City Council Agenda Packet 07-13-1981AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY HALL
July 13, 1981 - 7:30 P. M.
Mayor: Arve Grimsmo
Council Members: Dan Blonigen, Fran Fair, Ken Maus, Phil White.
Meeting to be taped.
Citizens Comments.
1. Public Hearing on the Consideration of a Resolution Approving
Tax -Exempt Mortgage Revenue Bonds for Monticello Associates.
2. Quarterly Department Head Meeting.
3. Consideration of Appointment of Committee and Attorney for
Union Negotiations.
4. Consideration of Amending Monticello Ordinance Relative to
Building Permit Fees.
5. Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of June 22, 1981.
Spocial Mnoting of June 13, 1981.
Unfinished Business Special Meeting of Juno 29, 1981.
New Business.
C,
Council Agenda - 7/13/01
AGENDA SUPPLEMENT
1. Public blearing on the Consideration of a Resolution Approving Tax -
Exempt Mortgage Revenue Bends for Monticello Associates.
PURPOSE: To consider a resolution approving the issuance of $75,000.00
in tax exempt mortgage revenue bonds under Minnesota Statutes 474.02
{Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act).
This project is proposed to consist of an office, warehouse complex
of 25,140 square feet immediately southwest of the intersection of
Washington Street and Lauring Lane. Enclosed, you will find a bro-
chure depicting the location along with the other particulars of the
project. You will note in the proposal, there are two phases in the
development plan by Monticello Associates and the request, as currently
before the council, is to provide financing for Phase 1 of this project.
The proposed break down of the project cost is as follows:
ITEM
AMOUNT
Land Acquisition and Site Development
5 75,000.00
Construction Contracts
474,000.00
Architectural and Engineering Fees
10,000.00
Legal Fees
20,000.00
Interest During Construction
35,000.00
Contingencies
12,000.00
Financing Fees
20,000.00
TOTAL $646,000.00
Of the above amount, $575,000.00 is proposed to be financed through
the toouanee of tax-exempt mortgage bonds.
Monticello Associates is a general partnership consisting of Leon
Martin and Joseph LaFromboisa. Since this is a general partner-
ship, the bonds will be secured by the individual partners personally.
Financial statements for both of the partners, along with projected
operating statements have been provided and do meet the City of
Monticello's guidelines relative to the issuance of bonds under the
Industrial Development Act.
It should be noted that the property proposed for the development is
properly zoned. If the issuance of the bonds is approved, more do -
tailed information will be given to our building official relative to
securing a building permit.
t � i
Council Agenda - 7/13/81
As with past issues of this nature, it should be pointed out that
these types of bonds do not become a liability of the city, and it
is not in fact, legal for the city to issue public monies in case a
particular company would go bankrupt. The city's tax-exempt pro-
visions are used as a conduit to authorize the issuance of bonds
for financing this project on a tax-exempt basis. This same vehicle
has been userl for financing pollution control equipment on three
occasions at N.S.P. p the Silver Fox Motel, and Clow Stamping Company.
Additionally, a preliminary resolution has been approved for a medi-
cal clinic just cast of the hospital.
Gary Pringle, city attorney, and myself have met with representatives
of the Monticello Associates and Gary Pringle will have his opinion
relative to this issue by Monday night's meeting.
POSSIBLE ACTIOU: Consideration of a motion to adopt a resolution
approving the issuance of $575,000.00 in tax-exempt mortgage reve-
nue bonds for Monticello Associates.
REFERENCES-. A copy of the proposed resolution, a brochure depicting
the development of Monticello Associates, a June 17, 1981 letter from
Miller & Schroeder Municipal Bond Consultants and a comprehensive
statement regarding the issue itself. Related financial information
is available at the Monticello City Hall.
2. Quarterly Department Head Mectinq.
PURPOSE: Monday night is the first meeting for the now quarter and
an a result there is a quarterly department head meeting.
All of the following have been sent a notice:
Public !Works Director - John Simola
Building Official/Civil Defense Director - Loren Klein
Senior Citizens Director - Karen Hanson
Piro Chief - Willard Farnick
Wright County Sheriff Representative - Buddy Gay
YMCA Datached Worker - Mike Molatad
2 -
Council Agenda - 7/13/81
3. Consideration of Appointment of Committee and Attorney for Union
Negotiations.
PURPOSE: To consider the appointment of a committee and an attorney
for union negotiations relative to employees within the Public Works
Department which are represented by Local 49 International Union of
Operating Engineers.
Enclosed, the council will find a June 23, 1981 letter detailing
demands for the next two year contract for the union. The letter
indicates wages would be increased effective January 1, 1982 and
1983, but the current contract the city has with Local 49 is effec-
tive until April 1, 1982. I called Walter Neilson, area business
representative, and he acknowledged that the letter was incorrect as
to dates.
On our last contract, council members, Phil White and Ken Maus,
represented the City of Monticello in an advisory capacity to the
entire council. Additionally, the city hired Mike O'Connor, an
attorney, to advise the union negotiating committee. Mr. O'Connor's
fees in the last union negotiating session totaled $2,470.00. Al-
though I do think it is a good idea to have the city represented by
knowledgeable legal counsel, I do feel that the legal expenses could
be cut by one half. This could be done by not requiring the attorney
to be at all the meetings and discussing some of the issues over the
telephone rather than have Mr. O'Connor present.
Furthermore, with the current contract only expiring on March 31, 1982,
I do not think it is necessary to have a meeting so far in advance of
the termination date. It would seem to me that if negotiations were
held two to three months prior to the termination date that the nego-
tiations would be more fruitful and each position would be more clearly
understood. A long drawn out negotiation session seems to land itself
to unrealistic positions.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of an appointment of a union nago-
tiating committee and attorney.
REFERr.NCEs: A copy of the demands by Local 49 enclosed.
- 3 -
Council Agenda - 7/13/81
4. Consideration of Amendinq Monticello Ordinance Relative to Building
Permit Fees.
PURPOSE: To consider amending the building permit fee schedule out-
lined in Monticello City Ordinances. A proposed increase of 35 per-
cent is being recommended.
It has been Monticello's policy to recover the cost of its building
inspection program through fees charged for building permits. The
intent has not been to make a profit or have the program subsidized
through general property taxes. Listed below is data showing reve-
nue and expenses of the building inspection department for 1979,
1980 and the first five months of 1981:
REVENUE S EXPENDITURES
BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTt1CNT
let 5 mths.
1979 1980 1981 TOTAL
REVENUE
Building Permits
EXPENDI TURFS
*Salary - Loren Klein
'Payroll Taxes
*Group insurance
Engineer Fees
Legal Fees
Building Inspector Fees
P id Out
$ 13,488.06 $ 14,960.05 $6,613.45 $ 35,061.56
10,665.00 13,500.00 6,07 5.00 30,240.00
1,240.37 1,585.84 754.74 3,580.95
849.06 891.68 389.29 2,130.03
153.70 562.68 331.61 1,047.99
378.00 1,002.50 351.00 1,731.50
a
52.50
---
---
52.50
Supplies
295.13
486.36
21.57
803.06
Conference 6 Travel
1,666.55
824.40
4 14.80
2,905.75
SubscriptionB s Duos
70.00
60.00
---
130.00
Surcharge - State
1,642.80
11800.00
398.88
3,841.68
Capitol Outlay
156.87
120.00
---
276.87
Other
---
---
25.00
25.00
TOTAL
5 17,169.98
$ 20,833.46
$8,761.89
$ 46,765.33
DEFICIT
3,681.92
5,873.41
2,148.44
11,703.77
DEFICIT AS PERCENT OF REV =F 27.30
39.26
32.49
33.38
•25 percent of Loron Klein's salary and benefits aro prorated to Civil
Defense and other areas.
- 4 -
Council Agenda - 7/13/81
As you can see by the above figures that over the last two years
and 5 months, the revenues have fallen 33.38 percent short of ex-
penditures. It should be further pointed out that the expenditures
do not include any allocations for telephone, custodian fees, heat,
lights, allocation of building costs or secretarial costs. As a
result, it is recommended that the building inspection fees be in-
creased by 35 percent. Enclosed, please find a schedule showing
the current fee schedule and a proposed schedule.
For your information, the fee schedule has been adjusted for the City
of Monticello on April of 1978 and in August of 1979. Monticello has
adopted the Uniform Building Code and while this code contains a per-
mit fee schedule, the city is also allowed to adopt a fee schedule of
its own. There are quite a few cities who have adopted the fee sche-
dule as contained within the Uniform Building Code. It should be
pointed out that the fee schedule in the Uniform Building Code has
been recently revised and is also shown with the comparison of the
city's current fee schedule and proposed fee schedule. For example,
based on a $50,000.00 home, the city's current fee schedule requires
a permit fee of $187.00 compared to the $252.45 proposed fee. How-
ever, if the State's suggested fee schedule were used, the fee would
be $283.00 plus a plan checking fee of 65 percent for a total of $466.95.
In the proposed fee schedule for the City of Monticello, this would in-
clude all charges except the state surcharge tax which will be explained
in the next paragraph.
CThe State Building Division requires a State surcharge of either $.50
per thousand dollars of valuation if a fee schedule is based on valua-
tion or $.50 per permit. Loren Klein, our building official, is sug-
gesting that the City of Monticello charge a nominal amount for the
permit fee itself, for example, $1.00 and the rest of the fee involved
could be called a land use fee similar to Wright County's schedule. In
this way, on a $50,000.00 hone, for example, instead of requiring the
applicant to pay a surcharge fee of $25.00, there would only be a sur-
charge fee of $.50. As a result, it is suggested that the fee schedule
enclosed be adopted by the City Council with a flat permit charge of
$1.00 per permit and the remaining portion which is based on valuation
to be a land use fee.
It is also suggested that the current ordinance be amended to read
as follows:
4-1- 4: PERMITS. INSPECTIONS AND FEES:
A. The issuance of permits, conduction of inspections and
collections of fees shall be as established by the City
Council.
C
- 5 -
Council Agenda - 7/13/81
Previously, the fee schedule was actually outlined in the
ordinance, but by the change as suggested here, it will greatly
facilitate any revisions of the fee in the future. This concept
will also be suggested for other fees including liquor licenses,
bingo licenses, etc., where ever there is a fee schedule. Rather
than having the actual fee within the ordinance itself, the word-
ing would be "as established by the City Council".
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of adoption of enclosed proposed
fee schedule for building permits. If the fee schedule is going
to be adopted with the idea that only a portion of it be allocated
to the actual building permit fee and the rest of it allocated to
a land use fee; this should be indicated in the motion.
REFERENCES: Cnclosed schedule showing current fee schedule, proposed
fee schedule, and State fee schedule.
- 6 -
E
Monticello Business Center
Developer: Monticello Associates
La Fromboise
Martin
O
� • i
Site Features
,Located in fastest growing area in Minnesota
.Midway between Minneapolis and St. Cloud
.Competent, hardworking local labor force
.1-94 Frontage
.4 blocks from downtown Monticello
LOW TAXES
iF.
!" I
ASE ONE !f1 Li Site Plan
AREAIS0. FT,1 25,1A8 t s
PARKING 02 S w
f \
LAURING
AREA ISO.FT.1 58,340
PARKING 161 SPACES
Building Features
-Rental bays from 3,640 to 54,340 square feet
-Approximately 14 feet clear height
.Docks in each office warehouse bay
.Drive in doors or truck height loading docks
.Custom designed, fully air conditioned offices
.Fully sprinklered, quality fireproof construction
WAREHOUSE
1.
PHASE ONE PLAN 2255,14A0 SOFT
0FIF ICE
B1r 1 -10 B11r t dr 6 6q a d17 1 —8 1 are Wv 0 m n
Moo an I'm.,
WAREHOUSE
1 lI
PHASE TWO PLAN AREA
SO. F,.
1 Graphics -Cl-ks Johnson
i T I
I
\I
OFFICE I
BO 1 Bp 7 Bir a 1BAY
t 1 DAY e I
BAr a
Bir 7
1
a.■00 n 1000
00 n -Pr—
...
WAREHOUSE
1.
PHASE ONE PLAN 2255,14A0 SOFT
0FIF ICE
B1r 1 -10 B11r t dr 6 6q a d17 1 —8 1 are Wv 0 m n
Moo an I'm.,
WAREHOUSE
1 lI
PHASE TWO PLAN AREA
SO. F,.
1 Graphics -Cl-ks Johnson
MONTICELLO SITE ADVANTAGES
Monticello,Minnesota, is a
free standing service and residential
community located in Wright
County, approximately Q miles
northwest of Minneapolis. In 1978.
the Minnesota State Planning
Agency made a population esti-
mate of 45,971 peopleinatenmile
radius around Monticello. Monti-
cello is on the eastern border of
Wright County and across the Missis-
sippi River from Sherburne County.
RENTAL INFORMATION
Leon Martin
7841 Wayzata Blvd.
Minneapolis, Minn. 55426
16121546-5444
BUILD( IXON5TRUCTION 5 INC.
According to the State Demogra-
pher, Sherburne CountyandWright
County rank first and second in
terms of percent age growth among
counties in the State of Minnesota.
Monticello is a progressive city
aciivelypromoting and encouraging
indusuial development and business
in their conlnunily,
307 60UTM WALNUTr STRI'L,
MONTICELLO. MINNESOTA 5.5362
w[TAo uN[ �sl a� rrI ra ,o
July 10, 1981
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MN 55762
SMITH. PRINGLE BI HAYES
L - .1-1
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
teT —.0— S.—
aLOWER
Yll
GREGOR, V. SMITH. -J. D.
I-- Ll:
Tab w 11E[T
GARY L. PRINGLE. J. 0.
[L4 RIVCR. MINNESOTA 55330
n,OwAS D. HALES. J.O.
RE: Monticello Associates Project
$575,000 Tax-exempt Mortgage
Monticello, Minnesota
Gentlemen:
I have reviewed the documents involved in the proposed Tax-exempt Mortgage
under provisions of the Minnesota Industrial Development Act to provide funds
to finance a portion of the cost of constructing a 25,140 foot office/ware-
house building.
It is my Upinion that the documents are Lill in urder and that the prujecL
constitutes a "project" within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Section
414.02, Subdivision la, and that the City of Monticello is authorized to
Issue Its revenue bonds as proposed by the resolution in accordance with the
provisions of Chal)Ler 474.
Yours truly,
Cary L. Prt glr. (}"
CLP/lh
me #8110006
CERTIFICATION OF MINUTES RELATING TO
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE
BONDS
Issuer: City of Monticello, Minnesota
Governing Body: City Council
Kind, date, time and place of meeting: A regular meeting,
held on 1981, at 7:30 o'clock P.M., at
the City Hall.
Members present:
Members absent:
Documents Attached:
Minutes of said meeting (pages):
MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING ON
PROPOSED PROJECT
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION DETERMINING TO PROCEED WITH
A PROJECT AND ITS FINANCING UNDER TPE
MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT;
REFERRING THE PROPOSAL TO THE COMMIS-
SIONER OF SECURITIES FOR APPROVAL; AND
AUTHORIZING PREPARATION OF NECESSARY
DOCUMENTS
1, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and
acting recording officer of the public corporation issuing
the obligations referred to in the title of this
certificate, certify that the documents attached hereto,
as described above, have been carefully compared with the
original records of said corporation in my legal custody,
from which they have been transcribed; that said documents
are a correct and complete transcript of the minutes of a
meeting of the governing body of said corporation, and
correct and complete copies of all resolutions and other
actions taken and of all documents approved by the
governing body at said meeting, so far as they relate to
said obligations; and that said meeting was duly held by
the governing body at the time and place and was attended
throughout by the members indicated above, pursuant to
call and notice of such meeting given as required by law.
C WITNESS my hand officially as ouch recording
officer this ^ day of , 1981.
Signature
/ Gary Wieber, Administrator
(SEAL) Name and Title
The Mayor stated that this was the time and place for a public
hearing on the proposal that the City undertake and !:inane a Project
on behalf of Merticello Associates, a M.i^_ esota general partnersh—ip
(the Borrower) pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474. The City
Adninlstrator presented an affidavit showing publication of the notice
of public hearing at least once not less than 15 nor mare than 30 days
prior to the date fixed for the public hearing, in the Monticellu Tin Cts,
being the official newspaper of the City and a ncwsp:tp_r of general
circulation throughout the City. The affidavit was ucvnincd, found to
be satisfactory and ordered placed on file with the City Adininistrator.
The Mayor then opened the- meeting for the public hearing on the
proposal to tuxiertake and finance the Project on beh:if of the Borrower.
The purpose of the hearing was explained, the nature of t1w Project and
of the proposed revenue bonds were discv.sed, the dr•.ift copy of th.
Application to tix: Camtissioner of Securities with all att.achients and
exhibits were available, and all persons present who d:,sircd to do :,o
were affordUd an opportunity to express their views with resr.-,ct to th
proposal to undertake and finance tlx: Project, in resp mse to which
tho folicming parsons appeared, were rcrvgni•r-ed,
and made statements, summaries of which appear opposite
their respective names:
Name of Speaker Summary of Views
After all persons who wished to do so had stated
their views on the proposal, the Mayor declared the public
hearing to be closed.
After some discussion, motion for the following
Resolution was made by Member
7
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION DETERMINING TO PROCEED WITH A PROJECT
AND ITS FINANCING UNDER THE MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL.
DEVELOPMENT ACT; REFERRING THE PROPOSAL TO THE
COMMISSIONER OF SECURITIES FOR APPROVAL; AND
AUTHORIZING PREPARATION OF NECESSARY DOCUMENTS
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Monticello, Minnesota (the Municipality), as follows:
SECTION 1
Recitals and Findinqs
1.1. This Council has received a proposal that the
Municipality finance a portion or all of the cost of a
proposed project under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474
(the Act), consisting of the acquisition of land and the
construction thereon of a building (the Project) by
Monticello Associates, a Minnesota general partnership (the
Borrower), for lease as office and warehouse facilities.
1.2. At a public hearing, duly noticed and held
on , 1981, in accordance with the Act,
on the proposal to undertake and finance the Project, all
parties who appeared at the hearing were given an
opportunity to express their views with respect to the
proposal to undertake and finance the Project. Based on
the public hearing and such other facts and circumstances
as this Council deems relevant, this Council hereby finds,
determines and declares as follows:
(a) The welfare of the State of Minnesota
requires active promotion, attraction, encouragement and
development of economically sound industry and commerce
through governmental acts to prevent, so far as possible,
emergence of blighted lands and areas of chronic
unemployment, and the State of Minnesota has encouraged
local government units to act to prevent such economic
deterioration.
(b) The Project would further the general
purposes contemplated and described in Section 474.01 of
the Act.
(c) The existence of the Project would add to
the tax base of the Municipality, the County and School
District in which the Project is located and would provide
increased opportunities for employment for residents of
the Municipality and surrounding area.
(d) This Council has been advised by
representatives of the Borrower and Mille. 6 Schroeder
Municipals, Inc., investment bankers and dealers in
municipal bonds, that conventional, commercial financing
to pay the cost of the Project is available only on a
limited basis and at such high costs of borrowing that the
economic feasibility of operating the Project would be
significantly reduced, but that with the aid of municipal
borrowing, and its resulting lower borrowing cost, the
Project is economically more feasible.
(e) This Council has also been advised by the
Borrower and Miller b Schroeder Municipals, Inc., that on
the basis of their discussions with potential buyers of
tax-exempt bonds, revenue bonds of the Municipality (which
may be in the form of a commercial development revenue
note or notes) could be issued and sold upon favorable
rates and terms to finance the Project.
(f) The Municipality is authorized by the Act to
issue its revenue bonds to finance capital projects
consisting of properties used and useful in connection
with a revenue producing enterprise, such as that of the
Borrower, and the issuance of such bonds by the
Municipality would be a substantial inducement to the
Borrower to acquire and construct the Project.
SECTION 2
Determination to Proceed with
the Project and its Financinq
2.1. On the basis of the information given the
Municipality to date, it appears that it would be
desirable for the Municipality to issue its revenue bonds
under the provi-ions of the Act to finance the Project in
an estimated total amount of $ 575,000.
2.2. It is hereby determined to proceed with the Project
and its financing and this Council hereby declares its
present intent to have the Municipality issue its revenue
bonds under the Act to finance the Project. Notwith-
standing the foregoing, however, the adoption of this
resolution shall not be deemed to establish a legal
I
obligation on the part of the Municipality or its City
Council to issue or to cause the issuance of such revenue
bonds. All details of such revenue bond issue and the
provisions for payment thereof shall be subject to final
approval of the Project by the Minnesota Commissioner of
Securities and may be subject to such further conditions
az the Municipality may specify. The revenue bonds, if
issued, shall not constitute a charge, lien or encum-
brance, legal or equitable, upon any property of the
Municipality, except the Project, and each hond, when, as
and if issued, shall recite in substance that the bond,
including interest thereon, is payable solely from the
revenues received from the Project and property pledged to
the payment thereof, and shall not constitute a debt of
the Municipality within the meaning of any constitutional
or statutory limitation.
2.3. The Application to the Commissioner of. Securities,
with attachments, is hereby approved, and the Mayor and
City Administrator are authorized to execute said
documents in behalf of the Municipality.
2.4. In accordance with Section 474.10, Subdivision 7a of
the Act, the Mayor and City Administrator are hereby
authorized and directed to cause the Application to be
submitted to the Commissioner of Securities for approval
of the Project. The Mayor, City Administrator, City
Attorney and other officers, employees and agents of the
Municipality are hereby authorized and directed to provide
the Commissioner with any preliminary information the
Commissioner may need for this purpose, and the City
Attorney is authorized to initiate and assist in the
preparation of such documents as may be appropriate to the
Project, if it is approved by the Commissioner.
SECTION 3
General
3.1. If the bonds are issued and sold, the Municipality
will enter into a lease, sale or loan agreement or similar
agreement satisfying the requirements of the Act (the
Revenue Agreement) with the Borrower. The lease rentals,
installment sale payments, loan payments or other amounts
payable by the Bcrrower to the Municipality under the
Revenue Agreement shall be sufficient to pay the
principal, interest and redemption premium, if any, on the
bonds as and when the same shall become due and payable.
3.2. The Borrower has agreed and it is hereby determined
that any and all direct and indirect costs incurred by the
Municipality in connection with this Project, whether or
not the Project is carried to completion, and whether or
not approved by the Commissioner of Securities, and
whether or not the Municipality by resolution authorizes
the issuance of the bonds, will be paid by the Borro•.,:cr
upon request.
3.3. The Mayor and City Administrator are directed, if
the bonds are issued and sold, thereafter to comply with
the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 474.01 ,
Subdivision 8.
Attest:
Adopted this _ day of , 1981 .
City Administrator
Mayor
(SEAL)
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing
J
resolution was duly seconded by Member
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in
favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and
adopted .
d
lou Iisr Mmnegt• (800862.600:
Slate,(9�)728-6122
Miller & Schroeder Municipals, Inc.
170 honh—u-, Fu —, iai C—im 7500 xr, — A -e Sumi,, i•iirinrnyoii,,idmn :,, m 55.131 • 16121 all -i 503
June 17, 1981
Minnesota Department of Commerce
Securities Division
500 Metro Square
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
RE: Monticello Associates Project
$575,000 Tax-exempt Mortgage
Monticello, Minitesota
Gentlemen:
At the request of Monticello Associates, a Minnesota (general partner-
ship, we have conducted an informal study as to the economic feasibility
of the proposal that the City of Monticello issue a tax-exempt mortgage
under provisions of the Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act
EO provide funds to finance a portion of the cost of constructing a
25,140 square foot office/warehouse building.
Based on our preliminary investigation of the partnership's financial
condition, we believe the project is economically feasible and the
tax-exempt mortgage of the City can be successfully issued and placed.
We propose to assist in the placement of the tax-exempt mortgage subjecL
to the approval of the project by the Minnesota Securities Commissioner,
Monticello Associates and Miller R Schroeder Municipals, Inc. as to the
terms and conditions of the issuance and placement of the tax-exempt
mortgage.
Sincerely,
MILLER A SCHHROEDER MUNICIPALS, INC.
Kenneth L. Norwic
Financial Consultant
KLN/ad
1t.eAyuerter• M,uue.... 6,,/•tuu„..,,e•111nu. 1,Illlu, 6„W„e llre•n,C.ldu
, •M„1 nh1,.,�, 1111 o,n. �11•eul, Miur•w,ln• N.""., I4,1 iJn
M.,,,b, u, ,N N. u•„s• 1n,,,,a V u.1r, rwn (uw �1.,n,
COMPREHENSIVE STATEMENT
The undersigned, being the duly qualified and
acting Mayor and City Administrator of the City of
Monticello, Minnesota (the Municipality), curt.ify that the
City Council has been provided by a representative of
Monticello Associates, a Minnesota general partnership
(the_ Borrower), with certain information
concerning a proposed Project under the Minnesota
Municipal Industrial Development Act, Minnesota Statutes,
Chapter 474. On the basis of such information the City
Council, by resolution adopted 1 1981, has
given preliminary approval to the proposed Project and the
financing thereof by the issuance of revenue bonds of the
Municipality. The following are factors considered by the
City Council in determining to give preliminary approval
to the Project:
1. The Project consists generally of acquisition
of land and construction thereon of an approximately
25,000 square foot building for lease as office and
warehouse facilities.
2. Bond Counsel is of the opinion that the
Project constitutes a "project" within the meaning of
Minnesota Statutes, Section 474.02, Subdivision la.
I
f 3. Based upon an estimated total cost of
construction of $646,000, it is the opinion of the City
Council that the Project, when completed, will add to the
commercial tax base of the Municipality, the Cnunty and
the School District in which the Project is located.
4. Representatives of the Borrower estimate that
upon completion of the Project, approximately 50 persons
will be employed in the operation of the Project, which
would provide increased employment opportunity for the
residents of the Municipality and surrounding area.
5. Representatives of the Borrower estimate that
the acquisition and construction of the Project will
result in an annual payroll of approximately $750,000
based on wage rates currently in effect. The City Council
believes that a substantial percentage of that payroll
will be spent on housing, food and other goods and
services in the Municipality and surrounding area, thus
benefiting the local economy.
The Municipality will provide the Minnesota
Department of Economic Development with the information
required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 474.01,
subdivision 8, upon entering into a revenue agreement, as
defined in the Act, with the Borrower.
K1
The Project does not include any property to be 1
sold or affixed to or consumed in the production of
property for sale, and does not include any housing
facility to be rented or used as a permanent residence.
A public hearing on the proposal to undertake and
finance the Project was conducted pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, Section 474.01, subdivision 7b, on
1981, at o'clock P.M., at the City Hall, at which
public hearing all interested parties were afforded an
opportunity to express their views.
Mayor
(SEAL) City Administrator 1
l
1 -�
International Union of Operating Engineers
LOCAL UNION NO. 49, 49A, 498, 49C, 49D and 49E
MINNESOTA • NORTH DAKOTA - SOUTH DAKOTA
w ' An,eelm .i/, . F.I.; C.1 0.
,RED P. DERESCHUK, P—ideal �.0
!O -N J, LACKNER, v—P/OSiaenl
0
C,/ARICs C. SWCNSON, O_ t
RLti mina,C—ft—ving Sm-ewd e
JUN R. PENDZIMAS, Tr—u—�r i
ROBERT F. PUERINGER, Business Manager -Financial Sec/efary
.829 ANTHONY UNE SOUTH — MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55e 1e
Prone, 16121 7889"1
June 23, 1981
Mr. Gary Wieber, City Administrator
city of Monticello
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
Dear Mr. Wicber:
On behalf of the membership working for. the City of
Monticello represented by Local 49, International
Union of Operating Engineers, I hereby submit thr_
following demands for. 1982 - 1983:
1) ARTICLE•' XVl1r - GROUP INSUIMNC17 PROGRAM : To read
as follows:
The Employer shall pay one hundred percent
(1008) of the premium cost of Life, Medical.,
Dental and Optical insurance for each employee
and his dependent.
2) ARTICLE XIX - HOLIDAYS:
ADD to present schedule - Friday after 91hanksgiving, and
One-half (1/2) clay on December 319t, when it falls on
Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thurndrly.
3) ARTICLE XXI1 - SEVIiRANCE PAY:
Section 22.01 to read no follows -
Employees with ton (10) years of suniority
or more shall receive seventy-five percent
(759) of his unused and accumulated sick
Leave upon his termination as an employee.
Employees with less than ten (10) years
seniority shall receive fifty percent (50%)
of his unused and accumulated sick leave upon
his termination as an umployee. Any permanent
employee leaving any municipal service in good
standing after giving proper notice of such
Mr. Gary lnieber, City Adm.
City of Monticello
Demands - 1982 - 1983
Page Two
3) ARTICLE XXIl - SEVERANCE PA]' - SECTION 22.01- CONTINUED:
termination of employment, shall be compensated
for severance pay accrued and unused to the date
of separation.
ADD NEW SECTION - SHIFT DIPPERENTIAL:
,rhe shift differential for employees working un
assigned shifts which begin at or before 6:00 A.M.
or eh;ch end at or after 6:00 P.,%'.. .^.hall be ten
percent (108) above his regular hourly rate for all
hours worked on that shift. Such shift differential
shall be in addition to the employees regular rate
of pay and shall be included in all payrol I calculations.
4) WAGES :
EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1982:
Eighty -Four percent (84%) of t.hc applicallIe Heavy
Equipment. rage in the Agreement between the Associated
General Contractors (AGC) of Minnesota and the
International Union of Operating Enginccro, (I.U.0.1..)
i..ocal 49, which is $11. 64 -an hour.
Eighty -Four pnrcent (848) of the AGC rate is $9.77
using the Equipment Mechanic -Operator rate in our
present agreement of $7.70 an hour, this would represent
an increase of $2.07 an hour to be applied across the
13oArd equally, to all classifications so that the current.
spread between the classifications will be maintained.
The formula used to establish the Nighty -four percent
(04%) figure is based on the deduction of 010 follrnainq
f. r ngu benefits:
Sick Leave 96 hours per year 5 2080 = 4.6%
holidays 76 hours per year } 2080 = 3.78
Vacation 160 hours per year. i 2080 = 7. 7'6
Total 11orcent.-age 16.0P.
EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1983:
Eighty -Four percent (848) of the incrcenae of the
Flaavy Equipment rate in the agreement utween the
AGC of Minn to and tho 1.11.O.E., Local 49, which
1.11 5.9G.
Ll
Mr. Gary Wi.cber, City Adm.
City of Monticello
Demands - 1982 - 1983
Page Three
4) WAGES - CONTINUED - (Effective January 1, 1983)
Eighty -]'our percent (842) of the 1983 AGC
rate is $.81 to be applied to all classitications
across the Board.
I am prepared to meet with you immediately at which time I
will submit the necessary documentation justifying our position.
WIN/da
opoiu b12
afl-cio
cc: Gerald Schmidt, Steward
Respectfully yours,
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING
ENGINEERS, LOCAL, NO. 49
Walter 1. Nielsen
Area Business Representative
3
FEE SCHEDC:X,
(Effect--ve August 1, 19793
TICr--AL VATA;ATIM FEE
5I-00 to 5500.00 $5.00
S501-00 to 52,000.00 55.00 for the first 5500.00 plus
5I.00 for each additional 5100.00
or traction thereof, to and
including 52.000.00
$2.001.00 to $25.000.00
$25.001.00 to S50,000.00
550,001.00 to $I00,000.00
$100,001.00 to 5500,000-00
$500.001.00 and up
$20.00 for the first $2,000.00 plus
54.00 for each additional 51,000.00
or fraction thereof, to and
including $25.000.00
$112.00 for the first 525,000.00
plus 53.00 for each additional
S1,()0().00 or fracticn thereof, to
and including $50,000.00.
$187.00 for the first $50,000.00
plus $2.00 for each additional
$1.000.00 or fraction thereof, to
and including $100,000.00
S287.00 for the first $100,000.00
plus $1.50 for each additional
S1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to
and including $500.00O.00
5887.00 for the first $500,00.00
plus $1.00 for each additional
$1,000.00 or fraction thereof.
LIJ
PM'OSED SCIIEDULI:
(Effective August 1. 19811
$6.75
56.75 for the first $500.00 plus
$1.35 for each additional $100.00
or fraction thereof, to and
including $2,000.00
$27.00 for the first $2,009 plus
$5.40 for each additional $1,000.00
or fraction thereof, to and
including 525,000-00
$151.20 for the first $25,000.00 plus
$4.05 for each additional $1,000.00
or fraction thereof, to and including
$50.000-00
$252.45 for the first S50 ,000.00 plus
$2.70 for each additional $I,UOU.00
or fraction thereof, to and including
$100,000-00
$387.45 for the first $100,000.00 plus
$20.25 for each additional $1,000.00
or fraction thereof, to and including
5500,000.00.
$1197.45 for the first $500,000.00
plus $1.35 for each additional
S1,000.00 or fraction thereof.
STATE FEE SCHEDULE
$10-00
$10-00 for the first 5500.00 plus
$1.50 for each additional $100.00
or fraction thereof, to and including
$2,000.00
$32.50 for the first $2,000.00 plus
$6.00 for each additional $1,000.00
or fraction thereof, to and including
$25.000.00
$170.50 for the first $25,000.00 plus
$4.50 for each additional $1,000.00 or
fraction thereof, to and including
$50,000-00.
$283.00 for the first $50,000.00 plus
$3.00 for each additional $1,000.00 or
fraction thereof, to and includ
ing
$100,000.00.
$433.00 for the first $100,000.00 plus
$2.50 for each additional $1,000.00 or
fraction thereof, to and including
$500.000.CO
$1433.00 for the first $500,000.00
plus $2.50 for each additional
$1,000.00 or traction thereof.
QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE
MONT!CELLO FIRE DEPARTMENT
President — Greg Dahlheimer
Vice President — Doug Pitt
Secretary — Lee Trunnell
Treasurer — Willard Anderson
Chief — Willard Farnick Joint Committeeman — Lee Trunnell
Assistant Chief — George Liefert Training Officer — Gene Jensen
1st Captain — David Kranz Asst. Training Officer — Ted Farnum
2nd Captain — Gordon Link
The following is a quarterly report of the Monticello Fire Department from April 1, 1981
thru June 30. 1981.
There were 6 personal assists by the Chief and/or Assistant Chief.
There were 13 fires which required 245 man hours. The average attendance at a fire.
was 15. Mutual aid was given to the Big Lake Fire Department which required 12 man,
34 man hours.
During the past three month period there were 3 training sessions which required 108
man hours. The average attendance at these training sessions was 18. At the June 4111
training session, Don McKay, state instructor, trained us on how to hook-up to a fire
hydrant.
Ston Douglas, Ted Farnum and Mark Wallin attended the state fire school on June 46
and on April 2526, Lee Trunnell and Gordon Link attended regional school.
In the past three months the department has received two fire chemical suits and two
hand held radios.
Also, the department participated in the Big Lake Spud Fest events and parade.
Sincerely,
David B. Kranz
Reporter r
hik
0
r-
�H_ ERIFFT OFFI cE
<P
• ,
Courthouse — Wdghl County _ . _ f
- _
BUFFALO, MINNESOTA 653_33=-
MINone
Vic; O'•
James F. Power, thiel Deputy
-,-_ _- �'i Li Telep 682.1162 -r .'r
2a Hour EmerPncy Telephones
-�_=.r_sliNorfrEmergeney Bua. Na 6623900,• _tG=` _ _
---- - -
Metro 473.6673
_ __r-1 ' To8 Fmel•800.362.3667 --
_ c6ARRELL L. WOLFF- =1F _- __rt -7F_ �' 8.00 o.m.�4:30D rs_=r c
-
Montiwto 2062533
__
_—= CWnIY.Shrill.l'
aDelano 972.2924
Cokato 268•6454
June 22, 1981
Honorable Mayor
City Council
Monticello, Minn. 55362
Dear Council:
Enclosed is the Sheriff's Law Enforcement report for the month of May, 1981. 576 hours
of patrol service were contracted for during the period in which the following activities
were tallied:
1 - Criminal damage to property - vehicle backed into another vehicle
1- Theft of radio from Billy's Toy b Hobby Shop
1 - Theft of bicycle - cleared by arrest
I - Criminal damage to property - vehicle written on while parked at Roller Rink
1 - Criminal damage to property - crane 6 crawler damaged at construction site I
I - Theft - license plate taken off of a motorcycle
1 - Burglary at Knits 6 Bits - cash taken
3 - Attempted burglaries at Monticello Clinic, Barseness Drug and Centra Soto - no entry gal -
1 - Attempted theft of pick up - apparently scared off
1 - BurRlary at Monticello Theatre - nothing taken
1 - Theft of tape recorder from Junior High School - cleared by arrest 6 property recovered
1 - Burglary - outboard motor taken from residence
1 - Attempt to pees forged prescription at Poirior Drug
I - Report of prowlers at the Mursing Home - apprehended 2 juveniles who were warned and
released
I - Quick change art tsts at Perkins - loss of approximately $60.00
1 - Criminal damage to property at Monticello Redi Mix - vehicle ran over lawn 6 tree
1 - Forgery of checks at Holiday Station - under Investigation
I - Vandalism - windshield broken in vehicle
1 - Criminal damage to property - bullet hole in windshield of street sweeper belong to city
1 - Criminal damage to property - window in residence broken
i - Simple assault - cleared by arrest
1 - Theft of miscellaneous items out of perked vehicle
i - Theft of two garden hoses from yard
I - Theft of two hub caps from vehicle
1 - Attempted burglary of garage - no entry gained
i - Criminal damage to property - motorcycle drove over bean field - cleared 6 restitution p
1 - Report of soliciting without permit - cleared
I - Criminal damage to property - windows 6 headlights broken in vehicle
1 - Theft of lawn mower - recovered
1 - Criminal damage to property - 2 small window blocks broken out at Jones Mfg.
6 - Arrests for disturbing the peace
3 - Arrests for felony theft which occurred in April
1 - Arrest for carrying loaded handgun in motor vehicle
I - Arrest for theft that occurred at Perkins In April
9
Sheriff's report for Monticello for May, 1981, continued:
1 - Arrest for runaway
3 - Arrests for possession of small amount of marijuana
5 - Arrests for sale of controlled substance
1 - Arrest for possession of large amount with intent to sell
4 - Arrests for disorderly conduct
1 - Arrest for possession of stolen property
1 - Arrest for procuring liquor for minor
1 - Arrest for giving false information to police
1 - Arrest for bench warrant
1 - Arrest for criminal damage to property
L - Citations issued for worthless checks
2 - Public nuisance
2 - School bus stop violation - 1 driver tagged
2 - Prower reports
7 - Traffic problems
3 - Missing persons - located
5 - Recovered property
3 - Fires reported
5
Suspicious circumstances, persons 6 vehicles
3
Domestics
5 -
Miscellaneous complaints
4 -
Disorderly conduct - cleared
1 -
Annoying phone call
I -
Intoxicated person
1 -
Harassment
4 -
Medical aide
1 -
Liquor law violation
1 -
Civil matter
1 -
Alarm sounded - chocked out o.k.
2 -
Animal complaints
161 -
Car b subject checks
42 -
Citizen aids
54 -
Motorists warned
29 -
Accidents investigated
1 -
Open door
62 - Traffic tickets issuedt
o473-6673 — — --
lialb_2852632
04972.2924
Ito 288-6454- TL_=
3 - Driving after suspension 1 - Illegal parking
13 - Speed 1 - U-turn violation
2 - No insurance 4 - Mufflers
4 - Improper registration 4 - Driving while intoxicated
4 - Open bottle 5 - Driver license violations
1 - Failure to leave information at accident 2 - Reckless driving
5 Erratic driving 4 Failure to yield right of way
1 School bus stop arm violation 2 Disobeyed semaphore
4 - Driving after revocation 1 - Mo motorcycle endorsement
Yours truly, J
arrcll o ff `Shea ff Blllingt For May, 1981 -- $ 6,933.33 TOTAL DUE
554.67 (balance) g 7,488.00
1
4074
. F� .-S'•G�e�.�e.s
e
n
m
n i
u
A,Sc. �ebr�s
i
3 un rer1'is;e�e� v e�\es
Z vac a V\+ � 0 Lk
lvC4C&I
S, nLiet / M (f Cism
�(uce �a co bs�
Vic,
nA
3; �l Nle.
-�&%s
c ��r L -a r 4�\,%
MEMORANDUM
M: File C-21-13 and File L-40-12, L-40-2, and CA
DATE: July 9, 1981
FROM: Gary wieber X
SUBJECT: Procedures to be taken by the City Council to
receive compliance from the V.F.W. and the
American Lea ion Clubs relative to limiting
serving to only members and guests.
As a result of the various conversations with representatives
from the American Ngion Club, the V.F.W. Club, and those who
expressed their concern to the council at the June 8, 1981
meeting relative to club licenses, I would suggest that the
following be presented to the City Council at their July 13, 1981
meeting:
1
Letter sent to the V.F.W. Club and the American Legion Club
indicating concern.
Letter would also request that both clubs post a notice that
they would only servo members and invited guests.
Letter would also request a response from the clubs within
30 days to indicate what precautions they would take to
insure that the provisions were complied with.
Proposals from the clubs would then be rreanntod to the City
Council for their approval.
If proposals were not received or wore inadequate, appropriate
action would have to be taken at that time to insure compliance.
L
xicz-x
A41�01 144�t-
45;- er7—.r
..................... —',- ............
-? - . i,,v �cx, - W.
.3. e
m
COUNCIL UPDATE
July 13, 1981 Meeting
KERMIT LINDBERG PROPERTY
AS I indicated previously to the council, the Kermit Lindbergs were
asking $120,000.00 for their property just iasnediately east of the
Wastewater TreAtm?nt Plant_ As you may recall, the city had two
appraisals done, the highest of which was $100,500.00 and the city
offered the Lindbergs $100,000.00 which was refused. I again called
Nr. Kermit Lindberg and he indicated that his price was firm at
$120,000.00. At this time I would think it would be best
for the city to hold it's position since we can earn approximately
15 to 16 percent on our money in the meantime, and should the property
develop we can still convey an offer.
APPRAISAL - FORMER OAKWOOD SCHOOL BLOCK
Recently, the council approved an appraisal of the Oakwood School block
to supplement an appraisal that the school district had completed in
December of 1978. The initial appraisal by the school was $3.25 a
square foot or $353,925.00 for the entire 25 acre block. I asked
Jack Maxwell to complete an appraisal of the property and in his
opinion, the value given on the first appraisal could still stand.
lie felt that the real estate values in Monticello had not increased
substantially since the appraisal was completed. Additionally, he
indicated that putting such a large tract up for sale at one time
may off -set any possible increment in value. He felt that the city
would be better off not taking an aggressive stand on selling the property
right now and waiting until the interest rate lessens somewhat, at which
time a better market would be available. Unlusu Lhuro is some objection,
I will have some for sale signs made up to face both walnut Streot and
Highway 25.
MEETING WITI1 RESIDENTS C014CERNING TRAFFIC PROBLEMS THAT NAY DEVELOP WITH,
THE EXTENSION OF EAST RIVFR STREET.
As you nay recall on April 27, 1981, the extension of East Rivor Street
was approved to serve both the hospital and the medical clinic to be
completed just east of the hospital. 11owaver, at that time the council
indicated that a meeting should be arranged with the Wright County
Sheriff's Department and the residents in that area to address their con-
rerno relative to traffic.
A notice was sent to all property owners who had signed the original
letter oxpreasing concerns with traffic problems. Of these people, only
Mr. and Kra. Irwin Kallin showed up at the meeting. It was the concensua
of the residents present along with a representative from the Wright
County Sheriff 's Department and the hospital that tho following should be
done if East River Street is extended
C
COUNCIL UPDATE
July 13, 1981 Meeting
Reduce the speed limit cast of Wright Street along River Street.
An attempt would be made to curve the extension of River Street
...thisan 80 feet right-of-way to reduce creed.
Adequate lighting would be provided by the hospital in the parking
lot to discourage vandalism and loitering.
Since the River Street extension would be used for employee parking
to the rear of the hospital/medical clinic, some sort of sticker
system that would go on the car to identify employees would be
implemented.
ABA14DON14F.NT OF BUP-LIJJGTO14 NOR7I1EPIJ RAILROAD Ll UFS.
As you may have read in various newspaper accounts, Burlington Northern
Railroad is considering abandonment of its tracks from St. Cloud to
Rogers because of limited useage. Obviously, this would be of concern
to the City of Monticello since certain existing businesses and industries
do use the railroad tracks for freight services although to a limited
extent. Additionally, there is a potential use to perspective industries
and the possibility of a commuter train between Monticello and the
metropolitan area. If Burlington Northern Railroad proceeds with its
proposed abandonment, a fonnal hearing process would be set up and I will
notify the council at that time relative to considering formal opposition
to this request. One small advantage in having these tracks abandoned
is that the city would be able to extend some streets such as Ceder SLruul
across as what is now being used as railroad tracks.
STATUS ON LARSEN CARPETING
Recently, in violation of a variance being denied, Ken laroon established
a retail husinean in a residential zonu on East 4th Street. At this time,
we are having our attorney prepare the necessary papers to bring this
item to court for prosecution. It should be pointed out that in the
interni, Ken Larsen ties filed s counter suit against the City of Monticello
for violation of his constitutional rights and selective enforcement of
it's zoning ordinance in the amount of $21,500.00. Thio claim is hosed on
the fact that Mr. Jaroon believes that he was grandfathered in at the
present location and scope of the business he is now conducting. Loren
Klein, our zoning administrator, has been able to research the background
on this item and it appears that at no time was Mr. Larsen allowed the
present scope of broinoss he is now conducting. There is even further
evidence that Mr. Laroen woe not even allowed to operate a warehouse as
he was previously doing. (Lt should be pointed out that since there is
a law suit pending on this subject, any discussion should be possibly
restricted to s closed session or you may want to ask either the zoning
Cndminiatrator or myself for further information).
\, MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING - PERKINS CAKE 6 STEAK
June 13, 1981 - 7:00 A-' M.
Members Present: Arve Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Philip White, Ken Maus,
Dan 8lonigen.
Members Absent: None
The purpose of the meeting was to review the possibility of request-
ing direct funding from N.S.P. for Civil Defense Equipment,
Loren Klein, our Civil Defense Director, explained to the
council that recent legislation required N.S.P. to pay funds to
the Department of Cmergency Services for civil defense activities
involving nuclear plants. However, according to Mr. Klein, local
units of government have been unsuccessful in their attempts to
receive any portion of this funding from the State Department of O
Emergency Services.
Mr. Klein indicated that civil defense directors from Wright County
and Sherburne County will be attempting to arrange a meeting with
N.S.P. to discuss this issue. It is the intention to got support
from the county and city boarAs of the r.ivil defense units involved
t.o approve N.S.P. for direct funding. Although no decision was
made, it was the concensua of the council that this Item should be
pursued. Additionally, Cary Wieber pointed out that one preliminary
step to this may be to meet with State Department Emgergeney Services
in order to obtain funds.
Meeting adjourned.
ry Mlel�
City Administrator
gol
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUIXIL
June 22, 1981 - 7:30 P.M.
Members Present: Arve Grimsmo, Ken Maus, Dan Blonigen, Fran Fair,
Phil white
Members Absent: None
1. Public Bearing on Set Back Variance - Lot 29, Block 2, Ritze Manor -
Angie and John Prauqht.
Mr. and Yrs. John Praught requested a variance to build a garage five
feet over the property line into the County Highway 75 right-of-way.
At a previous meeting, the City Council granted a variance to Mr.
Praught to build his second garage on his property within five feet
of the property line. However, during the construction of the building,
he was mistaken in the property corners of his property and inadver-
tently, built his new building five feet over the property line into
the right-of-way of County Highway 75.
Since discovering that hiu building was five feet across his property
line in the right-of-way of County Highway 75 rather than five feet in
his property line, Mr. Praught has contacted Mr. tarry Koening of the
Wright County Engineer'o office who indicated that if the city were
willing to go along with a variance allowing him to build to the property
line, that the county would allow the five foot over build onto the
right-of-way provided that it would be the owners responsibility for
removal of the building or damages which might occur if construction
along the right-of-way were necessary in the future.
As a result of the county's willingness to allow the Wilding to be
situated on the right-of-way, the Planning Commission at its previous
meeting approved the variance request contingent upon the Draughts
signing the agreements that would hold both the City of Monticello
and Wright County harmless if it were necessary to have such building
moved 1.0 do work in the right-of-way.
As provided by city ordinances, Charles and Mary Ritze filed an appeal
from the Planning Comniosion'a approval of thiu variance to the City
Council. In addition to Charles and Mary Ritze, Mert and Sandy Capes
who live in the area, also opposed the variance request at the Planning
Commission level.
Mr. Max LnVollo, abutting property owner to the wont of John Praught,
spoke in favor of the variance request Irving granted, as they veru
also undur the improsoion that the lot corners were in a different
location than what they turned out to be.
C!=
Council Minutes - 6/22/81
Mr. Praught informed the Council that the survey stakesexisting on 1
the property were assumed to be correct and it was only recently l
that it was brought to his attention that these survey stakes were
incorrect. Sinre that time, Mr. Praught has obtained two different
surveys of his property to find the correct location of the property
corners with two surveyors showing different corner points. There
was apparently an error in the original survey of the property at the
time it was platted in 1975. It was noted by the Praughts that if
the ]wilding had to be moved ten feet to comply with the five foot
set back variance granted previously, the building would be closer
to the abutting property owner, Vince Mayer, than it is now situated.
As a result of the apparent error in the original staking of Mr.
Praught's lot, motion was made by Phil White, seconded by Fran Fair
to grant the variance request allowing the Praughts garage to he
located up to the property line and to extend five feet into the
county right-of-way contingent upon the Praughts providing the City
offtontieello with an .agreement holding both the City of Monticello
and Wright County harmless and indicating that it would be the owners
responsibility Lu move the structure if it were necessary to have
such building moved to do work in the right-of-way, subject to the
city attorney's approval of all documents. Voting in favor was White,
Fair, Grimcmo and Maus. Opposed: Blonigen.
2. Public licaiinq on the Consideration of a Resolution Increasing Indus-
trial Development Revenue Bonds for the Monticello Scotwood Partnership.
The partnership proposing to build a Seotwood Motel just cast of
Perkins ralueated approval of the city to increase the industrial
revenue bonds previously adeptwl LOM 5750,000.00 to $1,X,0,000.00.
The reason for the increase in the proposed dollar amount of the
revenue bonds is thu extension of the rroposed motel from 36 to 48
units and an increase in the construction coatu since the approval
of the resolution originally in 1980.
A representative from Miller t Schroeder, the fiscal consultant for
the partnership, indicated to the council that all the necessary
documents relating to meeting the City of Monticello's guidelines for
iouuin0 iirlunt.rial revenue banda will be provided in the near futme.
Bearing no opposition to the proposal, motion was made by Maus, seconded
by White to adopt a resolution amending the previou o resolution increasing
the industrial revenue bonds for the hlonticelllo Sc otwood Partnership from
$750,000.00 to $1,250,000.00 contingent upon sulAnio cion of all documents
required under Monticallo's guidelines for issuing revenue bonds.
Voting in favor was faua, white, Grimumo and Fair. Opposed: Blonigun.
(Sea Resolution 1981-22)
J
- 2 -
f
,•;.ter 3�
(�
CITY OF MONTICEL[A
PROJECT 131-1
ASSESSMENT ROLL
THE MEADOW':'
lyp G
4
Parcel No.
Total
k:.re--- _^. 1.t
Zu7"tLCS7
-�
'155035-00_ ..
Jcaw o'a
l''71.41
'155035-001 n •i
9,70. /6
` 11`17. •0
•155035-00' ,•
1167. 1'+'
'155035-001, 1+
° 10,7, c,
'1550 35-00 1 11 .,'
' W.7. 81:
'155035-00". , .'?
5K -, . Pi+
'155035-00] '
`'11`-•".1,n
'155035-001t .'
`l `- %• 1;'1
155035-00. +
"'5 7. b1•
155035-00:
IS7. It
1 550 35-001 ' !,.
511°7.115
155035-001 :r
59+43.`3(
155035-00i
t 'i!+ 1 . bh
155035-001 t:}
"+6P.96
'155035-00. 't'
/017.71
1 531-. h4
155035-00,
y6S •Il
(; ;'�. L"
'155035-00: • •t'
lir. ro
Es19.9.
'155035-00:`•
71
155035-00:'. ` '
/09.SS
697.4
'15503S-00?.
//S• 3(o
"34. ' 1
'155035-00
!!3.816
724.1"
'155035-00::, 1.1
///.7+t
"1 i . s',
'155035-002 + i
115% I.,
73 ). ^
'155035-00:'
p-7.33
',5'3•''
'155035-00:''
1LJ!5•JV
924.'
•155035-00.'.
/po,2.17
'155035-00'.
//S.+f/
"34."
155035-001
/09,•5/
E.97.
155035-Ou.' :•
107.7E
t P',.1•
'155035-00'•
70.1-
'155035-00, +'
'ly�,1x
S.
1''+5035-004
91.. '
1'#5035-004
:55035-004
155035-004
0' 6 14 . h
155035-004
E+B'1. 4
155035-004
2'• •
155035-00'.
; 04 • "
155035-00'
'-0
ir',.1
mosdow
n•tn Al ••n' t,: Mr1 w. ltctrl.
,rrvPosa4 fol
trai - iso ..,..+ vnilnrtibl,
7za/.ClF
vyF.7>-
$14•GP
gyyTS
g �s+ l,9
$ 23.aq
8 yd•IP
P7F•s9
J o7a./.1
iJt3.7't
7y;.5Y
73s1t• of
C
Council Minutes - 6/22/81
3. Consideration of an Award of a Contract on the 1981-1 and 1981-2
Improvement Project.
Bids were received on Friday, June 19, 1981, from sixteen contractors
for the construction of sewer, water, street paving and stone -sewer
improvements to parts of the Meadows subdivision and West River Street
to be known as the 1981-1 Improvemunt Project along with storm -sewer
imnrnvementq Alen CMlar Street between the railroad tracks and 7th
Street to be known as the 1981-2 Improvement Project.
The bids received varied from a low of $358,401.60 to a high of
$427,890.00. After reviewing the bids, it was the recommendation of
John 8adalich, city engineer, that the contract for the 1981-1 and
1981-2 Improvement Project be awarded to the low bidder, IaTour
Construction Company.
Motion was made by Fair, seconded by White and unanimously carried to
award the contract on the 1981-1 and 1981-2 Improvement Project to
La Tour Construction in the total amount of $358,401.60.
4. Consideration of Amendments to State Buildinq Code.
During the 1981 legislative session, a bill war: passed allowing cities
to adopt stricter fire prevention standards than those contained in
the State Building Code. As a result, the building inspector has
requested that the council consider amending the State Building Code
to provide for doors located between the garage and a dwelling to be
self closing.
It was noted by Loren Klein, building inspector, that previously, the
building coda required that a door way between an attached garage and
a home have a self closing device installed on the door, but thin
requirement has since been deleted from the State Building Code. It
was rtr. Klein's recommendation that the city amend the code again to
require these doors to be self closing.
Motion was mndp, by 1•tnun, aacondnd by Fair Lo amend the State Buildinq
Codn to requiro doors between the garage and the dwelling to be self
closing. Voting in favor was: Maus, Fair, erimu:mo, White. Opposed:
Blonigen.
Previously, members of the fire department had ruquanted that thu City
of Monticello amend its ordinance to allow three story buildingu only
an a conditional use contingent upon proof that adequate sprinkler
sysLe ms were inatalled in these types of lAllld ings. This recommendation
of Lha fire department was based on the fact that should a number of
three or more story buildings be erected in Monticello, the fire depart-
manL would not have proper equipment to fight (iron in higher storios
without purchasing additional equipment such as hook and ladder trucks.
- 3 -
Council Minutes - 6/22/81
It was recommended that if buildings three stories or higher were
allowed only as a conditional use and one of the conditions being
that the building would be sprinklered, the city would have control
in establishing that any hiqh rise buildings would be adequately
protected internally for fire protection.
Motion was maAe by Maus, soconded by Bloniaen and unanimously carried
to amend the zoning Ordinance Section 10-3-4A allowing buildings
three stories or higher only as a conditional use contingent upon
strict application of fire extinguishing systems throughout the
building. (See Ordinance Amendment 6/22/81 #102 and 4103)
5. Consideration of an Extension of the Variance Request for Hard Sur-
facinq Requirements for a Parkinq Lot - Mel Wolters. (Dairy Queen)
Mr. Mel Wolters requested an additional extension of a variance
previously granted two times by the city, once on June 25, 1979
and renewed on August 25, 1980 for a period of one year to allow
his Dairy Queen business to utilize the abutting property as a
parking lot without having the property hard surfaced or curbed.
The reason for his initial request was that he had planned to build
an office building on this abutting property and that he would have
to tear up the black topping to construct a new building which would
be a waste of material and money. Although the foundation for the
proposed office building has been constructed on the property,
additional construction has been postponed because of financing 1
difficulties. J
It war, noted that at this time Mr. Ylolters is not encouraging
utilizing the gravel parking lot as an over flow lot for hill uairy
Quern business, but it was a recommendation of the city staff that
thin variance be continued allowing the property to be used as on
over flow parking site as this would eliminate the Dairy Queen
customers from the parking on the City strecte causing possible
traffic congestion.
A motion was made by white, seconded by Mauo and unanimously carried
to extend the variance on hard surface requirements for the parking
lot adjacent to the Dairy Queen until August 1, 1902.
6. Conniderntion of a 3.2 Beer Licenue for the Lion'a Club - July 4th
Celebration.
The Monticello Lion'a Club has again requested a temporary license
to sell 3.2 beer as part of their Independence Day celebration taking
place in the Bridge Park.
Council Minutes - 6/22/61
1{ A Lion's Club representative has indicated that they would be
`l providing the city with a certificate of insurance for general
liability and liquor liability if the license was approved.
Motion was made by Blonigen, seconded by Fair and unanimously carried
to approve the temporary 3.2 on -sale license for the July 4th, 1981
celebration to the Lion's Club contingent upon proof of general and
liquor liability insurance.
7. Consideration of Setting Rates for 1981 for Tree Removal and Tree
Replacements.
As part of the city's Dutch elm disease control program, a property
owner was charged $90.00 for removal of a diseased elm tree in 1980.
This $90.00 charge was based on State funding for 50 percent of the
total cost of removal in the amount of $180.00 per tree with the city
and the resident equally splitting the balance at $90.00 each.
The State of Minnesota for 1981 is planning to reduce its reimburse-
ment cost to cities in the control of Dutch elm disease from 50 per-
cent down to 20 percent of the actual cost of removing the trees.
The average cost of removing a tree has been estimated to be approxi-
mately $440.00 which includes the removal of the tree stump in the
amount of $40.00. With the State reducing their assistance, it was
,( recommended that the stump removal be the responsibility of the
property owner unless the stump would be in the boulevard which would
then be the city 'a responsibility. The proposed coot of $400.00 for
a tree removal in 1981 would be split no follows if the State funding
was only 20 percent:
State Funding $ 80.00
City's Share 200.00
Property Owners Charge 120.00
It was also recommended that the city pay up to 520.00 for a replace-
ment tree rather than $30.00 as in 1980. In 1980, the State and the
city shared any replacement tree costs for one removed from the boule-
vard and split tha cost for the replacement trees for a tree removed
from private property with the property owner. This mothod was pro-
viounly ostabllshecl since the State of Minnesota did grant assistance
to trees removed on a boulevard but not on private property. The now
proposed methal would be as follows if the property owner solectcd a
replacement tree at a $60.00 coot which wan approximately the city's
cost. for a tree planted in 1980.
- 5 -
Council Minutes - 6/22/01
Replacement Tree J
Boulevard Private Property
Proposed Method Current Method Proposed Method Current Mothod
State $12.00 $30.00 $ - 0 - $ - 0
City 20.00 30.00 20.00 30.00
Resident 20.00 - 0 - 40.00 30.00
$60.00 $60.00 $ 60.00 $ 60.00
It was noted that in many cases the property owner could reduce the
replacement tree cost by planting his own tree. In any case, the
City of Monticello would pay up to $20.00 towards the cost of a replace-
ment tree and if the tree was on the boulevard, the State would reimburse
the city an additional 20 percent of the cost of the tree.
A motion was made by Fair, seconded by White to adopt a fee schedule
increasing the removal costs to a property owner for the removal of a
Dutch elm diseased tree to $120.00 with the stump removal to be the
responsibility of the property owner unless, it is on the boulevard.
In addition, the rate for private tree replacement and boulevard tree
replacement would be subsidized by the city up to $20.00 per tree.
Voting in favor was Fair, White, Grimsmo and Maus. Opposed: Blonigen.
B. Consideration of a Resolution Approvinq the Election of Gary Wicber
to be Excluded from the Public Employee's Retirement Association 1
and a Resolution Authorizing an Agreement with the City Administrator -✓
Rclatinq to Deferred Compensation.
On May 22, 1981, the governor signed a bill which allowed city managers
and administrators that were appointed as chief administrative officer
of a city, to be excluded from the Public Employment Retirement Asuocia-
tion and allow the employer to contribute tho same amount on behalf of
the individual, to a deferred compensation program which mocto the re-
quiremento of Section 457 of tho Internal Revenue Code of 1954 as amended
through December 31, 1960.
In light of the recently inacted legislation, Cary Wieber, City Adminis-
trator, requested that the council approve his withdrawal from PERA
and a resolution authorizing a deferred compensation plan in lieu of
PERA.
Currently, the City of Monticello contributes 55 percent of the employce'a
salary along with an employee's 4 percent gross nalary to a Retirement
Fund and it was noted tlmt these contribution rates would not change
under the new law.
Motion woo made by White, oeonded by Fair and unantmonsly carried to
adopt a resolution authorizing the agreement with the City Administrator
relating to deferred compensation and to adopt n resolution approving
the election of Gary Wiubxr to be excluded from the Public Employers
Retirement Asaociatlon. (Seo Resolutions 1981-23 and 1901-241 -/
- 6 -
Council Minutes - 6/22/81
9. Approval of Bills and Minutes.
A motion was made by Maus, seconded by Fair and unanimously carried
to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held June B, 1981 as
presented and the bills for the month of June 1981 as presented with
the addition of check 014495 in the amount of $24,002 to Flexible
Pipe Tool. See exhibit 6/22/81 01.
10. Consideration of Acceptinq Grant Offer from State of Minnesota -
Ellison Park.
John Simola, Public works Director, informed the council that the
State of Minnesota has offered the city a grant in the amount of
$G,632.00 for improvements to Ellison Park.
Previously, a federal grant has been approved in the amount of
75 percent of the estimated cost of improving Ellison Park with a
boat launching facility along with improved restroom facilities, etc.
The Minnesota Department of Transportation has now offered the city
a grant in the amount of $6,612.00 for improvements to Ellison Park
not to exceed 125 percent of the estimated cost. The City of Monticello
would be required to match the State's grant amount dollar for dollar.
(See Resolution 1981-25).
Meeting Adjouned.
Rick Wolfstbller
Assistant J�lministrator
7 -
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELhO CITY IIALL
June 29, 1981 - 5:00 P.M.
Members Present: Arve Grimsmo, Phil White, Fran Fair, ren Maus.
Members Absent: Dan Blonigen
1. Consideration of a Variance for a Certificate of occupancy -
Reinert Homes.
Bill Pritchard, representative of Reinert Homes, -was present to
request a Certificate of Occupancy for 21 of the 36 unit town-
house projects on Lauring lane. Building official, Loren Klein,
explained that all city ordinances including landscaping and
parking lot requirements were completed for the 21 units in
question. however, the remaining 15 units are still incomplete
regarding landscaping, parking, etc. Mr. Pritchard indicated
that these areas would be completed by October 1, 1981, prior
to seeking occupancy.
A motion was made by Phil White, seconded by Fran Fair and
unanamiously carried to grant a Certificate of Occupancy for
the 21 units also known as Buildings C, D and E.
J
2. Consideration of a Variance for a Certificate. of Occupancy -
h4icArland Plaza.
Ron lloglund, lariy Carter and Dean llogiund were prauuut to
request a Certificate of Occupancy for the first six unit
townhouse. complex. This unit is located on V;acArland Plaza
and it is one of five,aix-unit townhouse complexes proposed
for the entire site.
Loren Klein, building official, explained that the landscaping
and the parking requirements were not an of yet, met for thin
first sixvnit townhouse. A motion was made by Ken taus,
suconded by Phil White and unanimously carried to grant
occupancy on tho first nix -unit complex with the following
conditionn.
Completion of landscaping and parking lot requirements
to be completed by Octol,er 1, 1981.
Driveway entrance to the entire propoued complex would
be completed by October 1, 1983 with bituminous surfacing.
Satisfactory surety arrangement would be provided for
tho landscaping and parking lot requiremento for the first
oix-Unita. ,
Monti nr adjourned.
Ga Il ober ciitt(y/)Administrator
wr ::. lei: .... �/�: •3/• EjJ
CITY OF 14ONTICELLO COMMISSIOf;S ,Tach F�"�„' (�•'"J �'A(��
FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES
l PLANNING COMMISSION
Jim Ridgeway
John Bondhus
Bill Burke
Ed Schaffer
Dick Martic
Loren Klein (ex -officio)
DOWNTOWN PARKING COIMITPEE ,V
S�
Lowell (Bud) Scltrupp C
Lloyd Lund 7
John Poirier t%
Morn Flicker QI0
IIOIISINC 6 REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
o'
Leo Nelson (Chairman) (1-1-83) �()
Vic Vokaty (1-1-81) (expired) Q
Robert Duty
George DeMars (1-1-85)
Ken Tvedt I1-1-84)
HISTORICAL SOCIETY
JOINT RECREATION BOARD
�G City - Ron Peters, Rick Wolfoteller-
(ex-officio)
�r School - Russ Martin, Cordon Link
JOINT FIRE BOARD - City Representative
Rick Yolfateller
SENIOR CITIZEN CENTER BOARD +%�•^ //' I P
Leo Nelson - President �'Sr
Harry Stokes - Treasurer /jG ✓'•~
Marie Peterson - Secretary }
Sheldon Johnson
Lloyd Lund
Harry Schaffer
Frank Thompson
Ilugh Mckinnon'
Marie Droning
CarolineEllison
Karen Ilauson - (ex -officio)
BOARD OF APPEALS - Housing 6 Building Code
Council with Mnyor as Chairperson
MONTICLLLO COMMUNITY EDUCATION ADVISORY
COUNCIL - City Representative
Fran Fair
ORDERLY ANNFAATLON AREA REPRESENTATIVE
Arve Crimamo
ACTING PAYOR
Phi 1 ip White
CITY ATTORNEY
Cary Pringle
AUDITORS
Cruys, Johnson 6 Associates
CONSULTin ENGINEER
Orr-Schclen-Mayeron 6 Asouciutcs
CONSULTING 111.1NNER
Iloward Dahlgran Asoociateo
OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER
Mont ice l to 'limes
OFFICIAL DEPOSITORIES
Wright County State (lank
Security Federal Savings 6 Loan
First Bank of Minm:apolis
LI
Marion Jameson
Ruth 6 Hugh McKinnon
David Newkirk
Creg 6 Sue Erickson
Francis 6 Milo Moun
Marguerite Perrault
Caroline Ellison
Connie Decker
Gladys tum Brunnen
Beatrice Davis
Eliznbcth LaIlree
Floy McCoy
Velma Ilolldorf
Oriole Iiuseth
Isabel Holker
Mr.6Mrs. Frank Thompaon
Oscar 6 Florence Tapper
JOINT RECREATION BOARD
�G City - Ron Peters, Rick Wolfoteller-
(ex-officio)
�r School - Russ Martin, Cordon Link
JOINT FIRE BOARD - City Representative
Rick Yolfateller
SENIOR CITIZEN CENTER BOARD +%�•^ //' I P
Leo Nelson - President �'Sr
Harry Stokes - Treasurer /jG ✓'•~
Marie Peterson - Secretary }
Sheldon Johnson
Lloyd Lund
Harry Schaffer
Frank Thompson
Ilugh Mckinnon'
Marie Droning
CarolineEllison
Karen Ilauson - (ex -officio)
BOARD OF APPEALS - Housing 6 Building Code
Council with Mnyor as Chairperson
MONTICLLLO COMMUNITY EDUCATION ADVISORY
COUNCIL - City Representative
Fran Fair
ORDERLY ANNFAATLON AREA REPRESENTATIVE
Arve Crimamo
ACTING PAYOR
Phi 1 ip White
CITY ATTORNEY
Cary Pringle
AUDITORS
Cruys, Johnson 6 Associates
CONSULTin ENGINEER
Orr-Schclen-Mayeron 6 Asouciutcs
CONSULTING 111.1NNER
Iloward Dahlgran Asoociateo
OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER
Mont ice l to 'limes
OFFICIAL DEPOSITORIES
Wright County State (lank
Security Federal Savings 6 Loan
First Bank of Minm:apolis
LI
- - i
�A1a:io
29573711 o
lino 397$7 39
rJ
o Cly of lonliceflo
250 East Broadway
0
"-'
L
MONTICELLO, MN 55362
,
January 20, 1981
Mr. Bernie Mattson
Wright County assessor
Wright County Courhouse
i
Buffalo, MI. 55313
PE: Assessed Valuations
Dear Bernie:
Would it be possible to Bond me the valuations of the following
governmental units as of January 1; 1980:
1
City of Monticello ----- — �j �•f'F3 av f'
`
Township of Monticello 3''S
Township of Silvor Crack G
f
Township of Otsego
In advance, thank you for your'asaistanco in this,matter.
„.
sincerely;
f:I
1
ry, wi
City Adminiatraeor
1
�J
GW/ns
cc: w-25-1
T -25-a
I�
e.
U1/olconto �o //�on�icof(o (i��lo mnun�ain � _,��„f v. -� I
jurtesy of David
S. Douglas -''f-
WRi011T COOM'fY M111 RATES - 1981
:lght County Auditor
School
School
County
Twp.
Dist,
TO'1'A1.
County
Tvp.
DiSL.
TOTAL.
NNSUIPS
Rate
Rate
Rate
Kate
TOWNSHIPS
Rnte
Rate
Rate
Rate
.bion
Otsego**
166
26.765
8.249
36.870
71 .884
728
26.765
13.069
51.847
95.( )
876
26.765
8.249
36.122
71.136
882
26.765
13.069
40.169
83.;1
f76*
26.765
8.249
36.122
72.136
885
26.765
13.069
45.562
89.345
i80
26.765
8.249
45.461
80.475
Rockford
i8i
26.765
8.249
40.069
75.083
877
26.765
9.558
43.914
80.237
18l*
26.765
8.249
40.069
76.083
879
26.765
9.558
39.482
75.805
iffalo
883
26.765
9.558
44.949
81.272
177
26.765
9.894
43.914
80.573
Silver Creek**
182
26.765
9.894
40.169
75.828
876
26.765
10.688
36.122
77.524
Tatham
881
26.765
10.668
40.069
21.471
177
26.765
6.328
43.914
77.007
882
26.765
10.688
40.169
81.571
381
26.765
6.328
40.069
73.162
Southside
learwater
876
26.765
4.404
36.122
67.291
742
26.765
3.814
39.440
70.019
876*
26.765,
4.404
36.122
68.291
742*
26.765
3.814
39.440
71.019
SCOCL!,alm
P6
26.765
3.814
36.122
66.701
425
26.765
8.335
41.020
76.120
376*
26.765
3.814
36.122
67.701
466
26.765
8.335
36.870
71.970
382
26.765
3.814
40.169
70.748
880
26.765
8.335
45.461
80.561 -
)kato
Victor
466
26.765
19.852
36.870
83.487
427
26.765
8.910
40.750
76.425
arinna
466
26.765
8.910
36.870
72.545
376
26.765
9.977
36.122
72.864
880
26.765
8.910
45.461
81.136
376*
26.765
9.977
36.122
73.864
Woodland
881
26.765
9.977
40.069
76.811
111
26.765
8.769
47.558
83.092
881*
26.765
9.977
40.069
77.811
877
26.765
8.769
43.914
79.448 0
rankfort
879
26.765
8.769
39.482
75.E
728
26.765
8.930
51.847
87.542
880
26.765
8.769
45.461
80.,
877
26.765
8.930
43.914
79.609
CITIES
885
26.765
8.930
45.562
81.257
Albertville
rankiln
728
26.765
36.215
51.847
114.827
111
26.765
7.720
47.558
82.043
885
26.765
36.215
45.567
108.542
877
26.765
7.720
43.914
78.399
Annandale
879
26.765
7.720
39.482
73.967
876*
26.765
33.769
36.122
97.656
883
26.765
7.720
44.949
79.434
Buffalo-877
26.765
13.754
43.914
84.433
reach Lake
Clcarwatrr
466
26.765
7.295
36.870
70.930
742
26.765
12.940
39.440
79.145
876
26.765
7.295
36.122
70.182
742*
26.765
12.940
39.440
80.145
876*
26.765
7.295
36.122
71.182
Cokato-466
26.765
20.285
36.870
83.920
nple Lake
Dayton-728
26.765
14.321
51.847
92.933
877
26.765
4.334
43.914
75.013
Delano-879
26.765
36.779
39.482
103.026
881
26.765
4.334
40.069
71.168
Hanover-677
26.765
19.256
43.914
89.935
882
26.765
4.334
40.169
71.268
885
26.765
19.256
45.562
91.583
aryaville
Howard Lake
877
26.765
4.870
43.914
75.549
880
26.765
19.036
45.461
91.262
880
26.765
4.870
45.461
77.096
Maple Lake
881
26.765
4.870
40.069
71.704
881
26.765
19.082
40.069
85.916
lddleville
Mont ice ilo**--'---
466
26.765
5.527
36.870
69.162
882
26.765
25.007
40.!69
95.890
880
26.765
5.527
45.461
77.753
Montrone-877 26.765
20.690
43.914
91 .369
881
26.765
5.527
40.069
72.361
RoAford-883 26.765
17.549
44.949
89.263
onticullo**
St. Michael
-
877
26.765
2.568
43.914
77.196
885
26.765•
17.615
45.562
89.1,,,%
882
26. 765
2.568
40.169
73.451
So. Haven
85
26.765
2.568
45.562
78.844
876
26.765
12.419
36.122
75.306
876*
26.765
12.419
36.122
76.306
*Water Shed District
- 1.000
Waverly-880
26.765
26.219
45.461
98.445
*Iloupltal
District
- 3.949
Z4
r4l 7
/3,c,4,-
27,0" , aZ' X77, a7z, 49A
0'.r r& -11
C- IJ:i
307" V-Pv&
SO —
A4,—<
.
1"
7 . Aft.'
xm:k� 4-e- .017;Lly
�W
C. TA
2-3
UJ JA -. tl
it 11.0 qv 16 14 Yl. )L
/.Z/
/so
is"
2c. -74 2753
SG
S/
/47 _r
tyl
3 IVY &
l 2.
'1-7o9
177. z I y
w
N3
do
AV /ow-rvu
7�
tam
/i Y-1
-?Vdv, ,
/0171/yl
/? i ;r4,,
le /OVV—
/ 41k
h,lovv,.
6
2e'lr
Vok; cf, 61e
9,F
""'('
P...' ov
!11—,JTCAD
CA,14 of Isr 22
r
sfxu _/0 74
o
4ep ovp
crry
A53ejoet QAjAO_
9.SVD
CS2J Y
e' 4-50
29V
U.A
S-7
82
/07
-Pit*.
3,9V5 4", 12-
1?
/("
Sfl
77
/M
/37
/0"o. ab
/? i ;r4,,
le /OVV—
/ 41k
h,lovv,.
6
2e'lr
bm
r
F 7 i
j
�-
, . �
�• �
•:��
o.
, � ,''.�
, Jam; ; _ , .
� :�
oe
-1T
`ru
�''�
I S3,$
??—
, 53.,9,•
c_J,_._
#L -
�, d�/dv'bvv.
,±� �, , / . 0 7f
I j -L
/off
I r
`;,=z
f
zi rT
�
Q
�3 10
II
Ax
F
�Ae
&
7o 1 A L 74, It
V9
I j
-7.2c3 3.vo
[a„-.! 22.327
A6. 09" m 17 o -u
it/
4TS,
J3
lej
o -o
/CV Use
:Ire
Af
y a *.tY,
ol
3*
131
r -d 0,
.:.. m 0,
rr
The
A -f
4-P
0, 1? 7 11, of9.
A 32
1,F3.2.1 Cofvlr.
41r
or,
A, 2.
Courtesy of
David S. Douglas
WRIGHT COUNTY MILL RATES-1980
w
Wripht County
Auditor
Sc hoo I
School
County
Twp .
Dist.
TOTAL
County
Twp,
Dist.
TOTAL
TowNSitip5
'I
Rate
Rate
Rate
Rate
TOWNSHIPS
Rate
Rate
Rate
Rate
A! '
r" l..
25.011
' Otsego**
12.971
52.210
90.192
728
25.011
9.707
60.417
98.398
876
25.011
12.971
49.604
87.586
882
25.011
4,707
45,493
83.474
B76*
25.011
12.971
49.604
88.586
885
25.011
9,707
59.190
97.171
880
25.011
12.971
66.647
104.629
Rockford
881
25.011
12.971
52.310
90.292
877
25.011
9.023
53.775
87.809
881*
25.011
12.971
52.310
91.292
879
25.011
9.023
53,413
87.447
Buffalo
877
883
25.011
9.023
64.742
98.776
25.011
11.364
53.775
90.150
Silver Crack'*
882
25.011
11.364
45.493
81.868
876
25.011
7.846
49,604
85.724
Chatham
88I
25.011
7.846
52.310
88.430
877
25.011
7.912
53.775
86.698
882
25.011
7.846
45.493
81.613
881
25.011
7.912
52.310
85.233
Southside
Clearwater
876
25.011
5.406
49,604
80.021
742
25.011
4.726
49.300
79.037
876*
25.011
5.406
49,604
81.021
742*
25.011
4.726
49.300
80,037
Stockholm
876
25.011
4.726
49,604
79.341
425
25.011
8.445
56.910
90.366
876*
25.011
4.726
49.604
80.341
466
25.011
8.445
52,210
85,666
882
25.011
4.726
45.493
75.230
880
25.011
8.445
66.647
100.103
Cokato
Victor
466
25.011
22.092
52.210
99.313
427
25.011
9.683
51,700
86.394
Corinna
466
25.011
9.683
52,210
86,904
876
25.011
9.337
49.604
8:1.952
880
25.011
9.683
66,647
101.341
876*
25.011
9.337
49.604
84,952
Woodland
881
25.011
9.337
52.310
86,658
111
25.011
9,546
64.673
99.230
8:{""
25.011
9.337
52.310
87.658
877
25.011
9.546
53.775
88.332
Ft 'j ort
879
25.011
9.546
53,413
87.970
728
25.011
9.396
60.417
94.824
880
25.011
9.546
66.647
101.204
877
25.011
9,396
53.775
88.182
CITIFS
885
25.011
9.396
59.190
93,597
A rtvIIIa
Franklin
728
25.011
27,979
60.417
113.407
111
25.011
8.684
64.673
98.368
885
25.011
27.979
59,190
112.180
877
25.011
8.684
53.775
87.470
Annandale
879
25.011
8.684
53.413
87.108
876*
25.011
31,666
49,604
107.281
883
25.011
8.684
64.742
98.437
Buffalo-877
25.011
12.795
53.775
91.581
French Lake
Clearwater
466
25.011
8.646
52.210
85.867
742
25.011
18.660
49.300
92.971
876
25.011
8.646
49.604
83.261
142*
25.011
18,660
49,300
93.971
R76*
25.011
8.646
49,604
84.261
Cokato-466
25.011
23.679
52,210
100.900
Maple Lake
Dayton-T2-8
25.011
14.131
60.417
99.559
1 877
25.011
4. 563
53.775
83.349
Delono-879
25.011
29,290
53,413
107.714
881
25.011
4. 563
52.310
81.884
lionover•877
25.011
16.708
53.775
95.494
882
25.011
4. 563
45.493
75.067
885
25.011
16,708
59.190
100.909
Marysville
Howard Lake
877
25.011
3.904
53.775
82.690
880
25.011
27,525
66.647
119.183
880
25.011
3.904
66.647
95.562
Maple Lake
881
25.011
3.904
52.310
81.225
881
25.011
19.990
52.310
97.311
.ltiddleville
Monticello**
466
25.011
7. 222
52.210
84.443
882
25.011
22,327
45.493
96.094
B80
25.011
7. 2I2
66.647
98.880
Montrose-877
25.011
25.973
53.775
104.759
25.011
7. 222
52.310
84.543
Rockford-883
25.Oii
15,277
64,742
105.030
1 elle*+
St. Micha r
bi1
25.011.
I.994
53.775
85.043
885
25.011
17.710
59,190
101.911
882
25.011
2.994
45.493
76.761
So Ilaven-876
25.011
13.786
49,604
88.401
885
25.011
2.994
59.190
90.458
_ 876*
25.011
23.786
49,604
89.401
Waverly-880
25.011
34.324
66.647
125.982
+ Water Shed District
- 1.000
+* Ilospital
District
- 3.263
IV F
12-17-79
per Abstract
WRIGHT COUNTY
MILL RATES FOR 1980 TAXES:
1979 ASSESSED VALUATION ) 1980
REAL 221,310,239
PERSONAL 3,329,766
TOTAL COUNTY 224,640,005
Buffalo TIF@1 - 41,323
Buffalo TIF$2 - 416,901
Annandale TIF@1 - 304,563
223,877,218
TIP a Tax Increment Financing
Certified
less
less '
Taxable
Levy
State Aid
Att. Hach. Aid
Lew
pull Rate -5
REVENUE
700,000
70,031
2,051
627,918
2.805
ROAD AND BRIDGE
2,842,600
284,415
8,328
2,549,857
11.389
HUMAN SERVICES
2,400,000
92,466
2,708
2,304,826
10.295
LIBRARY
116,799
---
---
116,799
.522
Total
6,059,399
446,912
13,087
5,599,400
25.011
TIP a Tax Increment Financing
WRIGHT COUNTY
OVER-ALL AVERAGE 1980 TAX LEVY
SPECIAL•
.25%
COUNTY -WIDE AVERAGE 1980 MILL RATES:
County 25.011
City or Twp. 13.677
School District 53.071
Speciale 210
TOTAL —.0-0
I
WRIGHT COUNTY
AVEMNGE 1930 TAX LEVY IN TOWNSHIPS
SCHOOL DISTRICT
9.758
61.258 TOWNSt1IP
SPECIAL•
.258
COUNTY
28.758
AVERAGE 1980 TAX LEVY IN CITIES
CITY
SCHOOL 20.758 SPECIAL'
DISTRICT .18
55.258
COUNTY
23.98
I
•SPECIAL -
tionticollo-Dig Laka
Hospital
Clearwater Watorahod
WR I CIIT COUNTY
CITY F T014NSIITP LEVIES - 1980 TAXES
TOWNSIIIPS
Albion
3,989,673
51,750.00
MILL
51,750.05
CITIES
VALUATION
I.EVY
RATE
PROCEEDS
�bertville
1,442,873
40,370.00
2 7.979
40,370.14
.nnandale
4,415,489
130,179.00
31.666
139,820.87
Buffalo
13,819,727
170,964.00
12.795
176,823.41
Clearwater
1,154,217
21,500.00
18.660
21,537.69
Cokato
5,193,502
122,975.00
23.679
122,976.93
Dayton
127.069
187,160.00
14.131
1,795.61
Delano
5,977,317
175,075.00
2 9.290
175,075.61
Ilanover
1,205,265
36,000.00
1 6.708
20,137.57
Noward Lake
3,315,123
91,248.00
27.525
91,248.76
Maple Lake
3,755,842
75,080.00
19.990
75,079.28
Monticello
40,194.379
897,431.00
22.327
897,419.90
Montrose
1,086,522
28,220.00
25.973
28,220.24
Rockford
2,730.990
54,290.00
15.277
41,721.33
St. Michael
3,839,582
68,000.00
1 7.710
67,999.00
South Ilaven
362,698
5,000.00
1 3.786
5,000.15
Waverly
766,870
26,322.00
34.324
26,322.05
TOTALS
89,387,465
2,129,814.00
9.683
1,931 548. 54
TOWNSIIIPS
Albion
3,989,673
51,750.00
12.971
51,750.05
:falo
7,127,845
81,000.00
11.364
81,000.83
._atham
3,943,741
31,200.00
7.912
31,202.88
CI enrwater
3,173,879
14,998.00
4.726
14,999.75
Cokato
3,746,954
42,812.50"
22.092
82,777.71
Corinna
10,174,803
95,000.00
9.337
95,002.14
Frankfort
6,526,575
61,325.00
9.396
61,323.70
Franklin
8,791,448
76,346.00
8.684
76,344.93
French lake
4,033,566
34,875.00
8.646
34,874.7.1
Maple Lake
6,465,545
29,500.00
4.563
29,502.28
Marysville
5,122,891
20,000.00
3.904
;9,999.77
Middlevi.]le
3,899,837
28,165.00
7.222
28,164.62
Monticello
8,917,287
26,700.00
2.994
26,698.36
OtoeBo
9,478,056
92,000.00
9.707
92,001.49
Rochford
26,599,499
240,000.00
9.023
240,007.28
Silver Creek
5,097,825
40,000.00
7.846
39,997.53
Southalde
6,844,028
37,000.00
5.406
36,998.81
Stnckholm
3,912,838
33,045.00
8.445
33,043.92
Victor
3,635,175
35,200.00
9.683
35, 199.40
Woodland
3,771,075
36,000.00
9.546
35,998.68
TOTALS
135,252,540
1,106,916.50
.1,146.890.34
GRAND TOTALS
224,640,005
3,236,730.50
3,078,438.88
R7GIlT COUNTY
224,640,005
PALO T I FO I
- 41 , 32 3
.,i+FALO TIF92
- 416,901
ANNANDAI.F. TIF# 1
- 304.563
NET
223,877.218
5,599,400.00
25.011
5,599,593.09
WRIGHT COUNTY
SCII001. LI -.VIES - 1980 TARES
SCHOOL DISTRICT ASSESSED VALUATION MILT. RATE. PROCEEDS
1
2,458,977
64.673
159,029.42
.5
11,521*
56.910
655.66
427
332,844*
51.700
17,208.03
466
14,465,347*
52.210
755,235.76
728
8,636,055
60.417
521,764.53
742
2,650,307*
49.300
130,660.14
876
21,815,190*
49.604
1,479,438.02
877
56,493,270
S v 53.775
3,0139284.60
879
13,947,757
�¢ 53.413
744,991.54
880
14,467,921
I'�S j 66.647
964,243.53
881
13,002,741
52.310
680,173.38
882
53,812,317*
45.493
2,448,083.74
883
5,003,155
64.742
323,914.26
885
11,542,603
59.190
683,206.67
TOTALS 224,640,005 11,921,889.28
*another county involved
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
:andnle
enrwa ter
South Ilnven
Albion Township
Clearwater Township
Corinna Township
French Lake Township
Southside Township
WRIGHT COUNTY TOTALS
STEARNS COUNTY TOTAL.
MEEKER COUNTY TOTAL
GRAND TOTAL
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
WRIGHT COUNTY WATERSHED DISTRICT
REAL ESTATE.
PERSONAL PROPERTY
TOTAL. ASSESSED
VALUATION
VALUATION
VALUALT ION
4,204,989
210,500
4,415,489
4:.7,262
48,834
457,262
290,200
8,183
298,383
968,100
968,100
1,250,812
1,250,812
6,549,352
Times Mill Rate 3.263
6,549,352
21,276
$ 268,481.15
21,276
2,101,035
2.,101,035
15,843,026
216,683
16,061,709
6,995,909
5,_985,255
29,042,873
Times Mill Rate 1.000
Tax Proceeds
$ 29,042.87
MONTIC91.1.0-RIC LARI! HOSPITAL
DISTRICT
REAL ESTATE
PERSONAL PROPERTY TOTAL ASSESSED
VALUATION
VALUATION
VALUATION
Monticello City
Monticello Township
Otsego Township
Silver Crock
CCIIT COUNTY TOTALS
SIIERRURNE COUNTY TOTALS
GRAND TOTAL
39,473,355
721,024
40,194,379
8,777,883
139,404
8,917,287
9,427,555
50,501
9,478,056
5.048,991
48,834
5.097.825
62,727,784
959,763
63,687,547
18.594.757
82,282,304
Times Mill Rate 3.263
Tax Proceeds
$ 268,481.15
L
v
12-17-79
per Abstract
12/28/79
1979 ASSESSED
VALUATIONS
FOR SCHOOL DISTRICTS
correction
1i"
''CIIOOL DISTRICTS
REAL
PERSONAL
TOTAL
PkOPrRTY
111
Watertown
2,454,480
4,497
2,458,977
425
Silver Lake
11,521
-- --
i
11,521
i
427
Winsted
331,942
902
332,844
466
Dassel/Cokato
14,106,560
358,787
14,465,347
728
Elk River
8,588,017
48,038
8,636,055
742
St. Cloud
2,574,548
75,759
2,650,307
'
876
Annandale
27,503,131
312,059
27,815,190
077
Buffalo
56,022,838
470,432
56,493,270
879
Delano
13,746,713
201,044
13,947,.757
080
11oward Lake
14,201,000
266,921
14,467,921
081
Maple Lake
12,788,982
213,759
13,002,741
882
Monticello
$2,922,553
889,764
53,812,317
`
L83
Rockford
4,792,219
210,936
5,003,155
11,265,735
276,868
11,542,603
885
St. Michael/Albertville
224,640,005
221,310,239
3,329,766
GRAND TOTAL