City Council Agenda Packet 02-11-1985AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Monday, February 11, 1985 - 7:30 P.M.
Mayor: Arve A. Grimsmo
Council Members: Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Jack Maxwell, Dan Blonigen.
1. Call to Order.
2. Approval of Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held January 28,
1985.
3. Citizens Comments/Petitions, Requests, and Complaints.
Old Business
4. Consideration of a Request to waive the Third Quarter's
Liquor License Fee - Applicant, Stuart Hoglund.
( 5. Consideration of Softball Field Development.
Nov Business
6. Consideration of Lifting the Condemnation Order on the Old
Monticello Ford Building.
7. Review of 1984 Year End Liquor Store Financial Report.
B. Adjournment.
f MINUTES
`1 I REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
UJanuary 28, 1985 - 7:30 P.M.
Members Present: Mayor Arve Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Bill Fair,
Jack Maxwell, Dan Blonigen.
1. Call to Order.
2. Approval of Minutes.
Motion was made by Blonigon, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously
carried to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held January 14,
1985.
4. Consideration of a Proposal from Howard Dahlgren 6 Associates
to do a Downtown Redevelopment Plan.
Recently, representatives of the downtown retailers expressed
concern over the deterioration of the downtown area, including
some store front appearances along with the general upkeep.
Mr. John Uban of Howard Dahlgron 6 Associates, the City's Consulting
Planner, wan present at the meeting to review with the Council
a proposal from their firm for assisting in developing a study
U of the Commercial District. The general study would focus on
pedestrian circulation and parking within the Downtown District
along with plans for beautifying the downtown area, otc.
Mr. Uban suggested the City proceed with a study in four phases.
The first phase would be to determine the initial area of study,
including preparation of baso maps of the downtown area, and
moot with merchants and City staff to identify improvement goals
within the areas to be studied. The second phase would include
conceptual sketches of the Improvomante proposed, and the third
phase would be design development including detailed drawings
for all improvements suggested.' The final phase would be the
development of actual construction drawings and documents.
Although the initial concerns expressed by the Chamber related
to the current beautification of downtown. Including the sidewalks,
troo planters and general upkeep and appearance, questions were
raised by the Council as to whether the City should be initiating
a study for improvements and than presont the Ideas to the retailers
or whether the affected property owners should be contacted
first to sea if there Is an Interest In developing an improvomant
plan. The reason was that the property owners would be ultimately
roponeiblo for carrying out the improvement plans and also for
to coot. if it appeared that the majority of the retailers
would not be receptive to the expenditures necessary, tho City
would be possibly wasting its time initiating the study.
ME
0
Council Minutes - 1/28/85
After further review, motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded
by Sill Fair, and unanimously carried to authorize Howard Dahlgren
6 Associates to work with a committee of the Chamber of Commerce
to present a proposal for planning improvements to the downtown
retailers to see if there Is an interest by the property owners
in proceeding with a full -scaled redevelopment plan. An actual
contract for developing a study would not be entered into until
this initial response is received from the retailers.
5. Consideration of a Farmers Home Administration Financed Housing
Proposal for Low and Moderate Income Families.
Mr. Jim Metcalf was present to request preliminary approval
of building a 33 -unit low and moderate income housing development
on Lot 5 in Lauring Hillside Terrace. Mr. Metcalf, along with
his partnere Brad Larson and Ken Barthel, requested the preliminary
approval of the concept so that they can apply to Farmers Home
Administration for financing of the project. Preliminary Council
approval is necessary since the project will have an assessed
valuation based on 20% of the market value of the project rather
than the current 281 for conventional housing.
It was noted by the Council that another developer has recently
requested similar concept approval; and in reality, only one
project, if any, would be funded by Farmers Homo Administration
for the City of Monticello.
Motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Fran Fair, and unanimously
carried to give preliminary concept approval to Mr. Metcalf
and his partnere for application to the Farmers Homo Administration
of a 33 -unit low and moderato income housing project for the
City.
6. Consideration of Binqo License - Applicant. Kntghto of Columbus.
The Knights of Columbus recently applied for an annual bingo
license to operate every other Sunday night at the Monticello
VFW Club.
Since recently passed state legislation has created the Charitable
Gambling Control Board, who will be responsible for all gambling
activities within cities effective March 1, 1985, this item
was tabled for the present time, as all applications for liconoea
would be the State's responsibility.
7. Consideration of Supporting Monticello Township in their Opposition
to a Turnhack of a County Road.
((( Mr.Franklin Donn, Township Chairman, was present at the Council
I mooting to request support from the City of Monticello in their
I` opposition to the County's proposal to turn back to the Township
and the City a stretch of Orchard Road from County Road 75 to
-2-
Council Minutes - 1/28/85
L the intersection by the Orchard Flea Market. Wright County,
going along with the program it initiated approximately a year
ago, wishes to turn back the section from the overpass to the
intersection by the Flea Market to the Township, and from the
overpass to County Road 75 to the City. Although both the Township
and the City have been repairing and maintaining this segment
of road in the past, the Township opposes the turnback of the
road until the intersection by the Flea Market is studied and
upgraded. In addition, the Township requests that the County
bring the road up to County road standards before turning it
over to the Township.
Mr. Denn requested the City's support in the opposition, as
the City will also receive a small segment of this road and
would be in the same position to maintain and upgrade Orchard
Road in the future if needed. Mr. Donn noted the primary opposition
by the Township was because of the high traffic volume that
is now currently using the road; and because of the Flea Market
operation, it is the Township's concern that major improvementB
will have to be initiated at the intersection near the Flea
Market to provide adequate traffic flows in the future.
The Public Works Director, John Simola, will be representing
the City at the County Board Meeting Tuesday, January 29, for
^. the City.
UMotion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Blonigon, and unanimouely
carried to support the Township's opposition to the turnback
until a study in completed on the traffic volumes and possible
improvements that will be needed and will request the County
delay any revocations of this street until the study is completed.
S. Consideration of Devolopinq Softball Fields.
In 1984, the City Council indicated a willingnooe to work with
the Softball Association in assisting them with developing the
ball fields on the MSV property near the Montiesippi Park.
The City budgeted $3,500.00 for 1985 to be uood for upgrading
the existing wall and to make minor improvamonto to the playing
fields at the existing site.
Public Works Director, John Simola, informed the Council that
after tooting the existing well, approximately $5,000.00 would
be needed for improving the wall to provide sufficiont water
for watering the ballfields. An additional $2,500.00 would
be needed to make minor improvements to the playing [told to
bring the fields up to an acceptable level.
Some concorne wore axpre000d e• to whether the City should be
expanding largo sums of money at the MSP ball fields without
.l.
r
Council Minutes - 1/28/85
a lRio ong term lases commitment from NSP. Possible alternatives
included developing now softball fields at possibly the Meadow
Oak Subdivision where the City will be acquiring park land in
the future. Expenditures of similar amounts of money could
be completed on City land in the Meadow Oak Subdivision, but
one of the drawbacks was that there is only room realistically
for two softball fields, whereas the ultimate goal would be
to establish at least Pour softball fields.
The present site of the existing softball fields on NSP property
has sufficient room to develop two additional fields to provide
a complex in one area. Although the Softball Association would
also like to see four ballfields in operation in the future,
they did not have a specific objection to either location.
Before improvements are initiated, it was the Council consensus
that the staff work with the Softball Association to determine
what locus the City should take in developing softball fields
either at the NSP location or at other sites within the City
before funds are expended.
9. Department Head Reports.
The Council heard quarterly Department Head reports from the
Sheriff's Department, YMCA representative, Public Works Director,
(— Building Inspector, and City Administrator. A summary of 1984
l—i activltiee vee presented along with projections and goals for f
1985 for each department. J
10. Consideration of Bills for the Month of January.
Motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously
carried to approve the bills for the month of January as presented.
Rick Wolfotollo4
Assistant Administrator
-4-
0
Council Agenda - 2/11/85
4. Consideration of a Request to Waive the Third Quarter's Liquor
License Fee - Applicant, Stuart Hoglund. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
On October 9, 1984, the City Council unanimously passed a motion
to approve the issuance of an on-salo intoxicating liquor license
to Stuart Hoglund contingent upon submission of the proper insurance
and bond forms. In the agenda supplement for the October 9
meeting, the staff recommendation was to grant the license and
request collection of the pro -rated license fee immediately.
I also noted that if a contingent motion was made that there
be a time limit or expiration date attached to the motion.
While the actual motion passed was a contingent motion upon
the submission of proper insurance and bond forms, I made the
assumption that the Council also wished to have the fee submitted
by Mr. Hoglund. Consequently, about ten days after the meeting
I sent a letter to Mr. Hoglund stating that the license was
approved contingent upon submittal of the required documents
and, by my own assumption, license face. I indicated that that
submission should be made within 45 days of that letter. On
the 45th day, Mr. Hoglund called me and asked if he could have
an extension to the and of January. I said I saw no real difficulty
with that and that he should go ahead and plan to bring everything
in by the and of January.
Last weak Stuart again contacted me asking for a waiver of the
fees until the next license period. I informed him that what
ouch a waiver would do essentially is simply be holding a license
in reserve for him, thereby closing out applications from people
who may be ready to begin operations immediately. I noted that
the ordinance requires payment of fees upon the granting of
the license. Stuart indicated then that ho would like only
to have the third quarter waived and that he would pay for the
final quarter, which would be April. May, and Juno. Since I
had indicated in my latter to him that with the face and insurance
forma not submitted on time. I would take the entire matter
back to the City Council for reconsideration, I informed Stuart
that I would place thin item on the next agenda to sea if the
Council wished to waive his face for him. Stuart contends that
since his building is not yet complete and he can't he calling
liquor, he shouldn't have to pay for the license. It is my
contention that sale or not, he made application for the license,
was granted the license, and should pay the foes to hold that
license. The City has, essentially, taken that license out
of the public domain no that it is not available for other applicants.
0. ALTERNATIVE. ACTIONS:
1. Waive the third quarter payment - This would require that
by April I Stuart would have to submit 5825.00 to the City
(Sunday liquor and other face would be added onto that amount
in their entirety). Renewal of the full year's license would
than occur effective July 1, 1985.
Council Agenda - 2/11/85
2. Deny the request for waiver - This would require Stuart
to pay $1,650.00 immediately (plus other fee amounts).
If payment were not received, the Council could then repeal
their earlier motion since none of the contingent qualifications
and conditions have been met within a reasonable period
of time.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff's recommendation stands as it did on October 9, that being
that fees should be collected for licenses granted.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the October 9 agenda supplement; Copy of the October 9
minutes; Copy of my October 23 letter to Mr. Hoglund; Copy of
the Monticello Intoxicating Liquor Ordinance.
-2-
Council Agenda - 10/9/84
J 7. Consideration of an Application for a License to Sell Intoxicatinq
Liquor, On -Sale - Applicant, Stuart Hoqlund DBA Oakwood Inn. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Last spring Stuart wan in to apply for a liquor licence and
put a check for $1,650.00 on hold with us. That check represented
the pro -rated payment for the final two quarters of an annual
license period. The Council also elected at that time to not
cash the check and, in fact, to credit it to the next year's
license when that became due July 1. when the July 1, 1984,
renewal date came around, no check was issued by Stuart and,
consequently, his license, in my opinion, was allowed to lapse.
Therefore, he is required to reapply for a new license. I think
it is essential that if a license is granted for Oakwood Inn
at this time, we anticipate full collection of the license fee
immediate upon acceptance of the license. If we do not charge
the fee, even though he doesn't have a building from which he
can dispense liquor, we are doing nothing more than agreeing
to reserve licensee for future development. Since I have been
receiving a number of requests about available liquor licensee,
soma of which may be unfounded. I think it in an unwise policy
to gat involved with eat asides or reserving licensee for future
proposals. In my estimation, the boat policy is to act on an
application and either grant or deny the license. If the license
is granted, then the foes should be expected to be paid and
the license becomes effective.
Since all Information on the licence application Is identical
to the earlier process, I don't see any difficulty with the
granting of this license. Thin Is primarily a formality, but
I think it is essential so that the granting of this license
Is not challenged by a competitor at coma future date.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Grant the license.
2. Deny the license based on coma substantial reason.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the granting of the licence and the lovying
of the licence foo immediately. I wish to also note that tho
motion can be contingent upon the receipt of the noceeoary insurance
documents in final form. If you ars making a contingent motion,
I further recommend that you place a time limit or an expiration
data into that motion such that if all forms are not submitted
and toes paid by a certain data, than the granting of tho licanco
expires.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the licence application.
_B t./
Council Minutes - 10/9/64
drawings on the propoeed.ner,FiraJ Hell. The, architects noted
that a number of options,.still exlet before final drawings would
be prepared and include such alternates as constructing the ,
building out of cement blocks or possibly a wood frame structure
with aiding, or wood frame with stucco.
The Fire Hall Building Committee recommended that the Council
place the question of whether or not to issue bonds for a now
Fire Hall on the November 6 Ballot and let the voters decide.
The estimated bond issue that would be necessary for the construction
is estimated at $867,000.00. The site being considered as the
best choice for the Fire Hall location is in Block 15 at the
corner of 6th and Walnut Streets.
Notion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously
carried to adopt the resolution calling for a Special Election
placing the issue on the November 6 Ballot. See Resolution 1984 442.
7. Consideration of an Application for a License to Sell Intoxicating
Liquor, On -Sale - Applicant, Stuart Hoglund DBA Oakwood Inn.
Mr. Stuart Hoglund requested an on -sale liquor license for his
proposed Oakwood Inn he In planning.
It was recommended by the City Administrator that if a license
is granted for the proposed Oakwood Inn, the annual license
fee should be paid to the City Immediately.
Motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Blonlgen, and unanimously
carried to approve the issuance of an on -sale intoxicating liquor
license to Stuart Hoglund DDA Oakwood Inn contingent upon the
submission of the proper insurance and bond forma.
S. Consideration of Ratification of public Hearinq Notices.
Recently, two separate developers have approached the City with
proposals and requests to have the City of Monticello finance
the projects under Industrial Revenue Bonds.
i
Construction S, Inc., also known as Washington Business Cantor
Want, In proposing to construct a 25,000 aq. ft. commercial
office warehouse building east of Lauring Hillside Terrace and
plane to request approval of issuing Industrial Revenue Bonds
to finance the project.
A second proposal has been submitted by Mr. Dick Maw which would
involve the reconstruction of the former Metropolitan Stadium
In Bloomington, Minnesota, to property located south of I-94
In Monticello. A preliminary request would be to Issue Industrial
Revenue Dondo in the amount of -approximately 820,000,000.00.
-3-
O
City 4 Monticello
i Oiuce of the ProneIet21 29527ti
City Amnm'strato Met, Ie t21 3335739
23 October, 1984
Hr. Stuart Hoglund
Box 15
Monticello, !Oe 55362
Dear Stuart:
At the Tuesday, October 9, 1984, City Council meeting your application
for liquor license was approved contingent upon timely submittal
of the required documents and fees. The following should be
submitted as soon as possible:
I. Corporate Surety Bond in the sum of 03,000.00.
2. Certificate of Insurance (liquor liability) 1n
the sum of 0500,000.00.
3. A check or mossy order In the amount of 02,475.00
which 1s a pro -rated amount of the City's annual fee
effective for the throe remaining quarters in the lieenso
year.
While the Council did not stipulate a deadline for oubeission
of these Stems, they were quite explicit that any time delays
should be kept to a minimum. If I have not received your submission
by December 10, 1984 (45 days) I will take thio issue back to
tho City Council for reconsideration.
Ploaso cell if you have any questions.
Vary truly your
Thomas A. 9 dam
City Administrator
TAMs/kad
cc: Oakwood Inn file
250 East Broadway a Rt. 4, Box 93A • Monticello, MN 55362
y
3-2-31 APPLICATION FOR LICENSE:
(A) Every application for a license to sell liquor shall be verified
And filed with the Clark. It shall have stated the name of the
applicant, his age, with such references as may be required, his
citisenahip, whether the application is for an "on sale" or "off
sale', the business in connection with which the proposed license
shall operate and its location, whether applicant is owner and
operator of the business, how long he has been in that business
at that place, and such other informationas the Council may re-
quire. In addition to containing such information each applica-
tion for a license shall be in the form prescribed by the Liquor
Control Commissioner and the City. Each application for a license
hereunder shall be accompanned by a cashier's check in the amount
adopted by the City Council which shall not be subject to
refund and shall be paid for the purpose of defraying the expense
of investigation of said applicant. (11/23/81 0107)
(B) Each application for a license shall be accompanied by a surety
bond, or in lieu thereof, cash or United State Government bonds
of equivalent market value as provided in Rinnesota Statutes '-
1945, Sec. 340-12. Such surety bond or other security ;;hall
be in the sum of three thousand dollars ($3,000.00) for an app-
licant for an on sale license.
(C) The security offered under subsection (B) shall be approved
by the State Liquor Control Commissioner. Surety Bonds shall
be approved as to form by the City Attorney.
3-2-4t LICENSE FEM
(A) Each application for a license shall be accompanied by a receipt
from the Treasurer for payment in full of the required fee for
the license. All fees shall be paid into the General Fund of
the City. upon rejection of any application for license, the
Treasurer shall rotund the amount paid.
(B) Licenses herein provided for shall expire June 30 following the
issuance therof, and if issued for loos than one year, shall be
prorated on a quarterly basis.
(C) The annual foe for an "on sale" license shall be adopted by
Uro City Council except as stated in 3-2-41 D.
The annual fee for a special club license shall be a f.eu
schedule adopted the City Council. (11/23/81 0107)
(D) Licenses in effect before annexation in the annexed area will
be brought up to present fee at increase of two hundred fifty
dollars (9250.00) per year.
(E) No refund of any too shall be permitted except as authorized
under Minnesota Statutes, Section 340.112,
3-2-51 GRANTING OF LICENSES: The Council shall investiyato all
facts set out in the application. opportunity shall be
given to any person to bo heard for or against the granting of the
license. After such investigation and hearing the Council shall
grant at refuse the application in its discretion.
Each license shall be issued to the applicant only- Each license
shall be issued only for the promises described in the application.
No license may be tranotbrrod to another person or to another place
without the approval of the Council. /D
Council Agenda - 2/11/85
5. Consideration of Softball Field Development. W.S. )
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the last meeting, we presented some preliminary information
as to cost in developing ballfields at the Meadow Oak site and
the cost of upgrading the existing fields at the NSP property.
We also discussed the potential liability of upgrading fields
and property which the City has no control over; namoly, the
NSP ballfielde. The outcome of the meeting was that City staff
should meet with the Softball Association and come forth with
some recommendations and more refined costs in developing ballfielde
either at the NSP Park or at the Meadow Oak site.
Immediately following the meeting Tom Eidem indicated his opposition
to building ballfield s at the Meadow Oak property which would
be used exclusively by the Softball League. Tom indicated that
his primary objection was to the closeness of the park to a
residential area in that the late hours, hollering and yelling
and beer drinking were not conducive to a residential neighborhood.
I had completely overlooked this factor and wholeheartedly agree
with Tom that if ballfields aro over developed out at the Meadow
Oak Park, they should not be used exclusively by the Softball
League.
With the Meadow Oak area out of the picture, I began rethinking
my original objections to the NSP ballfiolde and began to look
at other properties throughout the City which wore owned or
controlled by the City. At thio time, we do not have a suitable
area to build a two or three field system on. Dearing this
in mind. I approached the Wright County Park Superintendent
about the possibility of acquiring 15-20 acrao of the Wright
County Montissippi Park. The County indicated that we could
apply for park property through the Park Board and then ultimately
upon thoir recommendation to the County Board. The Park Superintendent
or Director indicated that the County may look favorable upon
a lease of the property to the City. After this discussion,
I examined a suitable site out in the County Park and looked
at the alternatives. Thorn would be a higher coat in development
of the fields in the County Park property duo to topography
and the presence of numerous tress, and there would be no savings,
as we would still have to install a wall and possibly a septic
tank system. The only pluses would be that wo would control
the property through the form of a lease or possible purchase.
1 than looked at another alternative, and that is to upgrade
the existing fields at the NSP ballfialdo and add a third field,
and do all of the construction in ouch a way no to minimise
the City -o losses should we have to vacate tho property. We
could incorporate into the design of the restrooms and the concoosion
-3.
Council Agenda - 2/11/85
stands the bolt down type of construction whereby the building
could be unbolted from a cement slab and removed. Also,
any lighting systems installed could be completely removed with
exception of the wiring. Fences could be completely removed,
and sprinkler heads could be removed. As far as the installation
of the well goes, we would lose the well itself, but the pump
and controls and pressure tanks could be removed. If this type
of procedure is used in development of the park, I feel that
we would reduce our losses considerably should we ever have
to vacate the property.
Bearing this in mind, the staff turned its attention back to
the NSP ballfields and building a system of fields out there
that would attract teams to Monticello, keeping in mind the
Council's consensus thatifwe do enter into a program, that
it should be done properly. with these thoughts in mind, we
set a goal in developing a three field system within a 5 -year
period of time with ultimately a four field system to be built
when needed in the future.
We recognize one problem with the existing site in that the
current fields needupgrading. And in order to upgrade those
fields properly, they should be taken out of service for at
least one season.
Of prime importance, as we have discussed earlier, is getting
enough water to keep green growing on the ballfiolds. We contacted
another wall driller and obtained his suggestions as to mooting
a minimum requirement for watering the fields. We also contacted
other cities and got detailed plans on sprinkler oyst.ems for
ballfiolde. The bottom Lino on the sprinkler system, we fool,
is a 6 -inch wall capable of producing 70 gallons per minute
at 70 PSI. We used this information to develop our 5 -year plan.
The plan is as follows:
1985
For 1985, we would install a now wall and pump, pressure tanks,
and controls. We would install the main lino piping for a sprinkler
system sized adequately for four fields. Depending upon field
investigation and soil samplos taken in the spring, we would
expect to fortilizo and apply wood killer to the existing fields
1 and 2. We would keep those fields as wall watorod as possible
utilizing a portable, abovo-ground sprinkler system hookod into
the newly constructed main lino. In early spring, construction
would begin on field M3 to the northwest of the existing two
fields. We would leave ao many of the evergreen troop, between
the fiol.da as possible to provide ahado and a general picnicing
area. The construction of the third field would require a minimal
amount of earth work, and the existing overhand power linea
-4-
Council Agenda - 2/11/65
could remain. An underground automatic sprinkler system would
be installed in the third field, and much of the City's salvaged
fencing from the Oakwood School would be used around the field.
The field would be fertilized and seeded between August 15 and
September 15 and would be ready for play early in 1986. On
Wednesday, February 6, we met with John R. Hopko, a turf grass
specialist from the Northrop King Company. We discussed with
him our plane for upgrading the existing fields and the new
field p3. He presented us with many new and innovative ideas
for the development of our ballfields. One fallacy that was
a suprise to us was the need for a thick mat of top soil on
these fields. Athletic fields do not need or require a thick
layer of top soil. This top soil can actually be a detriment
to the playing field, as compaction can be more prevalent and
cause poor grass growth and poor drainage off the surface.
New athletic fields being constructed today use up to 946 sand
for the playing surface. We had incorporated into our cost
for the third field $1,500.00 for black dirt. It 1s included
in the figures below; however, we may not utilize it.
Item Material City Labor
1. Now well 6 pump S 5,000.00 $ -------
2. Main piping for sprinkler 750.00 40.00
3. Black dirt (now field 6 existing 1,500.00 400.00
(250 yde.)
4. Clear 6 level 3rd field 3,000.00
5. Sprinkler system 3rd field 3,200.00 1,500.00
6. Lima for 3rd f cold (60 yds) 775.00 80.00
7. Fertilizer 6 wood killer 400.00 150.00
Fields 16 2
8. Soad 6 fertilizer #3 440.00 100.00
Athletic Pro 2
9. Fence for 3rd field (9001) 1,000.00 450.00
10. Trencher rental (3 days) 600.00
$13,665.00 $5,720.00
TOTAL $19,385.00
As can be soon above, we aro looking at a coat of $19,385.00
for 1985 lmprovomo nte. Those costs do not include the yearly
maintenance coats. These costs aro included In the table below.
1985 MAINTENANCE COSTS
I tam Material Labor
Garbage Pickup $ 220.00 -----
Sprinkler Maintenance 100.00 $ 50.00
Watering ------ 500.00
-5-
Council Agenda - 2/11/85
f
k item Material Labor
Moving (includes tractor) S ------ $1,200.00
Road Maintenance 50.00 200.00
Miscellaneous Repairs 50.00 100.00
Toilet Rental 600.00 -------
Electricity 150.00 -------
$1,170.00 $2,050.00
TOTAL $3,220.00
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1965 $22,605.00
The above total figure of $22,605.00 indicates a conceivable
expenditure for the development for 1985. Using total City
forces, we feel this figure is reasonable. If we can receive
some labor from the Softball Association and use summer youth
in the maintenance end, we could cut the labor costs considerably.
1986
In 1986, field M1 would be taken out of service, and the Softball
Association would use existing field #2 and the now field q3.
Field 41 would either receive a general upgrading or a complete
reconstruction. An underground automatic sprinkler system would
be installed in fiald N1. The field would be completed reseeded
in late fall and ba ready for playing in 1987. In 1986 we would
also install a limited amount of bleachers for field #3 and
upgrade the existing roadway and parking area with additional
Claes V.
Rather than go into extreme dotail on the coat of each item,
1 will lump the cost together for the following years.
1986 improvements $4,930.00 material $ 3,100.00 labor
TOTAL 5 8,030.00
1986 Maintenanco $2,220.00 material $ 2,195.00 labor
Costa
TOTAL $ 4,415.00
TOTAL EXPENSES FOR 1986 $12,445.00
For 1987, we would expect to take field 12 out of service and install
the sprinkler system for this field and upgrade as necessary.
Therefore, in tho spring of 1988 all three fields will be ready
for operation. The expected costa for 1987 are as follows:
-6-
Council Agenda - 2/11/85
�. 1987 Improvement $3,200.00 material 51,500.00 labor
Costa
TOTAL S4,700.00
1987 Maintenance 52,270.00 material $2,075.00 labor
Costs
TOTAL 54,345.00
TOTAL EXPENSES FOR 1987 S9,045.00
1988
Beginning in 1988, all three fields should be in top operating
condition. If the Softball Association has generated interest
in all three fields and has attracted additional teams to the
City of Monticello. it is time to consider the construction
of restrooms, concession stand, and storage room, along with
a sower system or holding tank for the facility. The building
could be built in a hex or rectangular shape, bolted to a concrete
slab for easy removal should it bo necessary. The following
are estimated improvement costa for 1988 and maintenance coats.
1988 Improvement $25,000.00 to $30,000.00
Costa
1988 Maintenance $ 1,995.00 material S 2,575.00 labor
Costa
TOTAL 54,570.00
TOTAL EXPENSES FOR 1988 $29,570.00 to
S34,570.00
1989
For 1989, the only possible addition would bo the lighting of
one field for tournament play or late night games. our original
estimates of $7,500.00 to light this field were based upon low
level illumination. Since that timo, we have found out that
for tournament play and adequate night visibility, wo would
need to light the fields to 30 foot candles. Thin would coot
approximately $25,000.00 per fiold. Thin oxpandituro could
either be put into the light system, or it would just about
pay for the conatruction of the fourth field.
1989 Improvement $25,000.00
Costa
( 1989 Maintenance $ 1,595.00 material $ 2,575.00 labor
l Costo
TOTAL $4,170.00
TOTAL EXPENSES FOR 1989 $29,170.00
-7-
Council Agenda - 2/11/85
This completes the 5 -year plan. A summary of the capital improvement
costa is as follows:
5 -YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989
Improvement:
Material $13,665 $ 4,930 $3,200 $25-30,000 $25,000
Labor 5,720 3,100 1,500
Maintenance
Coat:
Material $ 1,170 $ 2,220 $2,270 S 1,995 $ 1,595
Labor 2,050 2,195 2,075 2,575 2,575
Yearly Total $22,605 $12,445 $9,045 529,570 - $29,170
$34,570
TOTAL 5 -YEAR PLAN: $102,835 - $107,835
The development of the ballfields is staged so that the very
largo expenditures for the restrooms and the lights or fourth
field come in the fourth and fifth years of the program. We
feel that a 3 -your period of time should be given to the Softball
Association to attract those teams to Monticello and build support
for those improvements. we fool that not only moral support
would be needed prior to the construction of the restrooma and
lights, but also some sort of financial support from the Association.
On Wednesday afternoon, February 6, we mot with Mr. Ken Kalway,
representing the Monticello Softball Association. We presented
this proposed 5 -year plan to him. He indicated he and the Softball
Association would support this plan. Ho indicated it mot their
requirements of having two fields to play on and to allow the
facilities to grow with the Aosociationla growth. A third field
will allow them to have tournamento, which in turn will generate
more revenue in support for further development of the facilities.
Mr. Kalway indicated that the Softball Association would work
with us in providing as much labor as possible to reduce those
labor costo shown in the 5 -year Capital Improvement Plan.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Thio alternative would be to begin construction in 1985
an outlined in the Capital Improvement Plan. This alternative
would include yearly review of the Capital Improvement Plan,
along with projected expenditures va. actual expenditures
and yearly conferences with the Monticello Softball Association
{ to monitor their yearly growth and potential as well as
financial support.
-a-
Council Agenda - 2/11/85
2. This alternative would be to reduce the 5 -year Capital Improvement
Program to some compromised level of support for the Association.
3. This alternative would be to do no more than we are currently
doing to support the Association.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the Public works Director that we
follow Alternative 01 and begin construction as planned in 1985.
Since the amount of labor required is extensive and will place
a great burden on the already elated park projects and park
maintenance, it is recommended that we obtain as much support
from the Softball Association as possible and look into the
possibility of contracting the mowing and trimming at the baseball
fields.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Map of proposed facility.
-9-
M
Cs)
P011906 HEX 36 Specifications
the he+ogon in orisholi be 36
The gave extension sholl be 2'
HEX 36 Dark Shelter with shingles
feet across the hlpxrmum room
3 318- beyond the exterior wag
and skytot 0.000 lbs.
tnsrae dimension
lace for insulated buildings and
HEX 36 Enctosea insulated Build.
the Clearance b@;Ow the )elision
«
2. 8- beyorxf the tension ling for
with skVight. and
r.ng shad lag 7' 6•
shatters
all panels
Type B Insulated wall panels
Type
He:Q" at the bottom of lire
Fnclosea area (including walls)
15,500lbs
cor*a✓ess on ung snn'i tso 11
880 square feet -
See page 22 for specifications
7 1 2
Aroa unaer the roof 1.134 sq.tt
w
•
PARTIALLY ENCLOSED
WOMEN
ST MEN
MEN
7/ WOMEN
FOR REST ROOMS
CONCESSIONS
SHELTER �.
COMBINATION REST ROOM
AND CONCESSION BUILDING
\
a
A
WAIL PANEL KANN[b V*
sg Shoot shows 1' 0 -
fronts, Use It to plan
lulttltng,
!J
W
Council Agenda - 2/11/85
6. Consideration of Lifting the Condemnation Order on the Old Monticello
Ford Building. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Before you tonight is a request to have the condemnation lifted
on the former old Monticello Ford Building, currently occupied
by Monti Motors. Pat Townsend and Floyd Shako will be present
to explain to Council members the background which has led to
their renovation of the existing Monticello Ford Building.
A building permit was issued to these two men back in December
of 1984 to correct the problems as indicated in the February 15,
1979, condemnation letter. Copies of the condemnation letter
and suggestive corrections to the five items indicated in the
condemnation letter are enclosed with this agenda supplement.
Monticello Ford hired a private consulting engineer to review
the five items listed in the condemnation letter, and he came
up with his suggestions to correcting the five noted problems.
Mr. Townsend and Mr. Shake have addressed the five items in
the condemnation, and they have completed the following: Item 01,
2, 4, and 5; and they will explain to you what they have done
with those four numbered items. Item #3 is loft to be done.
They arc waiting for warmer weather so they can get back up
on tho roof and pool the front portion of the parapet wall
off. In observance of the existing parapet wall, there is
currently leaning toward the building and not out onto the public
sidewalk. The parapet wall itself was built that way to loan
back towards the building.
An inspection was made by an ongincering consultant with our
Consulting Engineering Firm, OSM, Mr. Ory Domholt,on Tuesday,
February 5, at approximately 9:30 A.M. I observed with Mr.
Domholt the reconstruction process which was done by Mr. Shako
and Mr. Townsend. A copy of Mr. Domholt-a inspection report
will be hand delivered to Council members from Mr. John Bodalich
when ho comes to the Monday night Council meeting. I spoke
with Mr. Domholt this morning. He road the letter back to me
of what he is intending to put into the letter and indicated
a formal approval of the lifting of the condemnation for the
old Monticello Ford Building and offered soma additional comments.
They aro as follows:
1. Boforo any additional coiling Is hung to the lower portion
of the coiling joist that the upper floor in the attic be
romovad at the coiling joist endo, the coiling joist ends
bo inepoctod to make euro that they aro securely fastened
to the two existing trusses.
2. When the existing brick aro removed from the front parapet
wall. that upon further remodeling work to the front part
of the building, removal of doora and/or windows, that the
DII15
Council Agenda - 2/11/85
wall be inspected by the Building Official, to check for
any weak spots In the masonry joints of the brick on the
front portion of the building; and at that time make his
recommendation to the developers in regards to which corrective
measures to proceed with.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the lifting of the February 15, 1979, condemnation
order on the old Monticello Ford Building.
2. Deny approval of the lifting of the February 15, 1979, condemnation
order on the old Monticello Ford Building.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has discussed at great length the advantages and disadvantages
of renovation of the existing old Monticello Ford Building and
do offer the following comments: If approval comes from our
Consulting Engineering Firm, OSM, and they recommend approval
of OSM's report. Upon approval of the lifting of the condemnation
order, that a thorough review be conducted of the proposed building
renovation with the entire site plan to be developed and the
revealing of all the prospective tenants of the building and
the nature of their business. With the review of the site plan,
if any variances should be needed that they be addressed at
this time and go through proper procedure to Planning Commission
and City Council level for their approval or denial. If a variance
is needed and is approved, we would recommend looking at their
project in its full entirety and reviewing a atop by atop time
table to be backed up by some type of financial commitment from
some local or out-of-town financial group. With a definite
time table no presented to City staff and agreed upon between
City staff and the two developers, we would proceed to pace
on to Planning Commission members and also City Council members
for their approval or denial of a otago development plan for
redevelopment of the old Monticello Ford building. If you have
time before the Council meeting, we would recommond that you
take a look at Lho property to sea what has boon done no for.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of February 15, 1979, condemnation letter; Copy of latter
dated November 20, 1970, of the consulting engineer hired by
Mr. Larry Flake, Foyerolson 6 Associates, Inc.; Copy of the
map prepared by this engineering firm for the proposed corrections
to the five correction items no listed In the February 15, 1979,
condemnation latter will be at the meeting.
sm
y
250 Lim 8,umfw4
MONTICELLO. MN 55362
CERTIFIED - RETURN RECEIPT
NOTICE AND ORDER
February 15, 1979
TO: Mr. Larry Flake
14onticello Ford, Inc.
I-94 and Highway 25
Monticello, Minnesota 55362
RE: PROPERTY DESCRIPTIONS lot 2 Exc. Nly. 30' c
Loot 3 floc. Nly. 30' of W. 24' c
M. 716" of Lot 4 - Block 51, Monticello, Minnesota
PROPERTY ADDRESS. 249 West Broadway, Monticello, Minnesota 55362
Dear Mr. Flake:
Pursuant to Uniform Building Code, Section 203 and the Uniform Code for the
Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, Section 302, you are hereby advised that
no further occupancy of the above -referenced buiidit may take place until
such timo as the following ropairs have been made%
1. The sagging ceiling caused by raising one portion to allow more head-
room for a hoist is inadequately supported and must be properly sup-
ported. This raised area has actually came loose at its anchoring
points where they attach to the rafters above and caused the rafters
to which they ware connected to split.
2. The east portion of the roof which has a slope in the northerly direc-
tion. is built on truss** which are inadequately constructed and must
carry loadn for which they wore not designed. Excessive loading has
caused cane of the diagonals to bow significantly. In fact, in at
haat one eone, this has caused the diagonal to b nmk. The top cotd
of many of these trusses alcv sags because of their inadequate load-
!"rirg capacity. These trusses should be rebuilt or rol,IA" i with
trusses which can carry loads that are allowed by the Minnesota State
Lvildinq Godo.
3. The brick front on the building shows some deterioration in tho form of
bulging or buckling outward. In the past, there was at least one
tension rod placed through the brick front and projected out through
the rear of the building to apparently atop the movement. However#
'i/i/v(come to onlictoll�i mountain +
�G�
t'el.t uat) 1.,
Page m2
this rod indicates some failure to ert..rm that job an irklicatt-0 ly
pulled -in area of l,rack around the location where the rod comes through
to the inside of tfic brick front. Also, inside the brick wall on the
front, there is an indication of new pressure being exerted indicated
by pieces of brick falling away from the surlorted area. There are at
least three cracks in the front wall which indicate somewhat recent
movement. These cracks can be observed from the outside. The wall
bulges outward in the center several inches in different locations.
This brick front will have to be repaired to a safe and stable condi-
tion or completely replaced.
e. Tho rafters in the center portion of the building over the storage area
are inadequately supported and have caused Mrtions of the roof to
sag because of the inadequate support. This roof area must be sulpnrt,vf
and braced properly to meet the working strew placed on them as required
by the Minnesota State Building Code.
5. The attic space shell not be used for storage unless it is designed
and rebuilt to carry the loads to be imposed on it as per the require-
ments of the Minnesota State Building Code.
Permits for the repair or removal of this building must ho secured ani vurk
physically commenced within sixty days of the date of this letter - Arril 17,
1979 - and work completed within six months of the date of this letter -
August 15, 1979. No occupancy of this building shall take place with,nit
a Certificate of occupancy having fit -at twee issued.
.o-'
if any work ordered on this building is not commenced within the err, th•+:
time. the Building Official will post this !wilding to prevent any oeculrancy
until the ardor is complied with, and may proceed to cause the order to re
complied with and charge the costs thereof against the property or its owrvr.
Any parson having any record title or legal interest in this building may
appeal from this Notice and order or any action of the building official
to the Board of Appeals. Any appeal must be in writing and filed with th,
Building Official within 30 days of the date of the service of this Not &c..
and Order. failure to sake an appeal will constitute a waiver of all
right to an administrative hearing and a determination of this matter.
S1 rely.
4a -
`
Laren D. yloin
Building Official
LDK/ns
r
SLt"C 2'13
i E'l'f:ElSEiV & ASSbC�FAT�S,iyt t r c W.I. CLC 1. � '
r .a'. +?.•., ... `.♦ �%:N„ ,Ch 61a. v .Tsar• #y+la
T QL£.'. ON I. 9'.:.: tau
+:^' Vit'. *. i.. �;.• . `j ,
::v7C .;ur 4••, lyre: • �L
?Sr• L•.rr; Mil }:e _ .. . �rO •
LIAGti'.•, 1'1D'b'arda;` '7 6 !: ,
ss•tia•:1Ta; Lit. 9:.:;dY, �• • .
Re: '014 Kant{eolio cord' �kttldl'rA • a " CA , '
,User tlr.,yleke7
t gour`}3,ve'Ia0o oKtAb'bied al`stiirrar•iriao�3siai+�s,toi^s'}�
uspoaoayof' a mislit(g It tbli`'vuldl-ad t "Stniotural t it"ad •aa t ;� s' '
oquostddTtq �1ku'Cl'9b3� �tW�glpr iiia tos••ta..Ris4etter• of ,' r,� •��*«
R+oelS'IIbdi#'2:!� • * 1' m ;'ti' rr, +v+v;. • r;+r,..r.,.= ' ;''+t, t#: r. .y.t,gsa.r� t
7!oat of ChM t Td'#n� la j ek483 'as�#sae .bo ynsrA eld, ;tdiil6 the z i r.:„„'r` '
Lely imvp add�c5+ }t s0 Ctltglj life.II�teat that tpi;bullding • _'$ `; "
,ie fo,old is babiy the �•afon the, bu'MaB lespeetot tants an
'.,o•rtilQa�troa attiuetltriib��b�iriddr �i'Lulldlap•'ei +{ldawrel • • ' ,�•,� �� .
te,:ritl►. •1 ' 1•+!l9�+42#14ma ttldet+ t %tier bykilns owl* ''�••.
t'; lie, saslouely'diilcient *C%'raapegtl ld':thr'Ft gent dkk'.�tit• Wii*ia>� •';*_, ;
eine, rhi:rr tidbdy'tiTidr�ddd•t'tied�thayd!!d�!A rha Lar,aoptl 'eaWlieegdss
".4i;ar cq'ilie d+fijd{tq'ise�p 'ftt�ietoliYl iotiad!,+�t1Na yhrase could : r+
Hasan dirt+liia�'�22iftni,to'dittetaut peop'ii. This lstt•ris b•ttg basad
gpop the •ritirs assueAl4n t�..}}t she ¢uildiS tnaveator:ttaats to be '
"sesursd *95t'.;s tidilditili'itE fUltl in iabisdi*ts "P, ot'.eollapfa. ,
lwor9-r to'%kally,•as•il'lit9'M'bJtldin&Or* wroad hay* to dlmantis
'}t cur.Alateiy' r t.tt•,a, Parte or L -my Tifton to dos Cho" thirgs
tbst aro piddeu. i+ocaaea toltner of the plat:edles optibUs ars eratl+
etta to Ya 4his rfros4 is llmited to that'can he vlou&Uy observed
by tolhing thlio:tph aad ar0.lhd the tutldlna.
s.<
tjltterved wf»�io17i Ai"Ms of dtatrdna that Mhould to gttee eoefideratiop
tyfvo , emi the,butlding Ptficial •a the fAtur• or this building to
i.
The costpr salon dititt+nale of the trusses over the easterly portion
or the tnildlrg t.tQ Gbv;puvly in•dfaustely eonftrttated, is that a bon
of siF9ittiLt+lyt'tdtwistsia•la bviaus. tasonais sibuid be zw
pLesd, and trsd�iy� t l• ia.1Nl they' dt644 bq properly
tlrttq•d,,t 1i ii!• ti r ete% .ohera vatud M F
I
I
I
ORR•SCHELEN•MAYEAON&ASSOCIATES.INC.
` insuhing Engineers
Land Surveyors
February 12, 1985
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
Attn: Mr. Gary Anderson
Building Inspector
Re: Old Monticello Ford Building
Dear Mr. Anderson:
On February 5, 1985, Ory Domholt, OSM, met with you to observe the structural
condition of the referenced building at your request.
Our findings consider only the the accessible and observed structural elements
which may not necessarily represent all members, connections, or conditions.
Such a degree of investigation would be very time consuming and costly, with
inconclusive results.
Our findings and recommendations are as follows:
1. The two existing wood trusses, previously reported to be over -stressed have
been buttressed by adding five (5) new 6 x 6 treated timber posts below vertical
members of each truss. These posts are supported by new concrete footings. This
added support system should be adequate to support the two trusses. Further,
approximately halfway between each truss and the exterior wall, a line of
supporting wood beams and posts has been added parallel to the trusses. These
beams and posts support the structural framing, and the posts bear on the exist-
ing concrete floor. These have been added by the owner to reduce deflection of
ceiling joists.
2. The ceiling that was previously raised to allow more head room to raise auto
engines, and subsequently reported to be in an unsound structural condition, will
no longer be used. A new wood joist ceiling framing is being installed flush
with existing ceiling, These new wood joists frame into the lower chord of the
existing trusses. The raised ceiling was hung from the roof framing resulting in
general sagging. We recommend the roof framing should be relieved of this weight
by removal.
3. Building Code Requirements currently specify greater snow loads on roofs with
varying heights (as in this case) causing snow buildup and snow sliding. These
new requirements probably were not considered when the existing roof was
designed.
2021 £asr HennrpinAve.rue - Suho739 . L?inneepclis, Alinnesota 55413 - 6121331.6560
T
Page Two
City of Monticello
February 11, 1985
The current snow load requirements are that the roof adjacent to the high low
roof location be designed for a drift and slide -off snow load of approximately
100 pounds per square foot in lieu of the typical 30 psf. To determine if
existing structure can support this snow load would require a very detailed and
thorough examination of the existing framing system. If the existing framing
proves inadequate. we would recommend corrective measures to be taken.
If a detailed analysis of the low roof structure is not deemed appropriate, we
recommend. as a practical minimum, that the owner be required to monitor the snow
buildup on the low roof. Snow buildup in excess of two (2) feet in depth shall
be removed immediately after any significant snow storms. We should note that
this snow removal approach is in lieu of structure reinforcement and is in strict
violation of the current State Building Code.
4. The front brick wall is not plumb and in a questionable condition. We
recommend that after the higher portion of the wall has been removed for the
remodeling effort, the remaining brick wall shall be thoroughly examined by an
experienced brick mason and strengthened and/or rebuilt as appropriate.
S. The wood joists supporting the ceiling and the attic floor frame into the
lower chord of the two wood trusses. Some of the end bearings of these wood
joists are splintered or rotted. We recommend that these joists be reconnected
l� to the wood trusses with conventional metal connections or completely replaced.
We trust this information will assist you in this matter. Please call either of
us if you require further consultation or have questions.
Sincerely.
ORR-SCNELEN-MArERON
8 ASSOCIATES. INC.
� �r� M L4
0rva11 S. Oomholt. P.E. Gerald S. Corrick. P.E.
Project Engineer Associate
OSO/GSC:nlb
cc: John P. Badalich, OSii
Building Proposal 11 February 1985
by
Patrick A. Townsend
Floyd A. Schake
Building in Question$ The Old Ford Building
Located Downtown Monticello
249 W. Broadway
We wound li-ce to start work immediately on the building upon
receipt of the approval of lifting of the Condemation Order of said
building ( the Old Monticello Ford Building.).
Firsts Put up fire wall 33 feet vest of S.W. corner of said building
wall to run parallel north and south. Approximately 60 feet in
length. Haterialat 2x4'a with double headers top and bottom
in between existing 6x6 suo^ort beams. Mall is to be covered with
5/9" sheet rock with insolation within.
Seconds Upon approval of rental of areas west of fire wall as
described in First Part. Show room area to be rented effective
1 March 1985. Adjoined area North of Show Room area will be
remodeled for rental 1 April 1985, or before.
Thirds Refaceing of out side West wall to begin on or about
1 April 1985. To be completed on or before 1 May 1985.
lo�ths Refacing of out side South wall (front of building) to
begin on or about 1 Nov 1995. Completionc6f front face to be
completed on or before 1 July 1985.
Fifths Remodeling of remainding interior will commence upon
completion of front face lifting. Completion of interior work
to be completed on or about 1 August 1985.
Sixth Refacine and restructureine of rear of building will commence
upon comnletion of remodeline of interior.
All work will be completed on or before and no later than 1 November
1985- Perking lot areas will be resurfaced the followine spring or
when weather permits. At this time we are requesting a varrance
on the parking area due to the construction and remodling,6f said
building.
We hope that this proposal meets with the requirements of the city in
the show of our good faith towards a•tracting new business to the
community. )
Thank you for your consideration
/�
Petrick A. 6 Townson Flofid A. Scheke
Council Agenda - 2/11/65
7. Review of 1984 Year End Liquor Store Financial Report. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Enclosed with the agenda you will find a copy of the C ocparative
Financial Statements for the years 1983 and 1984. Mr. Irmiter
will be present at the Council meeting to review with the Council
the 1984 operations report.
As you will note, total sales increased approximately $65,000
over 1983 to a total of $945,417.00. The resulting groes profit
was up to $201,885.00. Basic operating expenses, including
the interest expense on the Liquor Store bond totaled $119,248.00,
leaving an operating income of $82,636.00, which is approximately
$20,000.00 more than 1983.
The groes profit percentage of 21.378 is 1% higher than las t
year and appears in line with the pricing policies established
by the Liquor Store. This Ii increase in gross profit coupled
with a yb decrease in operating expenses resulted in an R. 76%
operating income to sales, which appears in line for a n off -solo
store.
Total Liquor Store income, including interest income on investments,
amounted to $114,254.00. From this amount, $70,000.00 was transferred
per Council authorization to the Sever Fund to help pay for
the deficit created by the Wastewater Treatment Plant construction
project.
There is no Council action necessary other than to accept the
report on the Liquor Store for 1984.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the financial statements.
-12-
MONIICELLO MUNICIPAL LI11110R
RI:VENtIG (1141.1 EXPENSES
MUNICIPAL 1.IOUOk STORE
FOR THE. TWLLVE MONTHS ENDED DF.'CFMMI:R 31, IVV,4 AN)) 1983
-raavaa-nt•.r-r.r.-r. r.-^a--r.:-ar:r r. re+.eeeae r ::: r.:rr.:r�s�r:cv:r:rirrr:xr:rr. sv-ra r.-----rcc:r-err.-•-:r:.-.,.-soara>•rrrrnra.nnnrnmv.nr:r n:nr:r:r-r:-:r.. .. n -..-r. r.--rr-r. --:rrr r.
CURREN'i-PERIOD CUR -PD YEAR, TO -))ATF Y -T-11 Sf:Mf.-PD-LS'f YR PD-t.YR Y -T -D -1 -51' -YR YYU-LY
AMOUNT RATIO AMOUN'1 RATIO AMOUNT RATIE, AMOUNT RATIO
O1HER SERVICES AND CHARGES
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (AUDIT)
!
495.00
.20 !
31010.00
,j2
!
525.00
.22 !
2r970.00
.34
COMMUNICATION
226.81
.09
696.4:1
07
261.50
.11
768.76
.09
TRAVEL -CONFERENCE -SCHOOLS
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
262.8:4
.03
ADVERTISING
62%.71"
.25
1#789.66
.19
819.22
.35
2,430.72
.28
INSURANCE► GENERAL
31053.06
1.22
SSr928.63
1.26
2x961.22
1.26
12#120.68
1.38
UTILITIES# ELECTRICAL
1r562.55
.62
6,691.00
.71
1r473.00
.63
6.674.27
.76
UTILITIES/ HEATING
625.28
2b
1r7R7.42
.19
511.7$
22
1r650.54
.19" "
UTILITIES# S I W
72.86
.03
528.82
88.6:4
.04
:596.43
.04
MAINTENANCE OF EQUIPMENT
83;'..99
.3;4
1r363.89
.06
.14
.00
.00
539.09
.06
DUES# MEMBERSHIP. SUPSCkIPTION
.00
.00
165..00
.02
---.00
.00
.00
.000
TAXES AND LICENSES
.00
.00
E4.25
.01
.00
.00
79.:x5
GARBAGE
247.;.0
990.00
.1(1
247.50
.11
1,000.30
.11
DEPR. - ACQUIRED ASSETS
2,734.44
.10
1.09
10,x1':').66
1.16
3t489.40
1.49
10021.91
1.17
'OTHER
173.17
.07
173.17
.Uj
12.58
.03
233.49
.03
�-,URHIlURE AND EOUIPMENT
.00
00
.00
.00
(
:400.00)
( .13>
00
.00
----------•---
-------------------
------
-------------
-------------------
------
TOTAL OTHER SERVICES t CHARGES!
10,652.31
4.2!. S
iO,095.Y4
4.25
!
JOV085.95
4.31 !
391438.27
4.49
DEBT SERVICE
INTEREST
!(
969.87)
( .39)$
4rH10.'.2
.S1
!
912.13
.39 /
6,122.02
.70
PAYING AGENT FEES
.00
.00
20.00
.00
10.00
.00
20.00
.00
.00
.00
_ .00
.00
-------------
.00
.00
------
TOTAL DENT SERVICES
-------------
!
( 969.87 )
-------------------
( .39)!
-------------
4rs.W .52
-•-----
,51
------------=
!
922.13
------
.39 !
-------------------
6042.02
.70
------
-------------
TOTAL GENERAL 8 ADIM. EXPENSES$
29tH27.6`_:
- -
11.51!
119t248.80
------
12.61
-------------
$
28#809.0:4
12.30 !
-------------------
1161548.88
1:;.26
------
TOTAL OPERATING INCOME.
-------------
!
25,278.78
-------------------
10.10 S
a2,6.1,6.52
---
8.76
-------------
!
18#2.67.49
7.78 !
62,727.91
7.10
UTHF.R INCOME (EXPENSES)
INTEREST INCOME
!
9#174.36
3.67 !
31#857.21
.5. 37
$
6r025.79
2.57 !
21r252.06
2.41
OTHER INCOME:
81.00
.03
2'51.00
.02
Sr283.00
.55
1r*4W7.00
.15
CASH LONG/SHORT
{
-16.39)
t .0'4) t
46Y.81)
4 015)
------
-------------
176.33
OH
-------------------
262.69
.03
------
TOTAL OTHER INCOME (EXPENSES)
-------------
!
91178.97
------ -------------
3.67 S
31,618.40
3.34
$
------------=
7r485.12
3.20 $
-------------------
22,821.75
2.59
------
NET INCOME
-------------
!
34,457.75
-------------------
13.77 4•
114,2::4.92
------
12.10
$
r.-
251752.61
rr r: r-: r:, r. r: a r. r. r:
1019" ♦
:r:r:r:r:r;_
95r549.56
9.69
TRANSFER our -SEWER FUND
s
-._-
70,000.00
_......_- _-..-_--_.....r:r:-
( 27.97 )S
70,000.000
eoa
i 7.40 }
0.00
0.00
i NET INCOME AFTER TRANSFER
5 (
35,542.25 )
! 14.20) 5
44.254.92
4.70
S
25,752.61
10.98 S
85,549.56
9.69
.4
MOHTICEI-LL) MUNIC1P(II. L.IUMN
i REVENUE AND EY.YE.kSEk:
MUNICIPAL LIQUOR S•f01;F.
SALES
LIQUOR
BEER
YIN_
OTHER MUSE
MISC. NON-TAXABLE SALES
y DEPOSITS AND REFUMOS
BOTTLE DEPOSIT - MISC
DISCOUNTS
TOTAL SALES
COST OF GOODS SOLD
GROSS PROFIT
GENERAL AND ADIM. EXPENSES
PERSONAL SERVICES
SALARIES, REGULAR
PERA
INSURANCE. MEDICAL AND LIFE
SOCIAL SECURITY
TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES
SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
UENERAL OPERATING SUPPLIES
MAINTENANCE OF BLDG. SUPPLIES
SMALL TOOLS AND MINOR EQUIP.
TOTAL. SUPPLIES
FOR THE TWEL.VF. MONTHS ENDE)) DECL"MBER 31, 19k14 AND 1983
CURRENT -PERIOD CUR -PI• YEAR -TU -DATE Y. -T-1) SAME-PII-LST-YR PD.L.YR Y -T -D -LST -YR YTD -LY
AMOUNT R!:'f10 AMOUN'1 RATIO AKOUN'1 RATIO AMOUNT RATIO
$ 8`•, 307.62
"-44. OH $
284 x 496.40
:(0.050
$
or., 878. 1H
:16.64 $
2.81. 149.73
31.92
115r240.21
46.04
508x875,25
153683,
104010,17
44@51
462178405
52,54
10,132.30
16.07
11J., :6').67
11.91
34,011.0_4
13.56
102.526.76
11.64
6,254.60
2.S(@
26,994.77
7..86
3,542.79
2.36
3Or517.95
3.47
2,049.01
1.14
13r3H1.81
1.42
2r697.28
1.15
6r038.03
.69
419.87
.17 (
1,308.27)
( .14)
(
67.49)
( .03) (
2r273.20)
( .26)
87.43
.03
5::1.0:5
.06
.00
.00
.00
.00
t 103.45)
( .04) (
17.:4.4:4)
( .01)
.00
.00
-----------------
.00
.00
-------------
$ 250,287.67
------ -------------
99.99 $
915r417.25
- ----
100.02
-------------
$
234,:471.96
99.99 $
080,743.72
100.00
$< 196.181.19)
( 78.38)$(
743,531.93)
( 7F..Ki)
f(
187,29-1.44)
( 79.91)$(
------ -------------
701,467.03)
< 79.64)
------
------------------
$ 51,106.15
---------------
11.61 $
201,81)5.32
------
21.37
-------------
4
47,076.52
20.08 $
179,276.69
20.36
$ 15,5.11.39
6.20 $
60,394.69
6.39
$
14,591.49
6.7.3 $
58,565.06
6.65
599.77
.24
2,372.35
.25
656.82
.29
2,457.55
.28
1,094.73
.44
4r349.72
.46
1r7.65.34
.54
3r517.69
.40
1.044.88
.42
3,404.14
.36
-------------
679.26
.29
------ -------------
7.r889.38
.33
------
- ------------
$ 18,63.77
------ -------------
'7.30 $
70,520.90
------
7.46
$
17,192.91
- 7.34 $
67,429.68
7.66
$ 1:1.32
.00 $
138.64
.01
$
78.75
.O'.'. $
451.89
.05
69:1.67
.:.E•
Sr479.77
.37
;;7.9.39
.2.4
2,168.60
.25
131.48
.05
136.07
O1
.00
.00
1443.42
.10
41.97
.02
UM
.00
-------------
.00
.00
-------------------
75,00
001
------
-------------
f 1301.44
-------------------
.35 $
3,801.44
------
.39
1
608.14
.26 $
3r538.91
.41
4
Mt1NTICELL0 MUNICIPAL LI(2tUOR
Bh1_ANCF. SHEET
MUNICIPAL LIQUOR ,TURF
DEVE'MBER 311 19H4 AWN) 1911;i
+a:_a:rv-rrrasrrr-rz--r-rrr.e-:rec--.------.•_---:-••r-m>er, r: -» s:^-:-:r:ronr. r. r.:nr:r:rsr:rsr:er. r::rxr:rxrxrr. sr««rr—.. r:.—, r. r.:r r. r. "••:• �T»-» r: rr r. 11.11 r. .: r: r. r. sr:r:-:r:vr. «r.» rr. s» r. »» r. » «» «»-».
AGSET:.
CURRENT ASSETS
CASH IN DANK — M; CKIMG
CHANGE GE FUND
CASH IN BANK — RESTRICTED
INVESTMENTS
INVESTMENTS — RESTRICTFD
NSF CHECK — RECEIVABLE
INVENTORIES
PREPAID INSURANCE
UIIAMORTI?ED BOND DISCOUNT
TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS
PROPERTY ANL EQUIPMENT
LANK)
BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS
PARKING LOT
FURNITURE AND FIXTURES
ACCUM. DEPR. — BUILDINGS
ACCUM DECK—FURNITURE I FIXTURE
ACCUM. DEPR. — PARKING LOT
TOTAL PROPERTY AND EGUIPMENT
TOTAL ASSETS
f 64:022.29
11000.00
11614.80
2.14#809.10
47r540."
44.06
881478.79
2x5:13.69
239.53
4 4201282.46
i 61$34.95
)519671.04
$:515.50
5$s4$0,31
( 33.276.50)
( 5#862.50)
— — — t 153:494.7.9
-------------
f S%3r 7'7'6.75
f 231156.61
1.000.00
2x274.80
2261639.15
47:540.20
40.13
M 169.89
21415.32
650.05
4 6:$39.45
SSIr6'71.04
89515.50
42,973.31
( 29:227.50)
t 26r652.85)
( 59194.$0)
------------
f
3911886.15
4 148192.4.95
------------
f 540,811.10
\7
I4
MON"FICEL.1-0 MUNICIPAL_ L.I1lIlOR
BALANCE. SHEET
MUNICIPAL. L.IUUOR Sl'ORE
t
CURRENT LIABILITIES
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
PAYROLL Y/M - PERA
SALES TAX PAYABLE
PAYROLL Y/H - FEDERAL.
SALARIES PAYABLE
ACCRUED SICK LEAVE 6 VACATIONS
PAYROLL Y/H - STATE
PAYROLL Y/H - FICA
BLIND INTEREST PAYABLE
TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES
LONG-TERM LIABILITIES
BONDS PAYABLE
TOTAL LONG-TERM LIABILITIES
TOTAL LIABILITIES
EQUITY
RETAINED EARNINGS
kEVENUES OVER EXPENDITURES
TOTAL EQUITY
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
DFCEMAER 31r 19V4 AND 19113
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
361328#65
70.46
8, 494.79
.00
928.37
306. V3
.00
3:F.94
Lr787.50
f 48,900.64
f 65000.00
-------------
65000,00
-------------
f Ii3r900.64
$ 26r602.66
i5.73
8r126.3P
,185.70
639.50
' Sr274.:+8
246.00
482.06
2r3:�7.50
f 409189.91
f NSrODU.00
-------------
85,000.00
-------------
4 f25r189.y1
415r6:'1.1S f 330071.63
44t251.92 85 , N49 . `•6
------------- -------------
f 4`..9#876.11 f 415,621.19
------
-------------
s 573,76.7:; f 540#811.10
1
M
MONT31111.0
mwicir(A..
LIQUOR
Pace
MIMS
PROFIT BY PROM Cl SOL.11
Currvr.t
- Period
Year -- to
- Vatc
Samc-Pcriod-L.Ost-Yr
Year -to -Date -Last -Yr
Amount
x
1 Amount
x
Amount
X
Amount
x
LIQUOR SALES
$
8S9307.62
190.12 S
201t49I-.40
100.01 S
85r878.1e
100.00 $
291r149.73
100.00
11DISCOUNTS
303.45)
J'-,)
17.3.4;'.)
( .01)
.00
.00
.00
.00
LOST OF SALES LICrUOR
6br600.2e
V-0.51
222Y271.07
78.16
70r924.43
92.59
222r724.17
79.22
-------------
------
--------------
-------------
------ --------------
------
GROSS PROFIT
$
16r603,89
19.49 $
62r101.V0
21.141 $
-
14r953.75
0.41 $
501425.56
20.78
BEER SALES
1151240.24
V9.64
500.875.25
100.26
104Y310.37
100.06
462#784.45
100.49
:'DEPOSITS AND REFUNDS
419.87
M
1,308.27)
.26)
67.49)
.06)
207'3.20)
.49)
COST OF SALES - BEER
93r413.Pb
80.77
409,7216.36
00.72
------ -------------
84r236.21
110.M
------
377r116.19
83.89
GROSS PROFIT
-------------
$
22.246.23
------
19.23 S
---------
97r840.62
19.2V $:
20Y006.44
-------------
19.19 s
03r395.06
------
18.11
rZ
-
WINE SALES
40,232.30
190.00
112P56Y.6I
100.00
36F0I1.03
100.00
102r526.76
100.00
COST OF SALES WINE
-------------
25r763.39
64.04
-..- ---
72,58::.1)6
-------------
64.48
------ -------------
21Y846.92
69.00
------ -------------
6811497.13
67.20
------
GROSS PROFIT
$
14,468.91
31.1.96 $
391905.81
35.52. $
119164.11
331629.63
32.80
OTHER SALES
6r254.60
68.05
21.f991.77
65.99
5,542.79
67.27
309517.95
83.48
t,4ilSC. MON-TAYABLE SALES
2P849.01
O(q
131391 .01
2r697.28
:2.•7.3
6Y038.03
16.52
.10TTLE DEPOSIT MISC
87.43
.9S
531.0!;
1.30
.00
.00
.00
.00
COST OF SALES OTHER
6,877.77
71.83
MrS58.67
83,99
6w187.81
75.09
28r495.41
77.95
COST OF -SOLES FREIGHT
-------------------
lr525.87
i6.60
4.591.9.7
11.23
------- -------------
1r100.04
13.3:-
------
4Y234.13
11.58
GROSS PROFIT
6
787.40
0.1.57 4
-------------
1r956.99
4.78 $
952.212
-------------
11.56 •
3r826.44
------
10.47
P�
TOTAL SALES
250,303.64
100.09
V151009.63
100.00
234,371.91•
100.00
880f743.72
100.00
TOTAL COST OF SALES
-------------------
196,181.14
'?8.313
7131531.9?
M. 6P
11`7r295.44
'79.91
'701,467.03
79.64
TOTAL GROSS PROFIT
$
54,122.45
21 .6? S20lr477.70
------ -------------
21.31, $
42rO76.52
------ -------------
20.09
1'79x276.6920.36
------
M