Loading...
IDC Minutes 07-19-1984 . i MIN TES MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE THURSDAY, JULY 19 1984 - 7:00 A.M. MONTI CELL CITY HALL Members Present: Co-Chairman Jay Morrell, Harvey Kendall, Dale Lungwitz, Ron H glund, Bud Schrupp, Don Smith, and Allen Pelvi . Members Absent: John Bondhus, T m Eidem, Bruce Gagnelius, Arve Grimsmo, S;elly Johnson, and Co-Chairman Gary Wieber. Co-chairman Morrell opened the me ting and asked for approval of the June 21, 1984, minutes. R n Hoglund moved for approval and was seconded by Bud Schrupp. . Bud Schrupp reported on the Indus rial Development Goals & Policies subcommittee's meeting. He state that after reviewing the Goals & POlicies, they only had 0 e suggestion, that being to perhaps reword Item #4, Page 50, omprehensive Guide Plan. Allen stated that the subcommitte responsible for reviewing Community Development Goals & Pol'cies had some concern over elimination of blight, noxious we ds, litter, weeds, and junk, etc. He further stated that thes suggestions will be forwarded to the appropriate bodies. The next item on the agenda was a analysis of the Annual Banquet ticket sales. At the June 21, 1984, meeting, Bud SChrupp suggested having the first ticket at $75.00 and tickets thereafter at $50.00. It was further suggested to have Allen prepare an analysis showing various ticket prices and umber of tickets needed to obtain a desired net profit. AIle prepared such an analysis and explained to the Committee tha 121 tickets at $75.00 each netted us $7,522.20 (Exhibit A) an 71 at $75.00 and 50 at $50.00 would give a net profit of approxi ately $5,506.92. Allen then explained that in 1984 ticket sale increased 49% over 1983 and that to obtain the $7,522.20 n t profit, a 42% increase in ticket sales would be needed in 1985. This would mean selling approximately 50 additional ticket; in 1985. The analysis was prepared using 1984 revenue and ex ense data in direct proportion to 1985 projections. The Committe was informed that approximately $1,100.00 was contributed to the f nd raiser with no representatives attending. This may occur to some extent every year. . Co-Chairman Morrell inquired about. any money that may be outstanding at this time. Allen stated that r. minder letters totaling $2,100.00 were sent out. He went on to say hat we could reasonably expect $1,500.00 to be returned. To date, we have received $1,100.00 and do not anticipate receiving an more. Allen added that some - 1 - IDC Minutes - 7/19/84 . contributions that we received wer' not expected and some that were expected were not received. i , Dale Lungwitz suggested that a de ision must be made as to whether the Committee wants to have this unction as a pure fund raiser or as an event where more spouses! might attend. At the same time, 50 more people would be nee' ed just to reach the same profit. Allen added that another' 42% increase in ticket sales is possible but not likely. Dale then asked if we wished this event to be profit oriented r to broaden the base of people involved in economic development. The Committee discussed the pro's and con's of raising or lowering the ticket prices for 1985. It as the consensus of the Committee to retain the present $75.00 tic et price. The Conwittee did not feel it likely to sell anoth r 50 or more tickets under Exhibit B ($75.00 & $50.00) just to obtain the same net profit. However, they did feel that with the effort that Allen gave in coordinating this year's ticket ales, we could increase our ticket sales somewhat over 1984 sing $75.00/ticket. Dale also stated that with economic result throughout the year it would also help promote ticket sales. Bud suggested a 1985 goal of selling a minimum of 125 tickets at $75.00 (125 x $75.00 $9,375.00 less 25% expenses $2,344.00. 9,375.00 less $2,344.00 $7,031.00). . Co-Chairman Morrell opened the I dustry Appreciation Day item by suggesting that whatever type of event is chosen that it be publicized before the public. He explained the thank-you ad placed in the times as an exa pIe of going public. It is something that needs to be pushe . Bud suggested having a day where there would be tours of industries, etc. Jay stated that he was not in favor of this and that he was not happy with the 1983 Indu try Day. He felt that tours were not necessary. He did feel, however, that the possibility of having the Mayor proclaim a d y or week Industry Appreciation Day/Week and utilizing the press as appropriate. He further suggested the Committee place an, ad informing the public about what this day/week is and what e ents will be taking place. He also suggested listing economic growth since 1978, etc., which could be an update of what the Times has already done. Last year's (1983) Industry Day id not attract outside industry representatives as anticipated. Co-Chairman Morrell stated that the Committee should be co cerned with inviting those that contributed to the 1983 fund ra"ser for the 1984 event. He also stated that the first Appr ciation Day was a picnic outing without free golf. Dale Lungwi z added that tours were planned but were not successful. Ron H glund stated that the 1984 tours scheduled were not successful w'th respect to all the effort . 2 - . IDC Minutes - 7/19/84 in coordinating them. Allen rela ed John Bondhus' message that he personally feels tours are notlonly appropriate, but wanted by the public. John stated that ,is firm would like to participate in an open house. He further staed that having people register for tours is taken negatively by he public, but if you advertise an open house with the Times, the public will be more receptive. Ron Hoglund suggested that open h uses and schedules could be listed in the ad publicizing Indu try Day/Week. Co-Chairman Morrell stated in hav ng tours and open houses, etc., the wrong type of individua s are attracted. Dale Lungwitz asked what other cities are doing for this event. Morrell gave examples of Appreciation Day acti ities that were given by Bob Stern. Allen stated that an Appr ciation Day is no longer a Star City requirement but is look d upon favorably by the Minnesota Department of Economic Developmen. Morrell asked if the Committee's "ntent is to have only those that contribute to the banquet be invited or to have a big P.R. push to invite all business peopl and area firms such as the Miller Construction and Barthel's, etc. . Harvey Kendall suggested that som given to those who attend whateve The brochure could list the Commi suggested that a possible format by open golf afterwards. There s such as accomplishments (FSI, Key type of brochure, etc., be type of appreciation event. tee's accomplishments. Morrell ould be a noon luncheon followed ould be a program at the luncheon Tool, etc.). Dale Lungwi tz inquired about keep "ng current with the video presentation. Allen stated that his has tentatively been on the agenda for both June and July" but more important items have taken its place. He stated hat updating the presentation will be on the August agenda. It will be good to wait for completion of several new projects in the up ating. It was the consensus of the Commi have an Industry Appreciation Day/Week during the month of Sept Harvey Kendall suggested the luncheon event be followed by Bud suggested this event be held at the end of the w ek and culminate all the Industry Appreciation Week activities. Co Chairman Morrell asked Ron Hoglund what he thought of combining the Appreciation Day luncheon with the Chamber luncheon. He futher suggested that the money allocated to the Chamber luncheon would go toward the Appreciation Day luncheon. There was a discussion held regarding how to plan the meeting and send invitations, etc. This, Morrell suggested, would be publicized as the Mayor'S proclamation of Industry Week. . Dale Lungwitz did not feel the Ch ber/Appreciation Day luncheon was a good idea. He stated that 0 e of the reasons they contribute - 3 - . to the fund raiser is to attend Dale felt some individuals would event and found out it was somet attend. IDC Minutes - 7/19/84 he Appreciation Day event. 'be upset if they came to the ing that they could already The location of the luncheon was ,discussed, and it was the consensus of the Committee to have it at t e River Inn this year. It was also the consensus to have t e Appreciation Week during the third week of September. Dale Lungwitz indicated that if he Chamber meeting was combined with the Appreciation Day event, some acknowledgement or plaque, etc., should be presented to those who contributed to the fund raiser. The location of the event was discussed. It was decided that the Country Club could not handl~ 100 or more people, and the mosquito problem would be bad. len added that the 1983 event attracted 68 people. Co-Chairman Morrell indicated no problems with the meal, but the program di, not work because of the seating arrangements. Harvey Kendall suggested a subco ittee to review, propose, and return to the Committee with scheduled program. Co-Chairman Morrell stressed the fact that th's is the end of July and that the subcommittee should return wi h its recommendation by the next meeting (8/16/84). Allen wi, I contact the appropriate subcommittee members and arrange he meeting. . One last suggestion was made by D' Committee could present some type plaque to the banquet contributor . the Committee. Jay Morrell stated that if the Ap Day, is the third Thursday in Sep regular meeting should be moved u Harvey Kendall has been investiga NSP's Chairman, Mr. McCarthy, as that in going through the channel of the speech were of concern. A McCarthy will accept. Harvey sta Manager from St. Cloud, is very i be handled through him. At this what the purpose of the banquet i the Conwittee is looking for. . Lungwitz. Perhaps the an ongoing (dated) appreciation This was considered by reciation Week, and Appreciation ember, then the Committee's to an earlier date. ing the possibility of having 985's guest speaker. He stated ng procedures, the area(s) so, it is not known if Mr. ed that Dick Staatz, Division terested and will probably oint, NSP would like to know and what type of topic(s) . A discussion regarding areas of i was the consensus of the Committe what their role is in economic de plant means to Monticello through There are areas of concern such a - originally the nuclear pIa only 40 years and then was - If NSP is spending approxi and re-pipe the plant, are will give a longer life ex IDC MINUTES - 7/19/84 terest took place, and it to have NSP's speaker explain elopment and what the nuclear ut the next 20-40 years. life expectancy of been phased out. million to refuel to assume the cost Will Monticello's tax base benefit by this major project. Co-Chairman Morrell asked Harvey meeting with commitment. Harvey but he could give a progress repo, Lungwitz felt that it would be he speaker by September's meeting. . Co-Chairman Morrell asked for add survey draft. Don Smith inquired become too involved in this or etc. Allen stated that the resea met on July 17, 1984, to discuss He further stated that the subco contact with developers/contracto questions. After obtaining answe more detailed questions could be where, who and why of the problem intent to have a few questions, s was an Industrial Development Com their behalf? Allen indicated th cover letter or the initial conta Don asked Co-Chairman Morrell if to be directed more to the public he hears comments on how "difficu or, "By the time we got all the v it". The intention of the survey areas are and how to correct them he was unable to attend the meeti that the Committee wanted the sur regarding Monticello and the abil some areas of concern, then more . Co-Chairman Morrell stated that h space for written answers and sen permit within the last three year o return to the August 16 aid that it was not likely, t at the next meeting. Dale pful to have a committed guest he Committee was in agreement. tions to the preliminary developer as to having the Committee ill we assist in any way, ch and planning subcommittee he preliminary survey draft. ittee agreed that the initial s should be soft, using general s to these questions, the sed to determine what, when, Don added, is it the Committee's ch as were they aware there ,ittee or a group working on t would be explained in the t to the developer. intended these questions sector. Morrell stated that t it is to build in Monticello", riances, it just wasn't worth is to find out where problem Ron Hoglund stated that g, but it was his understanding ey to broadly ask questions ty to build. If there were n-depth questions can be asked. would like to see a lot more to anyone who has had a building , and also every contractor IDC MINUTES - 7/19/84 . that has worked in the City withi then would be sent with a cover 1 personal interview or telephone c the last three years. This tter and followed up by a 11. Ron Hoglund suggested a direct su off or offend contractors, as the City. Morrell stated that it cou letter that "The Monticello Indus is interested in promoting indust so, we are looking for your comme vey such as this might scare have to get along with the d be explained with a cover rial Development Committee Monticello and in doing Dale Lungwitz suggested adding a reply so that we can improve in t concerned with. For example, if they can't get along with Allen P have a talk with Allen Pelvit. M what he is looking for. requesting their candid e areas developers are most 10 developers that say then the Committee better indicated that is exactly . Allen explained that even though curbing for parking lots, there m meeting the Ordinance without ins An example might be to say that a border your parking lot, here are 1) surmountable, 2) insurmountab timbers, 5) wire fence, and 6) sp stated that developers may be les rather than being told this is wh agreed that alternatives would be he City has an Ordinance on y be an alternative way of aIling insurmountable curbing. though you are required to six alternative types of curbing: e, 3) railroad ties, 4) landscaping it rail fence. Allen further offensive if given a choice t you have to do. Dale Lungwitz a good idea. Co-Chairman Morrell stated that t is survey will work with the Committee's continual review of t e City's Ordinances. He also stated that the Planning and Zoni g Commission will be meeting at the end of July to review the econd half of the Guide Plan. After attending a Planning Commis ion meeting with a request, Morrell did not feel they did wha they should do. He felt the Planning Commission should 10 k at the particular requirement-- parking for example. They should make a basic decision that the developer doesn't need curbin ,etc. The Planning Commission Chairman indicated to Morrell tha the Ordinance requires curbing around your parking lot because t at's what the Council tells us. Morrell stated that he doesn"t have a problem with a curbing requirement because the City prov"des a vehicle for variances. But really the City doesn't give ariances. Allen again shared some discussion of the research a d planning subcommittee meeting of July 17, 1984. He suggested t e alternative type of barriers. Jay stated that there are certain firms in the industrial park that realistically do not need cu bing. He cited John Bondhus' new expansion as an example. He tated that all curbing would do is hinder snow removal. Jay's concern is that the Planning Commission and City Council have more open attitude toward . . IDC MINUTES - 7/19/84 variances. Dale Lungwitz asked Mo' rell if Ordinances would then be recommended and not absolu e. Co-Chairman Morrell said no. He went on to say that curbin should be required around all parking lots; however, varianoes may be obtained under certain building conditions, etc. He also referred to the Planning Commission Chairman's statement 0 will the point in question cause an economic hardship. Morr 11 stated that in one respect anything that is not functional P ts an economic hardship on the developer. In most cases, it ,would not bankrupt the company to put in curbing. An example wo ld be a firm with a $140,000.00 building. Another $10,000.00 would not break the firm. The question is, is it feasible? Allen explained the difference be and a non-economic hardship. Exa would include having a problem in shaped lot or not having time to of seasonal changes, etc. ween an economic hardship pIes of non-economic hardships removing snow from an irregularly omplete the parking lot because Co-Chairman Morrell's feelings ar that because we have Ordinances, we follow them. Regardless of whet er it's any benefit to anybody, it's done just because it's an Or. inance. This is the attitude he gets from the Planning Commiss'on and the City Council. Dale Lungwitz stated that in some cases the conditional use permits, etc., are granted for 1- years and then the Ordinance is not enforced afterwards. Dale added that it's hard to enforce an Ordinance when others are not dhering to them. . Jay Morrell stated that if you're not a persistent, hard-nosed type of person that pursues your oals, then as a developer they might just say the heck with it and go somewhere else or forget their plans all together. Jay explained how John Simola, Public Works Director for City 0 Monticello, told him that he couldn't put in sewer and wat r. He went on to say that the only way he could get sewer ,nd water would be to run a water main and sewer line to the 'property and assess him $13,000.00. When they went before the City Cuncil, the Council agreed to his original suggestion. He ult'mately got exactly what he wanted; but because of individuas at City Hall, the project could have not taken place. Jay s point is that if he were not already local and such a die hard, he would not have pursued it further. He stated that the mall project was not worth the hassle over a $13,000.00 as essment. Harvey Kendall inquired as to wh ther this was due to City policies or personalities. Morrell respo ded by saying both and that this is what we were trying to g t out of the survey. In trying to obtain a building permit, som developers may just decide that it's too darn hard to build in Monticello. He went on to use the new bank as an exampl. Also, if a developer has . ~ 7 - IDC MINUTES - 7/19/84 . committed funds, and funds and int rest commence on July 1, and then the City says there is a roblem to be corrected before this can proceed and the soonest his can be resolved is two weeks from now, this is another h'ndrance for the developer. Allen explained that the City wen out of their way to not only help the bank get the best servic s for the lowest cost, but also worked with Security Federal and their plans for expansion. As a result, both the First Natio al Bank and Security Federal will have services and share equa ly in the cost. The City tried to combine services to Moon Motors as well, but this did not work out. There was also som concern over proper assessment of this project. Allen added tha the reason for the City's policy on sewer and water was not to hinder the process but to actually aid the process. Bec use of past experience, all future projects will be researche by City staff prior to the issuance of a building permit. T e main reason for this type of pOlicy is to insure that prope services are or will be available to the developer. This is an att mpt by the City to eliminate any surprises after a building pe mit is approved. . Don Smith appreciated both Dale ~ ngwitz' and Jay Morrell's remark but had some concern as t~ whether this was one person's irritation or several having the isame problem. Also, Don suggested that we alsO survey those develo ers and/or firms that were considering developing in Montic ,110 but did not. Don stated that he felt it important that t,is survey find out if and how the Industrial Development Commi,tee may have been of assistance. i Allen asked the Committee if the recommended the research and development subcommittee to proc ed with general questions that look for strengths or weaknesses or should they start with the detailed questions right from th beginning. Don Smith suggested a cover letter asking for their ime and cooperation and asking them the same questions. He did 't feel we should be giving the developers the impression th re are problems; but if there are problems, then ask detailed' uestions. Don would like the questionnaire completed in perso . Co-Chairman Morrell suggested drl fting a cover letter with Allen and sending it to all contracto~ and developers during the last 2-3 years. Allen stated t~at these recommendations would be forwarded to the research an planning subcommittee. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Developmen . 8 -