City Council Agenda Packet 12-12-1983AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Monday, December 12, 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
November 2B, 1983.
3. Citizens Comments/Petitions, Requests and Complaints.
Old Business
4. Consideration of a Request for a Conditional Use Permit,
Applicant - K 6 11 Auto Repair.
5. Consideration of a Request for Conditional Use Permit,
Applicant - our Own Hardware.
6. Consideration of a Request for a Conditional Use Permit,
Applicant - Murtin Landscaping.
7. Consideration of Preliminary Plat Review for the Proposed
New Subdivision to be Named Country View Terrace.
B. Consideration of Ratifying 1964 Salaries for Non -Union Personnel.
New Business
9. Consideration of tho Resignation of Dr. Philip White from the
Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Autliority.
10. Consideration of Ratifying the 1984 Law Enforcement Contract
With Wright County Sheriff's Department.
11. Consideration of Ratifying the Publication of a Notice of
Public Ilearing on the Proposed Sala of industrial Development
Revenue Bonds, Applicant - Key Tool and Plastica.
12. Consideration of an Appointment to City Staff - Streets and
Parka Maintenance Department.
13. Approval of a Partial Listing of Bills for December.
14. Adjournment.
I
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
November 28, 1983 - 7:30 P.M.
Members Present: Arve A. Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Jack Maxwell,
Dan Blonigen, Ken Maus.
Members Absent: None.
1. Call to Order.
2. Approval of Minutes.
Motion was made by Fair, seconded by Maus, and unanimously carried
to approve the minutes of the regular meeting hold November 14, 1983,
and the special meeting hold November 14, 1983. (Maxwell just arrived
at the meeting and did not actually vote on the minutes motion.)
4. Consideration of a Request to Rezone from R-1 to R -3r Applicant -
John Sandborq.
Previously, Mr. John Sandberg came before the Council to request a
simple subdivision of the west 21 2/3 fact of Lot 4 and all of Let S.
Block 7, Lower Monticello, into two residential building lots. The
1 Council tabled any action on the simple subdivision creating the two
lots and allowed Mr. Sandbery to investigate the possibility of uuinq
this parcel for a multiple family condo dwelling along the river.
Mr. Sandberg then presented a proposal for a 20 -unit condominium for
this property, which also received opposition from the neighboring
residents and quer tions arose as to whether the city could actually
Upot zone this property for multiple family uses.
In discussing this item with the City Planner and City Attorney,
it was felt that this property, if rezoned for multiple use, would
be spot zoning, not in conformance with tho Comprehensive Plan and,
thus, illegal. As a result, the Planning Commission, at a special
meeting, unanimously denied the request for rezoning and the condo
complex.
Mr. Sandberg was prevent at the Council seating and noted that ha
fully understood the City's position but noted that he still felt
the City should investigate the entire Comprehensive Plan for possible
amendments to allow such types of condominiums to be placed within
the City limits, especially along the river corridor. Mr. Sandberg
also noted that if the rezoning request was denied, he still wanted
to pursue the simple subdivision of his parcel into two building
I1,
— 1 -
N
Council Minutes - 11/28/83
lots. He noted that if his simple subdivision was approved,, he \
/
would still pursue purchasing the adjacent lot, which he had an
I option on, and possibly wait until the City completes its review
of the Comprehensive Plan, as he felt that some day the City could
support a condominium project such as he had planned. Mr. Sandberg
also noted that if hie simple subdivision was not approved, he
would immediately obtain a building permit for a single family
residence on his lot, which would probably be placed only 30 feet
from the front property line, still leaving enough area in the
rear of his property next to the river for a future home in the
future.
Questions were raised by the Council as to whether there still would
be enough land at the rear of the property for an additional building
lot that would not be in the flood plain or be unbuildable, and Mr.
Sandberg noted that all of the high ground on the rear lot would
still exceed 12,000 square foot minimum required by the City.
Due to the recommendations of the City Attorney and City Planner
regarding the legalities of spot rezoning, a motion was made by
Blonigcn, seconded by Maus, and unanimously carried to deny the
rezoning request from R-1 to R-3.
5. Consideration of a Request for a Simple Subdivisions Applicant -
John Sandborq.
As referenced in the previous item, Mr. Sandberg again requested
that the Council approvethesimple subdivision for the west 21
feet of Lot 4 and all of Lot 5, Block 7, into two buildable residential
lots.
Motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Fair, and unanimously carried
to approve the simple subdivision request for this parcel per the
certificate of survey presented.
6. Public Reading and Consideration of Adootinq an Ordinance Authorizing
Gambling.
At the previous Council meeting, the City Council reviewed the proposed
ordinance amendment that would legalize certain types of gambling
activities. The item was tabled at the previous meeting to allow
the Administrator to check whether a blanket ordinance could be
adopted to allow operation of gambling devices without annual review.
It was noted by the Administrator that in consulting with the City
Attorney, it was their opinion that Minnesota Statutes do nut allow
gambling without City approval and that a City may be more restrictive,
but it say not be more lenient than the state allows. In addition,
- 2 -
Council Minutes - 11%28/83
the City must license all gambling activities, and the license shall
be valid for one year only. As a result, if the City is to allow
gambling activities to occur, it must adopt an ordinance regulating
gambling activities. As a result, motion was made by Maus, seconded
by Maxwell, and unanimously carried to adopt an ordinance amendment
regulating gambling activities. See Ordinance Amendment 0130.
7. Consideration of a Resolution Setting License and Permit Fees.
Motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Fair, and unanimously carried
to adopt a resolution setting the fees for the following licenses
and permits:
1. Wine on -sale $245.00 per year
2. Wine and 3.2 beer combination
on -sale $400.00 per year
3. Gambling, annual $ 50.00 per device
4. Gambling, single occasion S 20.00 per device
5. Transient morchant $ 50.00 per day
0. Transient merchant, annual
for private premise $ 75.00 per yonr
7. Transient merchant,, daily
fess operating under authority
of an annual permit $ 10.00 per day
See Resolution 1903 490.
B. Consideration of a Request for a Conditional Uao to Allow More
Than 12 Units in a Multiple DwellingI Applicant - Construction S.
Mr. Joseph laFromboise requested a Conditional Use Permit to build
a 24 -unit apartment building on tha cornor of Inuring Lana and
Washington Street. The current size of Mr. Larromboiso' a lot is
59,941 square fact, which would allow for 12 ono-bodroom units
and 12 two-bodroom units. The applicant requcated a variance from
the minimum lot size requirement, as his initial proposal was to
build 18 two-bedroom units and G one -bedroom units, therefore,
requiring a total of 02,500 square feet of land area. As a result,
Mr. LaPromboise requested a variance from the minimum lot size of
2,559 square feet.
The Planning Commission, at their public hearing on this Conditional
Use Request, recommended denial, as they felt the developer could
design a buildiny that would scot the land arra by cutting the
project size by only one unit. The Council also discussed this
-3-
C-;—,)
I
Council minutes - 11/28/83
alternative and recommended that the developer consider 17 two-bodroom
units and 6 one-bodroem units, which would only require a variance
of 59 square feet from the total minimum square footage requirement.
It was noted by Councilman Maus that although this property would
require a variance to build 18 two-bedroom units a3:d 6 one -bedroom
units, he felt the Council should consider the fact that this
property is bordered on all four sides by public streets or
railroad property and, thus, the property appears to be larger in
size than it actually is.
Motion was made by Fair, seconded by Blonigen, to deny the variance
request for 2,559 square feet from the minimum requirements for
a 24 -unit apartment building consisting of 18 two-bedroom units
and 6 one -bedroom units. Voting in favor of the denial was Grimsmo,
Maxwell, Fair, Blonigen. Voting in opposition: Maus.
Motion was then made by Fair, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously
carried to approve the Conditional Use Permit to build up to a 24 -unit
apartment building consisting of 12 two-bedroom units and 12 ono -
bedroom units, or a 23 -unit apartment building consisting of 17
two-bedroom units and 6 one -bedroom units with the latter 23 -unit
building requiring a variance of only 59 square feet from the
square footage requirements.
9. Consideration of a Rededication of Hennepin Street.
On October 11, 1983, the City Council voted to vacate Hennepin Street
from the south line of the Burlington Northern right of way to the
north line of Lauring Lane. This parcel was then offered for sale
to Construction 5 at the appraised price of $24,000. On October 24,
Mr. Gus LeFromboise from Construction 5 thought the asking price
was too high and made a counter offer of $6,600 for the same parcel,
which the Council rejected. As a result, Mr. LeFromboism expressed
no interest in buying the land and as a result, it is rncosm:ended
that the Council consider rescinding its previous motion to vacate
this portion of Hennepin Street.
motion was made by Maus, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously carried
to rescind its previous action vacating Hennepin Street and rededicate
this portion of Hennepin street as a public right of way.
10. Consideration of the ouarterly Liquor Store Financial Statement.
The Council reviewed with Liquor Store Manager, Mark Irmiter, the
financial statement for the period ended September 30, 1903. It
was noted that total sales for the nine months totaled 0646,000 with
- 4 -
Council Minutes - 11/28/83
r -
not income to date approaching $00,000.
By consensus of the Council, the report was accepted as presented.
11. Consideration of November Bills -
Motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously
carried to approve the bills for the month of November as presented.
12. Review of MNI/OOT Proposal on Park Acquisition for Highway Bridqe.
Previously, the meeting was hold with MN/OOT representatives and
City staff regarding mitigative measures that might occur as a
result of the new Highway 25 bridge that would require taking part
of the City's Fast Bridge Park.
MN/DOT requested a letter of concurrence from the City of Monticello
approving the outcome of that mooting, which would (1) provide
for fair and just compensation for all land acquired for the proposed
highway improvements; (2) provide compensation for relocating the
existing band shell in East Bridge Parki (3) requires MN/DOT to
construct a pedestrian walkway under the now bridge to link both
East and West Bridge Parks; (4) requires MN/DOT to place riprap
under the now bridge and 100 feet upstream from the bridge and
150 feet downstream from the bridgo bankol (5) olluw s Lhu City
to salvage ornamental lighting from the old bridge for their use
in the park.
Motion was made by Fair, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously carried
to authorize the City Administrator to respond favorably to the
recent MN/DOT letter regarding the Stato's proposed procedures for
acquiring East Bridge Park and their proposals.
13. Consideration of Resolution Authorizinq Execution of a Tax Increment
Pladq a Aqremnent - Metcalf and Larson Proiect.
Notion was made by Blonigan, seconded by Maus, and unanimously carried
to adopt a resolution authorizing the execution of a tax increment
pledge agreement which requires the housing and Redevelopment Authority
to pledge all tax increments revenue generated for repayment of the
832,000 General Obligation Tax Increment Nota authorized by the
City of Monticello. Sae Resolution 1983 #91.
l..ir
Rick xolfstsller
Assistant Administrator
Council Agenda - 12/12/83
4. Consideration of a Request for a Conditional Use Permit,
Applicant - K 6 H Auto Repair. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND.
Mr. Ken Stolp, owner and operator of K s H Auto Repair, is
in before you to request a Conditional Use Permit to allow
major auto repair in a B-4 Zone. As you may recall, the
previous owner of the building, Mr. Jim Teslow, operated a
used auto sales lot out of the current property. Mr. Teslow's
used auto business was quite a controversial item, which
necessitated legal action and an out-of-court settlement came
because of it. Enclosed you will find a copy of the settlement
between the two affected property owners, Mr. Jim Teslow and
the City of Monticello. The decision came about back in 1976.
Also as part of Jim's business, he also did a little minor repair
of the autos before and/or after the cars were put on the lot to
be sold. This is where Mr. Stolp came into the picture. Mr.
Stolp leased part of the building to conduct his auto repair
business, when he did the miscellaneous repairs it probably
back then was an oversight that should have been taken care of
then with a separato Conditional Use Permit to operate his
auto repair business there. We will leave it so an oversight
back then and work only from the present. Mr. Stolp has been
wuav Lhew to the City to do something to continuo
to operate his present business there, oven though he has been
in operation for a little over five years. Mr. Stolp is willing
to abide to the conditions that were attached an an out-of-court
settlement reached between Mr. Toslow and the City of Monticello
through their attorneys. Mr. Stolp is willing to abide to any
other conditions within reason to continua his auto repair business.
Mr. Stolp seems to operate a very business -like business, being
very open to some of the City's requests being asked of him and
trying to accommodate a very workable relationship with the City.
Mr. Stolp is also aware of the fact that the property he purchased
is also in the tax increment district; and should further future
development take plata, his Conditional U*a Permit could be ■us-
panded at a given point in time, and he would have to relocate his
business. Mr. Stolp also has some perspective plans in mind which
he would like to discuss at soma point in time with the City in
regard to Mr. Stolp continuing to operate his business in the same
location. But the item before you is the Conditional Use Request
to allow major auto repair in a B-4 Zone. We should look at some
conditions to attach to the conditions that were attached in the
out-of-court settlement.
- 1 -
Council Agenda - 12/12/83
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. To approve Mr. Stolp's Conditional Use Request to allow him
to conduct major auto repair work in a B-4 Zone.
2. To deny Mr. Stolp's request to allow major auto repair in
a B-4 Zone.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The staff would recommend to approve Mr. Stolp's Conditional Use
Request with the following conditions attached: (1) Mr. Stolp
be allowed also to operate a used auto business at his proposed
cite with the condition that he prove that he has space on his
current site to allow for this type of business aside from the
spaces needed to operate his major auto repair business;
(2) That no screening fence be erected on the cast side or the
north side of his property; (3) That he maintains at least six
off-street parking spaces; (4) That the entire sales lot, parking
lot, and driveway be hard surfaced; (5) That he allow an area
on his lot to be used for employee parking ; (6) That the lot be
kept clean and neat in appearance; (7) That the used autos Ix!
removed as soon as possible; (8) That the existing used auto
parts be removed as soon as possible; (9) That the noise level
emitLeu Crum majur nal.; cupair buuln::6a be sept at an acceptable
level; (10) That Mr. Stolp's Conditional Use Permit be granted
for one year from tonight's date with the exception that upon
written notification of approximately 60 days should further
development in the tax increment district occur that his business
would be removed from this location; (11) Mr. Stolp's business
and site be reviewed once a month to see if Mr. Stolp is abiding
by the conditions attached to the Conditional Use Permit.
D. SUPPORTING DATA;
Copy of the out-of-court settlement between Mr. Tonlow and the
City of Monticello through their attornoys and the agreement
that came about back in 1976; Pictures of Mr. Stolp'a current
business location to be presented at Monday night'o City Council
meeting; Planning Commission meeting minutes.
- 2 -
-----------------------------------=
.I
The above-enl.itled matter having come on for hearing before the
court in the Wright County Courthouse in Buffalo, Minnesota, on the
( 3rd day of May, 1977, and the parties having dictated a stipulation
into the record. Now, therefore, pursuant to said stipulation;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1. Any temporary restraining orders, injunctions or other pro-
f
hibitions issued restraining the defendant herein from operating his
used auto sales business at 349 West Broadway, Monticello, MN, be
i
and the same hereby are discharged, and the defendant is hereby
authorized to operate his used auto sales business at said location
in conformity herewith as a permitted use in a B-4 district.
2. That the plaintiff herein shall issue to the defendant all
licenses, permits, etc. which may be necessary for the defendant to
operate his used auto sales business at the above-described location
as a permitted use in a B-4 district.
3. That the defendant shall erect a five foot -high screen fence
on the rear (east side) of his property.
4. That the dofendant shall maintain all lighting on the premises
as the same existed on the 3rd day of May, 1977.
5. That the defendant shall erect signs only in conformity with
.the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Section 10-3-9 (E) 2.
6. That the defendant shall maintain at the aforedescribed loca-
tion at least six (6) offstreet parking spaces.
7. That the defendant shall surface all outdoor area with black-
top, concrete, or other surface in conformity with the Monticello
City Zoning Ordinance.
8. That the defendant herein shall not be required to erect a
fence or any other barrier along the north side of his property.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCO It:CLY.
Dated this � ay of C , 1977.
Judge of District Court
D
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
December 6, 1983 - 7:30 P.M.
Members Present: Jim Ridgeway, Richard Carlson, Don Cochran.
Members Absent: Joyce Dowling, Ed Schaffer.
Staff Present: wry Anderson, Thomas Eidem.
The meeting was called to order by President Jim Ridgeway at 7:45 P.M.
2. Approval of the Minutes of the Special November 22. 1983, Planning
Commission Meeting.
Motion by fon Cochran, seconded by Richard Carlson, to approve the
minutes of the special November 22, 1983, Planning Commission
Meeting.
3. Public liearinq - K b II Auto Repair - Conditiosdl Use Re(luenL to
Allow Major Auto Repair in a B-4 Zone.
Mr. yen Stolp was present to present his request for a Conditional
,. c L, o11.— —�or auto repair in a B-4 Zone. mr. Ztolp
is requesting a Conditional Use Permit even though hu has been in
operation for a little over five years at this loedtion. Late this
summer Mr. Stolp purchased the building located at the present
location from Mr. Jim Tuslow, who operated a used car sales lot
at the present location. Approximately five years ago, Mr. Stoll)
leased a portion of the building from Mr. Tealow to operate an
auto repair businoun. Mr. Stolp indicated his willingness to clean
up tho lot and to abide by Lite stipulations indicated in an out-of-
court settlement with Mr. Jim TcSlow's attorney and our city aLLurney
back in 1976. Zoning Administrator Anderson pointed out to Plannknq
Commission members that Mr. Stolp is currently cleaning up tike
property, even some that isn't his In the area botwcon the present
pout office building and his building. Ito has removed sone of the
Small trous that have grown up there, and he has also started to
remove same of the automobiles and the automobile parts located
around Lite building. we had a letter from an affected property
owner in the area, Mr. Thomas Lidem and Mary Eidem. The Eidem'u
oxprassud their eoncurna as to tho parking problem that hall developed
within the property and requested general clean up of Lilo property
and that tike noiso level be kept at the minimum. Mr. SLolp countered
the letter in that ho ill workinq on cleaning up Lilo property and is
also working on Lite off-street parking for hie buuineas. he to the
noiso level, hu indicated that ha would keep Lila noiue level at Lha
minimum. A latter wall also road from Lorroll and Ruby (lass. The
Ilauu's indicated that they have no objection to Mr. Stolp's Conditional
Use Request l.o allow major unto repair in a 0-4 Zone.
0
Planning Commission Minutes - 12/6/63
Public input was indicated from those in attendance and are as
follows: Mr. Leo Mazer stated that the City should be lookirig
at cleaning up the lot behind him, as Ken has made an effort to
clean up the area where he is at and something should also be
looked at with the area behind him. Chairman Ridgeway countered
that the item at hand right now is Mr. Stolp's Conditional Use
Request and that is what we are working on at this time and the
Planning Commission is aware of thu property immediately to the
rear of Mr. Stolp's property. Mr. Roman Brauch, a rental property
owners across the street from Mr. Stolp's property, questioned
the off-street parking problem, indicating that he is proposing
to develop the property there and would like something done with
the current parking problem which is at the property now. Chair-
man Ridgeway countered that the parking problem is addressed as
a condition ; and before a Conditional Use would be granted, it
would be entered in as a condition to the Conditional Use Permit.
Commission member Don Cochran qucsti.oned Mr. Stolp as to any
future plans that he might have with the development of this
property. Mr. Stolp countered with, he intends to do an overall
clean-up of the property, painting of the building, hard surfacing
of the parking lot, and a general phasing out of the auto sales
business at this time. Taking some of the comments into con-
sideration, a motion was made by Don Cochran, seconded by Richard
Carlson to approve the Conditional Use Request to allow major
auto repair ;n a d-4 Zone witn the rollwing conaitions attached:
(1) To grant the Conditional Use Ftequest for a period up to and
including June 1, 1983, at which time the property will be reviewed;
(2) that the off-street parking problem be resolved, that boing
Mr. Stolp to provide six off-street parking spaces and that he find
a parking apace for hie employees and also for customers that would be
off-street perking; (3) that he maintain a neat and orderly outside
appearance to the building, general clean-up of the exterior of the
building and removal of most of the care that aren't there for repair;
(4) that no further expansion of. Mr. Stolp's building be al lowed;
(5) that the nolso level he kept at an acceptable level. The motion
carried unanimously.
9
Council Agenda - 12/12/83
5. Consideration of a Request for Conditional Use Permit,
Applicant - Our Own Hardware. (G. A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Seitz is currently selling bulk kerosene out of two 265 gallon
storage tanks located outside of the rear most portion of his
building. First of all, outside storage of flammable materials
must be allowed within the City Ordinance before any fire code
requirements would apply. First, he must have the Conditional Use
to allow outside liquid storage in a B-4 Zone and then the following
fire code violations are noted. The violations are as follows:
1. Two outside 265 gallon storage_ tanks right next to
existing retail business building.
2. Two existing 265 gallon tanks not securely fastened
to a permanent stand or platform.
3. No outside area provided for spillage or overflow of
existing kerosene contents.
4. No protective barrier around the perimeter of the two
265 gallon tanks.
5. The tanks are currently not labeled.
6. Gravity flow of outside storage tank contents directly
into the inside of existing retail busincus building.
Contents should be pumped from existing outside storage
tank into containers to be filled by manual pump or an
electrically activated pump, not by gravity flow.
Ln talking to Mr. Seitz, he is willing to conform to some of the
above fire code violations in order to continue his bulk kerosene
business. Mr. Seitz has indicated he is willing to label the two
outside storage tanks, to put them on a permanent foundation, to
provide a barrier for catching an overflow or ovorspill of the
contents, to provide a barrier around both storage Lanka, to provide
a hand -operated pump or an electrically activated pump for dispensing
ui liquid products. Outside dispensing of liquid products can only
be done 15 foot away from oxisLing building and 25 foot away from
an existing street or alloy. if the outside stored liquid material
is dispensed into the existing building, the area into which the
notarial is being pumped into would have to be an enclosed area of
not more than 150 square foot. Thu area would have to include tho
following, (1) Minimum one hour protection on the walls, (2)
[,oak -proof walls around the bottom at the floor to prevent apillago
C
Council Agenda - 12/12/83
from going through the wall out into another existing room atea;
(3) At least a one hour fire rated metal door be installed with
a self-closing device; (4) The enclosed area has venting to the
outside. The following conditions would apply if the tanks were
located on the inside of the building in the basement portion
of the building: (1) The liquid contents eobld be stored in here
only for heating purposes; (2) The liquid contents are resalable;
(3) The contents can be used only for liquid storage and not
dispensing from the storage tanks; (4) Dispensing from proposed
two 265 gallon tanks is not allowed in this type of building or in
this type of zoning. I spoke yesterday afternoon, December 7, 1983,
with the City Fire Chief, Mr. Willard Farni ck, and he agrees that
we should uphold with the full extent of the fire code regulations
in regard to Dennis Seitz's Conditional Use Request with the conditions
attached to it and that he conform with the State Fire Code Requirements.
Also yesterday afternoon, December 7, 1983, I talked with the State
Fire Marshal for this area, Mr. Robert Imholte, discussing with him
at great length any variable ways of Mr. Seitz to operate his kerosene
business in the existing location with regard to the Uniform State
Fire Code. Mt. Imholte indicated to me that taking into consideration
all information received from me and weighing all the alternatives,
lie suggested that Mr. Seitz conform to all the conditions attached
with the State Fire Code. However, you, the governing body for the
City, the City Council, may choose to bund the Fire Code and allow
Mr. SCiLZ Lu uPULatu under sora.: of Lha co....aio.. LuL -L u:,Uuc all
of the conditions attached. If you chose to go this route, I would
submit a letter to you from myself, the Building Official, representing
the City of Monticello Building Official Office, that I would not
be responsible for any actions that may result from Mr. Seitz not
abiding with the Uniform Fire Code Regulations. Should something
happen and this matter goes to court, I would have this to fall back
on.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve Mr. SaitZ'aConditional Use Request to be allowed to
store liquid products in a B-4 2ono wits, the above noted fire
code violations corrected and applied as conditions to the
Conditional Use Permit.
2. Deny Mr. seitz'u Conditional Use Request and to have him torminote
his bulk kerosene storage immediately.
C. STAFF RECOMMLNDATION:
City staff ouppor to Mr. Seitz's Conditional Use Request if lie abides;
with the conditions attached that ho follow the State Fire Code
Regulations in regard to outside and inside liquid storage and the
dispensing of tho liquid products.
- 4 -
Council Agenda - 12/12/83
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Location of the two existing 265 gallon kerosene storage tanks to
the rear of Nr. Seitz's Our Own Hardware Store; Pictures of the
outside storage tanks to be presented at Monday night's City
Council meeting.
- 5 -
Al
10)
T�-
R
CONDITIONAL, USE REQUEST
To allow exterior liquid
storage in a B-4 Zone.
Seitz Our own Nardware
Rin
Council Agenda - 12/12/83
6. Consideration of a Reauest for a Conditional Use Permit,
Applicant - Murfin Landscasinq. (G. A.)
A. REFERE14CE AND BACKGROUND
Mr. Walt Murfin, Murfin Landscaping, is again before you with
another Conditional Use Request to allow outdoor sales and
service in a 0-3 Zone. He is at another location just cast of
the previous requested site with basically about the same type
of plans as what was submitted in his previous Conditional Use
Request. Mr. Murfin's Conditional Use Request would be located
at the property formerly known as Dino's Place, which is owned
by Floyd and Judith Kruse. Mr. Murfin's plan is to lease 2/3
of the property from Mr. Kruse, and Mr. Kruse will maintain 1/3
portion for himself for a proposed use to be acted on possibly
later. Due to the nature of the proposed site for Mr. Murfin's
Conditional Use Request --the area is rather high at the road
frontage and of it and it drops off to the back --Mr. Murfin
would be utilizing the front most portion of this 2/3 leased
portion of the lot. Mr. Murfin is proposing to put an 8 -foot
chain link cyclone fence around the west and front portion abutting
County Road 75, with the fence on the west side going back to a
point where it drops down below the embankment. As you enter the
current entrance to the proposed site, Mr. Murfin indicates having
a yaLc uuLuiiug inty tha pi:,purty with parking Lo your i=cdiatc
right and to your immediate left upon entering the gato with a
total of eight spaces proposed. Over in the northeast portion of
the property is where Mr. Murfin is proposing to put his trees
and shrubs. Also, the entire area which Mr. Murfin is intending
to use for his outdoor sales lot is currently blacktopped. Mr.
Murfin is proposing four or five decorative rock and/or dirt and
woodchip bine to the northwest part of the property with the
proposed sales office in approximately the center of the property.
In looking over Mr. Murfin'o plan of his proposed site, lie is
utilizing the front most portion of the lot with keeping much of
the salable items to the rear most portion of the lot right before
it drops down the embankment. Ono consideration to the Conditional
Uso Request would be attaching conditions that are not attached
within the Ordinance to the Conditional Use Permit.
B. ALTrRNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve Mr. Murfin'a Conditional Uso Request to allow outdoor
sales and service in a B-3 Zone with the conditions attached
to the Conditional Uoo Roqueat as par ordinance and also with
other conditions which may be appropriate to the Conditional
Uoo Request.
- 6 -
Council .Agenda - 12/12/83
2. Deny Mr. Murfin's request to allow outdoor sales and service
in a B-3 Zone.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION;
City staff would prefer to take an in-between stand as our position
in regard to Mr. Murfin's Conditional Use Request on which we will
comment on both ways, either approving or denying Mr. Murfin 's
Conditional Use Request. Before Mr. Murfin's Conditional Use !request
would be approved, we would recommend the following conditions be
applied in addition to the conditions that go with the Conditional
Use Permit as required by Monticello City Ordinance:
1. That the Conditional Use be granted for a period of one
year from Monday night's City Council meeting.
2. The site be reviewed first thing in the spring before any
site work is done to prepare for the opening of such business.
a. The blacktop surface be chocked and any cracks or
potholes be fixed before business is allowed to open.
b. Check condition of sewer line --possibly would need
cleaning. `
3. The proposed business would be reviewed onto a month by the
Zoning Administrator during the months of operation.
4. The site be kept in a neat and orderly appearance. Any
equipment used in the landscaping business and/or outdoor
landscaping sales business be kept to the rear portion of
the proporty just below the embankment out of public
viow.
5. My overnight storage of landscaping equipment be kept to
the rear just below the embankment out of public view with
not more than four pieces of equipment stored at one time.
G. Building permit bo taken out for the proposed office building
and that it follow with the requirements of the Stato Building
Code.
Tho following will be possible reasons for denial of the Conditional
Use Roquast:
1. This not being the boat possible location for the proposed
business for zoning purposes, they requires a lot of apace
and probably should be located out in tho industrial park, which
is the boot location for this type of business.
7 -
I
Council Agenda - 12/12/83
2. This is kind of a two -fold business adventure, one being
outdoor retail sales of landscaping products and/or supplies,
and also a major contracting landscaping business. If this
were to be strictly outdoor retail sales of landscaping
products and supplies, some of the above conditions would
apply. But if we were to look at it from the standpoint of
being a contracting landscaping business, other conditions
would apply such as exterior storage of landscaping equipment.
3. one other item to consider is the nature of this type of
business. It relies pretty much on the economy and reputation
of the proposed business. If the economy is good and the
business reputation is good, this type of business would
flourish. If the economy is down and reputation is not
good, this type of business would not last long.
In looking at it from an overall picture of the proposed site, it
is definitely not an improved site the way it is sitting now. I
think Mr. 6 Mrs. Kruse's intention is they would be obtaining some
type of income off of the property, and the property would be cleaned
up and, therefore, possibly the highest and best use for the property
would come out in the near future with the development of some
permanent typo of business out there.
D. surroim-= DATA:
Map of location of Conditional Use Request.
- a -
e
CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST
To allow outdoor sales and
service in a B-3 Zona.
MurEin Landscaping
Council Agenda - 12/12/83
7. Consideration of Preliminary Plat Review for the Pr000sed
New Subdivision to be Named Country View Terrace. (G. A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
The proposed Country View Terrace is located just north of the
existing entrance into the Monticello Country Club Golf Course.
The Monticello Country Club is proposing to develop the land
adjacent to the Golf Course Road, County Road 43, into
ten residential single family luts. The proposed development.
would have a service road or a new street along side the existing
County Road 43, or the Golf Course Road. The proposed development
exceeds the minimum lot size for the residential lots and also
the minimum front foot requirement for residential City lots.
The proposed plan calls for disposing of storm sewer water into
an existing 42 inch storm sewer pipe located at the far northerly
part of the proposed addition, where we have a 20 -foot easement
for this 42 inch storm sewer pipe underneath it. Water run-off
from the existing County Road 43 would drop into a small swale
ditch and would run northerly to a catch basin and dropped into existing
storm sewer pipe which runs to the existing 42 inch storm sewer pipe
to the north of the development, with the back run-off of water
being directed to a generalswale ditch, which would drop into an
existing swale ditch to the northwest corner of the development.
D. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the proposed preliminary plat subdivision addition as
presented.
2. Deny the proposed preliminary plat subdivision addition as
presented.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends approval of the proposed subdivision addition
with the corrections made on the enclosed map. City staff recommends
the following conditions be attached to the proposed development plan:
1. As indicated on the new plan, that a curved radius be installed
on the curb at the northwest corner of the proposed Club View
Drive street.
2. That curbing be installed on the east aide of the proposed
Club View Drive.
3. That curbing be lnutallod right up to the existing County Road
39 asphalt surface.
- 9 -
Council Agenda - 12/12/83
4. The City right-of-way for the proposed Club View Drive off
of the existing Golf Course Club Road entrance ends at the
west side of the Club View Drive right-of-way.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Map depicting the location of the proposed subdivision addition;
Map indicating the proposed subdivision plan.To be presented at
Monday night's Council meeting will be a letter from Consulting
Engineering Firm, OSM, with any comments on the now proposed
subdivision plat addition.
- 10 -
�V �y IL CGOW3��lVOJ�i�
Q I 1
a � � � � -- - — �d� 410a1G o0 G q to ii�er.,ei.L...ee► � )., 1 _ _ ---y- { "_ o i
TYPICAL SECTION CLUB blew DMVB 1
.0 ecas
•�.e M+Wf MSO M..f...I 4 - 40I �IIN �
64 . l t6a" 0004, tu. 1
• (e+.l R,
It.r I I�.o 0 1
U
I
-- _ /I.
/.
J
0.00-f OM14M 0
YAINNI40" 6"04646 I �Y¢Mourta�Ir44)
Mn Qr� .0t•�1 �/..�.N �.
• OSHA*./ p�wr.+J
�LOMOIO TDI4p11. LLD AW OC4P.11G
- 1
owe •a
• � I I II � Ir
GU�� ta.,4+,L.Qo—► 1 l��f 1 �-+-= µ\L�G,ts
y�w.4mq.00 L,Vf, �•l
e.. v. L.Q. r12• do i ��'¢' �` i �gti,� C�,z�,
TrpKLL SW&( 6 J!FJOS 11 CONTROL
S
L— ti.o
i± o
PI
U 1.0 MW• ~
aa.rs v,.,,e 60
I `�
jwnshlp 121
follows:
.iltbwwNF.'-
Lu
B V -1 -EW --
F
O
V x
30
SV
Y
1 'I
i
J
Ua+Ad�^ I i oo a4—
\.94
I�� � ���qti--,I� 94—•x) q4 ���- .94.:_
B o ICK
15. i4
q
`*� V 4 I I {
u Illi
100Ij I 9G._g4_►J���-9f,—•�--q4.._ •qG.._ 1_._.n4 -
-L0ur4 !_ 1w:�Li1!„t-► `(`~ NG
. ++x yia• !�1 (
RACE
FiA h•f YINu 06 -fill; N%0'1* oo
46,1• of 466•:1014 10 + I
714
nr
•44
��
ONE
IF
f1 i -
.Lo rl 1
—77
DR/VE _s
_74—+�c 4 G ao¢..rC nc d�� Mwlr oG fug.
I ^-. • �E/h �s�:•� Nfr�14 O/=�IcG'�ION \O - 1'61-'f%-
�
` ., ... . rn= toe w'{r
I
�
Av
Request for Preliminary Plan
of Proposed Now Subdivision
to be known as Country View
TccracO Subdivision Addition
Monticallo, Country Club
Council Agenda - 12/12/83
8. Consideration of Ratifying 1984 Salaries for Non -Union Personnel. (T. E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
A salary memo delineating all of the individual salaries and rationale
therefor has been delivered to you under separate cover. If every-
thing is found to be acceptable, a single motion granting all of the
salary increases would be appropriate. The motion would take
essentially the following form: "I move that the following salaries
r,. to
Lynnca Gillham
$ 7.57 - $
7.95/hr.
Diane Jacobson
7.33 -
7.71/hr.
Marlene Hellman
7.00 -
7.38/hr.
Roger Mack
$ 22,812 -
5 23,725
Walter Mack
22,531 -
23,444
Albert Mayor
22,000 -
23,133
Gary Anderson
22,760 -
23,920
Mark Irmiter
26,448 -
27,505
Scan Hancock
20,500 -
21,320
Rick Wolfsteller
29,690 -
30.H•:6
John Simola
28,332
Karen Hanson
12,000 -
12,600
411en Pelvit
15,000 -
17,500
The salary figures that are submitted to you are submitted with my
recommendation. Each individual concerned has accepted the figure
cited. Some members of the staff, of course, wore not as happy as
they would have liked to be, but everyone unanimously accepted the
numbers stated before you.
D. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Adopt a motion ratifying the salaries negotiated and agreed upon
by the City Administrator and the indiv,d•ual btaff mombors. This
would be to ratify the list I have presented.
2. Adopt a motion using different figures. This to me would undermine
Your previous motion of the special meeting, which was to grant
the negotiating authority to the Administrator.
3. Take no action. Thio would essentially negate the process thus
for and open the door for individual employees requesting to
come before the Council on an individual basis to negotiate and
make their salary roquests. Again, thio runs counter to your
own intent au stated in your earlier mootinga.
Council Agenda - 12/12/83
9. Consideration of the Resignation of Dr. Philip white from the
Monticello Housinq and Redevelopment Authority. (T. E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
In November of 1982, the Mayor appointed Phil White to a one-month
term on the Housing and Redevelopment Authority to fill the vacancy
by a former member. At the end of that one-month term, Dr. White
accepted a five-year appointment to the Authority and in 1983
served as Chairperson of the Authority. Dr. White has recently
informed us that it is becoming increasingly difficult for nim
to give the Authority the time and dedication it requires and,
as such, is tendering his resignation effective December 31, 1983.
His resignation leaves a vacancy for the four year balance of his
term. We have been considering various other appointees and have
notified the other members of the HRA that they should be considering
likely applicants. The appointment for Dr. W„ite's replacement will
be made at the first meeting in January along with the rest of the
annual appointments. The action required for this Council meeting
is a formality and should simply be an acceptance of the resignation.
There is no alternative action, staff recommendation, or supporting
data for this item.
- 12 -
Council Agenda - 12/12/83
10. Consideration of Ra[ifyinq the 1984 law Enforcement Contract
with Wriqht County Sheriff's Department. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The 1983 hourly rate for law enforcement was $15.25. Based on
that hourly rate and the budget figure of $108,500, we entered
our annual contract for a total of 7,115 hours for the entire
year with the proviso that there be no less than 16 hours of
coverage per week day nor less than 19 hours coverage on Fridays
anA Saturdava. The remainder of hours were assigned at the
discretion of the sheriff.
The 1984 hourly rate as submitted to me by the sheriff is $16.50,
an increase of $1.25 per hour, which translates to 8.20. The
1984 municipal budget reflects a 56 increase up to $113,935.
In order to stay within the budgeted amount, we would have to
drop the total number of hours for the year from 7,115 down to
6,905, a reduction of 210 hours over the year. This translates
to a reduction and coverage of about 4 hours per week or slightly
over a half hour per day. The minimum hours of coverage of 16
hours for four days a week and 19 hours of coverage for three days
a week would not be changed. These hours of coverage total 6,292
hours annually. What would change under this contract would be the
uwjdwa ur dibciutlJnary lwurb. rz ther than receiving 823 hours of
discretionary coverage over the year as we did in 1983, we would
receive 613 hours of discretionary coverage in 1984. It should
also be noted that the $16.50 per hour is the adjusted figure
compensating for the County's collection of municipal fines.
That follows the same arrangement that has been adhered to in the
past. I do not think the reduction in discretionary hours will
severely hamper the quality of coverage that we provide, nor do
1 think we would sou an increase of criminal incidence as a result
in an approximate half-hour a day reduced coverage.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Ratify the contract for a total of 6,905 hours annually at a
rata of $16.50 per hour - this would provide us with a alighLly
reduced coverage format but would keep us within budget.
2. Ratify the contract for 7,115 hours at S1G.50 per hour - this
would create a total contract cost of $117,397.50, which ie, an
overrun of the municipal budget of $3,462.50.
3. SelocL a number of hours of coverage annually other than either
of Lha above - depending on the number of hours selected multiplied
by $16.50 per hour would have some, effect on the budget.
- 13 -
Council Agenda - 12/12/83
4. Attempt to renegotiate the hourly rate for coverage - I'm not
sure this is even a realistic alternative. The County Board
has set this as the contract fee and I do not believe it is
a negotiable rate. It has not been in the past. We can,
however, at least request a negotiation of the rate. All the
County can do is tell us that it is not negotiable.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Because I do not think the loss of one-half hour per day or an
approximate four hours per week would generate any increase in
criminal activity, I recommend we enter contract for the 6,905
nuurs LiwS th^ AIi`mted budget.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the 1983 contract, copy of the proposed 1984 contract,
copy of the appropriate pages of the 1984 municipal budget.
- 14 -
I` }I
I -
LAW ENFORCEMENT CO14TRACT
C ?r
() TliIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this _day of Q«n ,)
li ? U
4I 19f , by and between the County of Wright and the Wright County Sheriff, herein-
?� after referred to as "County" and the (r , Tti e F tP a .Ji , e P%is
I�hereinafter referred to as the "Municinality'.
WITNESSETH: j
WHEREAS, the municipality is desirous of entering into a contract with i
1l the County for the performance of the hereinafter described law enforcement
protection with the corporate limits of said municipality through the county
I
sheriff, and
WHEREAS, the County is agreeable to rendering such services, and
protection on the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth; and
WHEREAS, such contracts are authorized and provided for by the provision
t of Minn. Stat. 1957, Sec. 471.59 and Laws 1959, Chap. 372, and Minn. Stat. .Ann. 1961
Sec. 436.05;
NOW THEREFORE, pursuant to the terms of the aforesaid statutes, it is
agreed as follows:
1. That the County by way of the Sheriff agrees to provide police
protection within the corporate limits of the municipality to the extent and in
manner as hereinafter set forth:
a. Except as otherwise hereinafter specifically set forth,
such services shall encompass only duties and functions of the type coming
within the jurisdiction of the Wright County Sheriff pursuant to
Minnesota Laws and Statutes.
b. Except as otherwise hereinafter provided for, as a standard
level of service provided shall be the same basic level of service
which is provided for the unincorporated areas of the County of Wright,
State of Minnesota. f
c. The rendition of services, the standard of performance, the
discipline of the officers,and other matters incident to the performance
of such services and control of personnel so employed shall remain in j
and under the control of the Sheriff. 1
d. Such services shall include the enforcement of Minnesota }
State Statutes and Laws and the municipal ordinances which are of the
some type and nature of Minnesota State Statutes and Laws enforced by
the Sheriff within the unincorporated territory of said County.
2. That it is agreed that the sheriff shall have full cooperation and
assistance from the municipality, its officers, agents and employees, so as to
facilitate the performance of this agreement.
1w
F
3. That the Cuunty shall furnish and supply all necessary labor,
supervision, equipment, communication facilities for dispatching, cost of jai, ,
detention, and all supplies necessary to maintain the level of service to be
rendered herein.
4. The municipality shall not be liable for the direct payment of any,
salaries, wages, or other compensation to any personnel performing services
'herein for said County.
S. The municipality shall not be liable for compensation or indemnity
to any of the Sheriff's employees for injuries or sickness arising out of its
employment, and the County hereby agrees to hold harmless the municipality
against any such claims.
6. The County, Sheriff, his officers, and employees shall not be
deemed to assume any liability for intentional or negeligent acts of said
municipality, or any officer, agent, or employee thereof.
7. The municipality shall defend said Sheriff, his officers, agents,
I!or employees against, and hold harmless from, any claim for damages resulting
from the enforcement of any duly enacted municipal ordinance.
8. This agreement shall be effective from January 1, 1983
to December 31, 1983
9. The municipality hereby agrees to pay to the County the sum of
($108,503.75) One hundred oignt thousand, five
Hundred three And 75/0n anlln for law enforcement protection for
7,115 hour&nnual,ly of daily patrol service and 24 hours call and general
services from said Sheriff's office during, said term of this agreement.'
10. If the annual salaries of the deputy sheriffs are increased at any
time during the term he rein stated, this contract shall not be increased.
11. The municipality shall have the option of renewing this agreement
1
for an additional successive twelve-month period. To exercise this option,
the municipality shall notify the county administratnr not later than sixty days
prior to the expiration date of this agrcoment.
12. It is understood and agreed that the offenses for which arrests ar,
,nada pursuant to state statutes the county shall stand all costs of the courts
and its prosecution. When arrests are made under municipal ordinances of the
municipality, the municipal attorney shall prosecute such case. Any and all
fines collected shall be paid to the Niight Co unty Treasurer's Office.
19A. Thu Shoriff or his appointee shall schedule the actual hours of
.ovorago, but in no case shall thera be less than 16 hours coverage per day Mon-
days through Thursdays nor loan than 19 hours par day, Fridays and Gaturdayo.
The additional houru may be assigned at tho discretion of the Sheriff.
CD
f 13. Whereas; legisiatioi: has been enacted effective July 1, 1973,
l making it mandatory that the County Court remit to all municipalities within
the said county, one half of all fines levied and collected from traffic vio-
lation arrests made In said municipality. And,
Whereas; it is understood that the contract fees is based upon
the County receiving the entire amount of'all fines.
It is understood that the Municipality shall return to the
Wright County Sheriff all fine monies received from the County. Said Munici-
pality shall remit by check no later than thirty {30} days from when said fine
monies are received by said Municipality.
14. For the purpose of maintaining cooperation, local control and
general information on existing complaints and problems in said municipality,
one member of the municipal council, the mayor, or other person or persons,
shall be appointed by said council to act as police comnissionerls for said
municipality, and shall make periodic contacts with and attend meetings with
the sheriff or his office in relation to the contract herein.
TN WTTNFSS WHEREOF thn mimirinctity, by r—niution dulv adooted by its
governing body, caused this agreement to be signed by its mayor and attested by
its clerk, and the County of Wright, by the County Board of Commissioners, has
caused these presents to be subscribed by the Wright County Sheriff and the
:hairman of said board and the seal of said board to be affixed thereto and
attested by the clerk of said board, all on the day and year first above written.
Mayor
1) 1
Attest:
Clerk
BOARD OF ttRICHT COUNTY CO"MISSIONERS
L22 I
Cha i man
At t o $ t: '7+ r-a+�+•� '
Clerk, Board of Counc Tommisstoners
l Wright Count eriff
A III LAW ESFnRCEMENT CENJTRACf
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of ,I
19by and between the County of Wright and the Wri Fht County Sheriff, herein-
after referred to as "County' and the
hereinafter referred to as the "Ptunicipality";
W 1TNESSETII:
WIIEREAS, the municipality is desirous of entering, into a contract with
the County for tate performance of the hereinafter described law enforcement
protection with the corporate limits of said tmmicipality through the county
sheriff, and
WHEREAS, the County is agreeable to rendering such services, and
protection on the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth; and
WHEREAS, such contracts are authorized and provided for by the provision
i
of Minn. Stat. 1957, Sec. 471.59 and Laws 1959, Chap. 372, and Minn. Stat. Ann. 19i 1
Sec. 436.OS;
NOW THEREFORE, pursuant to the terms of the aforesaid statutes, it is
agreed as follows:
i. That the Councy uy ray of the Sherifc agrees to prvviue police
protection within the corporate limits of the municipality to the.extent and in
manner as hereinafter set forth:
a. Except as otherwise hereinafter specifically set forth,
such services shall eneormass only duties and functions of the type coming
within the jurisdiction of the Wright County Sheriff pursuant to
Minnesota Laws and Statutes.
b. Except as otherwise hereinafter provided for, as a standard
level of service provided shall be the same basic level of service
which is provided for the unincorporated areas of the County of Wright, !
State of Minnesota.
c. The rendition of services, the standard of performance, the
discipline of the offieers,and other matters incident to the performance
of such services and control of personnel so employed shall remain in
and under the control of the Sheriff.
d. Such services shall include the enforcement of Minnesota
State Statutes and Laws and the municipal ordinances which are of the
same type and nature of Minnesota State Statutes and Laws enforced by
the Sheriff within the unincorporated territory of said County.
2. That it is agreed that the sheriff shal l have full cooperation and
assistance from the municipality, its officers, agents and employees, so as to
Cfacilitate the performance of this agreement.
100
S. That the County shall iurnish'arid supply all necessary labor,
supervision, equipment, communication facilities for dispatching, cost of Jail
detention, and all supplies necessary tc maintain the level of service to be
rendered herein.
4. The municipality shall not be liable for the direct payment of any
salaries, wages, or other compensation to any personnel performing services
herein for said County.
S. The municipality shall not be liable for compensation or indemnity
to any of the Sheriff's employees for injuries or sickness arising out of its
employment, and the County hereby agrees to hold harmless the municipality
against any such claims.
6. The County, Sheriff, his officers, and employees shall not be
deemed to assume any liability for intentional or negeligent acts of said
municipality, or any officer, agent, or employee thereof.
7. The municipality shall defend said Sheriff, his officers, agents,
or employees against, and hold harmless from, any claim for damages resulting
from the enforcement of any duly enacted municipal ordinance.
S. This agreement shall be effective from
to
9. The municipality hereby agrees to pay to the County the sum of
for law enforcement protection for
hours per day of daily patrol service and 24 hours call and general
services from said.Sheriff's office during, said term of this agreement.
10. If the annual salaries of the deputy sheriffs are increased at any
time during the term herein stated, this contract shall not be increased.
11. The municipality shall have the option of renewing this agreement
foe an additional successive twelve-month period. To exercise this option,
the municipality shall notify the county administrator not later than sixty days
prior to the expiration date of this agreement.
12. It is understood and agreed that the offenses for which arrests aro
made pursuant to state statutes the county shall stand all costs of the courts
and its prosecution. When arrests are made under municipal ordinances of the
municipality, the municipal attorney shall prosecute such case. Any and all /
fines collected shall'be paid to the Wright County Treasurers Office.
�0
13. Whereas; legislation has been enacted effective July 1, 1973,
making it mandatory that the County Court remit to al I municipalities within
the said county, one half of all fines levied and collected from traffic vio-
lation arrests made in said municipolity. And,
Whereas; it is understood that the contract fees is based upon
the County receiving the entire amount of'all fines. j
It is understood that the Municipality shall return to the
Wright County Sheriff all fine monies received from the County. Said Munici-
pality shall remit by check no later than thirty (30) days from when said fine
monies are received by said Municipality. i
14. For the purpose of maintaining cooperation, local control and Iif
general information on existing complaints and problems in said municipality,
one member of the municipal council. the mayor, or other person or persons,
shall be appointed by said council to act as police commissioner/s for said
municipality, and shall make periodic contacts with and attend meetings with
the sheriff or his office to relation to the contract herein.
IN WITNESS 4.14EREOF the munirtmel+ty, b, uuiy adopted by its
governing body. caused this agreement to be signed by its mayor and attested by
i
its clerk, and the County of Wright, by the County Board of Commissioners, has
taused these presents to be subscribed by the Wright County Sheriff and the
Chairman of said board and the seal of said board to be affixed thereto and
sttested by the clerk of said board. all on the day and year first above wri tten3
Attest.
Clerk
Attasti
Clark, Board of County Commissioners
Mayor
BOARD OF WRIGHT COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BY
Chairman
Wright County Sheriff
a
GENERAL FUND
LAW ENFORCEMENT
1984 BUDGET
Ocher Services and Charges
5936 Professional Services $113,935.00
TOTAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
33 - /D
$113,935.00
51i3,93j.un
LAW ENFORCEMENT
I have projected a 5% increase in contract price. The sheriff's
office is requesting an 8% increase in wages. Our 1903 contract
provided for 7,115 hours annually. At $16.50 per hour, the
$113,935 translatee, to 6,905 hours per year - 210 hours less.
This is approximately 4 hours less coverage per week. I think
that good scheduling by the department could accommodate this
without any noticea.hle loss.
Council Agenda - 12/12/83
11. Consideration of Ratifying the Publication of a Notice of Public
Hearinq on the Proposed Sale of Industrial Development Revenue
Bonds, Applicant - Key Tool and Plastics. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
For several months we have been discussing and negotiating the
eventual relocation of Key Tool and Plastics from Big Lake to
Monticello. Throughout our discussions, there has been extensive
discussion over the possibility of issuing Industrial Development
Revenue Bonds. Because the federal legislature is looking to
Plo%.0 voriuus restrictions upon the issuance of Industrial Development
Revenue Bonds, the attorney representing Key Tool and Plastics has
requested the Council to give preliminary review to their project
prior to the end of 1983. The motive behind such a request is
that federal legislation may allow the unrestricted sale of bonds
for projects that have had official action taken prior to enactment
of any new law. The attorney for Key Tool feels that the resolution
of preliminary approval will be official action enough to suit the
possible federal guidelines. Before the City Council can adopt a
resolution of preliminary approval, they must hold a public hearing.
Because of the inconvenience of scheduling and after phone calls
to Council members, I took the liberty of publishing public notice
for a public hearing to be held on December 27 at 5:00 P.M. That
notice appeared in the paper on December 8 prior to your December 12
Council meeting. What is required of the Council to validate that
noticu is a motion ratifying the publication of the notice calling
for a public hearing on the proposed sale of Industrial Development
Revenue Bonds. This motion is again a legal formality.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Adopt a resolution ratifying the public notice - this is giving
official sanction to the fact that the notice appeared in the
paper and officially acts a public hearing and special meeting
for December 27. The only item of business to be discussed
at said special meeting, which will be at the conclusion of the
public hearing, will be the resolution of preliminary approval.
2. Do not ratify the publication - thin, in essence, will cancel
the publication and an alternate notice of cancellation will
be published afterwards. Without ratification the public hearing
will be cancelled and Key Tool may come back before the Council
in the future.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a motion ratifying the publication calling for a special hearing
and setting a spacial mooting for 5:00 P.M., Docemboe 27.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the resolution to be adopted.
- 15 -
Council Agenda - 12/12/83
12. Consideration of an Appointment to City Staff - Streets and
Parks Maintenance Department. W.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
We have received 40 applications for the position of Operator/
Mechanic in the Street and Parks Department. Seventeen gave
Monticello as their mailing address and another 14 are from
surrounding communities within a 5-25 mile radius. We received
one request for transfer from another department within the City.
cf -.... applizant ...... li Loma ii any, reiatea
practical• experience. We have selected six applicants for further
study and possible interviews. Three of these individuals are
Monticello area residents. We will have the final recommendation
at Monday night's Council meeting.
-1G-
RESOLUTION NO. 1983
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE DATE FOR A
PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSAL TO UNDERTAKE
AND FINANCE A PROJECT UNDER MINNESOTA
STATUTES, CHAPTER 474
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act, Minnesota
Statutes, Section 474.01 et sem. (the "Act"), authorizes the issuance of
revenue bonds to finance projects; and
WHEREAS, the term "project" is defined by Section 474.02, subdivision la,
of the Act to include —r p:cpert:^ rowl or personal, used or useful in
connection with a revenue producing enterprise"; and
WHEREAS, a representative of Key Properties, a Minnesota corporation
(tile "Developer") has presented this City Council (the "City Council") of
the City of Monticello (the "City") with information concerning a proposed
project (the "Project") to be acquired and constructed within the City; and
WHEREAS, the Developer has requested that the City resolve to issue
revenue bonds pursuant to the Act to finance the Project and has presented
to the City Council a form of preliminary resolution concerning such issuance
with a request that such preliminary resolution, attached hereto all Exhibit A,
be considered for adoption by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, Section 474.01, subdivision 76, of the Act provides that the City
Council must conduct a public hearing on any proposal to undertake and finance
u project; and
WHEREAS, Section 474.01, subdivision 71), of the Act provides that notice
of the time and place of such public hearing and slating the general nature
of the project and an estimatu of the piini:ipal amount of the bonds or Other
obligationu Lu IH; issued Lu finance. thy: Lruject muni lc published at. Ica::L
once not lens than filLecn (IS) days nor more than thirty (30) days prior LO
the date fixed for the public hosring in the official nuwupapur of the City
and a newnpaper of general circulatiun in the City; and
WHERIiAS, Section 474.01, oubdivision 7b, of the Act provide[) that the
notice must state that a (fraft. copy of the proposed application (tile
"Application") to the MinnunoLa Fnurgy and Economic Development Aulhurity
for approval of the Project, together with all a[tachmenla and exhibits, is
on file with tlw City and available for public inspeetiont and
wl1EREAs, the Developer has presented to the City a form of public notice,
attached hereto as Exhibit I), with a request that Lhe City Council eutabliuh
a date for a public hearing on the proposal to undertake and finance the
Project and authorize publication of the form of public notice provided by
the Duvoloport
NOW, TI!EoEcnoi- BE 1T RESOLVED av THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MONTICELLO THAT:
1. The City will conduct a public hearing on the proposal to undertake
and finance the Project on the 27th day of December, 1983.
2. It is the present intention of the City Council to adopt the
preliminary resolution in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A after
completion of the public hearing on December 27, 1983.
3. The City Administrator of the City is hereby authorized to cause
a public notice, substantially in the form of the notice attached hereto
as Exhibit B, to be published in the official newspaper of the City and a
newspaper of general circulation in the City.
December GENERAL FUND 1983
AMOUNT
CHECK N(
Mid -Central Fire Inc. - Yiro equipment
303.10
16148
Monticello Fire Department - Wages thru 1!/21/83
491.00
18149
international Conference of Bldg. officials - Subscriptions
17.00
18150
Foster Franzen Agency, Inc. - Premium for Fire Truck
38.00
18151
Liquor Fund - Interest reimbursement
1.283.00
18152
A s Z Upholstering s Furniture - Fire Depart. - Su?plies
25.00
18153
Jerry Hennes - Cleaning services at Library
125.00
18154
James Preusse - Cleaning services at City Hall
250.00
18155
Arve Grimsmo - Mayor salary
175.00
18156
Dan Blonigen - Council salary
125.00
18157
Fran Fair - Council salary
125.00
18158
Ken Maus - Council salary
125.00
18159
Jack Maxwell - Council salary
125.00
18160
YMCA of Mpls. - Montnly ccn,L. Ct payment
284.16
18161
Commissioner or Revenue - State W/H Tax for November 1983
2,621.OU
101622
Wright County State Bank - FWf for November 1983
3,648.00
18163
MN. State Treasurer - Para W/H thru 11/30/83
1,371.75
18164
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll dad.
144.04
18165
MN. State Treasurer - Watercraft Receipts
7.00
18166
MN. State Treasurer - Snowmobile Receipts
313.50
18167
Gwen Bateman - Dog Contract for November 1983
744.25
18168
Wright County State Bank - Purchase Bankers Acceptance
370,000.00
18169
Social Security Department - FICA for November 1983
4,781.05
18170
North Central Public Service - Utilities for November 1983
3,031.83
18171
Richard Knutson, Inc. - Payment 07 - 82-2 Improvement Project
33,532.50
16172
Karen Doty - Mileage for 1983
9.50
18173
Marlene Hellman - Mileage for 1983
47.50
18174
Moores Excavating - Revisions of asbuilt - Cty Rd. 39
140.40
18175
Poirier Drug - Supplies
1.80
18176
Mr. Gordy Link - Gas
508.49
16177
J M Oil Company - Fluid and gas
1,875.51
18178
Central McGowan, Inc. - Supplies
18.38
18179
G 6 G Industrial Supply, Inc. - Clamps
23.30
18180
National Bushing 6 Parts - Supplies G parts
187.02
18181
Morrell Transfer - Freight charges for blades
53.45
18162
Gould Brothers - Repairs
407.50
18183
Maus Tire Service - repairs
98.60
18184
Sherburne County Equipment Co. - Repairs
52.72
18105
void
---18186
Gary DaBoom - Grease for WWTP
157.40
18107
Maus Foods - Supplies
119.50
181.68
Coast to Coast - supplies
200.65
181HI1
Road Machinery i Supplies Co. - Rental of truck for X-mas dec.
384.53
18190
Owens Service Corp. - Maintenance of furnance at City Hall
2,011.23
18191
Walter's Cabinet Shop - Repairs
40.23
18192
Audio Communications - Repairs for Fire Depart.
64.55
18193
Davis Electronic Service - Parts for Firs Depart.
16.50
18194
Figs -It -Shop - Parts - WWFP
33.91
18195
James Electric Company - Permit and wiring at WWfP
100.00
18196
Centra Sota Company - Boots - WWTP
39.90
10197
M G H Tool Supply, Inc. - Valvas
75.00
18198
Monticello Office Products - Office supplies
61.75
111199
Monticello Printinq - Office su11l11oe
189.04
192(10
December GENERAL FUND 1983
AMOUNT
CHECK N
Lubrication Engineers, Inc. - Grease - WWI'P
473.50
18201
North Star Waterworks - Meters for Water Depart.
936.00
18202
Fidelity Bank and Trust Company - '71 Imp. Bonds Payment
10,994.94
18203
Independent Lumber Company - Building Material for Dog Pound
73.05
18204
National Life insurance - Life insurance for Tom Eidem
85.00
18205
International Union of Operating Engineers - Union Dues
114.00
18206
Mpls. Star and Tribune - Ad for job
70.40
18207
Wright County Sheriff's Depart. •- Police Contract for November
9,041.98
1H2O8
Lynnea Gillham - Mileage for 1983
52.00
18209
Harry's Auto Supply - Parts and supplies
709.01
18210
Seitz Our Own Hardware - Parts and supplies
381.71
18211
Richard Knutson, Inc. - Ladder at Lift Station
11800.00
18212
Marco Products - Office supplies
99.28
18213
Monticello Times - Advertising
732.76
18214
---, Star ,. ril.•, e - ar3 for Job
70.40
18215
Howard Dahlgren Associates - Planning Fees for November
99b.»
io2iv
Allen Pelvit - Mileage for November
34.85
18217
Diane Jacobson - Mileage for 1983
36.00
18218
Buffalo Bituminous - Lift Station Project with Wrightco
4,256.92
18219
Gary Anderson - Mileage for November
47.65
18220
FIN. State Treasurer - Snowmobile Receipts
228.50
18221
Registrar, Depart. of Conferences - Reg. Fees for Gary Anderoon
80.00
18222
Adam's Pest Control - Contract at Library for Dec. Jan. Feb.
•36.75
18223
TOTAL DISBURSFMENTS 461,975.88
PAYROLL FOR NOVEMBER 38,145 .48
TOTAL. DISBURSF14011- FOR MONTH $500,121.36
1.
LIQUOR FUND
DECEMBER DISBURSEMENTS - 1983
Twi.rn city wine Company - wine s liquor purchase
Commissioner of Revenue - State W/11 Tax for November 1983
Wright County State Bank - Fed. W/H Tax for November 1983
MN. State Treasurer - PERA W/H thru 11/30/83
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded.
Ed Phillips s Sons Company - Liquor purchase
Twin City Wine Company - Wine purchase
North Central Public Service - Utilities for November 1983
Department of Employee Relations - FICA Tax for November 1983
Oliver Electric Company, Inc. - Wire new cash registers
Monticello Times - Advertising
Day Distributing Company - Misc. & Beer purchases
Dick Beverage Company ~-rMisc. Supplies S Beer purchases
Viking Coca Cola Bottling Company - Misc. purchases
Maus Foods - Supplies
Schabel Beverage Company - Beer purchases
Dahlheimer Distributing Company - Misc. 6 Beer purchases
Yonak Sanitation - Garbage Service for November 1983
Grosslein Beverages, Inc - Beer Purchases
Thorpe Distributing - Beer purchases
Liefert Trucking - Freight Charges
Jude Candy s Tobacco Company - Supplies s Misc. purchases
TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS
P,,YROLL FOR NOVEMBER
4YYTA1, DISBURSEMENTS FOR MONTH
k
AHNNT
1,647.05
254.00
410.00
178.4G
20.00
5,700.80
1,665.05
151.29
499.63
788.30
428.78
204.05
iB.9G
529.20
312.65
18.40
2,057.05
7,909.50
U2.50
10,8 26.20
4,805.90
314.18
520.61
39,343.50
5,565.33
$44,908.83
CaCK
$0.
10992
10993
10994
10()95
1U99G
I W)1) 7
IU998
10999
11000
11001
11002
11003
i 004
11005
11006
11007
11U08
11 U0Y
11UIU
1101L
11012
11013
11u14