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 -