretty much out of the air. Councilmember Maus did indicate that the fee need not be exorbitant if we were going to license this, so we did keep it under $100. Gambling single occasion was put at 520 to be in line ::it:. the Bingo licence, single o__-si^n. Further, if a single organizations wishes to have three raffles per year, they still cane out cheaper than having to buy the annual license. However, if they elect to have four or more, it seems that the regularity of raffles is getting to the point where they probably should be receiving an annual license. Under transient merchants, the daily fees for an independent transient merchant is the existing fee schedule. The two now fees were simply arrived at by discussion and determined to be reasonable. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Assuming that one or more of the above ordinances is adopted, there really is no alternative but to adopt this resolution setting foes. You do, however, have the option to adjust the actual numbers therein. This change of numbers can be done right at the meeting and the resolution may still be adopted without further adjustment. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Again, depending upon the ordinancos that aro adopted previous to this agenda item, the staff rocommonds adoption of tho resolution With the appropriate permits being covered and the recommended fees (wing sot. D. SUPPORTING DATA. Copy of the resolution for adoption. RESOLUTION SETTING FEES FOR l NEW LICENSES AND PERMITS RESOLUTION 1983 088 WHEREAS, the official Code of Ordinances stipulate that fees for licenses and permits shall be set from time to time by Council resolution. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA, that the following fees for the licenses and permits so designated be and the same hereby are adopted, in accordance with the provisions of the official Code of Ordinances: Wine, On -Sole $1,000 annually Wine/3.2 Baer Combination, On -Sale $1,200 annually IIIbl enn $ 5 or dev' ling,ng, si to ccca 20 p d ice u TranaiunL Mu&: ihw.L ( daily foes, independent transient merchant $ 50 per day per site annual foes, private premise $ 75 per year daily fees, transient merchant operating under the authority of an annual permit $ 10 per day per vendor Adopted this 14th day of November, 1983. ATTEST s Thomas A. Eidem City Administrator Arvo A. Gr imamo, Mayor 0 Council Agenda - 11/14/83 12. Consideration of Planning Commission Appeal to Build a Garage in Excess of 1,000 Square Feet - Marvin Scherer. (G.A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Mr. Marvin Scherer currently owns a one acre parcel directly north of the Bridgewater Telephone Building. Mr. Scherer over the past several years has had old automobiles stored at this site. He currently has an existing public nuisance on his one acre parcel site, that being the automobiles not currently licensed. Mr. Scherer had requested a Variance to allow him to build a storage building in excess of 1,000 square feet. Mr. Scherer's proposed building would be a 54 ft. x 90 ft., 4,860 sq. ft. Morton Poletype building with colored outside steel and colored trim, very similar to our most recently built City Garage building. Mr. Scherer's new building would be a definite improvement to the site that is existing. The zoning in which Mr. Scherer intends to build his building is currently zoned R-1. We have other commercial buildings out there that are currently in violation of our Ordinance in an R-1 Zone, but they remain as a Non -conforming Use in an R-1 Zone, as they were in existence before our Zoning Ordinance was adopted. Other current commercial buildings out there would be the NSP building, Monticello City Maintenance Garages, Gricfnow Plumbing building, and Bridgewater Telephone Company building. The Planning Cummiuuius members vuLud ill favui of giantinq Lh,a Variance to allow Mr. Scherer to build his storage building in excess of 1,000 square feet. Mr. Tom Eidem, City Administrator, after the public hearing, did some further research into the Zoning Ordinance and found that I had mis-interpreted the Ordinance itsalfl and instead of a Variance Request, it should have been a Conditional Use to allow him to build a storage building in an R-1 Zone. The land itself doesn't have a principal use or a principal building on iti therefore, the building proposed to be built there would be classified as an accessory use or an accessory building to a principal use, which would require a Conditional Uoo in an 11-1 Zone. After the closing of last night'a Planning Commiaoi.on Meeting, City Administrator Tom Eidem and myself addressed the Planning Commission members in regard to Choir approval of this Variance Request. In further explaining the original intent of the Ordinance, it was the consensus of the Planning Coamniasion members that the Variance which they had earlier grantod in the meeting should initially have boon denied, and it should have been addressed to them as a Conditional Use instodd of a Variance Request. But the action stands approved unloau there is appeal. City Administrator Tom Eidem, representing City Administrative Staff, is filing a Variance appeal on behalf of the City of Mr. Scherer's Variance Request. - 17 - Council Agenda - 11/14/83 ' B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve Planning Commission's approval of Mr. Scherer's request to build a storage building in an R-1 Zone - 2. Deny Planning Commission's approval of Mr. Scherer's request to build a storage building in an R-1 Zone . 3. Have Mr. Scherer's cars currently licensed and the grass/weeds mowed on his lot and, therefore, be in conformance with our Zoning Ordinance under public nuisance. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends denial of Planning Commission's approval of M=. Scherer's request to build a 54 ft. x 90 ft. storage building. The staff recommends that Mr. Scherer's request be for a Conditional Use to allow a storage building to be built in an R-1 Zone. Due to the original layout of the comprehensive plan, R-1 Zoning is rho intended use for Ghia area oven though we do have commercial buildings in R-1 Zoning currently in existence as a Non -conforming Use. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Plans for Mr. Scherer's now buildings Location of Mr. Scherer's building on existing lot, Picture of Mr. Scherer's lot to be presented at Monday night City Council Meeting . I ft Sit '73 b-st Tk.m P -T t4 LL-f-VA-rioN o O CA; f6.v Lccwr.ra 0 314.0 A- %qu C.- 0 17* -13-C MLb. o 10- C.WCA4 SKY'"&& Pk.T... B3- -I -I < J- .. S. 11 tMEtcEp n: .Tlz IOMORTOfJIBUILI)INGS. INC. OFFICE ti WALE: WEETofNO. PAUL MN. m o. • � t tp byil exces0 0; 1.� M1A $epeYet •ice tti� t M i •��..•. •Y ~u•�0. �+f ]f r.`r-"�`M+�! $y.ti�� 1 '� b.. J`fJj �� 1 ♦ ' a 1. i Y f.• .. �:.••�` tt 4, `ti _.`1�•t+.,.'l ,.,,�� . i �• 1 t 1 � ''�. �'-�- �1 ,. • - - • , .. r • . '\".°•..r t „1 .� Zip .. rY' , ' 1 V. `\3 t' + �'� 1' , • 1. •�t— jam. t `- IN �• .��:�� .. Tt•R � Y +- s r4'e. j) \ HIGHWAY rl r e Council Agenda - 11/14/83 13. Consideration of Planning Commission Apical - Denial of Request to Rezone an Area from R-1 to B-4 - Murfin Landscapinc;. (G.A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Murfin Landscaping would like to develop part of the triangular piece of property in between Hart Boulevard and County Road 75. John Bondhus is the current property owner. Mr. Murfin would be leasing the land from Mr. Bondhus, and Mr. Bondhus is in full agreement with Mr. Murfin's plans. The first item to address would be the rezoning of the currently zoned R-1 into a B-4 Business Zone. With the type of zoning currently layed out in the comprehensive plan which is adopted, this area has been zoned R-1. By allowing Mr. Murfin's proposal, we would definitely be spot zoning if we allow a B-4 Zone in an R-1 Zone. If Mr. Murfin's request for rezoning was approved as part of a Conditional Use in a B-4 Zone, it would be outdoor sales and, therefore, requiring a Conditional Use Request approval. Upon approval of a Conditional Use in a B-4 Zone, Mr. Murfin would also ask for Variances for the hard surfacing of the parking lot and the driveway to the proposed outdoor sales lot in a B-4 Zone and the screening of the area abutting it, which is an R-1 Zone. One thing to take a look at would be that this is only a temporary business and may be here today and gone tomorrow. Therefore, if we did allow the rezoning of it, it wouldn't stop another outdoor Lusiress activity to coag in in its place once the rezoning has been approved for it. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approval of the Planning Commission's denial of Mr. Murfin's rezoning request to rezone from R-1 to B-4 zoning and to allow as a Conditional Use outdoor sales in a B-4 Zone and the granting of the hard surfaced parking and screening Variance in a residential area. 2. Deny Planning Commission's denial of Mr. Murfin's rezoning request from R-1 to B-4 zoning and to allow outdoor sales in n B-4 Zone and to grant the variance of the hard surfaced parking and screening in a residential area. C. STAFF RrCOMMENDATIONt The City staff taken the position to definitely deny Mr. Murfin'o rezoning request and not to consider his Conditional Use Request and Variance Requests also requested in the granting of his rezoning request. Mr. Murfin's rozoning request is a definite spot zoning to allow B-4 activity in an R-1 Zono and this would only be a seasonal business, and it could be here today and gone tomorrow. D. SUPPORTING DATAt To be presented at Monday night Council Mooting, Proposed layout for the outdoor sales lots Pictures depicting the location of the existing property. Map depicting tho location of the property. - 19 - � a _ o t o00 0 e f' C 0 a Council Agenda - 11/14/83 14. Consideration of Planning Commission Approval of Simple subdivision of Residential Lots and Variances Granted With it - Marilyn Lanz. (G. A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Marilyn lanz would like to subdivide the two houses located on one parcel on existing city lots. In regard to her simple subdivision request, it would much easier to sell the properties divided as two separate properties than to sell it as one property. Mrs. Lanz currently owns foots 9, 10, 11, and 12, Block 1, Lower Monticello Addition to the City of Monticello. The property was previously owned by Mrs. Lanz' deceased husband's father, who in turn sold it to tier deceased husband. Her deceased husband had built a small house on part of Lots 11 and 12 for his row deceased father to live in. Both previous property owners are now deceased. Nothing has ever been recorded of the properties being subdivided. They have all been listed as one parcel on the tax rolls. In the sub- division of Loot 11, the total amount of square footage of the new subdivided lot would be less than the minimum amount of 12,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size requirement. The cast side of the house would also need a sidoyard setback variance where it is currently 8.4 feet away from the side lot line where 10 feet is required. Also the garage on Lots 10 and 11 would need a sidayard setback with the new proposed subdivision lot line where it is 15 feet rather than the lu feet that would be required. AD you recall, at your Cc Lulx:r 24 meeting you did approve the Variance to allow a hard surfaced driveway to be installed on this property. B. ALTEIUTATIVB ACTIONS: 1. Approve the Planning Commission approval of the simple subdivision request and oleo the granting of the Variances to allow the house to be set within 75 fact of the east property line and the garage to be set within 1S foot of the now subdivided lot line. 2. Deny the simple subdivision of the existing lot and to deny the Variances that go with it. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: City otdff recommends the approval of the Planning Comaiusion's approval of the simple subdivision of this residential house on the existing lots, taking into consideration the house was built in accordance with tho Ordinance that was previous to the adoption of the now Ordinance. Staff also recommends approval of the Variances Lhat go along with the simple subdivision. - 20 - Council Agenda - 11/14/83 D. SUPPORTING DATA: Map depicting the site plan for the simple subdivision plat; Pictures of the proposed subdivision plat to be presented at the November 14, 1983, City Council meeting. 1 , - 21 - vatl°nee Te4pe°�� Simple aULialeiOp \ Madly° ysn2 ��: �T \ { P403ed ve-j Loll%ue. 60. 00 3300 . u f't • I � 1 P�Rce � r i ,z f s 75 ' 'Neuss o ' N „ b� I b G-6 I 32 84 �. r 14 ' pgoPaod New I i 4 tot Lout ' sq !00 r0 W Council Agenda - 11/10/83 15. Consideration of Transfers From Capital Outlay Fund to Library Construction Fund. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At the beginning of 1983, the Library Construction Project was primarily completed, except for the lighting in the parking lot and a $5,000.00 retainage being held by the City from W.H. Cates Construction to cover any possible roof leaking problems. The parking lot lighting was completed and paid in January, 1983, along with the retainage of $5,000.00 to Cates Construction. In August, the Library Board authorized a contractor to install a wood screening fence around the air conditioning units located on the roof. With this complete, the Library Construction Project was finished as far as the City was concerned. As you will notice on the enclosed summary, the total expenditures for the Library Construction totalled $547,855.58. Revenues, including bond sale proceeds and previous transfers from City Funds totalled $519,766.70, leaving a deficit of $28,OGB.88 still needed from the Capital Outlay Revolving Fund to close out the Construction Fund. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that this transfer be approved so that this fund can be eliminated in 1984. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Summary of Construction Costa and Revenue Sources. -22 - SUMMARY LIBRARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT as of October 31, 1983 REVENUE: Bond Proceeds (including accrued interest) 5251,493.06 County Aid 10,000.00 interest income (1981) 6,608.03 Interest Income (1982) 1,485.64 Transfer from Liquor Fund 125,000.00 Transfer from Capital Outlay Fund 125,000.00 TOTAL RECEIPTS THROUGH 12/31/82 $519,786.70 Balance of Transfer Needed From Capital Outlay Fund to Balance $ 28,068.88 TOTAL EXPENDITURES: Architect - Base Foo S 42.000.00 Architect - Extra's 4,019.10 Legal 6,833.69 Engineering 1,503.70 Conatruction — N.1i. Cates 334,218.30 Land Coats 73,100.15 Parking Lot 24,030.20 Landscaping 13,498.5G Furniture and Equipment 45,015.03 Other - Misco lloneous 3,636.85 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 0 $547,855.58 $547,655.58 Council Agenda - 11/14/83 16. Consideration of Authorizinq Help Wanted Ad. W.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The staff requests that the Council authorize us to advertise for an Operator/Mechanic for the Street and Parks Department to fill the expected vacancy by Richard Brooks. We would advertise for two weeks with applications closing on November 29. Interviews could then be conducted and references checked through December 9. We would then have a recommendation for the December 12 meeting. Enclosed is a copy of the existing job description. We have made only minor changes since it was written,and these changes were approved by the Union Steward. - 23 - OPERATOR/MECIIANIC FOR STREET/PARKS DEPARTMENTS Nature of Work This is public works maintenance and repair work including a variety of duties ranging from unskilled manual labor to skilled mechanical work in the operation, maintenance, and servicing of vehicles and heavy equipment. Work involves responsibility for the safe and effie'ent operation of varied tools and equipment used in the performance of public works construction and maintenance. Work also involves the performance of manual labor related to municipal street and park operations. Work of this class is distinguished by the variety of assignments undertaken, initiative required and equipment operated. Work is reviewed for acceptability in progress, through job performance evaluations, and observation of results obtained. Work is performed under limited supervision of the Street/Parks foreman. Examples of Work - Operate a variety of power operated tools, equipment, and vehicles engaged in public works maintenance, construction and repair activities. - Perform a varioty of manual and skilled tasks including street sweeping, grading, digging, loading and snow removal. - Operate a front and loader in loading trucks and materials and snow, digging and shaping, assisting trucks with curb cleanup of residential areas and performing other tasks as required in the use of a loader as assigned. - Operate a road patrol in grading operations or snow and ico removal. - Operate a truck plow In snow removal activities. - Operate welding and related equipment, jack hammers, chain saws, compreusorn and other power equipment; keep work areas clean and orderly, maintain stock room and inventory. IN - Operate a roller in tarring streets, lawn mowers and snow blowers, and park equipment. - Perform carpentry duties and mechanical repair, servicing and maintenance duties on all city equipment as required. - Repairs, adjust hydraulic systems; replace hydraulic motors, hoses and fittings. - Repair and adjust drive, brake, steering, electrical, cooling and related systems as required on light and heavy equipment. - Replace regulators, alternators, starters, wiring, gauges and other components as required. - P,irform minor tune-ups and rebuild equipment to meet special uses. - Occasionally direct the work of temporary, seasonal, and other employees as required. - Attend training programs for mechanics, operators, and other public works related duties. - Perform other work as required. Uonirablc Qualifications Traininq and Experience - A combination suhatantially equivalent to public works experience including the operation, maintenance and repair of a variety of heavy and light equipment used in municipal street and park operations. - Valid Class "B" State of Minnesota driver's license. - Relevant experience or training equivalent to a practical working knowledge of maintaining and servicing light and heavy oquipmant. - A high school education or GEp equivalonL. - Rcuidency within the corporate city limits is not a requirement, but in the event that all other qualifications arc equal, added weight will lxn given to this factor. Fnowledgoa, Abilities, and Skills - Conaiderablo knowledge of the principles of operation and uorvicing of heavy equipment including the adaptations and specialized uses to which equipment can be put in meeting emergency or other unusual condi Lions . - Knowledge of the traffic laws, ordinances, and regulations involved in equipment operation. - Knowledge of the occupational hazards involved and the safety precautions necessary in equipment operation. - Knowledge of the practices, methods, tools and materials used in the maintenance and repair of automotive, maintenance, construction, and related equipment. - Knowledge of the operating principles of gasoline and diesel engines, and of mechanical components of automotive, maintenance, construction, and related equipment. - Ability to perform welding, painting, and carpentry tasks incidental to other assignments. - Ability to perform manual labor associated with major mechanical work in related equipment. - Ability to establish and maintain effective working relationships and to understand and follow oral one. wrtttcr. c...—_..�..._.._._...,. - Skill in the operation and servicing of a variety of public works maintenance equipment and to pertorm a variety of maintenance, repair and construction assignments relaLed to street and park operations. physical Requirements - The individual must be in excellent health as a variety of tacks at times can require heavy lifting, bonding, climbing, and exposure to uovu re weather conditions. Sound eafoty practices shall be a requirement for this position, along with an ability to perform for extended periods of time in emorgency oituations. 3 I G C Council Agenda - 11/14/83 17. Consideration of Approval of Retirement Letter - Richard Brooks. W.S. ) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: We received a letter from Dick Brooks on November 7, 1983, tendering his resignation effective January 1, 1983. Dick has given his reason as his inability to keep up with the physical demands of the job. It is our recommendation that the Council accept Dick's letter of retirement with the effective date as noted. A copy of the letter is enclosed for your review. - 24 - P.o. Box 84 Monticello, MN 553G2 November 7, 1983 City of Monticello 250 East Broadway Monticello, MN 55362 Attention: Mr. Tom Eielem, City Administrator Gentlemen: I regret to inform you that due to my difficulty in keeping up with the physical job requirements, I am hereforth tendering my retirement as an employee of the City of Monticello. To allow myself and the City to prepare for this retirement, I wish to make it effective January 1. 1984. I have enjoyed these past 13 years with the City and regret leaving. I would wish that the City consider hiring me in the future as a part-time or fill-in employee if conditions warrant. Respectfully, ID Richard Brooks, Sr. 0 Council Agenda - 11/14/83 18. Consideration of Adoptinq a Resolution Ordering the Preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for Meadow Oak Subdivision. (T. E. A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The Minnesota Environmental Quality Board through the Minnesota Code of Agency Rules (MCAR) stipulates that an environmental assessment worksheet must be provided for any residential development in excess of 150 units in any city of the 4th class. It also stipulates that any action known as a phased action will be considered a single project. Thus, while Meadow Oak is proposing less than 100 unite per phase, the overall effect of the phased action would be well in excess of the limit. As such, the City Council as the Responsible Governmental Unit must order the preparation of an EAW. The EAW is significantly different than an environmental impact statement (EIS), but is the tool by which one determines whether or not an EIS is required. The EAW is a standard form prepared by the State of Minnesota that is to be completed by the Governmental Unit or its designee. In this case it would be the most beneficial to have McCombs -Knutson, who has been representing Meadow Oak, do the EAW on our behalf. They have virtually all of the data required to fill that in and could expedite the entire process. The EAW is open for public scrutiny, public hearing, and must be reviewed by the Governmental Unit ti:oruughly. 'rias IS to dvuiu any inaccutdcius ur sia—iuy vi L„u data in favor of a developer. The data is also submitted to the EQB for their review. Since Meadow Oak iu clearly proceeding the way the developers intended, it is now time to order the preparation of the EAW. I have notified Ultra Momea of this requirement and they have fully accepted the financial responsibility and are prepared to go to work on this matter immediately. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: There really is no alternative other than to order the EAW if we hope to comply with the rules of the State of Minnesota. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is our recommendation that the resolution be adopted and the EAW be commenced immediately. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the resolution for adoption. - 25 - RESOLUTION ORDERING THE PREPARATION ON AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF 6 MCAR SECTION 3 FOR THE SUBDIVISION CURRENTLY REFERRED AS MEADOW OAK. RESOLUTION 1983 N89 WHEREAS, the developers of Meadow Oak, a Planned Unit Development, within the corporate limits of the City of Monticello propose a phased construction of over 500 residential units, and WHEREAS, 6 MCAR Sec. 3.028 F. 1 states that phased actions shall be considered as a single project, and WHEREAS, 6 MCAR Sec. 3.038 R. 1(b) declares that a project of this scope requires the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. NCW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA, THAT: 1) Pursuant to 6 MCAR Section 3 the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Workshoot covering the subdivision known as Meadow Oak is hereby ordered. 2) McCombs -Knutson is hereby dosionated to Prepare Raid RAW. and submit to the City Administrator within 25 days of the data of adoption of thin resolution. 3) The City Administrator, upon receipt of the final EAW, shall cause: a) the required copies to be made and distributed; b) a public hearing before the City Council to be act; c) public notice of said hearing to be published all at the expenoo of thu developers of Meadow Oak. Adopted this 14th day of November, 1983. ATTEST: Thomas A. Eidom City Administrator Arvo A. Grimsmo, Mayor a. QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE MONTICELLO FIRE DEPARTMENT President — Doug Pitt Vice President — Greg Dahlheimer Secretary — Lee Trunnell Treasurer — David Kranz Chief — Willard Farnick Joint Committeemen — Lee Trunnell Assistant Chief — Gordon Link Paul Klein 1st Captain — George Liefert Training Officer — Gene Jensen 2nd Captain — David Kranz Asst. Training Officer — Ted Farnum The following is a quarterly report of the Monticello Fire Department from July 1, 1983 to September 30, 1983. There were 20 personal assists by the Chief and/or Assistant Chief. There were 18 fires which required 341 man hours. The average attendance at a fire was 13. During the past three month period there were 3 training sessions which required 821h man hours. The average attendance at these training sessions was 18. Mutual aid was given to Buffalo.on one occasion. Pinewood students were given a demonstration on the 2 fire trucks by Scott Douglas, Wayne LaBree and Jerry Wein. Sincerely, David B. Kranz Reporter