Loading...
City Council Agenda Packet 03-10-1980AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL March 10, 1980 - 7:30 P.M. MAYOR: Arve Grimsmo P COUNCIL MEMBERS: Dan Blonigen, Fran Fair, Ken Maus, Phil White. Meeting to be taped. Citizens Comments - 1. Consideration of Allocation of 55,000 in Expenditures for the Business and Industrial Development Committee of the Monticello Chamber of Commerce. Irr-, Pu>'=, ',u1• APPila�6p� 2. Consideration of Resolution calling for Public Hearing on 1980-1 Improvement Project for Sewer, Wa er and Other Improvements Along East County Road 39. < n PPA.+to� 3. Consideration of A proval of Final Plat on "The Meadows Subdivision". P.w F, ilbJae) A. Consideration of Approval of Senior Citizens Center Director to Attend the National Confgrenc�ponsored by the National Council on the Aging, Inc. QQtt.a,.L fa"• of 5. Cos eration of Authorization of AcquYsition of Two -Way Radio. Nqt&*U" 1, T\6. Approval of Minutes - February 25, 1980 Regular Meeting. Unfinished Business - 3/20/80 Meeting - Local Civil Defense Plan - 7:30 P.M. Wrightco Report from Orr-Schelen-Mayeron 6 Assoc. New Business - COUNCIL AGENDA - 3/10/80 AGENDA SUPPLEMENT 1. Consideration of Allocation of $5,000 in Expenditures for the Business and Industrial Development Committee of the Monticello Chamber of Commerce. Purpose of this item is to consider an allocation of $5,000 towards the Chamber of Commerce Committee on Business and Industrial Development budget which totals $10,000. The Business and industrial Development Committee of the Monticello Chamber of Commerce was formed November of 1978, and its mission, as indicated in the enclosed Development Plan for 1980, is to seek and support industrial, commercial, business, financial and professional growth in the Monticello community. Primary reason for the founding of this Committee was to diversify Monticello's economy, which the Chamber of Commerce felt was too reliant on the Northern States Power Company plant. In addition to diversifying the economy, it is hoped that various industries and business enterprises will be attracted to the Monticello area, thereby increasing local employment. It is felt that in light of the current energy situation, and with the number of commuters that are currently in Monticello, the possibility exists that these commuters may one day choose to relocate their residence in the Metropolitan area as opposed to continuing to commute. By attracting industry, this will give this segment of those currently working an alternative to moving into the Metropolitan area. As the labor survey which was conducted in August of 1979 revealed, 60% of the working population in the Monticello area commutes to the Metropolitan area every day for their employment. Additionally, there are a significant number of people who would consider employment in the community of Monticello were it available. These would include people who are looking for parttime work, housewives, semi -retired people, etc. Other communities throughout the state are actively involved in industrial development. For example, I have enclosed an article from the December 3, 1979 issue of the Red Wing Eagle, which indicates that the City of Red Wing, which is in a similar situation as Monticello with a nuclear plant, has allocated $40,000 to promote the effort for industrial development with the Chamber of Commerce. Other communities such as Princeton, Buffalo and several other communities throughout the state have actually hired a fulltime Economic Development Director. These Directors may have other functions which might include Planning and Zoning, but the larger cities have an Economic Development Director that has as his sale responsibility attracting industries to the community and working with business enterprises. Since the formation of this Committee, it has met with Fingerhut and Clow Stamping to encourage their relocation to the Monticello area. Additionally, it has met with several other industries who are looking at Monticello as a possible location. COUNCIL AGENDA - 3/10/80 According to the Industrial Development Plan in 1980, plans are to develop an advertising campaign, slide presentation and have an "Industry Day" to promote Monticello. I believe a good article on industrial development and reasons for such a committee can be found in an article written by William S. Sneath, Chairman of the Board of Union Carbide Corporation, copy of which is enclosed. As you can see, one of the most important factors in locating in any community is the attitude of the community and its leaders about the role and respon- sibility of business. Our Committee feels that one of its primary func- tions is to convey a positive attitude to industry that Monticello is willing to work with industry to improve the community. On the last page of the proposed budget for the Chamber of Commerce Commit- tee, you will note the detailed budget totalling $10,000. The Chamber of Commerce is proposing to raise $2.500 through an increase in dues and the other $2,500 through a fund raiser. The balance, or 50%, would be asked to be forthcoming from the City of Monticello. i have talked with Russ Andrews of the State Auditor's Office, who referred me to i4ike Gallagher, with the Attorney General's Office, about the legality of such an expenditure. Mr. Gallagher indicated that the expenditure in his opinion was a legal expenditure; however, that the City should pay the expenditures directly that are authorized by the City Council of Monticello. He indicated that Minnesota Statute 465.56 allows a City to appropriate monies for the purpose of advertising the community and its resources and advantages. As you can see by the enclosed budget, $4.850 has been allocated for advertising, along with the slide presentation which in effect adver- tises the City of Monticello. As a result, if the City Council were to approve the allocation of $5,000, the City should actually pay for the ex- penditures directly, instead of merely allocating $5,000 towards the Chamber of Commerce. For example. legitimate costs could include the slide presentation, the advertising costs, postage and supplies, parttime help and other expenditures totalling $7,900, and of this amount, the City could appropriate its $5,000 towards actual expenditures incurred. The remaining $2,100, which includes the promotion on industry day and travel and entertainment expenses . would have to be paid entirely by the Chamber of Commerce. I am also sending the background on this item to Gary Pringle, our City Attorney, for his review to determine the legality of such an expenditure. As indicated above, if the City of Monticello would approve of the appropriation, actual bills would have to be submitted to the City of Monticello for approval just like any other bill, and payment would go directly towards the vendor, rather than the Chamber of Commerce. COUNCIL AGENDA - 3/10/80 John Bondhus, a member of the Committee, will be at the meeting on Monday night to give an oral presentation. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of appropriating $5,000 towards those por- tions of the budget indicated above totaling $7,900. Actual bills would have to be submitted to the City of Monticello just like any other bill. REFERENCES: 1980 Development Plan enclosed, article on what business is looking for in a new location, and 12/3/79 article from Red Wing Eagle relative to allocation of $40,000 from City of Red Wing towards Industrial Development, Copy of Statute 465.56. Consideration of Resolution calling for Public Hearing on 1980-1 improvement Project for Sewer. Water and Other improvements Along East County Road 39. Purpose of this Item is to consider a resolution which would call for the public hearing on the proposed improvements for sanitary sewer, water alung East County Road 75 and East County Road 39, plus proposed installation of storm sewer to serve Macarlund Plaza. A copy of the feasibility report prepared by our consulting engineers, Orr-Schelen-Mayeron 8 Associates, is enclosed for your reference. According to the report, the total project cost would be $286,036 and would be assessed as proposed on page 5 of the report itself. A summary of the assessments is as follows: Macarlund Plaza Townhouse Area S 93,277 Remaining portion of Macarlund Plaza 58,690 Maurice Hoglund Property 98,584 Lot 19, Blk 3, Hoglund Addition 5 485 TOTAL ASSESSMENTS 2 6L036 in addition to the assessible portion of $256,036, it is proposed that the 16" watermain be installed along East County Road 39 from the intersection of County Road 75 and East County Road 39 to the intersection of East County Road 39 with Mississippi Drive, at a cost of $30,000 which will be picked up on ad valorem, or general property taxes. Consideration could be given to pro -rating a portion of this oversizing to the properties proposed to be benefitted on this project. Copy of this report will be sent to the main petitioners on this project, that is - Macarlund Plaza - and if the Council does hold a hearing, all property owners proposed to be assessed will be notified along with their proposed assessments. This notification will make the property owners are that the estimated assessment is just exactly that - only an estimate. It should be noted that this feasibility report does include not only the total cost of the project and the proposed assessments, but as previously indicated, the assessment breakdown for each property owner. This is as a result of problems incurred with the 1978-1 Improvement Project, whereby property owners indicated that they previously were not aware of the magnitude of the assessments. Normally, an assessment breakdown is not necessary at the time of the initial feasibility report, although estimates - 3 - COUNCIL AGENDA - 3/10/80 possibly are given on a square footage or per foot area. By having the proposed assessment per each parcel, each property owner is given a more exact idea of what their assessments could end up being. Procedure at this point would be to review the feasibility report at the Council level, and if the Council wanted to pursue the project further, a resolution would have to be adopted calling for the public hearing. At the time the heari ng is held or at a later date, the Council could con- sider ordering plans and specifications and calling for bids for the project. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of adoption of the resolution enclosed calling for a public hearing on the 1980-1 Improvement Project. REFERENCES: Enclosed copy of feasibility report prepared by Orr-Schelen- Mayeron 8 Associates, and a copy of the proposed resolution. 3. Consideration of Approval of Final Plat on"The Meadows Subdivision". Purpose of this item is to consider approval of the final plat for The Meadows Subdivision. This plat was reviewed on a preliminary basis and approved at the City Council's January 28. 1980 meeting. The Plat itself is approximately 30 acres in size, and consists of 64 residential lots. This particular area is zoned as single family residential. �. As you might recall from the January 28, 1980 meeting, the Council voted to accept, for purposes of park dedication, a parcel of land approximately 3.8 acres in size. This area would serve both as a park and a portion of it would be set aside for draining the entire subdivision. There was a concern expressed at the time of the review by the Council by our Engineer that the ponding area may have to be enlarged, but could be still located within the 3.8 acres of park dedication with sufficient land left over for park purposes. A copy of the final plat is being sent to our engineer for his review and comments, and John Bakdalich will be reviewing this item with the City Council at the meeting Monday night. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval of final plat for The Meadows Subdivision. REFERENCES: Copy of final plat available for review at the Monticello City Hal 1 . C IWIM COUNCIL AGENDA - 3/10/80 4. Consideration of Approval of Senior Citizens Center Director to Attend the National Conference Sponsored by the National Council on the Aqinq, inc. Purpose of this item is to consider a request by Karen Hanson to attend the above conference which is held this year in Washington, D.C. The conference commences on April 20th and closes on April 23rd. Enclosed, please find a letter from Karen Hanson explaining the reason for her request. As you can see by her letter, the maximum cost for this con- ference would be approximately $670. At the time the City Council of Monticello considered its budget for 1980, the possibility was discussed of sending the Senior Citizens Director to the National Conference. At that time, in a discussion with Karen, it was felt that possibly the City could provide in its budget adequate allowance to have Karen sent to the conference approximately every other year depending upon the particular items on the agenda. With this in mind, $500 was autho- rized in the 1980 budget with the understanding that in 1981, approximately an equal amount would be budgeted to allow for attendance on an every other year basis if ultimately approved by the Council. As you can see by her letter, Karen Hanson indicates that she does not expect to attend the National Conference every year, and would like to specifically go this year because the agenda includes very many items she feels are relevant to a senior citizens center. For your information, acopy of the Agenda for the Conference is enclosed, and Karen has circled those items she has expressed an interest in attending. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval of authorizing senior citizens director to attend Conference on National Council on the Aging, Inc. held from 4/20 - 23 in Washington, D.L. REFERENCES: Enclosed letter from Karen Hanson dated February 27, 1980 and Agenda on the Conference itself. - 5 - COUNCiL AGENDA - 3/10/80 ,q y 5. Consideration of Authorization of Acquisition of Two-Wav Radio. �1 Purpose of this item is to get Council approval on the acquisition of a two-way radio that initially, according to our Civil Defense Director, was to be used as part of a base station system, but has become an accessory piece of equipment since it is no longer necessary as part of our base station. Enclosed, please find a summary prepared by our Civil Defense Director, Loren Klein, on this item, whereby he indicates the sequence of events relative to the acquisition of the initial two-way radio, plus the acquisi- tion of another base station. As a result of the fact that the two-way radio was not necessary to be part of the base station system. Loren has had this piece of equipment installed in his truck, and the public works department is using the second hand-held radio initially meant for the Civil Defense Director. As a result then, the City of Monticello's public works department has two hand-held radios plus the Civil Defense Director currently has a two-way radio in his truck. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of authorizing the acquisition of a two-way radio for our Civil Defense Director, in addition to the two hand-held radios currently used by the Public Works Department. One other alternative, as indicated by Loren Klein, would be to return the two-way radio in his truck and Loren will be getting a figure by Monday night's meeting on what credit the City could receive. REFERENCES: Enclosed summary by Loren Klein relative to the two-way radio and siren system. SUE 1980 INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT PLAN INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MONTICELLO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 1 BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MONTICELLO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE +MISSION STATEMENT The committee's mission is to seek and support industrial, commercial, business, financial and professional growth in the Monticello community. *THE SITUATION TODAY Monticello is one of Minnesota's fastest growing communities, due to its advantageous location just 45 minutes northwest of Minneapolis, Location on Interstate 94, lower taxes due to Northern States Power Company's nuclear plant here, a community on the move with vibrant businet;s activity, access to recreational activities and natural resources (including the Mississippi River), excellent public facilities, top-notch public schools -all have been factors in Monticello's population growth. And yet despite that growth and being part of the exodus from urban life, Monticello has been able to retain both the identity and qualities of a small community. During the post decade, there has been significant commercial growth in Monticello, particularly in retail business and proleasionsI-service firms. And, smaller industries and manufacturers have expanded their operations, while others have located in Monticello. Yet, our tax base is still heavily weighted to the revenues which come from NSP's facility here. And the situation today requires facing the fact that due to such factors as depreciation, legislative action, increased pollution control equipment (which may be tax exempt) and other tax related decisions. NSP's assessed valuation here is gradually decreasing. The drop to this point isn't what all people would doom substantial enough to call for an alarm. Yet, the trend seems assured. The Monticello community has seen the highpoint of tax revenues it can expect from NSP and that amount will likely drop annually. Actions beyond our borders could measurably decrease it, too. With NSP's taxes making such a huge impact locally, there. has been little organized attempt by the Monticello Chamber of Commerce or other groups to seriously attract and support industry here. That's perhaps understandable. But today we find a need to initiate a campaign. Strengthening the tax base &Y one key reason. Mother would be to diversify employment opportunities in Montiedllo. Also, the committee's labor survey shows that 60 percent of the working adults from Monticello commute to the Twin Cities. Expanding employment opportunities locally could mean work for Monticelloans herr. The Chamber's business and indus•rtsl development committee hat. been orkwnized because of the situation in Monticello today. The Committee has decided to forts three subcuanttteer to work In LUnLerl on the over wll goal of business development. They are; 1) Research 6 Planning& John Bondhus, Marn Flicker, irun Llidson, 2) PrOMLLOn. Publicity, Prospect Development: Shelly Johnson, George Joirnsan, Cary WLeber, Don Smith, Bruce Gagnellus. J) financing, Situ h Buldingsi Bud Sehrupp, Gun Johnaun, Arve Grtmsmu, Dale I.ungwitz. *LONG RANGE STRATEGIES Approximately 508 of Monticello work force work more than 35 miles away. This costs the city a direct loss of tax dollars while still providing the standard services for its citizens. A greater economic loss is the $2,000,000 per year which 500 of its residents pay each year in lost time and car expense on their way to and from work. The Industrial Development Committee is setting the following strategic objectives to rectify this situation. 1. Increase the percentage of employment within a 15 minute radius of Monticello to 758 by 1990. This will require increasing the number of industrial jobs much faster than the population grows. 2. Actively solicit industrial or service organizations that will contribute either local jobs or additional tax base. To prevent a dependent one industry town, we will avoid seeking any organizations which provide over 25a of the local employment. 3. Seek organizations that fit the town's current tax base and employment needs. This will require seeking the proper balance between skilled career jobs and unskilled jobs. It will reduce unnecessary population growth to staff industry moving here and help ease the tax burden caused by rapid population growth. To accomplish these objectives, the committee is separated into three subcommittees: 1. The Promotion, Publicity and Prospect Development committee will focus on finding potential organizations and selling them on muving to Monticello. Current strategies planned includes a. preparing a professional prospect presentation for ease in clearly presenting Monticello benefits. 'Chis presentation will include a complete informational packet and a slide presentation. In addition, the contacting committee members will use selected local businessmen from similar businesses when possible. U. determine target industries and start an extensive advertising campaign including direct mail, newspaper, and regional magazine ads. c. seek out free publicity wherever possible promoting Monticello as a growing community highly suitable for industry. d. the prospect development committee will thoroughly follow up all interested businessmen looking at Monticello and actively search for additional leads by contacting possible organizations that work with businessmen looking for new locations. e. an annual industry day will be planned with influential politicians, bankers, industry businessmen, and others invited to learn Monticello's story and to create goodwill. f. community involvement in the industrial committee's goals will be solicited. This will encourage local support of new and existing business and if necessary will provide additional manpower to complete the committee projects. g. consider a full or part-time salesperson to help attract industry. This decision will require determining the need for the position and if required, a detailed job description and duties. h. Organize regular visits to local industry to get in touch with their needs and show appreciation. 2. The financing, sites, and building subcommittee will focus on getting adequate sites and financing for potential business. In addition, they will seek out additional sources of money if needed by the Industrial Development 1 Committee from any available source including the city ✓ council, local organizations, state and federal government, and the Chamber of Commerce. Strategies planned include: a. the subcommittee will seek out potential investors willing to build speculative buildings that will suit new industries. This will attract additional industry because one of the prime reasons industry seeks a location is because of an existing building. b. an active inventory of existing empty buildings will be maintained and handed out to prospects. Available buildings will be listed in the Minnesota State Industrial Development Publication. C. this subcommittee will analyze and make recommendations to the city council for changes to local ordinances where unnecessary ordinances create an anti business climate. Currently, they are studying the city's ordinance requiring assessments to be fully paid before ownership change. d. city zoning needs to be reviewed on a regular basis. If possible, a heavy industrial zone near railroad trackage should be obtained or several potential prospects are automatically ruled out. e. a thorough list of available financing institutions that are interested in vesting in Monticello. Key people at these institutions will be contacted and sold on the healthy growth of Monticello. It these organizations feel Monticello is actively growing, they will feel real estate has greater resale value and will reflect this in better loan terms. The list will be given to prospective building owners complete with other terms that may be required such as city sewer, minimum and maximum loan size, etc. 3. The research and planning subcommittee will concentrate on preparing a clear, effective plan and monitoring performance toward the selected goals. To accomplish this it will: A. recommend strategic goals and monitor progress toward these goals with regular reports to the Industrial Development Committee. Detailed projections will be prepared of estimated progress toward goals. This will serve as a reasonably reliable indicator of the committee's program effectiveness. b. this subcommittee will frequently initiate or conduct necessary research into areas needed for etfectivr. planning. Areas needed include a comparison of Monticello's industrial growth compared to other communities, an analysis of types of jobs needed by residents, a comparison of: Monticello business environment compared to other cummunit.ies, etc. c. a written situation analysis: will he prepalvd anti updated yearly as new research and inl'onnation becomes available. This will help take the 9u1:s:;wulk uuL of many decision, and will serve at; a communication tool between the committee, the chamber anti the city council. d. the previous years prOlj will ov revjewell anJ modified strategic pians wt 11 be ieccuun1,!l1ded. Atter the committee's review and additions, chis plan will be discussed with the chamber and city council. Tho end result should be to secure Lhe necess;aiy trill it.,a committment to the strategies necessary to achieve at,,- 1011(j urlung range sLrategic goals. U. each year this suhcommrttem will "t k clusuiy wrt1*1 th.. other suhcommitLeen LO coordinate a sut ut yearly action pians. Atter plan:; are ptepateti, it will .',ssrst in pruporing a yeorly budyel, setting Lar yet da Les, anti monitoring performance during the year. t a cumplete inventury of all local trannpuratiorl anu uLiIIties will be taken. These set viceu will Gv Iistun r with costs where applicable. Infroquent servicer such 1 as telex, will also be listed. fay presenting prosp•:ct:: With a complete analysis of celvicos, wI. preVeltit a prospect from accidentally eliminating Monticelli, :is a p103pCCti V0 site when the services exlut. I *1980'SCHEDULE OF ACTIVITIES LAST QUARTER 1979 - Complete Review of Short Term and Long Term Plane by December 1, 1979. - Schedule Meetings of Industrial Develop- ment Committee for 1980 by December 1„ 1979. FIRST QUARTER 1980 - Determine Actual Budget of Industrial Development Committee by January 17, 1980 for 1980 (This should include all subcommittee budgets). Responsibility Industrial Development Commi le Industrial Development Committee Industrial Development Committee - Investigate the potential for a Monticello booth at industry -related convention; Promotion, Publicity, Prospect develop an advertising plan, after studying Development Subcomittee what periodicals and other media might reach our targeted audience by January 31, 1980. - Complete a review and make recommenda- tions to the Industrial Development Committee with respect to assessments for new business establishments by January 31, 1980. - Present overall plan to Chamber of Commerce by February 28, 1979. ;Sy Febuary 28, 1980: Determine targeted industries which might expand to Monticello; compile various documents now in existence (i.e.. labor survey C of C booklet, City of Monticello brochures and write an introductory letter for prospective industries. - Review and recommend changes to Mission Statement by March 1, 1980. Meet with potential builders by March 1. 1980, to encourage the bu ldtng of a speculative building in Monticello. - Complete a review of availablu buildings and building sites by March 31, 1980. This should include available utilities. This inventory should be kept current. - By March 31, 1980: Most with Bob Stern, area representative from the State Department of Economic Development to review materials and prospect list and keep his posted on the developments of our committee. Financing, Sites and Buildings Subcommittee Research 6 Planning Subcommi,j Promotion, Publicity, Prospect Development Subcommittee Research 6 Planning Subcommittee Financing, Sites, and Buildings Subcommittee Financing, Sites and buildings Subcommittee Promotion, Publicity, Pros per Development Subcommittee SECOND UARTER 1980 Determine City Zoning Policies by April 30, 1980. CBy April 301 1980: Have scheduled ,;he subcommittee's first industry, v'isit(s) and developed a plan for continued follow-up to letters mailed and periodic visits through the balance of 1980. - Meet with City to make recommendations on assessment an zoning policies by May 30, 1980. C, Financing, Si. tesValvd'tBui'i-dings Subcommittee Promotion, Publicity., Prospect Development Subcomittee Financing, Sites and Buildings Subcommittee - Prepare a comprehensive situation analysis including a comparison of Industrial growth of Monticello and Research b Planning Subcommittee other communities and study of Trans- portation Services and utilities available to Monticello area by June 30, 1980. THIRD QUARTER - Meet with Moncicello Chamber of Commerce by Jul y5. 1980 to discuss progress and determine guidance, if any. Complete a study of available financing for Industrial Development by July 31, 198U. Expand Industrial Development Committee if necessary by Jul `31, 1980. by Sepremucr 309-1980: Complete a slide prebentation un the amenities of an industry muving to Monticello. Seek out and apply. for any Government Grants earmarked for encouraging rural industr.. by Se tember 30 1980. ° E22"Ti! UARTER 1980 - By October 30L 1980: participate with the full committee ii iha sponsorship of an "Industry Day" here. - Review 1980 Activities by NovaebEr ISyyl98u. - Develop 1981 Schedule ane Budget by November 3U 1980. Approve 1981 Annual Plan by Uecember ( 32. 198U. Industrial Development Committee Financing, Sites and Buildings t Subcommittee Industrial Development Committee Promotion, Puolicicy, Prospect Uevelupment Subcommittee Financing, Sites, .ind guildings Subcommittee ° Promotiun, Publicity, Prospect b Development Subcommittee Industrial Uevelopment Committee Research 6 Planning Subcommittee Industrial Development Committee - .T PROPOSED BUDGET PROMOTION, PUBLICITY b PROSPECT DEVELOPMENT SUBCOMMITTEE Industry Day $1,600 Slide Presentation 750 -Advertising 4,850 Travel 6 Entertainment Expense 500 Postage s Supplies 500 Part Time Help 1,500 Other 30) TOTAL 510,000 "One-half pages Commercial west (J) S 855 Corporate Report (4) 2,404 MN Business Journal (4) 1,575 (This does not include approximaLuly 5500 fee for Upper Midwest Edition of Mpls. Sunday Tribune "Business Outlook Suction" - funds available from Reservus.) W� S and a %dor­.vncnt. thin can make the program go - MLtharl N•,atd.. Nein York Stnle's deputy commisnvner of commerce. 21 -inks Ihot the abdication of responsi• ty by the hoard to its director is the ,ngle most important mistake made by munty development corporations. Iii lint might Ite right. Here are some things elfrctive board members can du nno-..d of "waithful v,arhng": a Pro% idea list of cut•tumers. suppliers. mntacts and antes. mono of which niav represent in%eNtment prospects for tit. aunty s Het..me -cuum% economic smbas• -adore: • u-rng regular business trips to ..nnrnrlan, and conferences as ocen• -o.ns tier prumutmg the profit advan• o,ge.ofamnty operattons,Alternately. plan a prtomouonal "blitz' to a nearby t it., w here r h,•rr m.iy M• o good clu%ter ,d pr­pwt, s Perhaps mo•t important, help build a fatorable climate at home in which o tap.dtl,• dir,•tior con really perform lntri. Clt,ir h1- Acv and stand at his -1de M•fon• , It kvy power blacks as taunt% and I.a,d Irgtelutors, chambers of commerce utilities. the media, the wal ­tate t.,mmumty and all others wuh wham ht d.nh comer in contact. ■ Fmull%. I.o1k t., the long run. A suc• %,-,-fill rt.,rnmm dr%elopment gale. Like- m,ae Ie.id time than any other h n.•1,au.w,•n .m I he market. �L rn years ago. DCI estimated that a typical new facilities location averaged 18 months of elapsed time between fifst Inquiry and final derision to establish. rudey. with inflation. the higher cost of money, environmental pressures, state and federal regulatory agencies and requirements, and a see of rod tape, this period ham increased to between 3h-8 years. In other stunk new aunty develop. :iwni oirporat tune h..vu got to ba reaps. tit, ,lbout h,.ri t.•rm ?% pectilt Ions, One ,impld outgo, ma% ho helpful here. It h. Well e.ttm,itrd that there ore ally ,ofmam 1.141 m:ip.r neo• commercial L:nitt lr• onu,o,nitd oath %Par There si. o -Jul dqv, .i. %.•opnlrnt gn,up+of .it it Ill- IiAt t:,� tortl.r." h.u:dlhl of ;mt•I,.t t• %rantthutiriuvNri _.1.1 n. and 1a i. r, ate Kvi-p 1n mind h u the .�.n.t 1 it. is worth thn,.an, 11,' i .ltr.%r.- i N. w Stanton. Pl,nn,tl• ..m., it;, r..m.. .,I' the lint l".S n k +mCi n Ln .!tit idnlrtl.A h.lhtr fns aut•1o71 h..,,• Inng,rangegoals 6,v .. e, -,d duel ler Ilate it board flit Kith- :tit mid help- the director •tri r,,: •t,u% t., h•II and a inry t,up ted ..nd tit nuorid program _ a l l,n% ., it to d h omd and s• l n , o,ta,r „•lir dill . ,•!.. , e mrd What business Is looldng for In a new kmtlon By William S. Sneath Chairman of the Board Union Carbide Corporation Tax breaks or reduced responsibility are not at the core of most corporate relocation or Investment decisions, Business will be on the move vain or Without such incentives. When Corporate management tests the business climate, we are really evaluating a complex interweaving of goals, objectives and attitudes Different companies will go about that differently, However, there are three bade I;MslAaraumt. most businessmen would agree on. The Ilrp nes to do with the viatrixty of the, mmunity, This is reflected in ono quality of life. Mob1 obi us know that we Wuttl Search forever for a haven that is totally free o1 problems. None of our urban contort) fit that description, and suburban Communities have problems of their own. Evidence over the years shows that most companies are prepared to help with those problems But the Community that has failed to attack the problems on its own, at that simply doesn't Care, is generally not a congenial place for a largo and comolo. business. We want people who want to work, and we seek communities trial care about their future, Only states and communities that Support their school systems and Institutions of higher learning can sustain broad expansion of business, Modern companies, especially, IHgh•toChnoiogy Companies. depend on a good supply of highly skilled and educated mon and woman to fill demanding technical and management positions. And such employees depend on access to highiqual.ly continuing education to advance both personal and career goals Good roads and adequate transporlatlori aro also important far the efficient functioning of a large and Complex business. And we must also consider pub6e salary. the quality of health care, and the vigor of local cultural life All coo I ardod as Important by our employees. Tito second Camponont management must reckon with t! oho ®Q1(yW pt rn�, ommuN k est Corporate managers regard social rtsoonslbixty as a mandate LVE know that out long-standing and legitimate nghta to putsuo private busxt!95 objectives are subject to erosion It those objOctivos — and our practices r- aro 'not perceived to be in the public Interest. The issue Is rather one of balance. Few corporations seek to avoid tre.r responsibilities. However, many do resist the efforts W ilClivist groups to n;l.0 them address a Single Cause or a narrow issue in advance of a broad Consensus in the Community about the diteeton to take or the speed at *r; n to move In my view, we would create more problems than we stl:ved -• me eorpotalien and the community by doing other*,%@ Corporations also look lot recognition from the Comm -in: IV lni.i m..c • , ='.4. rote must be balanced against the need to perform Inez, cmel funcrom A, -^, 9 an economic one Even the most responsible of compares canna e nr !..sj rd discone of the income Statement and the balance kneel Pplicyrnakars should also be very Clear about the cost to the comm ,r. •r -1 new taws and regulations, 11 makes good Sense for us w work together l„ reduce the number of unrealistic rules IIs lot that reason so many businessman have been learning to think and speak the language of po',l :'i This brings me to the third vitally Important element of our eva'ustlpn :,r I'1a business Climate' it it ea` In, st O business pools can be neard in I= �yrvsa et aavammw,uen the •xuea tau exact .r riv+.neta+ What many of us seek U met merely an opportunity lot self fileadmo CW Ike Chance to help leglslalors end regulators find evenhanded s(vui rls I f• e problems of a Complei elotaly Solutions mal achieve the most enf•, Ill bSlaKa between economrC and SMAI prorAlea map ba adoresked M 111e„ It we are to make any real progress on either dig Without nuclear plant, what's RW tax future.10 �a. j-7 9 4Pollution Cadre) Agency) and the Nuclear iiegulatrvy ie::� Commission might pull the plug nithemtomorrow?" ,-1:69tE61A1CL THE COUNCIL kUJORPM rejected Anderwn'a adsire. staff writer Instead they tut garbage ppickup Irom twice In once A work next Y. TSCY also decided to yet voters chose by Red Wing hanevetutstuvedoubled since 1671. referendum whether to pay a tee or higher taxes for refuse Dut property texas have dropped about 20 percent A the service hes 1901. same time. Nort9ern States Power Co. Inverted taw eguatiah bybuildinganuclrarplantIniiurnslde'sbackyard. A lax Increase would cast homeowners much less than a thrill a new state asleasmem formula dropped It by 62 fee. NSP would pick uprsmsl of the tab. mEan this year, the taloa ef firs plant increased sterd+ty y�venyyclght years down the road, residents won't have from the start of construction In 19611. Records show that Red the claire. Wing'smill rate decreased toturn. THE PLANTS VALUATION wily not drop tiff aharyty, Il Thaclly'eproppeR7�esareamongthelowestinUestate. will dcclineslowly,Inurullchunks,suchaalhe82+nlWwtdip_ WERETRE 1iiANI cut from the tax base, that would not it took this year. be the case. At the same Ume there's bound to be now development to In 1968 for ex impto, vied Wing taxes would be more than take up same of the slack, 2% higher without the plant. tied Wing restaunAt owner Ralph Rnber is says he's gal Ag It Rod Wing, Goodhue County and Red Wing School District to buUd a 206.O03-squarcefoot shopping InaU at North Service were li badgat the same in I= without the 6112,09 AM plant Drive and Tyitr (toad. vahhaum: . The AFLQOOwed and the Chamber of Commercat 1111 ,Rol Wing'a assessed valuation would drag !care trying to ar'e naw iodUitrf ta_tafre tatllatria 8164,025ATt to 159.132,119 and ito mill rate would ase 210.6 t>� and tddmaten hoses percent from 10.61 to 511.78, effort. ,Goodbus County's assessed valuation would imp from But it lied King's past devrlrpmeat a any hnflcatirn, g295,$03.a36 to 8141,602,173 and is mill rate would rise 01 narmal growth Is not likely to boost the tax base as (lie percent tram 12.0) to MAL nuclear p'aut did 'fled WingSchoolDistdcl'sassesaedvaluatlonwnulddmP In1971. tied K7iu1'stotal limpe-tyvaluation, separate lrcin from 6188,657,034 to 887.904,176 but its mill rate would dmp5.0 that +J Burnside o here thin plant is.foeand, was percent from 34,79 to 19.33 because state aids would supply according to figures from lire Goodhue County Audnot's the revenues not provided IocaUv. office. The combined nntl rate would be 08.1113 - a 272.5 yxrccnt For 1910, the cily's value is 810 9i5,t722, i hme and tusInr s Increase - tvnlnout the plantvalualion. in old Ito Wing have added 01,769,556 to Clio RVO WING'S 11RAVV rehs"ec nth NSP -8 property value ax tw, einrdnryra+�. ralsesa question. Whorl will beco neof city go%ernnncot when RY ctraasl, Nurosido's properly valuation, buo)rd by the the ptanicluses?taal, liar prow, trl.rn 43,613,826 in 1871 to a tM total of Como the year M. when NSP'a Incense to (pertr the 1113,855,110' planlritsires, what services will be left? Will taxes nxnar First Ward Aidrnnan Joe Anderson began to ad3rrn }this _."amty in September when Council membcrs were finding it tough to balance the 1110 budi:ct. Anderson advocated charting +r*.ndcr s what it mita to give there municipal garws)ge scrhirr, lie wanted to Karl easing the city onto n "MY 31) uu 1:1 "baste. --we need lobe weamtdhon MT." lie saldtbra "KTry'err we talking about putting more and mire And nw ro rt the city's operating budget on NSI' whin the state's PCA lV J) Intrease of Red tying property tax to taxes tl,ocibome • ii.ilpphome 33."bome UR SM190 Mo,43f 1333.50 1972 VIS.12 5564:13 1353.59 i974 1232.62 1412.53 86I7.h 1975 811.25 1374.90 6371 is 1976 R1i.51 1431.94 16T3 42 1177 61119.0 1511.11 9710.19 1911 1219.32 '. 11411.411 1742.11 ,Ion 6112.76 07.01 2119.43 Increase of W rivrgy tatualion JfJ , f h'A S ' a Jam, err nr,i, f !, +ter `ry; ! see, ! r• y rsraear 0 Red Wing Rurntlde 1411 67.117.01/ 1172 27,?t@,14 12:3 2!3,661.217 f31,N1:,110 1974 113.991.1111 6ta,3./f11 D:6 128,0M 2111,351456 1r.1 219,1!7,772 11:1.4" 1.133 1277 p3,0?LCIS 61!/,x11,3c8 19:1 133.R7.O14 /I42.02sA16 1272 1'".x:0,639 '2117,70,051 1220 2321013,6:1 11:x.4'0,116 JfJ , f h'A S ' a Jam, err nr,i, f !, +ter `ry; ! see, ! r• y rsraear 0 465.54 RICIFFS• POWERS AND DUTIES: MUNICIPALI l IIS S!t2 465.54 MAY PAY E•XPFNSt:S FROM GINFRAL ft -M, Ot SIMIAl Nt• CITY. lfer roune•d of auy statutory etty mac pay Iron the get I hand of if,,- num, pally, lir the purposes of 5ecuon 465.53, expenses incurs d ha dm 1•n+rrnwt' ,,tis •i in the p•rtotmance of their official duties. Trips for lubhvmg purpu.rs to I'll,, i meetings or convenuens not in connection ntth slue ific muruul'al pr„lrrl•, p-ndur before the officer making the trip air not authorized fur payment tmdrt t!u„tr nut All expenditures fur ihr purposes of this uctton shall br uohm Ihr tt run r limits upon tax levies in the statutory city. 1 1113$ c 60 s 4,6; 1973 v )23 art 5 s T 1977 C 50 s 2 } I1192 4. 11!;2 51 465.55 EXPENDITURE FUR PUBLICITY: PLDUCFry BOARD. Ass a it, of rte, first class in this state, in addition to all the pliers nosy p,,,r,r,+rd In +t. 'hail h,o,• and is hereby granted the poser and auth„nty is, hes) last, •hricfur..ind Is, rq—id money for city publicity purposes, not exceeding ur any one year an .uu,nnn e•etud 1- a tux M one.tfnrtieth of one mill upm the d,dlar of the ,r,•es.rd +muau sn ther—I upto all tare taxable property of the city. dee• +aunt- to tae e•slr. nde•ef or sit+ It +panne r and for such c+lv publictly purposes as the coure,i shall direct. and if nta, eM.,hh,h unl provide for a publicity board car hurrau to admooster ,,tell hind, suh)ve 1 t,, sit, lit ml, tons and limitations ns the rnunrd ,ball by ,uthoance per• , rets- ( Ill)1 o f I I F LZ fa7J r 7LI s I 1 ttti72. 1613) 465.36 CITIES MAY APPROPRIATE AI0.VkY FOR ADCtRIISING PUR• POSTS. Subdivisi,rn 1 1 he goserrnng h,xly of any st rainy a rte, ear home rule 'Nor -1 city of the fourth class may annually apprnpnate omnev list Ihe' 1•te4mse of ad" rti, tog the murlletruhia and Its resource, and advantage, His, m,ntrs ,ppr,aarat-I ,h dl he %I" only I... the purl id adcrrtising ll:r rowit,ipatoy of tot • ngn•tain,• pre, t,r.:ms ul Int.anouon for the area by lustre than one toms, ipalrty awl w. re• ,, u,, , sal ads,mtat7•s len putitt-4 of this suhdevisloo the tens "slatul— ens' dams leI +n [lade .Ili) oily %,heed was of aunt• under the pruvutnn+of 1 +w, INIC, 4 K.14ei s, e. amended, nil July 1. 1973 Sahel 2 'file c,nernui4, hauls rel any Its .Heli as w. "In-i,itn 1: under if),- Ill-' sirens of 1 .Was In•e;i, Cliaptrt w as .unrridrd. ra fids 1, i!r7l, Isla, rsp, list ma Iwo, - than $4+441 annually ha tits- purls—, of adverreang the , eta still «•, --tee *...mel ad. vast+i;rs notuth+lambug. Ill.- pnnewun of se, Ism 41,4 5; 1929c 27f,s 1. 14,;7, -K-. 1, 1973C t:1.1114 1A 1971, 117, 1. )9:4"31. S 16. 1974 r 444 s) i hO t !hl 463.57 } (tr iu a!rd, 197.6 , 44 s 711 466.59 1 FAGC'F OF Cl rii s. sulnli—ll n 1 Ana uta tit this ,,talc, u he lfi, r m g4mlet until-: the intimal taus it a spi tat tri boon rude a haitcr. or arts lour h"Int the ll nmrm of a Oatwory 1 t, un h -I sr,tnm te,x ill, e.t I% appit pitate though Its stun ni or tetu I hn.ud, sol of Is to neral hmd, mine+ Is, pas' the annual this , ;n for i ral•ur rel Millocs,ua 4 ttirs .11x1 the a ilial .ind it, tr+sary e%prnses of sou, h itflel%tar, as sa,h Cutn, 6 or car It MlArti nus ttrsignaw to atirn.1 ew, trn/s ,d the Ieague Juru1 2 Repral'rl, i!ii7 k ti.K s 27 ' Ill20+ :It s f, lPif e•2S!ls! t'M./c4'+s t, t'1'Ir 124 antis7, In17e t{', 64 1 (19.+.14) 465.69 } Nepratail Mot , 44 s 7t, 46.3.00 ! Renuntfu ted 4 13 14. 466.01 ; Repealed, 19711 s 44 x 7u 466,02 Re•praie•it, 1.11:1 a VIN s Irl } 465.65 + Re 1u,eird, 1976 e' 44 a it 46304 MS 1907 ! Itrpeabd. 1976 c 44 It 70 466.65 MS 1007 ( Ill it, 19715 c 44 it 711 } 466.66 Mti 19117 Rrp•aled. 1976, 44 s 70 406.67 NIS 1907 Repealed. 1471+ c 44 s 711 466.66 %IS IIh.7 Re•(a•alyd, 1170 + 44 ,. 70 1 lI C RESOLUTION RECEIVING REPORT AND CALLING HEARING ON 1980-1 IMPROVEMENT WHEREAS, pursuant to resolution of the Council adopted January 14, 1980, a report has been prepared by John Badalich with reference to the improvement of Broadway Street (East County Road 915) with sanitary sewer from a point approximately six hundred feet (600') west of the intersection of Broadway Street and Riverview Drive (East County Road 939) to the intersection of Broadway Street and Riverview Drive, and improve- ment of Riverview Drive with sanitary sewer and water from the intersec- tion of Riverview Drive and Broadway Street to the intersection of Riverview Drive and Mississippi Drive, and improvement of Hart Boulevard with water from a pnint approximately one hundred seventy feet (170') west of the intersection of Hart Boulevard and Broadway Street to the intersection of Broadway Street and Hart Boulevard, and improvement of Broadway Street with water from the intersection of Broadway Street and Hart Boulevard to the intersection of Broadway Street and Riverview Drive and improvement of the proposed townhouse development for Ilacarlund Plaza with sanitary sewer, storm sewer and watermain, and this report was received by the Council on March 10, 1980. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA: 1. The Council will consider the improvement of such street in accordance with the report and the assessment of ahutting property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 at an estimated cost of the improve- ment of $286,036. 2. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement on the 24th day of March, 1980, in the Council Chambers of the Monticello City Hall at 7:30 P.M. and the clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvement as required by law. ADOPTED by the Council this 10th day of March, 1980. City Clerk. Mayor 01 SUMMARY OF CIVIL DEFENSE SIREN AND 2 -WAY RADIO SYSTEM At the time the new siren system for Monticello was purchased in 1979, part of the equipment necessary to operate the sirens was a 2 -way radio base station. When the City applied to the State frequency coordinator with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the application requested a local radio frequency which was within the frequency range of our state/county wide Civil Defense frequency as well as the range of the Monticello fire department's frequency, and then notice was received that the frequency which we were tentatively scheduled to receive was used by the Hennepin County Park System, and they didn't want to share the frequency with Monticello. At that point, it became necessary for the City to either purchase a radio with a larger frequency spread, or to lease a radio from the Sheriff's Department, which, along with our base station, which had already been delivered, could together handle the frequency spread which was necessary to utilize our new Civil Defense System (both sirens and communications). The recommendation to use our base station in combination with the leased sheriff's radio was made, because of the small annual rental price for the sheriff's radio as opposed to the purchase price of a new, single frequency spread (approximately $2,200). Then, at a later date, we were able to coordinate three radio frequencies which were within the range limits of the radio leased from the sheriff's office, which, however, were spread too far apart for the frequency range of the radio which came as part of our siren package. Consequently, the radio which came as part of our siren package was in- stalled in the Civil Defense Director's own vehicle. At this time, the Council may want to consider keeping that radio, or returning it for credit, at an amount of $317. Also, although no formal request for additional payment has come from Olson & Sons Electric for additional money, they made a mistake in their bid proposal, and may, in the future come in and ask for more money. Basically, what has happened is when Olson's made provisions to have NSP furnish power to the siren sites, they didn't find out what, the costs for that service would be, and afterwards found out that NSP wanted nearly $5,000 for that work furnished. -5- CIVIL DEFENSE SIREN AND RADIO SUMMARY According to our bid specifications, that cost was to be carried by the successful bidder, not the City. This item is for your information, and no formal action may be neces- sary other than to possibly discuss. At their July 23, 1979 meeting, the Council awarded the bid to Olson 8 Sons Electric for the radio siren system for $31,231.17. This amount was paid in January 1980. An additional billing from Olson 8 Sons Electric of 5200 for steps on siren poles was approved at the Council's August 27, 1979 meeting. At their September 10, 1979 meeting, the Council approved an additional amount of $1,100 for miscellaneous radio equipment. Of this $1,100, $265.19 was to go to Olsons Electric for an antenna more compatable to the various frequencies necessary for the radio equipment, and the balance to go to the Wright County Sheriff's office, who furnished various other miscellaneous equipment. The final bill from the Wright County Sheriff's Department has not yet come. Exclusive of the billing related to NSP and Elsons, the total amount paid to Olsons thus far is $31,496.36. Loren Klein Civil Defense Director • �ItIU Srlr. i •3• UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL_ PF401ECTION AGENCY RE:GION V 770 SOLII. Si (� l� C111C+GO. I11.INOIS W10- •� 1� pg011" I;U'Ctl 3, 080 Honorable Conrad 0. Johnson mayor, City of Mont icel to 250 -Tst Fitoadway Monticello, Minnesuta 55362 Strb)ject : 4Yeatment Works AT -plication Stcp 3, C270855-03 Dear mayor Johnson: 'Cie purp-3sc of this letter is to inform you of 3 F'eoruary 1L 1980 tele- phone conference between myself and Nr. Gerald Corrick of Orr•-Schr_Len- Mayeron and Associates, Inc., your cunsuttinq engineers. Pssentially. the City's proposal User Chart3e System (UCS) ani Inlustrial Cost Recaiery System (LCRS) %er•e discussed and rcluisite ial:.l describing ttyu revenues syste.ns was iclent if ied. A detai loci list of rcquesto:i infolmTt ion is shown on the attachment to this letter. / Please ensure that the requested information is provicial at Or_ earliest l oracticahle tilm. Awarcl of a Step 3 eonstruction grant may m)t u_cw until the 1'0`p3ir-ed revenue systcns with implementing ordinances, are ap- prove I. If yca3 have ..Inv quest ions please contact me at .112-753-21 IB. Sincerely yn a,_ 121�_ Chris Avcrkiou Financial Analyst Cp2ration taction Environmental rrgineer•ina Branch At t ac:hnsnt cc: :4PG1 hr-SchQrle-'t:rycron and Associates, Inc. Attachment to letter dated March .l, 1980 Iron ;.Ir. Chris Avcrkiou to \ Mayor Conrad Johnson I. The following information is necessary to illustrate the cost-tate- revenue relationship and denunstrate the pxential proportionality of the UCS. A. Population initially serviced. B. Number- of connections by user class. C. Include replacement and collection system operation and mainte- nance costs in the UCS cost estimate. D. The wasteloads in terms of billable flow, infi LLraL ion/ inflow, BW, and suspercied solids dischatt Y] to the treatment works, in total and by user class. E. Calculate unit operation and maintenance costs and develop the user charge— F. Allocate total operation and maintenance costs (including replacement) by user- class. G. SaSOd tr1»n the Lwoo�sed user, charg•�. show the an..)unt of revenue ti tc qcner'ated F;v_.r each user f;laS4. H. Give the surcharge format ion. 11. Please estimate first year recovcre,l an)unls for the City's [CIO -S. Ill. Please drnfr. nrdinanrns ra7ulnt intij .,_ �r ire^ iml—;tahlishiny rates nnl :;wvcillancc pro,:oiures for the City's UCS an.] 106. C INDEPENUtN I ,CHOUL 015 f RIL I Sheldon D, Johnson, SuperinteMent BOANDOF EDUCATION Telephone 295.5184 a .rarre CI^ haCnauman MONTICELLO. MINNESOTA. 55362 Dr. D.ft 10 kU.J, T,*#,,wM Don.Io Oorai, Drrectm Nancy cin/n0, 0"ntor Jame. Npreas, Director March 5, 1960 The Honorable Arve Grimsmo Mayor of Monticello Monticello, Minn. 55362 ADMINijrRATION Hu;rnn,t hi,negw 79551114 isxtnn :w+nlu sero. ro4h Pnntnw�,255,iilj flnl¢ot Vracl, Junin. reph Rinc�tVl, 295.519.1 Kvrmrt erm:pn E-'—. -v P11-6ral 2952934 NLcryel eerre&tl0 Etnmensary P11 c4W, 2!155:134 Ouane Gate, Gommudty £dt i,on Onector 27S•7J On behalf of the Monticello Community Education Advisory Council I would like to take this opportunity to invite you and other memliers of the Monticello City Council to raecr with representntives of the Monticello School Board and other governmental units which are within the boundaries of the school district, either partially or entirely. This meeting will be held as the first item on the actenda of the Annual Community Education Advisory Council Meeting on Thursday, March 27 at 7:30 p.m, in the Senior High School Library to which representatives from community organizations and agencies have a, also been invited to attend. The purpose frrthis meeting in to "discuss mothodo of increasing mutual cooperation between these local units of day—iment and the school, district" cr: :c coapiy with Minnesota Statute 275.125, Subdivision 8, Clause g. Since at 10"Voese-elected member from each govarnmantal unit must attend this awatitlg, pluata Contact another member of your governmental unit to attend in your plate it you ate unable to be at this mestin4f. Other icons on the agenda, for individuals who care to stay, include: discussion of the gonle and objectives of the Community Education program in Monticello, and election of four individuals to the Advisory Council for a two year term. It it to impossible for anyone from your governmental unit to attend thin meeting, please notify me in vriting, prior to the meeting. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 295-2915 if you have any Questions concerning this matter. Sincerely yours, Dunne D. Cates Community Education Director DDGImr V cet Gary Mieber MG: me act Cary Niabur, City AdministratorV _ Phones- ` V�' v Princeton s_ � l• Ali 1 e + °.South,oJ Pt f; 1. ' Minn %EORGE lneet"on' ""'" 555 '; Upol,is on llpy• 169' PI? -335-3304 0 /UILDERS, INC. -VAST CENTRAI MINNESOTA'S LARGEST MMUR" March 6, 1980 5 John Badalich, Engineer ° Orr-Schelen-Mayeron 6 Associates 2021 East Hennepin Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55419 Dear Johne On December 13. 1979, we had a meeting at the Monticello City Hall between yourself; Bob Rohlln, Mayor -Roblin{ Cary Hieber, City Administrator; John Simola, Public works Director; Don Meyer, Mueller Pipeliners; and my ottorncy, James Hoolihon and 1, you agreed that you would get back to Marvin George Builders, Inc. with your answer as to who was going to pay for the placement of pipes in the wrong location and Leight, whether it be yourself; OSM, or Mueller in our Ba!boul Estates project In the City of Monticello. . At that same time, you were also going to answer as to who vas going to pay the cost of $2762 for lowering the pipes and change the catch basin and who was going to pay thu cost of $484.33 for - - rafstng�tho.shutt of[tv_olye_and [Ire hydrants. _ 1 will be expecting an answer from you no later than March 19, 1980, or I'am turning this over to my attorney., James Hoollhan, —� Sc: Cloud; toe timneGla[a oCtA'o_ Sincerely, MARVIN GEORGE BUILDERS, INC. ._ yy.-✓M Maarvviin GeorgeJ President MG: me act Cary Niabur, City AdministratorV ;. 1 - " Phunra �- `yam, 'A Z4 < 4 Princeton RUIN c — — �aA ¢r= t<1^ -389-3.^U1 Pr:nce't,ori' VinneupoI &s EORGE Minn. 55311 t 12-335-3304 un 11ty'. 169 „ UILDERS, INC. "IMYahFU (XWOSOiA'fM"(SrBUON11” March 6, 1980 ' John Badelich, Engineer Orr-Scholen-Mayeron 6 Associates 2021 East Hennepin Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55413 Dear John: On December 13, 1919, we had a meeting at the Monticello City Hall between yourself; Bob Rohlin, Meyer-Rohlin; Gary Wieber, City Admintstratorl John Stmola, Public Works Director; Don Meyer, Mueller Pipeliners; and my attorney, James Hoot than and 1. you agreed that you would get back tv Marvin George Builders, Inc. with your answer as to whu was going to pay for the placement of pipes in the wrong location and height, whother it be yourself, OSM, or Mueller In our Balboul Estates project in the City of Monticello. At that same time, youwere0150 going w answer as to who was going to pay the cost of $2362 for lowering ti:e pipes and change the catch basin and who was going to pay thu cost of $484.33 for F— raising the Shutt off valve and fire hydrants. 1 will be expecting an answer from you no Tatar than March 19; 1.980,, or loam turning this over to my ntturney, James Houlihan, St. cloud, for immediate action. Sincerely, MARVIN GEORGE BUILDERS, INC. Marvin George President o MCI= ccs Gary Wiobor, City Administrator ti/ i COUNCIL UPDATE March 10, 1980 Meetinq 1. Union Neqotiations. The last meeting with the union representing members of the Public Works Department was held February 21, 1980. The next regular scheduled meeting of our union committee is March 20, 1980, and hopefully, at that time, a settlement can be reached. If a settlement is reached and agreed upon by members represented by the union, our committee, which is composed of Phil White and Ken Maus, will bring the matter to the Monticello City Council at their March 24, 1980 meeting for ratification. For your information, the current union contract is a two-year contract which terminates March 31, 1980. 2. Municipal Bond Interest Rates. According to Minnesota Statutes, the maximum rate of interest a city can pay on a general obligation improvement bond is 7%. As a result of recent conditions in the bond market, it is currently impossible for a municipality to sell a bond below the maximum rate of 7%, and as a result, a city at the present time cannot finance a project through a general obligation improve- ment bond. Obviously, this is of much concern to the City of Monticello since we are a growing community and we do have a current petition and improvement project before us to consider - that 1s, the extension of sewer and water along East County Road 39 including the Macarlund Plaza project. Presently there is a bill in the Senate - Senate File 1911 - whirh would remove any limitation on competitive hid offerings. and I have written both Senator Bob Dunn and Representative Bob McEachern to make them aware of the fact that their support is needed on this piece of legislation. By Monday's meeting, I will try to get a further update on the progress of this particular bill . 3. Rental Space - Public Works Department. As you might be currently aware, the City of Monticello is now in the process of having their downtown lighting system changed over by NSP - which was previously authorized by the City Council. The City of Monticello does own the lights in the downtown area, and has rented space in the mini -storage building in the Industrial Park for this purpose. Our present storage at the maintenance building is to capacity, and it appears in the near future it would be more cost effective to merely rent the additional space as needed before construction would be considered onto the present maintenance building. Council Update March 10, 1980 4. Sign Ordinance. Our Planner, Howard Dahlgren Associates, has been contacted regarding the recent request by the City Council of Monticello to have a review of the City's sign ordinance. Tentatively at this time, a special meeting will be scheduled by the Planning Commission to hear a report from our Planner on this subject, along with receiving input from property owners, sign companies and citizens of Monticello, as well as other interested parties. Because of the complexity of this issue, there will probably be no easy answers, and it is expected that the Planning Commission will need about 45 to 60 days before a report is presented to the City Council. This will still leave more than adequate time for the sign companies to remove any non -conforming signs prior to the August 21, 1980 termination date. GW/ns 3 C_ MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTI CELLO CITY COUNCIL February 25, 1980 - 7:30 P.H. Members Present: Arve Grimsmo, Dan Blonig en, Fran Fair, Ken Haus, P:il White. Members Absent: None 1. Public Hearing on Consideration of a Resolution Approving Commercial Development Revenue Bonds for the Monticello Scotwood Partnership. Purpose of this item was to consider approval of the issuance of $750,000 in commercial development revenue notes as authorized under Minnesota Statutes 474.02 (Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act) for Monticello Scotwood Partnership, to finance the cost of land acquisition and construction of a 36 -unit ScotWood hotel in Monticello. Location is just east of the Perkins Cake 8 Steak and west of the vFW on a site of approximately 1.29 acres (this includes .29 acres of a proposed vacation and subsequent deeding to the Partnership of one-half of street adjacent to the property (see item 2). Legal description of the property, exclusive of the proposed vacation and subsequent deeding, is Lots 4,5,6 8 7 of Block 3, Townsite of Monticello, City of Monticello, Minnesota. Proposed breakdown of the project costs is as follows COST i TF.11 AMOUNT Land Acquisition and Site Development S 74.000 Construction Contracts 611,000 Equipment Acquisition and Installation 71,425 Architectural R Engineering Fees 10,000 Legal Fees 7,500 Interest During Construction 84,375 initial Bond Reserve --- Contingencies 15,000 Bond Discount 18,750 TOTAL S892,050 Of the above figure of $892,050, 5150 ,BOD is being requested for the issuance of the commercial development revenue notes and the balance has to he equity financed. It should he pointed out that the proposed Scottlood 11otel will be a franchise of Brutger Companies, Inc., of St. Cloud, Minnesota. The actual owner of the Motel will be Scotwood Partnershi p, a partnership made up of Willard J. Murphy - St. Cloud, Minnesota; Patric is Pavak - St. Cloud, Minnesota; and G. Marie Heil - Irvine, California. lir, Murphy is a former school super. Intendent in Ely, Minnesota, and Ms. Pavak and Ms. Neil are his daughters. Although it is a franchise operation, Brutger Companies will not continue ownership. They have agreed to act a s guarantor for the first five years of the loan, which has a life of 20 years . In case there would be default on the part of the partnership in the first five years, Brutger Companies COUNCIL MINUTES - 2/25/80 would assume the loan. Brutger Companies, Inc, has 28 motets currently in existence, which includes six Scotkood's in the following locations: Glenwood, MN.; Washburn, N.D.; Carlton, 11N.; Litchfield, MN.; Cloquet, MN.; and Breckenridge, MN. At the public hearing portion of this agenda item, there was no opposition to the request. Mr. Jerry Hertel, with the bond consulting firm of Juran R Moody, briefly explained the project and indicated that the request for the commercial development revenue bonds did not in any way affect the City's ability to borrow money and other municipal projects, nor did it affect its credit rating. In fact, Mr. Hertel indicated the City cannot legally be obligated in any fashion relative to the issuance of these bonds. He indica- ted primarily there are three documents which are involved in such financing, and they are as follows: A. ;Mortgage. B. Loan Agreement. C. Indenture of Trust. Mr. Hertel explained that in the event of default, that the mortgage holder is in fact the loser. At this point, Juran & Moody would take appropriate action through foreclosure procedures. Mr. Hertel further explained that the actual issuance of the commercial development revenue bonds was in fact atax exempt mortgage which are sold to lending institutions instead of the general public, as in the case with straight industrial revenue bonds. Gary Pringle, City Attorney for Monticello, indicated he has reviewed all the documents, and everything is correct and legal. Mr. Pringle did indicate that tie did make a recommendation as to the proposed resolution which would delete the words on Page 4 of the Resolution, Item 8, as follows - "but otnerwi,e iithout ),ability on the part of the City". !It-. Pringle furthermore indicated that Brutger Companies has agreeo to be Lim q;;arantor of the loan over the first five years. A motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Phil White and unanimously carried to adopt the resolution approving and authorizing the issuance of commercial development revenue bonds. (Exhibit 2/25/80 ai) Z. Public Hearing on Proposed Vacation of Puhlic Street Southeast of and Abutting Block 3, Upper Monticello and the Proposed Vacation of Nth Street lying Southwest of and Abutting Block 3, Upper Monticello. Purpose of this item is to consider the vacation of the above twn segments of streets in Monticello. Mr. C.C. Bunday, who is selling lots 4,5,6 R 7, Block 3 of Upper Monticello, for the proposed ScotWood tMotei. is requesting that these streets be vacated and deeded to him or his assigns at the determined price of $12,000, it should be noted, however, that the Scottlood tMotel. although interested in the entire portion of the street lying cast of Block 3, understands that the other half normally, under City Policy, is offered to the other abutting property owner which in this case would be the VFW Club. COUi1CIL MINUTES - 2/25/80 In regard to 8th Street, the proposed vacated portion abuts Lots 4 R 5 of Mr. Bunday's property, and Lots 1, 2 8 3 abut Perkin's Cake 8 Steak. y It should be noted that the streets within the former City limits of ionticello are owned by the City, so it is not only necessary to go through a vacation of the streets, it is also necessary to transfer title since the City still owns the streets after vacation. Mr. John Sandberg, who had previously appraised the street east of Block 3 in 1976 at $12,000, was asked to reappraise the same street along with 8th Street, which lies south of Block 3. Mr. Sandberg appraised the entire area for 412,000. On the appraisal performed in 1976, Mr. Sandberg had not discounted the value for the easements to be retained, and this resulted in the same appraisal price despite an inflation factor. It should be noted that the entire area constitutes 30,720 square feet. This would appraise out at approximately 39¢ per square foot. If the portion of 8th Street abutting Perkins were sold to them and a portion of 8th Street abutting Mr. Bunday's property were sold to him along with dividing the street east of Block 3, one-half to Mr. Bunday and one-half to the VFW Club, the following would be a breakdown of the square footage: Mr. Bunday (ScotWood Motel) - 17,010 square feet VFW Club - 10,420 square feet Perkins Cake 8 Steak - 3,290 square feet At the public hearing portion of this item, City Administrator Gary Wieber indicated that he had talked to Bob Rierson and Vince Mayer with Bridgewater Telephone Company and that the telephone company did have cable wi`:hin some portion of the streets proposed for vacation, and in fact, Bridgewater does have plans in the future to put additional cable in a portion of the proposed vacated Streets at the same time it completed installation of cable in the future on that portion of Cedar Street between the railroad tracks and 7th Street. Mr. Wieber also noted that MSP did have utility lines within a portion of the proposed vacated streets. As a result of these utilities and future utilities, any vacation should be contingent upon an easement being retained for existing utilities and also for future utilities. Any liability for restoration of the property to its original condition would be the responsibility of the property owners if the street was, in fact, vacated and deeded. Mr. Jon Petters, with Brutger Companies, reviewed the site plan for the Scotllood itotel and indicated that his company would be agreeable to the contingencies mentioned in the above paragraph. lir. Petters indicated that the only portion of the vacated street that they would actually be using, other than for landscaping, would be a concrete pad, which lie indica- ted they would be willing to assume the liability for its restoration if it had to be torn up. At this point the provision for the parking for the motel was discussed, and Mr. Petters indicated that there was room for approxi- mately 43 cars. which would meet the City of Monticello ordinances relative to Motels. It was pointed out to fir. Petters that the City does have restric- tions which prohibit on -street parking during certain months, and that this could become a problem with trucks. Mr. Petters acknowledged that this, in fact, could become a problem, and indicated that their company would have to make arrangements in the additional area owned by them on the north side of the motel if this, in fact, became a burden on the area. - 3 - (O COUNCIL M114UTES - 2/25/80 Leonard Fellman, with the VFW, indicated that the VFW might possibly be interested in the portion of that half of the vacated streets that would abut their property, but that he would have to get official action from the board of directors of the VFW. There was some concern relative to the appraised value, and a motion was made by Ken Maus, seconded by Dan Blonigen and unanimously carried to obtain a second appraisal on the property. A motion was made by Phil White, seconded by Fran Fair, and unanimously carried to vacate the public street southeast of and abutting Block 3, Upper Monticello, and the street lying southwest of and abutting Block 3, Upper Monticello. This vacation would be subject to utility easement rights being retained for all utilities with liability for restoration rights to be the responsibility of the abutting property owners. (it should be pointed out that the vacation of streets does not, in fact, convey title to the property; however, the contingencies are listed as a matter of record. At a later date, the City Council would have to take action upon the actual conveyance of those seg- ments of streets vacated, and the contingencies would be written into legal documents). Public Hearing -on the Consideration of a Variance Request from Provisions of Monticello Siqn Ordinance Requirements - Scotwood Partnership, Purpose of this item is to consider the request by the Scotwood Partner- ship for a ScotWood Motel from Monticelio Ordinances relative to sign height and size requirements. Following are the three variances being requested: A. 180 square font wall <itg(n..d°na: c Sectiur: allows maximum of 100 square feet).- B. Pylon sign to be either 52 feet above Highway 25 at closest point, or 65 feet high from base, whichever is less (Ordinance Section 10 -3 -9 -(E) -2-(b)-(4) allows maximum height of pylon sign to be 32 feet above roadway). C. 32 square foot directional sign (Ordinance Section 10 -3 -9 -(B) -1-(h) allows maximum of 10 square feet). The public hearing segment of this item - Francis Klein opposed the variances indicating that such signs affect the landscape, and he had noticed other signs of this same nature and felt it had a polluting affect. Mr. Klein further mentioned that since many of these signs are illuminated, they are energy -wasters. He indicated that such signs are not an asset to a community. W= COUNCIL MINUTES - 7./25/80 Mr. Jon Petters, speaking on behalf of the Scotwood Partnership, agreed to withdraw the request for the variances mentioned in items 8 A C. Mr. Petters further explained that when he had asked for a 180 square foot sign as mentioned in item A, he included the square footage around the perimeter of the entire word "ScotWood", however, according to Loren Klein, zoning administrator, the actual square footage would be determined by taking the perimeter around each individual letter, and since the letters "S" and "W" were the only capital letters on the sign, that in fact, the square footage would be somewhat less than 180 square feet. Mr. Petters further explained that this is the standard type of sign that they put on their Scotwood Motels. Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Ken Maus and unanimously carried to approve the variance for the wall sign as proposed by the Scotwood Partnership. 4. Public Hearing on the Consideration of Subdivision and Variance Request for Lots 1 d 2. Block 30, for John Sandberg. Mr•. John Sandberg, current owner of a duplex on Lots I A 2, Block 30, Townsite of Monticello, has requested a subdivision of the property. The property is currently zoned R-2 (single E two family residential). The proposal is for a 68' x 132' lot to be created fronting on Linn Street with the duplex remaining on a 97' x 132' lot. Reason for the subdivision would be to sell the smaller lot to Les Finn to build a single family residence. As part of the request, variances are needed from the minimum width require- ments of 80' since the lot is only 68' wide. In addition, the lot would only be 8,976 square feet and require a 1,024 square foot variance from Lire H-2 zone requirement of 10,000 square feet. Also, the lot line as proposed would be 3.5' from the stairway of the duplex, requiring a rearyard variance of 261;', from the minimum requirement of 30', for the existing house. At the public hearing segment of this item, fir. John Sandberg explained that the entire parcel was 165' x 132', and the City has, in the past, grand- fathered in 66' x 165' lots which in essence are one-half of the existing parcel. However, because of the existing home on one segment of the parcel, the newly created parcel was unable to meet the minimum lot size. Mr. Sand- berg further explained that it was his understanding in talking with the Administrative Assistant, that sewer and water was available from 3rd Street and as a result, the street did not have to be torn up to connect sewer and water for the newly created proposed parcel. Mr. Sandberg also submitted a letter, dated February 23, 1980, from George Kirscht, indicating he has no opposition to the variance request, and that, in fact, he would become the purchaser of the balance of the property not sold to fir. Les Finn. 5- COUNCIL MINUTES - 2/25/80 fir. Ken Maus indicated that he felt the argument that Mr. Sandberg pre- sented was consistent with other lots that were grandfathered in by the City which were 66' x 165', although the individual size of the parcels created in this case would be somewhat different. A motion was made by Phil White, seconded by Dan Blonigen and unanimously carried to grant the variance on minimum lot width requirements, minimum lot size and minimum rearyard setback requirements, with the provision that a driveway be provided from 4th Street and adequate off-street parking be installed. As a matter of record, it should be noted that it was the understanding of the Council that no further variances would be necessary at the time of building permit application for fir. Les Finn or any subsequent purchaser of this property. 5. Public Hearinq on the Consideration of Subdivision and Request for Variances from Minimum Lot Widths on Lots 2 R 3, Block D, Upper Monticello - Rick Cole. Mr. Rick Cole has requested to subdivide Lots 2 (except W 10') and 3, Block D, Upper tionticel lo, into two equal size parcels of 61' x 165' each. The present lots are 66' x 165' and 56' x 165'. The present property now has a home located on it which is situated in the middle of the lots. Mr. Cole has indicated that lie plans on removing the existing house and building a new home on one of the lots. Because the present house is situated on both lots, the City presently recognizes this property as one lot of record. The new lot sizes as proposed do not meet the minimum lot width require- ment of 80' and would require variances of 19' each. The present size of Lot 3 is 66' and although less than 80' requirement, it would be "grandfathered in" as a buildable lot since it meets 75% of the 80' requirement. Lot 2 (56' wide) would presently not meet the 75% rule and would not be a buildable lot unless variances were granted. Along with the subdivision of property indicated above, Mr. Cole is also requesting variances from the minimum sideyard setback in an R -B zone, which is 20', to have the sideyard setback for each newly created lot to he only 10' instead of the normal 20'. At their last meeting, the Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of this subdivision and variance request. Primary concern of the Planning Commission was that they would like to see a specific site plan indicating what would be put on the two lots prior to granting the subdivision and variances. Mr. Cole had indicated at the meeting that it was his inten- tion to build a single family home on the newly created lot. According to the lot owned by Mr. Cole, which is 20,130 square feet, the lot would be adequate for up to a six or seven -unit apartment house, depending upon the number of one and two-bedroom units. Since this area is zoned as R -B, a multiple family dwelling could be built without the necessity of rezoning, conditional uses or variances. 6- COUNCIL MINUTES - 2/25/80 At the public hearing portion of this item, there was no one speaking in objection or in favor of the proposed variance. l Council member White felt that the lots created would be too small especially in light of the R -B zoning. Council member Maus indicated that the lot width of 66' was the minimum and should be maintained. Council member Fair pointed out that it would be hard to grant the variance until a site plan was presented. Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Dan Blonigen and unanimously carried to deny the variance request. 6. Public Hearing on the Consideration of a Variance Request to Operate a Beauty Shop in an R-1 Zone at 1209 Sandy Lane for Geraldine Vinar. Purpose of this item is to consider a variance request application filed by Geraldine Vinar to allow her to operate a beauty shop from one room of her home at 1209 Sandy Lane (Lot 7, Block 1, Creekside Terrace). According to Ms. Vinar, she would have no employees and no more than one appointment at any time unless there might be an overlap of nne person leaving and a new appointment coming. According to Monticello City Ordinances, a variance is required to operate this business since the request does not fall exactly within the definition of a home occupation. Specifically, the ordinance indicates that no mecha- nical equipment shall be employed that is not customarily found in the home, and no home occupation shall be permitted which results in or generates more t,affic than one car for off-street parking at any given point in time. At their last meeting, the Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of the variance request. Various objections were received from surround- ing property owners including Mr. d Mrs. Gilbert Stickfort; Mr. &Mrs. Earl Swan; Mr. 6 firs. Bill Burke and fir. Steve Johnson. Objections included the following: A. Property owners in the area bought property that was zoned as R-1, or single family; B. reit that this type of use would commercialize the area, specifically in light of another request, in the same general area in the next agenda item; C. Allowing this type of use would create additional traffic and parking problems. The reasons why the Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of the request are as follows: A. Concerns of surrounding property owners; l B. There are areas that are properly zoned for such a use; 7 - 6 COUi1CiL MINUTES - 2/25/80 C. Felt this would give an unfair advantage to those beauty shops that were operating out of a home as opposed to those that were in a busi- ness location; D. Concerned with the number of requests for beauty shops that have been before the Planning Commission lately, and felt that a precedent would be set with these types of uses and other home occupation uses. At the public hearing segment of this item, fir. Gilbert Stickfort indicated his opposition to the request. Geraldine Vinar indicated she felt the request was reasonable for the following reasons: A. One room is not asking an awful lot for use in a home for a beauty shop; B. The beauty shop would create additional income; C. Because of the lack of jobs within the community, this would create employment for her; D. Explained that she had previously gone around and talked to adjoining property owners, and the only opposition she had received was from Mr. Stickfort, who explained to her a concern with traffic and a precedent this would set; E. Property values would not be affected; 1'. A decision should not be based upon opposition from a chronic complainer. At this point, Ms. Vinar indicated that she does favor the request of 11s. Barb Soucy, addressed in the next item on the agenda, and rather than pursue her particular request further, she has decided to withdraw her particular application. As a result of the withdrawal of the request fur d vdridnce, nu dctioo was taken. 7. Public Rearinq on the Consideration of a Variance Request for a Beautv Shop in an R-1 Zone at 1305 West Broadway - Barb Soucv. Based upon a verbal request by the applicant, this item was postponed until a future meeting, tentatively scheduled for March 24, 1980, and as a result, no action was taken. B. Public liearinq on the Consideration of Conditional Use Permit and Minimum Lot Size Requirements for Townhouses - Brad Larson on Present Baptist Church Property and Rezoninq From R-1 to R-2. When Brad Larson came before the Council in January 1980 with his request for rezoning the "Baptist Church Property" from R-1 to R-2 with the unani- mous recommendation of the Planning Commission, the Council requested that he return on February 25, 1980 with more information about the conditional use he would be requesting to build townhouses on that property, if rezoned. Because of that Council request, Mr.'Larson has submitted a site plan which shows the layout of the proposed development. -8- COUNCIL MINUTES - 2/25/80 Mr. Larson is proposing to obtain a conditional use permit, as required by Monticello ordinance, to build five 4 -unit townhouses. Each building to be 46'0" x 96'0" and contain four dwelling units plus an attached double car garage per unit, which would exceed the ordinance requirements for garages. An association agreement, as required by Monticello ordinance, would be necessary for approval, and a recommendation for approval could be contin- gent upon that document being provided. This agreement is binding on all owners within the project and sets the maintenance requirements, etc. for the commonly owned property. The cul-de-sac which comes from the property onto Highway 75, does not align with Sandy Lane across the Highway, so traffic from the project would be discouraged from using Sandy Lane as a thoroughfare, as was a concern of the people who brought in a petition against the rezoning at the last Planning Commission and Council meeting dealing with this project. A variance would be required for the square footage requirement since the open area per unit is 234 square feet short of the requirement of 5,000 feet per unit, or approximately 5% short. Mr. Larson is considering dedicating the street in this project (yet unnamed) to the public. If that would be done, however, a subdivision of property would be required, but at a later date than this hearing. Also necessary at the time of subdivision of property would be drainage, landscaping and parking plans, which would need the recommendations of both the City Planner and City Engineer at the time of proposal. The proposal has previously been reviewed by the City Planner who recommends that the conditional use permit and rezoning be granted. At their last meeting, the Planning Coamissiori voted to resomrnend approval of the conditional use permit and necessary variance from minimum lot size for townhouses. There were several concerns from surrounding property owners including Pin. Gilbert Stickfort, Earl Swan and Steve Johnson, which included the following: A. Traffic that mould be generated because of additional density. fir. Stickfort was concerned that previously there was a promise made on the past variance for a duplex which was granted to Mr. Vern Young- berg on Lot 1, Block 2, Creekside Terrace on Sandy Lane (in reviewing this matter, it should be noted that there was no variance granted but a rezoning request was granted to rezone the above•mentloned parcel from R-1 to R-2 to allow for a duplex. It should be further noted that although the Planning Commission recommended that future rezonings of this nature be on a scattered site basis only, the Council rezoned the property in question without attaching any contin- gencies to the approval. C. Concern was for whether the sewer and water Would be adequate to Serve this area. COUNCIL MINUiES - 2/25/i;U At the public hearing portion of this item, Mr. Steve Johnson indicated opposition to the rezoning and conditional use permit. 11r. Johnson indica- ted that he was disturbed about being on the defensive side and felt that there were various issues that were not at this time being adequately addressed. Mr. Johnson indicated that the developer is not directly affected, since he does not live in the area, and an attempt is being made to try to change the integrity of the neighborhood. Traffic onto Sandy Lane is increasing all the time as a result of vehicles using this route to avoid County Road 75, which is already heavily congested, and Mr. Johnson felt that by adding additional traffic in this area to County Road 75, that more people would be using Sandy Lane for an alternate route. Mr. Johnson indicated that he felt the property values would be affected since the townhouses are of less value than the homes on Sandy Lane. Mr. Johnson was concerned about the burden that the additional density would be putting on the sewer system, specifically the lift station at Chestnut Street. Since there is other land that is properly zoned for such a use, Mr. Johnson felt it was not appropriate at this time to rezone this particular parcel, and that, furthermore, the developer was more concerned about the profit from the high density as opposed to the 11 or 12 single family homes that could be built on an area of the same size. Mr. Denton Erickson indicated that, while he was initially in opposition to the project, but at this time, had not seen any specific site layout or plans. At this point, Mr. Brad Larson explained the site layout and presented elevation plans for the project. Mr. Larson indicated that he understands and appreciates the opposition, but Ice was not necessarily in agreement with all the concerns expressed. The concerns,Mr. Larson explained, have previously been addressed and dealt with at the Planning Commission level, and felt that they were adequately resolved. According to fir. Larson, the association takes care of the problem of maintenance and explained that this is a better situation than an apartment complex since there are very severe, limitations and restrictions on such items as balconies, etc. Fir. Larson further explained that the present Baptist Church would be made into a duplex. At this point, Mr. Wayne Hoglund asked whether there would be a sidewalk from this project along the south side of County Road 75 leading up to the Pinewood School. Mr. Stickfort indicated that he felt that the par- ticular request should not he approved until this item was satisfactorily dealt with. Council member Blonigen indicated that he has not changed his mind since this item previously appeared on the Council's agenda, and that he agreed with Mr. Johnson that there was other property properly zoned for this type of use, and that when an individual or firm buys a parcel, that they, in effect, buy the zoning that goes along with It.. Council member Fair indicated that she didn't see a lot of difference between the possibility of having 11 to 12 homes in this area, as opposed to the 20 townhouses. - 10 - COUNCIL MINUTES - 2/25/RO Mayor Grimsmo explained that we do have available land, but much of the j land can serve a dual purpose. l A motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Phil White to approve of the conditional use permit for townhouses along with the variance requested from the minimum lot size and rezoning from R-1 to R-2. Voting in favor: Fran Fair, Phil White, Arve Grimsmo. Ken Maus. Opposed: Dan Blonigen. Motion carried. 9. Consideration of Conditional Use Permit for an Overflow Weir - Northern States Power Nuclear Plant. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has required that LISP place an overflow weir at the end of the outlet channel where the warm water that is discharged from the power plant flows into the Mississippi River, thus preventing fish from going into the channel. Monticello has adopted the Mississippi Scenic and Wild Rivers Ordinance, and thereby, any such work, although it is a requirement in this case, must be done as a part of a conditional use. At their last meeting, there were no objections to the request of NSP, and the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the conditional use permit request. Ward King, from Northern States Power, explained that the Fish and Wildlife Department was concerned with establishing a normal flow into the Mississippi River. As a result, the installation of a dire (weir) would, in effect, develop a pool and eventually, a normal flow of water would enter the Missis- sippi River, with the pool serving as a holding pond. A motion was made by Phil White, seconded by Fran Fair and unanimously carried to approve of the conditional use request. 10. Review of Ordinance on Amortization of Non-Conforminn and Prohibited Signs. Purpose of this item is to review the City of Monticello's ordinances relative to prohibited and non -Conforming signs to allow an opportunity for input from those property owners, sign companies and other interested parties. At the January 14, 1980 meeting, two representatives of sign companies - Mr. Del Blocher and Mr. Jim Franklin - requested that the Council consider the possibility of grandfathering in the existing billboards which are currently prohibited by ilonticello Ordinance and required to be amortized out over five years, and furthermore, also consider the possibility of allowing additional billboards. At this meeting, the Council set up February 25, 1980 for review and discussion of this item on the agenda. According to Monticello City Ordinances, non -conforming signs must be removed within five years after the adoption of the ordinance - which was August 21, 1975. II - 6 COUNCIL MINUTES - 2/25/80 In addition to billboards, there are various types of non -conforming signs and they include signs that may be too large, too high, too many signs, flashing signs, rotating signs, signs in the improper location, etc. Building Inspector and Zoning Administrator, Loren Klein, has Laken a survey of the entire community, and has compiled a list of non -conforming signs. Unless there is an ordinance amendment, these signs have to be brought into compliance with the City's ordinance by August 21, 1980. Following were comments received from property owners: Wayne Hoglund (Hoglund Bus Co.) - Hoglund Bus Co. has three pylon signs, and Mr. Hoglund explained that their firm handles different product lines, and as a result, this was a requirement. According to Wayne Hoglund and Mr. Stuart Hoglund, they cannot put the same product identification for the Thomas Bus Company and International Harvester on the same sign. This is a requirement by international Harvester. Ken Bureau (speaking on behalf of the Rosewood Shopping Center) - the Shopping Center has two pylon signs, and Mr. Ken Bureau indicated that these have initially received approval by the City and were legal at the time that they were constructed. Mr. Bureau indicated that he would favor grandfathering in the existing signs because of this factor. Bill Seefeldt (owner of Electro Industries) - Mr. Seefeldt explained that lie owns 1,800 lineal feet along interstate 94. Additionally, Mr. Seefeldt indicated that he was in favor of allowing billboards, but after reviewing the situation, had changed his mind and felt that such signs should not be allowed. Mr. Seefeldt did feel, however, that there should be some change in the ordinance to allow for small directional signs. Al Joyner (Joyner Lanes R Silver Springs Golf Course) - According to Mr. Joyner, his prime concern was with the directional sign for his golf course, which is in the township of Monticello. However, Mr. Joyner did indicate, in a letter he presented to the City Council, that he also had concern for his bowling alley which was in the Oakwood Industrial Park. According to Mr. Joyner, he had previously requested the Oakwood industrial Park pursue the possibility of having a type of sign that would be in effect a directory of businesses in Oakwood Industrial Park erected on Highway 25. hir. Joyner explained a problem people have in finding both his bowling alley and his golf course. Mr. Joyner indicated that some property owners are not in a position for the expensive land that abuts right on the freeway, and therefore, it is necessary to obtain an off -premise type of sign to ade- quately advertise their business. Following are continents from sign companies: Mr. Del Blocher, with Blocher Sign Company, indicated that lie has various suggestions on how the Council could appropriately amend their ordinance and still maintain control over billboards. Mr. Blocher presented a writ- ten summary of these recommendations to the City Council, Mr. Blocher further suggested that the possibility of serving on a committee with members of the Planning Commission to attempt to resolve the issue would be possible. . j2 - COUNCIL MINUTES - 2/25/80 A representative from White Advertising Company indicated that although he was new to the area, he felt that billboards do serve a need. Jim Franklin, Franklin Sign Company, indicated that while their company does not have any present billboards in the area, he would be concerned about an ordinance amendment which would just grandfather in existing billboards. Mr. Franklin indicated that he would request to at least be allowed to put up as many signs as other companies have in the Monticello area. He felt that, while there may be more billboards in Monticello that advertise businesses outside of the community, that there are signs in other communities that advertise establishments in Monticello. If, in fact, all communities across the state would take the same approach that Monticello has in eliminating billboards, in effect Monticello would suffer since billboards advertising Monticello businesses would have to come down. At this point, Denton Erickson indicated that while he is not a property owner on which any present billboards exist, nor is he a representative of a sign company, that he does have a billboard in Albertville which advertises Moon Motors, and he can understand the problem encountered by the sign companies. Mr. Erickson indicated that he had previously served on the Council at the time the ordinance relative to signs was adopted, and he indicated that the full extent and magnitude of this provi- sion was probably not fully realized or appreciated at the time. Mr. Erickson suggested that the ordinance be reviewed as it specifically pertains to the freeway. Council member Fair indicated that, in addition to owners of property on which signs are situated, and also representatives of sign companies, she would like to hear comments about what the people of Monticello feel about the sign issue. Council member White indicated that he felt the matter should be turned over to the Planning Commission especially in regard to directional signs. Council member White did express a concern about tie limited amount of advertising that local husinesses do on billboards within the Monticello area. Council member Blonigen concurred that a review of the sign ordinance was necessary, and felt that we would probably have to start from scratch on the issue. At this point discussion was held by the City Council on the possibility of contacting the City Planner and having the item reviewed by him along with the Planning Commission. Additionally, it was suggested that the idea of having a representative from a sign company and a local business might facilitate the procedure. Motioii was made by Phil White, seconded by Dan Blonigen and unanimously carried to direct the City Administrator to coordinate the necessary process to have this item reviewed and brought back to the City Council in adequate time to allow the signs to be removed by August 21, 1900 in case the Council decided to leave the ordinance as is. - 13 - 6 COUNCIL MINUTES - 2/25/80 11. Criteria for the Issuance of Industrial Revenue Bonds. Council member Maus explained he was concerned about the number of requests that the City may be receiving for future issues under the industrial development revenue act. Council member Klaus indicated he would like to see some criteria for these types of issues. By Council consensus, City Administrator was to give the Council members some background relative to developing benchmarks for the issuance of industrial revenue bonds within the next 30 days. 12. Review of Local Civil Defense Plan. City Administrator Wieber explained that a meeting should probably be set up to review Monticello's Civil Defense Plan on a local basis. Mr. Wieber explained that this could be handled at a meeting at which Council members could attend if they so desired, and duties of staff members, council members, etc., would be explained by the Civil Defense Director. The meeting was tentatively scheduled for either March 19 or 20, 1980, with actual notification coming in advance of the date finally set for this meeting. 13. Approval of Bills for February 1980 and Minutes for February 11, 1980. A motion was made by Phil White, seconded by Ken Klaus and unanimously carried to approve the bills for February 1980 and the Minutes of the regular meeting held February 11, 1980, as presented. Fleeting adjourned. Gary Wieber City Administrator GW/ns - 14 -