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 -