Loading...
City Council Agenda Packet 10-24-1983AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Monday, October 24, 1983 - 7:30 P.M. Mayor: Arve A. Grimsmo Council Members: Fran Fair, Jack Maxwell, Dan Blonigen, Ken Maus. 1. Call to Order. 2. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held on October 11, 1983. 3. Citizens Comments/Petitions, Requests and Complaints. Old Business 4. Consideration of Sideyard Variance Request - Applicant, Robert and Mary Saxon. 5. Consideration of Reconstruction of T.H. 25 and Bridge - Minnesota Department of Transportation. 6. Public Hearing - Assembly of God Church - Conditional Use Request. 7. Public Hearing - Fulfillment Systems, Inc. - Proposal to Issue TaxExempt Mortgage. C8. Rev iow of Bids for Pump House 02 Addition. 9. Consideration of a Deforrment of Special Assessments for Monticello Country Club. New Business 10. Consideration of Authorizing the Proparation of an Ordinance Allowing for On -Salo Wine Licenses - Floyd Kruso. 11. Consideration of County Road 75 and 39 Upyrading. 12. Consideration of Zoning Map Amendmont - Blocks 32 and 17. 13. CalBideration of Authorizing the Preparation of an Ordinance Pormitting Gambling and Providing Licenaos Thorofor. 14. Dopartment Head Reports. 15. Consideration of Setting tho Annual Salary Mooting. 16. Payment of Bills. 17. Adjournment. C MI14UTES REGULAR MEETING - htONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL October 11, 1983 - 7:30 P.M. L_ Members Present: Arve Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Dan Blonigen, Ken Maus, and Jack Maxwell. Members Absent: None. 1. Call to Order. 2. Approval of the Minutes. Motion by Blonigen, seconded by Fair, and carried unanimously to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held September 26, 1963. 4. Consideration of Rosolutions Pertaininq to T.II. 25 and Bridqc - Minnesota Department of Transportation. Mr. Jim Weingartz of MN/DOPT, Brainerd office, was present to explain the new proposal submitted by the State of Minnesota. Weingartz noted that the main difference is that the River Street/Ilighway 25 intersection is now proposud to In, open. lie stated that initially the State of Minnesota did not flee a River Street opening as desirable; MN/DOT' reconsidered, based upon comments of the residents of Monticello, and the now proposal is to open up River Street for full traffic service. lie indicated that the rest of the project had not changed and that MN/DOT was requesting that the City make a determination so that the project: may either move ahead or he stopped. lie indicated that in order to meet schedule, the final action cannot be delayed much longer. The Mayor opened thu floor for public comment. Mr. HObott MacDonald, owner of the Monticello Mull, asked a general question statiuq that under this new proposal, is there still considerable public opposition. Mayor Grimsmo invited comment from anyone who wished to addtcas the new proposal and Mr. Macnonald's quost.ion. Mel Wolters raised the question concerning the hank's position with the altered proposal. Wolters indicated that he was aware that the bank was the most vocal opposition to the old pruposalh and now that it had been rcvioed, he would like to hear their position restated. George Phillips, representing Wright County State Bank, stated that the lank was a tiI1 concerned about tho Ions of access in the middle of the block. lie stated that the lank has no quarrol with the mall and that they had no formal position on Lho suggested relocation of Ilighway 25. Ile stated, hwavor, that the Iv+nk wan still of a position that a median would cut off service to customers. Ito hoped that the Stato had yet - 1 - Um Council Minutes - 10/11/83 another proposal that would solve the problem but would eliminate the center median. Mary Brion spoke in support of Phillip's position. Gd Schaffer raised the question concerning why the State simply doesn't move Highway 2, northwest. lie stated that there was no need for more traffic through Lown. Mr. Wuingartz of N11/130T indicated that the relocaLion of 25 was simply not a feasible question and was not a part of the State's overall plan. Jenny lloglund presented a petition and several letters as exhibits to the Council. She spoke in support of the current proposal and indicated that requests for safety measures had been initiated as early as 1977/76. Bob MacDonald presented a petition from 37 business people supporting the project and an additional support letter. The mayor closed public comment at this time and requested comment from Council members. Councilmember Maxwell stated that he would liko to see the project go providing that two or three alterations still be incorporated into the project. lie stated that he can't, in good conscience, vote for this proposal with the alley closures as they are presenLed. Ile stated that he could not support the project so long as it has a raised median between River Street and Broadway and between Broadway and Third Street. The Mayor asked him if that meant he would vote against the current resolution but he would vote for an amended resolution including a proposal that the center be striped rather than raised. Maxwell indicated he would. Council - member Fair indicated that this was not the issue. She stated that the resolution i:acadcd to he presented for adoption was LZ, uithur, support or oppose the proposed layout. She commented on why this decision had beun deldyed siuco tike lant. meeting so that downtown businusu cuncorm; could m(!eL with Ml!/DC)T people to try and reach a compromi uu. She said she felt this had been achieved in that the State had conceded the River Street crooning, which was of major concern at Llt.o last meeting. She stated she was in favor of the proposal exactly as laid out. She, went on to state that the proposed budget, which would cane up later in the meeting, reflects a Committ- ment Lo economic development and that quality highway uystemu were esuenLial to achieving economic development. Councilmember Mane stated that he wall the one who had suggested total relocation at an earlier buainussmon's meeting, but that it was not meant to be diversionary. Still, lie said that he thinks there will eventually be a bridge upstream. llo stated that his main objection is that the design reflects the State's convonieneu and Lhoir design wishuu, and not the. City's wialics. lie stated that the system is primarily designed to handle the transient traffics and he was of a position that the oystem which is Trout usable by the local community Should Lx: installed fust, with the transient needs being addressed thereafter. Fair stated that as near as she could toll the entire CU Council Minutes - 10/11/83 objection came down to the loss of three alleys in the downtown, and that the businesses should not suffer any loss due to the median by simply being creative in their own parking areas. Councilmember Blonigen stated that based on LoniyhL's presentation he thought the City could live with Lha project if the City was willing to get involved with alley and parking re -adjustments. He stated that lie was really of a position that the median isn't really necessary. Mayor Grimsmo commented saying that he shares and has been aware of many of the concerns. lie stated that his original position was in favor of Lha striping rather than the median. He indicated he appreciated the State's concession in opening River Street, but is still sorry that the median can't be removed. Mr. weingartz indicated that the reduction in accidents/ increase in safety conditions would not be substantial enough by doing center striping only to warrant the expense of the project. lie stated that current statistics in similar conditions show a 35% reduction in traffic accidents wiLh Lha raised modian, but only a 10% reduction with painted lanes. lie stated that the State's position was that the 10% reduction was not a substantial enough reduction to warrant a major reconstruction of the highway. Administrator Eidem reportud that Mr. Jerry Jensen of Holiday Corporation, who euuld not attend, !;Lronyly supported the proposal as presented. lie ataLed that Holiday Corporation had a substantial investment that they war,) interested in protecting and that they ware it: full 'aver of the proposal as sul:cittaJ. Bloniyen indicated that since Uta State is apparently designing the project to accommodate Lutal traffic, he was giving wr.ingartz advanced notice that he will raise Several questions over Lila Cost sharing formula. Bloniyen stated that since the design was lean to accommodate local traffic than transient traffic, he felt that the City's Share should be reduced. Maus indicated that he Dimply would not accept the position that if the City opposes this proposal that the State would totally abandun Lila project. Ito said that the State wants to replace the bridge. and Should he receptive to further negotiations. Mayor Grimsmo raised the question of lighting on Lila bridga and what the cost formula would be there. weingartz indicated that Ute standard formula is rot the SLaLu to pay for the cost of installation and the City would then assume the coot of minor maintenance and Lila ulectrlc bills. Ito indicated that if the City was unwilling to participate in Llta program at all, the bridge would not be lighted. Cowteilmamber Fair introduced and moved the adoption of the following rosolutions Proposed Resolution For Layout Approval, Rasolution 1983 a83 (Tho full text is on record in the office of the City Administrator), sicondLd by Grimsmo. Voting in favors Grimsmu and Pair. Votinq in the oppositions Bloniyen, Maus, Maxwell. Motion failed, resoluLion not adopted. MOtion by Maua Lo auhmil a request to MNIDOT that the - 3 - N cuuncil Minutes - 10/11/83 reconstruction of Ilighw�y 2S be studied further, and further request that a new proposal be presented to the City which would eliminate Lite raised ccnt,:r median. Motion seconded by Blonigen. A question was directed to Weingartz on what this meant to the overall project. Weingartz indicated that technically the bridge was a separate project from the street improvements and thus, the Council could conceivably approve the bridge layout but could also deny the street layout proposal. Maus raised the question as to whether or not this was the end of the entire project. Weingartz indicated not necessarily. Maxwell indicated that he would favor a position that would account for the building of tine bridge first, and the building of the highway second. Ile said he feared a sub- stantial traffic jam would occur wherein traffic would he traveling on a .four -lane highway and coming to a trao-lane bridge. W'eingarCz indicated that a four -lane bridge that would have to narrow to a two-lane Highway would create just as had of a traffic jam, and in fact, in Lite State's position it would be worse considering the alignmenL of the new bridge. The Mayor closed discussion. Voting in favor of Lite motion: Blonigon, Maxwell , Maus, Fair. Voting in opposition: Grimsmo. MULion carried. Maus stated that the intent of his motion is Lo keep Lho project alive but to keep negotiations open with the State in tbu ultimate hope of having the raised center mUdian removed. MOLion by fair, seconded by Maxwell, and carried unanimously that the City include in its communication with Lite State a statement indicating that the City is in favor of the bridge improvement and doe:: not wish to have Lite project abandoned but only to negotiate the center island issue. Public Ilcarinq - Construction 5, Inc. - Consideration of Request to Vacate Sl.ree Ls. Mr. Gus LaFromlaoise of construction 5, who is proposing development in and around Blocks 42, 43, 49, 48, and neighboring areas, was present to request the vacation of Hennepin Street from the railroad to inuring lane, and perhaps all the way to the freeway, as well as vacation of a portion of Seventh Street and portions of Washington Strout. Staff explained that their review of the request had led to lengthy discussion on the extension of Iauring lane, said extension proposed to run through part. of Construction 5'a property. Staff indicated that before a sound decision could be made with respect to the overall vacationu that the, final alignment of Lite Inuring Lana extension be determined, and the property exchange be negotiated. Staff indicated that one problem with Lite proposed extension of Lauring Iano waa that it may have to cross over it portion of the Malone property. Mr. and Mrs. Bill Malone were present to state that - 4 - v r Council Minutes - 10/11/83 they were not in favor of the Lauring Lane alignment since it would require taking a portion of their property as well as putting a street very close to their residence. The Malone's did indicate, however, that Eleanor Malone, the owner, would like to discuss negotiation on a small corner of the proper�y but insists that she be present to do so. Tile difficulty, they indicated, is that Eleanor Malone has left the state and will not return until July of 1984. John Badalich, osm, for information purposes discussed three alternatives to the extension of Lauring Lane. lie indicated that alternative 01 was the most desirable from an engineering standpoint but did present some problems if the Malones were re- luctant to sell a small portion of their land. lie stated that 02 was the best alternative in the event that Malones are reluctant to give up land since the land requirement was very minimal. lie indicated that 03 was the least desirable primarily due to engineering standards and final configuration. Administrator Eidem indicated for the Council's information that any street vacation must, according to statute, be in the best public interest. lie also noted that, by vacating only Hennepin Street between the railroad and Laurinq Lane at this time, the City is releasing some of its leverage in negotiating for property to accommodate the Lauring Lane extension. The Mayor closed the public hearing. Motion by Maus, seconded by Maxwell, and carried unanimously that Ilunnepin Street from the Burlington Northern riyht of way to the northerly line of Laurinq Lano lx: vacated and shat Ulu property be oftercel to Construction 5 for the appraised prize: of $24,000.00. Motion carried. 6. Public Iluarinq - Consideration of Adonting Assessment Roll for rAilinqucnt Sewer and Water Bills. Rick wolfutellor presented to the Council a list of names of persons who are currently 60 dayu or more dulinquent in suwur and water bills and other City charges. Ile requested adoption of this roll no that it may ]x certified to the County Auditor and have the, amounts placed upon the tax culla for the property in question. Motion by Blonigen, seconded by Fair, and carried unanimously to adopt the following assessment roll and have it certified to the County for placement upon the tax rollu of the property. The Mayor requoutod that items 7 and 8 on the Agenda be roveruod. B. ConaideraLion of Conditional Une Request - Aaacmbly of God Church. There being no objection, Pautor' Uordby came lNifore the Council - 5 - Council Minutes - 10/11/83 to reopen discussion on their application for a Conditional Use for a day care center in their church building. Prior to explaining the Proposal, Pastor Nordby indicated that the church is considering lowering their asking price for the building or they might even consider a trade for the Monticello Senior Citizen Building. However, tonight's presentation related to using the building as a preschool day care center. Pastor 1Jordby cited all of the State regulations and confirmed that the proposal could meet them. Councilmember Fair questioned whether or not a public hearing had been properly hold. Staff indicated that they were sure such a hearing had been held. It was agreed by concensus that the conditions attached to the permit would be that all regulatory agencies of the State and other jurisdictions be met and further that the permit will be effective until July 1, 1984, at which time it will be reviewed. Again, Fair raised the question aS to whether or not all of the neighbors had leen notified about the public hearing that was held since she had heard no comment on this project at all. Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated that he was sure that notices had been sent out. Motion by Fair, seconded by Maxwell, and carried unanimously to grant a Conditional Use Permit under the condition that all regulatory agencies requirements be met and said permit shall be effective until July 1, 1984. Motion carried. 7. Consideration of a Sicievard Variance Request - Robert and Mary Saxon. This item had been delayed since the September 26 Cowuil meeting artd the Saxons re -appeared upon the request of the City Council. Saxon's request is for a Variance to sidoyard requirements so that they may place a 24 x 32 toot garage, which would be detached. Councilmembers Fair and Maus both expressed considerable concern over the retaining wall on the hill that goes down into the City park. Several questions were asked concerning the possible under- mining of Mr. Saxon's foundation where he would Put his garage in this location. Councilmember Fair asked in light or what has happened earlier in the meeting regarding the Highway 25 and bridge proposal, could the Saxons wsit just two more weeks. She suggested that each Councilmembor make a thorough study of whether or not this property would lx: considered valuable to the City regardless of Lha outccmo of the 25 project. Mayor Crimsmo indicated that Karen Manson, Senior Citi^en Director, had said that they were involved in a grant application process, thu funds for which may be eligible for parking lot ClovelopmenL. Mr. Saxon indicated that his original plan was to be completed by Novemt>n 1; and since he could not complete that at thio time, Calatruction has been delayed until spring. Howuver, he stated that he still would like a decision as soon so pousible. The Council requested that the Saxons return for the regular Council Council Minutes - 10/11/81 C meeting on October 24 and a final decision would try to be reached at that Lime. No other decision taken at this time. The Mayor recognized Jenny Haglund, who requested that the discussion relating to Highway 25 lx reopened or a special meeting be set to hoar their concerns. Several persons spoke relating to the earlier decision of the Council. They stated they felt that their concerns had not been heard, that support for the project far outweighed opposition to the project, but the Council vote went the other direction. The Mayor asked if Mr. weingartz of MN/OOT had anything new to add or had any alterations to the proposal been agreed upon in the past few minutes. Mr. wcingartz indicated that he was not able to make final decisions on the behalf of the department and thus, nothing new was really able to he presented. The Mayor in- dicated that he Mould not reopen the discussion at this time nines official action had been taken. 9. Consideration of Report Coneerninq Repairs to City Hall Roof. Council members Blonigen and 1•laus and Zoning Administrator Anderson reported on a meeting that had been held earlier that afternoon With the architect and contractors on City Ilall. They explained that the source of the leakage had been narrowed considerably and that another meeting had linen set for 'Thursday, October 13, to male the final determination. Hlonigen indicated that Lha original roofing contractor should be approached to rectify the matter as a part of �-• an overall roof repair job. The Council authorized Gary Anderson to enter and reach final negotiations on a solution to the roof leakage problem. 10. Consideration of a Resolution to Adopt the 1984 Municipal BudgeL and Sottinq the Tax levy. Motion by 8lonigen to adopt Lila following resolution: Resolution Adopting 1984 Budget and Setting the Tax Levy, Resolution 1981 081, (Thu full text is on record in the office of the City AdmininLrntor). The motion was duly seconded by Maxwell with Lila following voting in favor: Fair, Blonigon, Grimomo, Mauu, and Maxwell. Thu following voted in opposition: none. Motion carried unanimously. 11. Conuidoration of a Reoulution SutLinq a Public hearing and AuLlror- izinq Preparation of AuueasmenL Boll for Meadow Oak. John Badalich of Oslo, Cunnulting Hngincero, addressed Lhu public improvement done In the Meadow Oak Subdivision. lie diucusued Lha anueasablo Gout. and the Cit.y cost olid exl:laiued how 1-110 final dutac'min- ;tt.ion was made. It. wan ,: xplaiucd thot a public hearing iu required prior to adopt -ion of t.l:u ueu;cur,mvnt I'uII. Mut.iun by llluuigen, 7 - 0 Council Minutes - 10/11/83 seconded by Maus, to adopt the following resolution: Resolution Declaring Cost to be Assessed, ordering the Preparation of Proposed Assessment, and Calling for a nearing on the Proposed Assessment, Resolution 1983 #62 (The full text is on record in the office of the City Administrator). Voting in favor: Grimsmo, Fair, Blonigen, Maus , and Maxwell. Voting in the opposition: none. Motion carried unanimously. 12. Consideration of Plans and Specifications and Authorization for Bids for Pump (louse 02 Addition. John simola, Public Works Director, submitted to the Council final plans and specifications for the construction of an addition to pump house p2. Motion by Blonigen, seconded by Maxwell, and carried unanimously to approve the final plans and specifications and authorizing a request for bids. 13. Consideration of Change Order N3 for Meadow Oak. John Badalich explained that there was an additional $1,000.00 mobilization charge by Metrucurbing, a subcontractor on the Meadow Oak Improvements, due to a delay in the issuance of the railroad crossing permit. Councilmember Fair asked who was the responsible party in the permit delay. Badalieh responded that it was primarily the railroad who had delayed action and that their communication had not Leen relayed to the curbing subcontractor; and as such, the contractor came in, did a portion of the work, left the job, and returned resulting in an additional $1,000.00 charge. Fair also asked would this $1,000.00 charge be assessable to the project, and Badolich indicated it would. Motion by Fair, seconded by Maus, and carried unanimously to approve Change Order 03. 14. Conciduration or Ruqueut to Increase Seating at Guy'a Bakery. Adminiatralor Lidem explained that su,ff had originally placed a limit on seating to 16 chairs when Guy'u Bakery made application to enter their current site, lie utatud that tho seating was based upon the zoning and parking requirements for the nature of the business. lie further indicated that due to Lho amount of bueinosa, the bakery had requested additional seating and that he had directed their request to the downtown parking committee since It related directly to traffic flows. lie reported that tho parking committee had okayed an increase., of eight additional aeato. Motion by Maxwell, seconded by 111unigen, and carried unanimously to grant Guy's Bakery an increase in nuating capacity for eight additional chairs. 0 Council Minutes - 10/11/83 15. Mark Irmiter, manager of Highway Liquors, came before the Cuuncil to request permission to acquire two new cash registers for Lite liquor store. He indicated that it had been appropriated for the 1984 budget, but upon discussion with Couneilmember Maus felt that acquisition would be more prudent at this time in order to prepare for the holiday season. Eidem reported that the bid price for two machines would be $15,507.00. Motion by Maus, seconded by Fair, and carried unanimously to purchase two NCR model numbers 212G cash registers for the price of $15,507.00. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Thomas A. Eidum City Administrator Council Agenda - 10/24/83 AGENDA SUPPLEMENT 4. Consideration of Sideyard Variance Request - Applicant, Robert and Mary Saxon. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: This item has been continued for the last several meetings since final decisions on the bridge reconstruction have been delayed. What I see before the Council are two separate and distinct issues. First, there is a question of whether or not the Citywishes to acquire the Saxon property. If the City elects to pursue acquisition, then all of the related issues in terms of cost and closing, etc., need yet to be addressed. Secondly, if acquisition is definitely decided against, then the Council must address the Saxon's request for the Variance. One additional consideration came up during staff discussion. Assuming that the bridge proposal eventually goes through and we do not acquire the Saxon property, what will the City's plans be for the remainder of East Bridge Park. We know that the bandstand cannot remain in its present location with the bridge re -alignment. In fact, the State will take a substantial amount of this park. East Bridge Park is not a large area as is, and loss to the State would reduce it significantly. I doubt that the East Bridge Park would have the same utility as it currently has if it's reduced in size. To keep the :and:tard and othor aquipoant in the r.:Jacu.l park I think would create a very congested area when, in fact, a river park should have an open and spacious feel to it. With respect to the acquisition, it should be noted that the primary function of that land will be parking. There will be added park space, but I think that the most effective use of the land would be to dedicate it to public parking. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: (The various actions have contigent relationahips to one another.) 1. Acquire the property - thin leads to the brand now issue of negotiation. We know that Saxon's initial request was for $70,000.00. We also have an informal appraisal of the property at $54,000.00. Also to be negotiated would be when we would take possession, tons of payment, etc. 2. Do not acquire the property - assuming the re -alignment of the bridge, this has tho affect of substantially reducing the East Bridge Park area. Electing not to acquire the property leads directly to the following alternatives that ro lato specifically to the request for a Varianco. - 1 - Council Agenda - 10/24/83 3. Deny the Variance - this denial should be based on the fact that hardship on the part of the applicant has not been sufficiently proved or that the granting of such a Variance would be an infringement upon the abutting property owner, namely, the City. 4. Approve the Variance - approval should be based upon the demonstration that a hardship exists to the applicant and that without such a Variance the applicant cannot derive full enjoyment and utilization from the property. 5. Grant the Variance with conditions - because some concern has been expressed over the retaining wall and the hill that slopes down into Fast Bridge Park and the result of erosion and undermining, the Variance may be granted on the condition that the applicant enter a hold harmless agreement with the City that any damage to his structure that results from undermining of the hill or wash away of the retaining wall will not be the City's responsibility. This agreement would be in the form of a legal document and would be attached to the deed and recorded at the County Courthouse along with the Variance. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Again, because we are faced with two issues, staff has two recom- mendations. With respect to determining whether or not to acquire the property, it is the staff's recommendation that the Council pursue acquisition. By acquiring the added land, the City can maintain a decent sized park area on the river. I think it is a valuable asset for the City to own and maintain such quality sites along the river and that it would be short sited to start compromising the amount of ohoro land we currently have. In addition to the value the land has to the park, the added public parking would address part of the problem at the Senior Center. In the event that acquisition is not considered feasible by the Council, staff racommands that the Variance be granted only if a hold harmless agreement in drafted and entered into by all parties and is recorded at the Courthouse. D. SUPPORTING DATA: All oupporting data line boon submitted to you with previous agendas. No now material having any bearing on this item has boon preoontod. - 2 - Council Agenda - 10/24/83 5. Consideration of Reconstruction of T.li. 25 and Bridge - Minnesota Department of Transportation. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At your last meeting a motion was passed to inform the State that we would like to see at least one more alternate proposal wherein the raised channelization had been omitted from the reconstruction plan of T.H. 25. I submitted a letter to the Department of Transportation relaying precisely that information. On Thursday afternoon, October 20, I received a call from Jim Povich of the Brainerd office of MN/DOT. He contacted me in the absence of Jim Weingartz with respect to their response to my letter. Mr. Povich informed me that he had a copy of Jim Weingartz' letter, the substance of which stated that the alternative presented to the City Council on October 11 was the final offer. Mr. Povich also indicated that his supervisor preferred that the entire project be abandoned and State money be dedicated elsewhere. Povich went on to say that he did not like either of those alternatives since there had not been widespread discussion within the State con- cerning whether or not there were other alternatives. He did indicate that it has been firmly decided that the project will not be done under any circumstances without the raised channe lization. lie also noted that there was a firm committment against striping. lie told me that his main request for calling was to bey time to alley their department to discuss other alternatives if there ware any. He felt that by calling the most recent proposal the final offer and then having a now alternative appear within a couple weeks it would be too late to re -approach the City on development. Iiia request is that the Council take no action on this caning Monday unless, of course, they wish to adopt the resolution that was originally presented. In discussing what other alternatives might be presented, Mr. Povich stressed that it Is conceivable that no alternative will be presented, merely that they wish to have time to decide whether or not another alternative could be pracentod. Ile stated that just by brainstorming two thoughts had come to mind. The first altorna rive would be to do only the bridge and abandon the reconstruction of Ilighway 25 completely. The second alternative that they will discuss amongst themselves has to do with doing the job in phases. That is to say the State will replace the bridge and they will do the Highway 25 reconstruction from the south and of the City to the Fourth Street intersection. That would leave the section of highway from Fourth Street to Rivor Street untouched. When I asked what ho meant by untouched, lie said that lie meant it would be totally excluded from the project. There would be no now traffic lights; there would be no striping; there would be no overlay; there would ba no turn lanae; there would be absolutely - 3 - Council Agenda - 10/24/83 nothing done. I asked further if they omitted this part of the project, did that mean that this stretch was being totally abandoned. fie indicated that it meant that this stretch would be done at a later stage. It is the State's contention that if the highway is to be reconstructed then the raised channelization and the turning lanes will be installed eventually. He noted that the State could reprogram the last four blocks in question and they would then simply wait for a change in Council personnel or change in downtown attitudes. He noted further that this was not a likely proposal, although it was not impossible. He stated that it was unlikely because doing the work on the south end would only contribute to a greater congestion factor in tho downtown than already exists. It seems fairly obvious that when the re- construction permits a greater flow of traffic in the south end, and the congestion around the mall entry and at the Seventh Street intersection are eliminated, then the free flow of traffic would lose its free flow when it arrived at the old part of the highway. Again I must emphasize that this is not a proposal by the State but merely a discussion topic by them. Because Mr. Povich felt they had not exhausted all discussion possibilities, he has asked that the entire matter be postponed until the November 14 meeting. Members of the Department will not be present at this meeting. This is strictly a discussion item and not a decision item. There are no alternativo actions or staff recommendations. Witli ruspeul to supporting data, if I receive the letter I requested from Mr. Povich, I will distribute that to each of you as soon as I can. - 4 - Council Agenda — 10/24/83 6. Public Hearing - Assembly of God Church - Conditional Use Request. (G.A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Monticello Assembly of God Church's initial request came as an additional information item back at the June 14, 1983, meeting. At this meeting the Church's intent was brought up as an additional information item to Planning Commission members. From the original June 14 meeting until the August 9, 1983 meeting the Church was under the impression that the City was interested in buying the property from them for a proposed Senior Citizen Center. At the August 9 meeting it was indicated to Planning Commission members that the City war not interested in purchasing the property and, therefore, had dropped their request. At the September 6, 1983, meeting we had a continuation of the Conditional Use Request Public Hearing to allow the Church to operate a day care center as a Conditional Use in an R-2 Zone. Up until this point we were under the assumption that we had sent out notices of the public hearing to the newspaper for publishing and also indicated that we had sent notices to the property owners. In looking back into the records, we find no Affidavit of Filing Public Hearing Notice to affected property owners. Therefore, we are now requesting a public hearing at the October 24 meeting. At the September 6, 1983, Planning Coaaiecion !seting, no one was preecn.t from the Church to indicate their proposed plans for the day care center. Commission members, not knowing their real intent, moved to deny their request; and the motion carried unanimously. Motion made by Council members at the October 11, 1983, meeting was to approve the Monticello Assembly of God Church Conditional Use Request con- tingent upon the Church meeting the requirements of the State day care center guidelines, the Fire Rarahal'a inspection requirements, and following the City Zoning Ordinance. As of today's date we have not received any public testimony in regard to this. If we receive any public testimony it may be in regard to the numbor of kids that the Monticello Assembly of God Church intends to have there at one time. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Your motion stands from the October 11, 1983, City Council Meeting unless you accept any testimony from citizens of this public hearing. If no teotimony is received at this meeting, your motion stands approved without a now motion. - 5 - Council Agenda - 10/24/83 C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Barring any new public testimony, our position remains that the qualified applicant must meet the qualifications as set by the State Fire Marshal's office, the State day care guideline and requirements, and the City requirements. The City staff recommends that it be up for periodic review and/or the Conditional Use be granted for not more than one year from the date of application with the termination of the first Conditional Use period beyond or about June 15, 1984. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Council Meeting Minutes in regard to Monticello Assembly of God Church. - 6 - 1 MINUTES, EECULAR.KEETINC-- MONTICELLO'CITY COUNCIL__ Sept'embei;.13,,-1983-`J::30`P:M: Members Present': Arve Crimsmo,'Fran Fair,, Dan Blorigen, Ken Maus, and Jack Maxwell. Members Absent. None. L. Call to Order;: 2. Approval of the Minutes. A motion was made b y°Fair, seconded by Maus, and unanimously carried to approve the minutes of the meeting held August 22, 1983'. 3. Citizens Comments. Mr. Joe LeFromboise of Construction S', Inc., informed ,the Council' that their apartment --complex being developed 'in Lauri_ng Hillside Terrace is almost completed, and they are interested in etarting:"' thi second, apartment complex ,yet this fall. As part of the eecand devalop- ment, they,raqueeted that the. Council,'consider,holding a. public: hearing, in the neer, future to consider vacating that ,portion of Hennepin.Street lying betveen.Lauri ng Lane and the railroad tracks, which abuts their. property;- At the present time,, their development plan I being :reviewed by the City's consulting planner and consulting,enginee'r;,,and their comments should be 'evaiCable for _the first regularly scheduled meeting din October. It iias. ithe consensus_ of the•Council to, seta public ke ring for%consiE'e_'r'ing va_ca_t_ing,Hannepin,S traet st;,the-OctoberA l ,Cauneil,-Melting. 4. 'Cenild6ration4of'art Apoeai,.From'Plannins"Cor®ieei6n;Aoolitant7=cAss�mblr Conditional Use.. During June of 1983, the M!oe'ticello`Assembly of Cod Church .Eiled,a,_ Rquast+for a`,Conditiotial Use Permit to.sllow a day care center, to be o;stated-'at their former church, property on East Fourth Street: .After ,the item'had been tabled for a number of°months, the churchcrequceEed .that. the. Planning Commission consider- the Conditional Use Request at :thoir''September meeting, but no.mcmbers of the church,vere 'present to, present their requmat to the Planning Commission; and as a resul.v.,Oic, Planning Commission recontaanded that the Conditional Use Permit bs denied. The Assembly`of Cod Church appealed the decision to the Council, meeting. y Council Minutes - 9/13/83 Mr. Gene Decker, representative for the church, indicated that they would like to pursue the possibility of the church being allowed to use the old facilities for a day care center. He noted that they presently have no prospects yet to purchase the building and are looking at options, including either running a day care center themselves or finding a private operator. It was the Council's consensus that before a Conditional Use Permit for a day care center could be granted, more facts on the type of operation, number of children involved, etc., should be available before a decision could be made. Pastor Nordby and Mr. Decker both indicated that the primary reason they come to the Council first was to see if the City would be receptive to the idea of a day care center being operated at the old church facilities before they expended too much Lime and money to convert the building for this use. Motion was made by Maus, seconded by Fair, and unanimously carried to table the request at this time but set a public hearing date for October 11, 1983, at the Council to consider the Conditional Use Request, which should allow the church sufficient time to present their proposal. S. Consideration of an Appeal From Planning Commission Applicant - Blocher Advertising. Blocher Advertising Company requested an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to have an outdoor advertising sign relocated from Lot 9, Thomas Industrial Park, to Lot 11, Thomas Industrial Park. Mr. Ron Hoglund, representing the present land owners of Thomas Industrial Park, noted that Blocher Advertising Company is interested in purchasing Lot 11 if they are allowed to put an additional billboard sign on this lot. There is currently ant- existing sign on Lot 11, and if approved, there would be two signs located on this one lot. Mr. Hoglund noted that Blocher Advertising has indicated they would not bo interested in completing the purchase unless they would be allowed to have both signs on their own property. Mr. Hoglund noted that the owners of Thomas Industrial Park have been trying to sell and develop the lots within the industrial park for a number of years and feel that if they are not able to sell this lot to Blocher Advertising Company, they may lose their investment in the property and have to let it go back to the previous owner. Mayor Grimsmo acknowledged the hardship the landowner& are currently faced with but noted that the present City Zoning Ordinances clearly state that no new signs are allowed to be erected within the city limits, and by -Z- Council Agenda - 10/24/83 7. Public Hearinq - Fulfillment Systems, Inc. - Proposal to Issue Tax Exempt Mortgage. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: On August 31, 1983, the City submitted to the Department of Housing and Urban Development an application for Urban Development Action Grant funds (UDAG). Throughout September and October both the Minneapolis office and Washington D.C. office of HUD have been contacting us with development questions. The revised proposal that has been put together to satisfy HUD is basically as follows: $234,000.00 UDAG funding, $475,000.00 tax exempt mortgage, $135,000.00 private equity. Based on all of my conversations with Washington D.C., I think that our application is receiving favorable review. Assuming then that the UDAG funds will be awarded it is essential that the City be prepared to move forward and proceed with the project. The very first step in issuing tax exempt mortgages is to hold this public hearing, wherein residents may comment on the City lending its tax exempt status to a private corporation. Either Jack Peach, President, or Ray Lilke, Controller of FSI, will be present at the hearing to provide the preliminary plan layout and development schome. This proscntation is not the de tail d yla,. .—I sp.c. of buildings but rather the general presentation much as was oub- mittod in the UDAG application. It should also be noted that the RRA has given preliminary approval to establishing a Tax Increment Finance District to assist with the land acquisition. This matter will be coming before the Council at the end of November, but should be considered as a separate and distinct entity even though they arc related to the same project. The topic for this meeting is exclusively the issuance of tax exempt mortgage. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Upon the closing of the public hearing, you may 1. Adopt a resolution giving preliminary approval to the project - this will, in essence, authorize me to pursue with legal counsel all of the necessary documents to prepare for tho placement of the tax exempt mortgage. I wish to emphasize that a resolution of final approval will tomo before tho Council after all of tho documents and arrangements have boon made in fine detail. 7 . Council Agenda - 19/24/83 2. Do not adopt the resolution - this will, in effect, close down the project. In the event that the resolution is not adopted, we will submit a letter to HUD withdrawing our application for funds. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the resolution giving preliminary approval so that we may pursue the relocation of FSI to the City of Monticello. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copies of various pages from the UDAG application indicating the nature and scope of the development plan; Copies of the letters of committments from the lending institutions that will accept the tax exempt mortgage; Copy of the resolution of preliminary approval. -e- RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE DATE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSAL TO UNDERTAKE AND FINANCE A PROJECT UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER 474 WHEREAS, the Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act, Minnesota Statutes, Sections 474.01 at secl. (the "Act"), authorizes the issuance o re- venue bonds to finance projects; and WHEREAS, the term "project" is defined by Section 474.02, subdivision la, of the Act to include "any properties, real or personal, used or useful in connection with a revenue producing enterprise"; and WHEREAS, a representi3tive of Fulfillment System, Inc., a Minnesota corporation (the "Developer") has presented this City Council (the "City Council') of the City of Monticello (the "City") with information concerning a proposed project (the "Project") to be acquired and constructed within the City; and WHEREAS, the Developer has requested that the City resolve to issue revenue bonds pursuant to the A ct to finance the Project and has presented to the City Council a form of preliminary resolution concerning such issuance with a request that such preliminary resolution, attached hereto as Exhibit A, be considered for adoption by the C ity Council; and WHEREAS, Section 474.0 1, subdivision 7b, of'the Act provides that the City Council must conduct a public hearing on any proposal to undertake and finance a project; and WHEREAS, Section 474.0 1, subdivision 7b, of the Act provides that notice of the time and place of such putaiic hearing and stating the general nature of the project and an estimate of the principal amount of the bonds or other obligations to be issued to finance the project must be published at least once not less than fifteen (15) days nor more than thirty (30) days prior to the date fixed for the public hearing in the official newspaper of the City and a newspaper of general circulation in the City, and WHEREAS, Section 474 -dl, subdivision 7b, of the Act provides that the notice must state that a draft copy of the proposed application (the "Application") to the Minnesota Energy and Economic Developmeni Authority for approval of the Project, together with all attachments and exhibits, is on file with the City and available for public inspection; and WHEREAS, the Developer has presented to the City a form of public notice, attached hereto as Exhibit B, with a request that the City Council establish a date for a public hearing on the proposal to undertake and finance the Project and authorize publication of the form of public notice provided by the Developer, -1- NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO THAT: 1. The City will conduct a public hearing on the proposal to undertake and finance the Project on the day of , 1983. 2. It is the present intention of the City Council to adopt the preliminary resolution in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A after completion of the public hearing on , 1983. 3. The City Administrator of the City is hereby authorized to cause a public notice, substantially in the form of the notice attached hereto as Exhibit B, to be published in the official newspaper of the City and a newspaper of general circulation in the City. 4. The City Administrator of the City is hereby authorized and directed to have available for public inspection in the offices of the City a draft copy of the proposed Application, together with all attachments and exhibits thereto. -4- SECTION A - PROBLEMS AND OBJECTIVES Fulfillment Systeme, Incorporated (PSI) is a local clearinghouse for major package goods responsible for handling consumer pro- motional offers, e.g., refunds, samples and sweepstakes. Gillette, Campbell Soup Company, Colgate-Palmolive and Revlon are among the major clients of FSI. '!flay currently employ 13S persons of which 20 work out of their own homes, and 25 are engaged through a subcontract with Functional Industries, a sheltered workshop for the handicapped. FSI's current facility is considered inadequate for the following reasons: 1) It is a quonset warehouse with no municipal utilities. 2) The facility is located within a mobile home park, thus creating a nonconforming land use; 3) The Conditional Use hermit which allows FSI to continue operations expire Auyust 1, 1984; 4) In coordination with their comlaiwial use lwtmit, their lease will also expire Augu;;t 1, 1984; 5) If n une of the ahovu were I resent, FSI'a rapid growth requires expansion. Anyone of the above reasons is sufficient to cause FSI to investigate relocation in a more adequate location. The nature of the business is such that employees require little or no special skills and are easily trained on site. FSI employs primarily low and moderate income perrons including several through the CETA program. FXployuce being their major re sourco, FSI could elect to relocate virtually anywhere there is an adequate labor pool. The City of Monticello seeks to assist the relocation of FSI to a more appropriate site within tho community, thus retaining the existing jobs as well as pro- moting the creation of jobs. The City of Monticello proposes to utilise UOAG Funds by pro- viding to PSI a low interest loan which can be used to leverage private investment. Acquisition of land in Lauriny Hillside Ter- race and construction of a 42,500 square foot facility would resolve all five problems stated abwa, as well as yrovids the needed expansion; to aecomodato approximately 110 new jobs. In addition, this project would create temporary employment in the construction trados, yenetnt.e lnercauud tax base, and stir development in a currently under util;te.i area of the comomnity. SECTION B - PROJECT DESCRIPTION The City of Monticello wishes to utilize UDAG funds to assist Ful- fillment Systems, Inc., relocate its facility from a mobile hone park lying approximately one-half mile south of the corporate limits to the Oakwood Industrial Park, a platted fully serviced industrial subdivision lying within the City's corporate limits. l raring Hill- side Terrace, platted in 197G, currently has less than 25% of its total acreage in use. FSI proposes to buy three lots totaling 7.93 acres for a total price of $27,500.00 ($3,468.00 per acre). FSI further proposes to erect a 42,500 square foot facility with required parking and landscaping at an estimated cost of $701,815.00. Added to the above figures is an amount of $124,185.00 for capital equip- ment, fees, administration and contingency makiny a total estimated cost of $853,500.00. while the feasibility of Tax Increment Financing is being .initiated to assist in the land acquisition, the present status of the proposal reflects private investment of $135,00.00 provided through the developer and wright County State Bank, and UDAG funds in the amount of $243,500.00. Upon start-up, the 90 employees at the current site would be re- located to the now facility. The increased size of the facility from their present 17,000 square feet would accomodate FSI's proposed expansion to 200 employees by the and of 1984. ldatly,by ensuring FSI's presence in our cn munity, Functional Industries can retain their subcontract, thus protecting the jobs for their handicapped clients. 0 Wright County State Bank P. 0. Box 729 Monticello, Minnesota 55362 G. 8, PmlhoS. Charman (6121 2952952 Denors Sueabcu. C."r '!1 Dale J, lung-lt. Pres4pnI Mrs AIICnC MCInIIiC, ASs�stanl C.l :n�•� Kevin Boynton. Ass,.Ianl V.Co Pros.Cenl Mrs Jenn MiCha�lis, AssislinlCA_:ni�•i Tomt.nag,us 1, Ass,slanl Vico N oS,denl Mrs Cls�e Po S , A),I.lnl C,r�:hii•� Mrs Dual Slol,M, Assmlanl VKe Plesaenl September 26, 1983 Mr. Thomas A. Eldem City Administrator City of Monticello 250 E. Broadway Monticello, M:l 55362 Dear Mr. Eidem: After a thorough review of the City of Monticello and Fulfillment Svstems. Inc, request for a placement of a tax-exempt mortgage, we are pleased to ndviRe you thnt the Wright County State Bank, in coordination with Pirst State Bank of Lnke Lillian, and the Security State Bank of Howard lake offers the following accommodations to assist PSi in its expansion proposal: Amount of Loan - $475,000.00 Rate of Interest - 12% for the first five-year increment. interest will he adjusted at the end of the first five- year period, and also at the end of the second five-year period to i% over Minneapolis prime. There will he n floor limit of IOZ throughout the total amortization of the mort- gage. Amortization A Maturity - 15 years Collateral - let REM on Lots 6, 7, and 8, Block 2, IAuring 11111eidle Terrace, City of Monticello, Wright County, Irl. Parsonnl Cuarttntee - Jack Peach and wife will personally guarantee the full amount of the mortgage, and will offer their homestead and land as additional collateral, using the second mortgage as instrument of guarantee. Conditions - Key man life insurnnee on .lnck Peach totaling $500,000.00 nnsignable to the retirement of said mortgage.. In addition, please be advised tont this offer to contingent upon the success of the City of Monticello to secure an Urban Development. Action Crant (UPAC) funding. It is our conclusion that this project would not he feasible without the participation of UDAr. fonds. MEMBER FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION 0 Thomas A. Eidem -2- September 26, 1983 We presume that all of the formal legal procedures to place this tax-exempt mortgage will not be commenced until the determination has been made as to the success of the UDAf, application. Please contact me if we can he of further assistance. DJL/lw Sincerely, \ r i Dale J. lungvitr. " President 0 --- �� MIRM STA BANK CLARA CRT. MINNESOTA 56222 TELEPHONE 612/647.3702 Septeaber 23, 19e3 ?s. Dale I=dvita, President Wight County State Bank Y.onticollo, F!i 55362 Dear Mr. Landwitau After a thorough reviev of the City of Yocticello and Fulfillment systems, Inc. request for the placement of a tax-exenpt tortCefe, we are advising you that Security State Bank of Howard Lake will participate with the First State Bank of Lake Lillian and your bank. The total project cost will be approximately $853,500• The following are aonditione and requirements to our participations 1. Amount of loan - $100,000.00 2. Rate of Interest - 12 percent renegotiated eaeb five yeare At that time interest will be adjusted to 1 over prlme with a floor llmit of 10 percent interest. 3. Amortisation and Maturity - 15 years 4. Collateral- Firet mortgope on said Property 5. Porecnal Guarentee- Jack Peach end wife will guarantee said mortgage personally by offering their house and land as collateral uaUF a second mortgARe an instrument of guarantee. 6. Conditiono- Key man life insurance (!500,000) oa Jae1: Peach to be used toward retirement of paid mortgage. In addition please be advised that this offer is contingent upon the sucesee of the City of Monticello to secure Urban Development Action Grant (UDAG) funding. It So our eoncluoion this project would not be feaeible without the participation of UDAG funds. J Ns. Dale Lundwits. President September 23, 1983 Page 2 It is also our assumption that all to place this tax-exempt mortfage there is a guarantee of funds from CRFscj of the formal legal procedures will not be commenced until UDAG. Sincere C. are ont 0 LAKE LILLIAN, MINNESOTA 58253 STATE BANK September 23, 1483 PHONE 10121 e6.1111 PHONE (517) 6&.4181 Mr. Dale Landwite, President Wright County State Sank Monticello, HM 55362 Dear Mr. Umdwitc: We have reviewed the request for placement of a tax exempt mortgage with the city of Monticello and }hlMllaeat Systema Inc. Said mortgage is to cover the coat of construction approximating 50,000 squ&re feat, and approxiaately ton acres of land within the city of Hosties2lo. Total cost of project is estimated at 1853.000. Proposal of : auancing includes participation with the Wright County State Hank of Monticello, the Security State Hank of Howard Lake, QWW, Pultillsent Systems Inc., and the First State Sank of lake 11111ea. It to our pleasure to inform you our bank will participate in the financing of said property within the parameters and conditions stated below: 1. Amount of loan: — 1125,000 2. Rate of interest: .- 12% interest renegotiated every five years. At that time Interest will be adjusted to 1% over prime with a minimum of 10% interest. 3. Amortisation and maturity: -- 15 years p. Collateral: — First mortgage on said property ` 5• Psrsonual guarantee Jack Psaeh and wife will personally guarantee the mortgage, strains a snood sortgage on their home and land. 6. Conditiosee -- Key No We insurance on Jack peach totaling 15000000 assignable to retirement of acid mortgage. MEMCfAFCOERAL DEPOSE I04:UNANCECOAPONA110N p' Mir. Dale Landwits Wright County State Bank Page 2 It in our opinion, this project would not be feasible idtbout Participation of MM funds amounting to approximately 30% of the total project. Shia offer In contingent upon the success of the City of Monticello to secure an Urban Development Action 0rant. We are of the understanding that commencement of legal procedures to place this tau exempt mortgage will not be possible before the success of the VDAG application is determined. MMi led sin e Duane B. Lindgren, President 0 EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO A PROJECT UNDER THE MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT, REFERRING THE PROPOSAL TO THE NIINNESOTA ENERGY AND ECONONTIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR APPROVAL, AND AUTHORIZING PREPARATION OF NECESSARY DOCUMENTS WHEREAS, the welfare of the State of Minnesota (the "State") requires active promotion, attraction, encouragement and development of economically sound industry and commerce through governmental acts to prevent, so far a.s possible, emergence of blighted lands and areas of chronic unemployment, and it is the policy of the State to facilitate and encourage action by local government units to prevent the economicdeterioration of such areas to the point where the process can be reversed only by total redevelopment through the use of local, state end federal funds derived from taxation, with the attendant necessity of relocating displaced persons and of duplicating public services in other areas; and WHEREAS, technological change has caused a shift to a significant degree in the area of opportunity for educated youth to processing, transporting, marketing, service and other industries, and unless existing and related industries are retained and new industries are developed to use the available resources of the City of Monticello (the "City"), a large part of the existing investment of the community and of the State as a whole in educational and public service facilities will be lost, and the rnovement of talented, educated personnel of mature age to areas where their services may be effectively used and compensated and the lessening attraction of persons and businesses from other areas for purposes c+f industry, commerce and tourism will deprive the City and the State of the economic and human resources needed as a base for providing governmental services and facilities for the remaining population; and WHEREAS, the increase in the amount and cost of governmental services requires the need for more intensive development and use of land to provide an adequate tax base to finance these costs; and WHEREAS, a representative of Fulfillment System, Inc. (the "Developer"), has advised this City Council that it desires to acquire land and construct a new building for industrial use thereon in the City (hereinafter referred to as the "Project"); and WHEREAS, the existence of the Project in the City will contribute to more intensive development and use of land to Increase the tax base of the City a -rd overlapping taxing authorities and maintain and provide for an increase in opportunities for employment for residents of the City, Including economically disadvantaged or unemployed individuals; and WHEREAS, the City has been advised that conventional, commercial financing to pay the capital cost of the Project is available at such costs of CFC borrowing that the economic feasibility of operating the Project would be significantly reduced, but that with the aid of municipal financing, and its resulting lower borrowing cost, the Project is economically more feasible; and WHEREAS, this Council has been advised by a representative of the Developer that on the basis of information submitted to them and their discussions with representatives of area financial institutions and potential buyers of tax- exempt bonds, industrial development revenue bonds of the City could be issued and sold upon favorable rates and terms to finance the Project; and WHEREAS, the City is authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474, to issue its revenue bonds to finance the cost, in whole or in part, of the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, improvement or extension of capital projects consisting of properties used and useful in connection with a revenue producing enterprise, such as that of the Developer, and the issuance of such bonds by the City would be a substantial inducement to the Developer to construct its facility in the City; and WHEREAS, on the basis of information given the City to date, it appears that it would be in the best interest of the City to issue its industrial development revenue bonds under the provisions of Chapter 474 to finance the Project of the Developer in an amount presently estimated not to exceed $475,000. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: 1. The Project is hereby given preliminary approval by the City and the .i--umnee of the revenue bonds for such purpose and in such amount spproved, subject to approval of the Project by the Minnesota Energy and Economic Development Authority and to the mutual agreement of this body, the Developer and the initial purchaser of the bonds as to the details of the bonds and provisions for their payment. In all events, it is understood, however, that the bonds of the City shall not constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance legal or equitable upon any property of the City except the Project, and the bonds, when, as, and if Issued, shall recite in substance that the bonds, 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 City. 2. In accordance with ;11inncsots Statutes, Section 474.01, Subdivision 7a, the Mayor of the City is hereby authorized and directed to submit the proposal for the Project to the Minnesota Energy and Economic Development Authority for approval of the Project. The Mayor and other officers, employees and agents of the City are hereby authorized to provide the Minnesota Energy and Economic Development Authority with any preliminary information needed 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 Nlinnesote Energy and Economic Development Authority. 3. The law firm of Holmes do Graven, Chartered, is authorized to act as Bond Counsel and to assist in the preparation and review of necessary documents relating to the Project and bonds Issued in connection therewith. The Mayor, City Attorney, and other officers, employees and agents of the City are hereby authorized to assist Bond Counsel In the preparation of such documents. -2- 4. In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 474.01, Subdivision 11, the City Clerk/Treasurer and other officers, employees and agents of the City are hereby authorized and directed to encourage the Developer to provide employment opportunities to economically disadvantaged or unemployed individuals. Such individuals may be identified by such mechanisms as are available to the City, including a first source agreement in which the Developer agrees to use a designated State employment office as a first source for employment recruitment, referral, and placement. -3- EXHIBIT B NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSED PROJECT UNDER THE MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT, MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER 474, AS AMENDED THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the governing body of the City of Monticello, Minnesota (the "City"), will meet on , 1983, at p.m. at the City offices in Monticello, Minnesota, for the purpose of conducting a public hearing on a proposal that the City issue its revenue bonds under the Municipal Industrial Development Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474, as amended, in order to finance the cost of a project. The proposed project will consist of acquiring land and constructing a new building for industrial use thereon of not less than square feet to be owned by Fulfillment System, Inc., for use in its business. The proposed project will be located at Lots 7 and 8 of Block 2, Loring Hill Terrace in Monticello, Minnesota. The estimated total amount of the proposed issue is $475,000. The bonds shall be a limited obligation of the City and the bonds and interest thereon shall be. payable solely from the revenues pledged to the payment thereof, except that such bonds may be secured by a mortgage and other encumbrance on the project. No holder of any such bond shall ever have the right to compel any exercise of the taxing power of the City of Monticello to pay the bonds, or the interest thereon, nor to enforce payment against any property of the City except the project. A draft copy of the proposed application to the Minnesota Energy and Economic Development Authority for approval of the project, together with all attachments and exhibits thereto, Is available for public inspection at the City offices. AL persons interested may appear and be heard at the time and place set forth above. Dated: , 1883 BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO By Thomas Eldem City Administrator Council Agenda - 10/24/B3 8. Review of Bids for Pump House M2 Addition. W .S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Electrical work bids will be taken until 1:00 P.M., Monday, October 24, 1983; and construction bids will be taken until 2:00 P.M., Monday, October 24, 1983. Bids will be brought forth for review at that time at Monticello City Hall. C -9 PUMP HOUSE #2 ADDITION We received only one bid on the proposed addition. Jay Miller made a bid of $15,609.00. We received three bids an the electrical, the lowest of which was Page Electric for $610.00. The bid tabs are enclosed for your review. The total cost of the project is $16,219.00. This is $62% over my estimate of $10,000.00, which I placed in the 1981 budget. I believe the cost of this project is unrealistic and the bid of $15,609.00 should be rejected along with the electrical bids. There are a few small adjustments we can make to the building design to save a few dollars, but they are at beat minimal. It is my opinion that more favorable results would be obtained by rebidding in late winter for early spring construction. Every contractor I discussed the project with was very busy at this time. Although it would be an inconvenience to wait, it would be financially in tho City's best intereat. / W-6� John Simola Public Works Director R BIDDER BID BOND Jay Miller F.A. Tenney Quintin Lanners Gordan Hill Masonry Bruce Dalbec Loren Weese I CASH. CHECKS Check $780.45 LUMP SUM BID $15,609.00 No Reply No Reply No Reply No Reply No Reply a BIDDER AMOUNT Page Electric, Inc. $610.00 Double "D" Electric, Inc. S750.00 Heskin's Monticello Electric No Reply Klatt Electric No Reply Olson 6 Sons Electric, Inc. No Reply Wadsworth Electric Repair and No Reply Construction Electric Construction MN Inc. No Reply Preeman Electric, Inc. No Reply Hoffman Electric Company No Reply Lopinski Electric Company No Reply Mortensen Electric $993.00 Walte Electric No Reply Council Agenda - 10/24/83 9. Consideration of a Deferment of Special Assessments for Monticello Country Club. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: After the special meeting on the budget when this issue was discussed, I informed Jean Brouillard that the Revenue Sharing would not be provided to abate the Country Club's assessment, but the Council was receptive to discussing a possible deferment so that development could occur. on Tuesday, October 18, 1983, Rick and I met with Howard Gillham and Jean to discuss a solution to the Country Club's delinquent assessments. Basically, we arrived at the following agreement: The City and the Country Club will negotiate and enter a private contract agreement,said contract to be in the sum of $72,637.71. Upon entering that contract, the City will lift from the County Tax Roll the entire amount of the assessment that had been certified at the original date. Within the contract the total amount would be broken down into 10 equal values and shall be assigned by number to the proposed 10 platted lots. We agreed that this sum could be held without interest accruing for a period not to exceed five years. Further, that upon completion and development of the subdivision as each lot is sold the amount of the assessment for that particular lot would be paid in full. Thus, payment of the full oum would be mada in the umourL assigned Lo each lot as sold or the entire amount would be payable in five years, whichever comes sooner. Another part of the contract would stipulate the conditions wherein an easement for the drainage will be granted Lo Lhe City at no additional charge . I think it would be wine that we include a target date for completion and recording of the plat. Also, this entire contract agreement will be attached to the dead and recorded at the Courthouse. Rick and I feel that thiu is a workablo solution in that eventually the City will got its original investment plus the assigned interest from the original aoscusmont roll. We think Lhis is a for more feasible way of doing business with the Country Club than their original request for Revenue Sharing or outright abatement of tho assessments. While there may be a delay (which we have in any case) wo still will recover all of our cost. Further, by having thin aum doforred, it allows the title to be cleared at Lhe Courthouse and will further allow the Country Club to record the final plat as that it may be marketed. It is my opinion that we have reached a very workable compromise, and arrived at a win-win situation as opposed to a win -l000 situation. - 10 - Council Agenda - 10/24/83 While the general nature of the contract agreement has been reached, the final details and specifics will have to be concluded with the City Attorney and the parties involved. An item which is not directly related to the contract itself but relates to the overall subdivision of the land has to do with the park dedication requirements of our Ordinance. For any sub- division we require either a certain amount of land or 100 of the value of the subdivision for park dedication purposes. The Country Club's concern is that if they were to grant a certain amount of land, then they would not be able to develop the 10 lots as proposed. If, on the other hand, they were required to submit a cash contribution for park dedication, we are negating approximately $20,000.00 worth of the deferrment that we are granting to them. It is their contention, and I tend to agree, that the very nature of the Country Club being recreational, and being open for public use tends to easily fulfill the requirement of park dedication. Granted, this is a very specific recreational activity that does not necessarily have mass appeal, but such a claim can be made against any number of parks however multi -use they are designed. I think that when the Country Club approaches the Planning Commission and Council with their subdivision proposal, it would be beneficial towaivc the park dedication requirements by virtue of their being the golf courac. B. ALTEP14ATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Accept the basic terms of the contract as proposed and direct final preparation by the City Attorney - this will allow the Country Club to begin their platting and marketing process which hopefully will load to the eventual recovery of our public improvement expense. Also, the City is protected in that at the termination of the contract whatever lots aro not sold would become the property of the City. At that time we would need only to market them for approximately $7,200.00 to recover our expenao. Such contract also eliminates the need to go through the standard three or seven year delinquent process and taking the land for tax forfeiture. 2. Modify the contractual arrangements - if you have specific suggestions with respect to curtain terms of the agreement, those may be negotiated at this time. Both Mr. Gillham and Mr. Brouillard will be present to present their aide of the negotiations. Council Agenda - 10/24/83 3. Deny the request for a deferrment and contract - this has the net effect of having nothing done. The Country Club remains delinquent on taxes and assessments and, as such, will not be allowed to record or plat in which case the land cannot be marketed. When the appropriate amount of time expires the City could pursue taking the land by tax forfeiture procedures. We are then stuck with the need of subdividing and platting on our own behalf and hopefully marketing the land as well. The City then has gotten involved in real estate development, and I am not sure that is where we wish to be. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the good faith negotiations to date, it is staff recommendation that the contract with the terms as preliminarily agreed upon be authorized. Upon authorization I will have the formal contract drawn by the City Attorney and it can be formally executed by the Mayor and the Country Club by mid-November. D. SUPPORTING DATA: A data sheet shoring facts and figures relating to the assessment and simple terms of the negotiated agreement. M014TICELIq COUNTRY CLUB original Assessment - $51,023.00 Principal Interest $10,204.60 $ 4,145.65 10,204.60 2,653.20 10,204.60 1,989.90 10,204.60 1,326.60 10,204.60 663.30 $51,023.00 $10,778.65 Total Principal $51,023.00 1st 4 years of interest 10,115.35 Penalty to date 11,499.36 Total Contract Amount $72,637.71 LO lots with equal assessments - $7,263.77 per lot. PRELIMINARY CONTRACT PROVISIONS 1. City will lift entire assessment roll from County records. 2. Country Club will plat and record (as required by Ordinance) 10 Iota by (date?) . 3. Country Club will meet minimum development requirements. 4. City will carry $72,637.71, interest free, for a period not to exceed five (5) years. 5. City will assign equal assessment to each of the 10 lots. 6. Country Club, upon any lot sale, will pay directly to City full amount of aaseasment assigned to that lot. 7. Country Club will pay full amount of outstanding assessment (for lots still unsold) at the end of five year agreement or Country Club will provide clear title to City for all unsoTX lots. 0 S. Country Club will provide, at no cost, a drainage easement. 9. Entire document to be recorded at Courthouse. 10. City will waive park dedication requirements. - 2 - UP Council Agenda - 10/24/83 10. Consideration of Authorizing the Preparation of an Ordinance Allowing for On -Sale Wine Licenses - Floyd Kruse. (T. E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Mr. Floyd Kruse, developer of Dino's Deli on the corner of Broadway and Walnut Street, has requested that the Council investigate the feasibility of issuing wine licenses. The State of Minnesota permits the issuance of wine licenses to bona fiderestaurants as defined in the Statute. Some cities issue a single combination license that is good for on -sale 3.2 beer and wine. Some cities offer individual on -sale licenses for each of these beverages. Monticello currently has a 3.2 beer on -sale license only. The proper procedure to follow at this time is for the Council to determine whether or not they wish to have the right to issue wine and/or wine and beer licenses. If the City elects to adopt an ordinance that will allow the issuance of wine licenses, staff and legal counsel should be directed to prepare such an ordinance. With such a directive, a preliminary draft of the ordinance (or conceivably a final draft, if all is acceptable) would be presented to the Council at its November 14 or November 28 meeting. If the ordinance is in acceptable form at that time, it would be given its public reading and would be formally adopted with the ordinance to take effect on the date of publication or some other date if so stipulated. Preliminary staff discussion is that should the Council elect to pursue an ordinance allowing wine licensing, it would be beat to investigate a combination license for 3.2 boor and wino, but maintain the single beer license. To us, it is easier to conceive of an establishment wanting beer only than to sea an establishment that would want the wine but no boor. Ono example would be the Monticello Country Club, which does not meet the roquiremonto of the Statute no a restaurant and, no ouch, would not qualify for a wine license. By maintaining our 3.2 on -sale license as is, they would be able to secure just the boor license and not be faced with the restaurant question and the necessity of purchasing a wine license. Other details that would rolato to the Issuing of a wine license would be worked out between the staff and legal counsel and would than be pr000ntad to the Council for their reaction. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Authorize the preparation of an ordinance chat will allow the issuance of a wino license. - 13 - Council Agenda — 10/24/83 Authorize the preparation of an ordinance that would allow for the issuance of a combined wine and 3.2 beer license. 3. Take no action thus allowing the ordinances to stand as is and the issuance of a wine license would still be prohibited. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Our preliminary recommendation is to authorize the preparation of a preliminary ordinance which would allow for the issuance of a combined 3.2 beer and wine on -sale license. We further recommend that the existing ordinance relating to 3.2 beer remain intact as is. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the Minnesota Statute relating to on-salo wine licenses. - 14 - 310.11 WTOXICATING I,IVL'ONS 6524 Suhd. 20. On -sale wltie licenses. (a) "On -+ale wine licenses- %hall mean licenses authorizing the sale of wine not exceeding 14 percent alcohol by xolume. for consumption on the licensed premnes only, in conjunction wtih the .sale if food. (b) For purposes of this .subdi%ision "restaurant" shall mean an establishment. under the control of a single proprietor or manager, hasmg appropriate facilities for serving meals. and where, in consideration of payment therefor, meals are regularly served at tables to the general public. and which employs an adequate staff to provide the usual and suitable service to its guests. (c) Any municipality which maintains a municipal liquor store or am municipality or county authorized to issue 'on -sale" loccroscs for the sale of intoxicating liquor may issue un -sale wine licenses to any restaurant having facilities for seating not fewer than 25 guests at one time. "nie licenses shall he in addition to the number of on -sale licenses for the sale of intoxicating liquor authorized by the intoxicating liquors act. The fee for on -sale %me licenses shall be set by the issuing authority, but shall not exceed one-half of the license fee charged by the issuing authority for an on.. -We license, Air $2.000. uhichexer is less. Licenses issued pursuant to this subdivision shall not he effccuxc until apprised by the commissioner. hhe licenses shall amhorue the sale of %me as hcrem provided on all days of the week unless the issuing authontx restncis the hccnsds authorization to the sale of wine on all days other than Sunda%. Suhd. 21. Liability Insurance. lacry person licensed to sell at retail mtou- r. ring liquor or non -intoxicating milt liquor at on -sale Air off s:dc shill. after March 1. 1983, demonstrate protf or financial respomihdnx with regard to liability imposed by section 340.95, w the commissioner of public .alfa% .n a condition of the issuance or renewal Air his license, pnnided this subdivision does not apply It) min -intoxicating mall liquor licensees with sacs of less than $10.000 of non -intoxicating malt liquor per year, nor tit holders of on -sale wme licenses under suMlitston 20. with sales of less than SIOAX) of wine per year Proof if hnamial responsibility ma) he green b) filing: (a) A certificate that there is in effect an insurance puhcy or pool pruudmg the filloumg minimum cmer.igcs: (I 1550.000 helaaxe of Kiddy injury to any one per%on in ant, tine occurrence. and, subject w the limit for one person. est the amount of S1000I0 heozsusc of hodd) mJury lit two Air more persons in any tine occurrent.e, and in the amount Air SI0.000 because til mjuty to or destruction of property of others m ans tine occurrence. (2) 550,000 for loss or means of support of any one penin in ans tine occurrence, and, subject to the limn for zine person. SIMSO) for las, if means if suppurt of two or more persons in any one occurrence: it (b) A bund of a surety company %ith minimum coscr,iecs as proxidcd in clause (a), it (c) A certificate of the stale treasurer that the licensee has deposited with him $100.000 in with or sccumics which may Icgall) he purshawd by saxmgx hunks it for trust funds hasmg a market value of SIM.000. This subdivision docs not prohibit a heal guxcrnmg unit from requiring higher insurance or Mind coverages, it a larger deposit of cash or securmc% than is required hereunder, at, a condition of issuance or renewal of a retail intoxicating liquor or nun-mtoxiwting malt hquor on -sale or off -sale license. The commissioner of insurance shall advise licensers and mumcrpahties subject to the financial respns oibility requirements of this suhdnmon td those perwms offering insurance coxcrage. The commnsmner of insurance may, if 4" �r Council Agenda - 10/24/83 11. Consideration of County Road 75 and 39 Upqrading. (J.S.) A. REFEREICE AND BACKGROUND: The City of Monticello has been requesting that the County upgrade County Road 75/39 through Monticello since 1979. Last year, in 1982, at the Council's request, members of the staff of the City of Monticello went before the County Board to again request upgrading of County Road 75/39. At that time the County Board looked favorably upon the project but did state that they did assemble a priority list based upon a spring inspection of possible road projects. They gave no guarantees that the project would be done in 1984. We learned late in 1982 that the project had not been budgeted for by the County. We have again requested that the County reconsider upgrading this highway. Mr. Wayne Fingalson, the Wright County Engineer, and Mr. Basil Schillewaert, our County Board member from this area, have indicated that it would be best to again formally request this project in the form of a letter. We are basically requesting upgrading of that portion of the highway which has a center median. This would basically be from Chestnut Street on the west end of torn to the high school in the east end of town. There has, however, been some discussion about the shoulders. There is a dofinita need to pave the shoulders from the west end of town past the elementary school to approximately Otter Creek Road. In addition, there have been some problems with the shoulders on the cast and of town. The County maintains these shoulders and they cannot always keep up with the work due to the high volume of traffic in this area. Quite often the shoulder gots deproaoed from the edge of the highway and has caused some accidents, especially in wet or winter weather. I, therefore, have included into this lottor a request that the County look into paving the shoulders.. This is not a formal authorization for them to include it in the project, just to make soma cost estimates and such. The County will be meeting Tuesday to prepare their budget for 1984. It is our understanding that this request, which we have again firmed up by letter, will be budgeted for. As you may remember, County Municipal projects have a funding of 70/30. we would pay approximately 30% of the construction costs. For our budget for 1984 we estimated tho construction cost to be approximately $165,000.00. We, therefore, placed approximately 15 - Council Agenda - 10/24/83 $50,000.00 in the budget for our share of that portion of the project. Also needed along Broadway are repairs to utilities and manhole replacement. We have included another. $10,000.00 in the budget for these items. This brings our total estimated cost of the project to $60,000.00. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: At this particular time there did not appear to be any alternatives but to proceed ahead as planned,to determine whether the County is willing to upgrade this roadway,and to develop design and cost data to be considered by the Council at a later date. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: It is the staff recommendation that we proceed as planned. The City has already began investigating the condition of the utilities and the need for repairs along this roadway. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Lotter to the County Board, March 9, 1983, from the City. Letter to the County Board, September 18, 1979, from the City. Let Lur to the County Board, Oetobor 21, 1983, from the City. - 16 - T.i«1,hnr�e 795 7711 1.1--n L--- 333'5137 250 East Broadway Route 4, Box 83A MONTICELLO. MN 55362 March 9, 1983 Wright County Board of Commissioners Wright County Courthouse Buffalo, Minnesota 55313 RE: Maintenance of County Road 75 within Monticello. Gentlemen: The City of Monticello has in hast years been under contract with the County for minor maintenance, snow plowing and sanding on various County roads within the City of Monticello. One such stretch of road has been County Road 75 from the intersection of County Roads 39 and 116 on the cast side of Monticello to the Wayside inn near the Pinewood elementary school on the west aide of Monticello. Until 1979, the routine maintenance consisting of patching, crack - sealing, mowing, snow plowing and icu removal was portormcd by the City. The City was paid $595.10_1or maintaining this .822 miles of roadway for the year 197a I % ? -1 )0 :.aq In April of 1979, the City cuntacted the Wright County Engineer, Mr. tarry Koenig, about the deteriorating condition of County Road 75, especially that portion from our high school to the elementary school. The condition of the roadway was such that the City could no longer keep up with the crack sealing and patching . An agrsoment was made with Mr. Koenig that the County would asaumo reoponaibility for crack sealing and patching and that the City would perform only very minor maintenance on County (toad 75, but continuo all snow plowing and ice removal. Mr. Koenig waft to draw up a new contract and initiate county repair work on County Road 75. The crack sealing was performed a short time later by county crews. Some of the board mcmlxesa may remember this, asthe sealing material did not act up and tracked into buuincus placco in Monticello "nd attached itself to hundredo of cars. Sand wan then applied and a corduroy surface rusultud. tutor in 1979, much of the crack sealer waL: bladed off, making the road- way bearable again. The County som:what later completed the milling project un the south ride Irum llwy 25 east to the high school making chin a smuuth uurface ag,lin. '/ ` 7/f/M "a to Alonlice(lo . . . little •nountain Wright County Board of Commissioners March 9, 1983 Page N2 Mr. Koenig did not make a new contract with the City prior to his departure. it is our understanding that Mr. Wayne Fingalson discovered no contract existed at all in December of 1961. He then forwarded a letter with a copy of the old contract data sheet to Mr. Gary Wieber who was then City Administrator. Mr. Wieber never did answer the letter and thus, a now contract with the County was never drawn up. The City has continued to receive reimbursement for snow plowing, ice plowing, as well as routine maintenance for County Road 75 as well as other streets. The reimbursements for County Road 75 have been as follows: b 1979 $689.85 9 (,.O 14, 1980 $748.83 1981 $779.60 - 2 Z��-�• 1982 $1,106.72 The City has continued maintenance of all those County roads proviously under contract. Although County Road 75 has received lose crack coaling or patching by us, as we were under the impression the County was main- taining it, other roads have received more. In 1981 and 1982, the City expended $4,500 in oeal coating costs alone on CSAR 58 and 59. Basically, it is the City's request that the County seriously look into up grading County Road 75 in Monticello. it is clearly in a more do- teriorated condition than any other roadways within the City of Monti- cello. we would also wish to formulate a new maintenance agreement with you. Tho Mayor, Arve Crimemo, the City Administrator, Tam Eidem, and myself, if possible, wish to be placed on the agenda for the Board'a March 15th meeting. Thin is our socond request for ouch a mooting. Fnclosod is a letter sent in 1979 about the same subject. It is my understanding that no mooting even became of that request. Pleono inform us of your plans. Acapecifull��� Jo�imola puhlre works Director cc: Arve Grim Gmo Wayne Fingaloon Tom F.idem Corvespondence Filo A City n/ M1011fic•eatp 2:d) East ar,+athvty MONTICELLO. MN 55362 U :eptemhnr In. 1979 Mr. Paul McAlpine, Chairman Wright County C.ummissioners Kaple lake, Minnesota 55358 BE: Improv--ment of County Road 75 in Monticello Dear Paul: Pursuant to a directive received from the Monticello City Council at its Septcmher 10, 1979 meeting. 2 am writing you on behalf of the City Council to Irnve the Wright County Board of Commissioners consider the improvement of wrlghtt County Road 75 in Monticello. Numerous complaints have been received from citizens in the Monticello community relative. to the condition of the road. Of primary concern is the portion of County Road 75 between Pinewood School (the olemenary school on the west side of town), and the nigh School on the oast side of town. it should too nated that a short time ago this portion of County Road 75 was reviewed with Wright County rngineer, tarry Koenig, and Wright County Covenicsioner, Lowell Zachman. At that time. it was indicated that this >ort3un of Wright County 75 was not scheduled for an overlay for approxi- mately three to frnu years due to the fact that the base was still quite good and there were other areas in the County that had a higher priority than titin t,pecific Stretch of road. At their neetin3, the Monticello City Council ctaphasitod the fact that this particular stretch of road) has an extensive amount of traffic and due to the numerous complaints received, it was felt by the City Council that the Mayor and the City Administrator should contact Wright County Cammissioners to request that this stretch of road be improved as soon as possible and be budgeted for in 1980.jjfuAf.41 4e,*" 4.1.e — C%1y+ „vas A'1'4f iY pj* L.dss�� « • Md114w Vsk i r✓e pier t�llr, Arve Grimsmo, Mayor, and thyself would'ba glad to meet with the Wright (-ounty Board of Camel asioners or any committee to review our particular .r✓ request . Should you have any further questions , please contact me at qy oe� your convunience. Sin arsly. r•., /(, , ,/., . ry akar "ty Inlnistrator no ret w•25-12 Larry K r}t.t, toWell Zachmen,�Cou�ncilmembers yrs+ TelePh- 7954711 Cly y o/ tf//onlicelk 250 East Broadway Route 4, Box 83A MONTICELLO, MN 55362 October 21, 1983 Mr. Wayne Fingalson County Engineer Wright County Courthouse Buffalo, MN 55313 RE: Upgrading of County Road 75 within Monticello Gentlemen. Metro Line 3335739 The City of Monticello has for some time now been requesting upgrading of County Road 75 through Monticello. As you may remember, members of the staff of the City of Monticello met with the County Board in the summer of 1982 again to firm up a request for this projocC. The County, however, due to other priorities and lack of funds was unable to do the project in 1983. We would, therefore, again like to formally request that the County upgrade County Road 75 within Monticello from Chestnut Street on the west end of town to the Monticello High School on the cast and of town. The City of Monticello has placed into it's budget for 1984 30% of the estimated project cost. There has also recently been some concern over the shoulders on the west end of town, specifically that portion from Chestnut Strcat to Otter Creek Road near the elementary school. We believe there is justification at this time to look into the paving of the shoulders in that area. We would also wish the County to prepare some tout estimates an to the paving of the shoulders on the cast end of town. The City may be interested in participation in that portion of the project also. Please inform us of your decision no that we may prepare plana for utility repairs prior to the County Municipal project. We look forward to working with you on the design and implemontation of this project. Thank you for your consideration. RoPeCtfully 1/7 ,- i John Simola ' Public Works Director City of Monticello JS/ked ( CC: hrVo A. Grimamo ! Thomas A. Eidom County Corrospondenco Pilo JS Welcome 10 Moniito[lo told mountain Council Agenda - 10/24/83 12. Consideration of Zoning Map Amendment - Blocks 32 and 17. (G.A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: This is a request to add to the zoning map an amendment of Blocks 32 and 17 from an R-2 Zone to a B-4 Zone. The City of Monticello was the applicant in the initial request and a public hearing was held of the Planning Commission on October 4, 1983. The Planning Comission approved it unanimously. The property has been in turn sold to Security Federal for development purposes, therefore, necessitating the request for rezoning from an R-2 Zone to a B-4 Zone. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Proceed to have the consulting engineering firm, OSM, prepare maps with the new map amendment of Blocks 32 and 17. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from October 4, 1983. - 17 - �� c MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION October 4, 1983 - 7:30 P.M. Members Present: Richard Carlson, Joyce Dowling, Ed Schaffer. Members Absent: Jim Ridgeway, Don Cochran. Staff Present: Gdry Anderson, Thomas Eidem. The meeting was called to order at 7:36 P.M. by Joyce Dowling, acting Chairperson. 2. Approval of the Minutes of the Peqular Seutember 6, 1983, Planning, Commission Mcetinq. A motion was made by Richard Carlson, seconded by Ed Schaffer, to approve the September 6, 1983, Planning Commission Meeting hinnies. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Public Hoarinq - City of Monticello Hazoninq Heeuest. Planning Commission C9,airperson, Joyce Dowling, opened the public hearing with any comments from the public. Zoning Administrator Anderson said that he received a telephone message from Mr. Clifford Olson, resident property owner across the street from the Oakwood Block, stating he had no objection to the rezoning of the Oakwood Block. Mr. Thomas Eidem, City Administrator representing the City as the affected property owner, stated some background as to why the City was asking for the rezoning from R-2 to B-4. The original intent for the property was to tons it residential, one and two family dwellings. The abandonmant of walnut Street and the removal of the existing houses from the now library sito has warranted the City to ask for rezoning of the Oakwood Block from an R-2 to a 0-4 Zeno. A motion was made by Ed Schaffer, seconded by Richard Carlson, to approve the rezoning request from an R-2 Zone to a B-4 Zone. The motion was carried unanimously. 4. Public Nearing - Milton Olson - Hard Surfacing, Parkin Lot Variance Request. Planning commission Chairperson, Joyco Dowling, opened the public hosting with Milton Olson prouent to oxplain the purpose of Ilia request for the hard surfacing of his parking lot. Mr. Olson briefed the Planning Comnensiun memlxiru on Iiia project, that being a 60' x 120' Council Agenda - 10/24/83 13. Consideration of Authorizinq the Preparation of an Ordinance Permitting Gambling and Providing Licenses Therefor. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND The American Legion Club, and perhaps the VFW, have been selling pull -tabs as part of their operation for quite some time. Jay Miller expressed some concern that they were operating a gambling operation, which is permitted under the Statute but which is not yet permitted under City Ordinance. As our Ordinances currently stand, the operation of a gambling game would be prohibited since it is not specifically allowed under any provision. Jay thus came to me to ask if the City would consider an ordinance allowing certain forms of gambling. Much like the wine license question, the Council must determine first whether or not it wishes to allow gambling within the City and if it intends to license such an activity. If it is the concensus that such an activity should to allowed and licensed, then direction should be given for staff and legal counsel to prepare a preliminary ordinance for review. The n upon satisfactory review with any additions, corrections, or re- visions, the final ordinance would be given a public reading, published and enacted. Perhaps only a month ago I would have seen this particular issue as a rather minor request that the City could easily adopt. Now, however, in light of the recent news items showing that pull -tabs and ticket jars can be "fixed", this may complicate the decision- making process. One issue is critical to this item. If we are going to allow gambling to occur within clubs, then we ought to license it so shat it is run properly and exercise care in the protection of the general public. If we are not going to allow gambling and not issue licenses therefor, we must make a concerted effort that gambling be prohibited. Thus, if the clubs continue to operate a gambling game without a license, their entire operational license, meaning liquor, sat -ups, etc., can be revoked and prosecution should be pursued. It is my understanding that by allowing gambling to oce ur without it baing properly licensed, a severe loser could, in fact, turn toward the City to recover it's costs. The entire notion of gambling can became a very ticklish issue. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Authorize the preparation of an ordinance regulating and licensing gambling - this, In eseanco, gives the staff direction to - 18 - Council Agenda - 10/24/83 coordinate with legal counsel the preparation of an ordinance that can be adopted at a future meeting. 2. Take no action - this basically states that gambling shall not be permitted within the City. The extended ramifications of this action is that we will have to beef up enforcement on all gambling activities that currently occur. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Since gambling device in this particular ordinance means paddle- wheels, tip boards, and pull -tabs, along with raffles, I do not see any major difficulty in allowing them and licensing them. The ordinance does not apply to professional gambling devices like slot machines and blackjack tables, etc. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the Minnesota Statutes that refer to gambling; Copy of a sample ordinance received from the City of Eden Prairie. 19 - 344.26 GAMBLING DEVICLS. Subdivision 1. Por the purl%o%cs of thi% action the terms defined in this section have the meaning. 91%01 them. Subd. 2. "Gamblintdevices' means those gamhlin� deices known as "pad- ellewheefs" or "tiphuards . "pull -tabs'- (or "ticket jars y. or apparatus used in conducting raffles. Subd. 3. "Paddlewheel" means a wheel marked off into section% containing one or more numbers- and which. after being turned or spun, uses a pointer or marker to indicate winning chances. Solid. 4. "Tiphoord" means a holtrd. placard or other deuce measuring at least 12 inches square. marked off in a grid or columns- in which each section contains a hidden number or numbers, or other symbol. which determines the winning chances. Solid. 5. "Rattle" means a game in which a participant buys a ticket for a chance at a prize with the winner determined by a random drawing to take place at a hacation and date printeJ upon the ticket. Solid. 5a. "Pull -tab +" for "ticket jars") means a single folded or handed ticket or a card, the face nl which is initially cowered, or otherwise hidden from view, to conceal a number or set of numbers tit a ymtrd or set of symbols. A few of tote number of symlwh out of every set of pull -tabs (ax ticket dars) will have been designated in advance and at random as pnrcwmncrs:. A participant pays a consideration to an operator for the opportunity to obtain a folded or handed ticket or a card, view the numbers (or %)mlyds on it and possibly (obtain a pritewtmmng pull -tab (tit ticket jar). SubJ. 6. "Prolit" mean% the grass receipt, from the ttpenuon of gambling devices and the conduct of raffles, less reasonahte sums upended for prizes, local licensing fees, taxes and maintenance costs for the doicec. Subd. 7. Nothing in this section shall he construed it, authorize any use. possession or opciation of: (a) Any gambling device which is activated by the inversion of a coin or token- or N Any gambling game or device in which the winning numbers, tickets or chances ate to any way determined by the outetmrtr of any athletic contest or sporting event. SuhJ. 8. Any county or city mai establish a system tot the licensing of organizations to operate gambling devices and ht conduct raffles. The system may include a fee for each ftceme in an amount to he determined b the local governin body f.icensts issued pursuant to this section shall be valid for one year, and may he suspended or revoked for any %iolation tit this section. A focal governing body shall act on a license application within 180 days from the date of application, but shall not asue a license until at Ieast 30 days after the date of the application. Nothing in this section shall lir construed to prohibit a county or city Rom adopting rules or ordinances for the t". -ration at g,ambhng devices or the Conduct (if raffle% that are more re%trtctive than state law, including rules or otdntatnck prohrbnutg the operation of such down,,, Sidi! 4 Iv%uattce of tk-avne. t tvemc% shall he tsvueJ only to a liaternal. reltguous, %eteran% or olliet nonproht arganvanun shah 1t a corporation. fund. foond,oton. trust, or as.ott.tllon organtred tta c%sluktvet% scientific. literat), rehgut» thantahlc, edit 11,111 1 too artiotc utposc%. or for die purpose of making %oourhunon% to or for du tow cd the t'nneJ Statin the state tit'itznnemta. or an) of 11% ptdwcal suhdnt%tuns for e%tlu%t%01) puhlu purr%oscv. or for am combination of she ah+%c•cnumer.ttrJ purfknek, it no pan of the net Income of an) Lith unlwuauon, fund. loundatioo, huo of a%%o%1.numuumc. w the bench of un% P1t%ate tncott%cr, moLkluMcr, ter tndt%tdual. or 1%a vtuh orgamred and operated ekvlu%1%cl) for plcasute. rctrestion, or other nonpoifdahle purptne%, no part of the net ou.mur of %huh more% to the bench, td am pn%ate rnemher. stol kholder. or 3 • At i 6623 BINGO. GAMBLING DEVICES Sipa The local unit of government may authorize raffles to he conducted by a licensed organization on premises not owned or leased by the organization. No lease shall provide that rental payments he based on a percentage of receipts or profits from gambling devices ix raffles. Copies of :dl teases shall ht priwkfed to the lictming hxal unit of government. Solid. 15. Taal prize award itm(ts. Total prizes from the operation of paddleuheels, tiphoants and pulbtahs fur ticket jars) awarded in any single day in which they are operated shall not exceed Sl -0X10. Total prizes resulting from any single spin of a paddlewheel, or from any single seal of a tiphoard, each upboard limited to a single seat, or from a single pull -tab (or ticket jar). shall not exceed $150. Total prizes awarded in any calendar year by any organization from the operation of paddlewheels, tiphiards and pull -tabs (or ticket jars) and the conduct of raffles. except as provided in subdivision 15a, shall not exceed 535,0011. Merchandise prizes shall he valued at fair market retail value, The county attorney of each county shalt he responsible for investigating and. if appropriate, prosecuting organizations for violations of this section. Sold. 15a. Escelsioa: total prize awards Und atlsxe. (a) An organization which directly or under contract to the mate or a political subdivision delivers health or social services and which is exempt from taxation pursuant to section 501(cM3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended through December 30, 1981, may award total prizes in a calendar year from the conduct of raffles. in excess of the limitation prmided in subdivision 15, provided the prizes consist of teat or personal property donated to the organization by an individual, corpon. tion. or other organization and. except as provided in clause (b), provided the organization complies with the other requirements and restrictions of section 349.26. (h) For the purposes of this subdivision, an orggaanization covered b clause (I) is not subject to the membership limitations of sulxfivistons 9, 11, and 12. nor to rhe compensation limitations of subdivision 12. Subject to the other requirements of subdit inion 13, the person who accounts for groes rectipts. expenses, and profits from the conduct of raffles may he the same person who accounts for other revenues of the urg inization. Suld. 16. Violation of any provision of this section is a misdemeanor, This subdivision that) not preclude civil or cnmuait action under other applicable law or preclude any agency of government from investigating or prosecuting violations of the provisions of Ibis section. f ihtor): 1978 c V7 s 3, 1979 c 3!3 s d; f 9Rf c .101 a 1-8: 1982 c 538 s 2: 1982 c .470 x 1.3 . _M I1F;FY\f11f s. Suhdomon 1. for the purpines of sections 34930 to U939, unless a different meaning w mdivaled by the context, the words, terms, and phrases defined to this section shall have the meanings goers them. Suhd. 2. "Gambling devices" means slot mikhtri , roulette wheeK punch- hiards, and pin hall mrthtncs whish return vomx or slugs, vhips, or tokens of any kind. which are redeemable in merchandise or cixh. Suhd. 3. Vermin— means an indnidual, a copartnership, an aiusciation, a coipivation, or any other entity or organization Solid. 4. "lvfunicipahq" means any county, city, tit tow n. Suhd. 5. "1 tcenst" includes permits 44 every kind. nature and description iswcd pursuant In am %wtuic or ordinance fur the canymg on of any business, trade. uxatum, tommercial enterprise or undertaking ck�) 3025 BINGO, GAMBLING DEVICES M24 individual, which organization has hen in cimcnec for :u Ica %i three vear• Still has at least IS active memhers, as defined on scown }44.12. subdivi,ton 2. Suhd. 10. Profits from the operation ttf gamhhng Jc%icc. it the conduct ,•f raffles shall he used solely (,it lawful purposes as Jefmcd In sccnio y4+)12. subdivision 6, and as authorued at a regular meeting of the urganvant.n Suhd, 11. All operation of , mbling deuces and the conduct of raffh• %Ball be under the superwsam of a single gambling manager do Ignored hs the otgantvS tion. The gambling manager %half he resphtnsdfe (or gross reccrph and profit, from gambling Jo ices and raffles and for thea operation. The gamhfratp, ntm.Iger shall give a frdtlity h+nd in the wm of 310011) to favor if the organimit"u conditioned -if the it pciromsrnce of his duties. and the Nona and I hr x.m rr thereof shall he subject tit the same provisions a% those applying to the hand required of a bingo manager pursuant to section 349.12, whJvvlon 7, A pen -An may act as hath gambling manager and hmgo man" oer lir a %ingk org•.tmtntton. hw a gambling manager for a Burgle organvation shallfnol art I%cithcr a g.unhhog manager or hmg,t manager for am tither t+rgmizatian. A gamhhng nianager Nor an organitatson shall be an aetise member of the organv"u,n, a% defined m section }49.12. whdovton 2. Suhd. Q. No compen%auon in excess if $25 a week. shall he p.oJ in connection w nh the opcsation of a gambling Je%ice or the conduct oda raffle hs a licensed rtrganization turpt a beenwJ org;amratson ma% cleat to pay a pcucnt of raffle ticket sales to nonprofit organizations wiling (or the hccn% org;tmr.rhon• No person who is not an active member if an orgamaitfon, or its ausilaan. it the spouse or survning spouse of an active membermayy participate in the orgaoria- tum's Operation or a gambling device it conduct of a raffle except the licensed organization may utilize normrmher nonprofit organizations in raffle tirke sate%, Sulid. 13. Each organization hrensed to operate gambling des ices shall keep records of its gross receipts. quantity of free plays. it am', c%prnscs and profti% for each single��,,,arthering w rt<casion at which prithling doice% are operated for a raffle is Concocted. All deductions from grams rcceipls for each single fathering it occasion shall he documented with receipts or other records inJicaungg the aeutom. a description of the purchased nem or service ser other icason fpr the JeduClu+ia and the recipiew the distrthumin of pndns shall he otemired as to payee. purpose, amount and date of payment. Groes receipts from the operation of g.nthhng de%lco. and the conduct Id raffles shall he segregated from other reenact of the orgamzation, Including hutgn gnus receipts, and placcJ to a separate account. cath orgamr"thin shall h.Ite separate records of n% gambling operations. 1 he pers n who account% for gross receipts, expenses and profits from the operation of gan+hting dc%i eo or the conduct of raffles may he the same persin %hit account% for hmgo gni%%rccctpn. expenses and profits, 1 akh org.nur,ition IcCowd tit ipterate ganshluigu dece% of lit otnduo I"fflo shall repsnt monthly to its tnemhershrp. onJ it) the lacrosIng IoaSf unit of gosernment, it. grits% rcccipti, c%penu. and p ofii% from gamhhng Jritc% it raffles, and the dvuibutsin All prtdit% itenitzctl a% required in this .ulhlomon Record% required by thv %tvuon shall he prc%n%cJ for ihreC %coos, mid urg,unzau,m%%hall ns de a%"d,Ihk ihcs• records relating Io operation ati(amhhng devices aoJ life coudutl of rafflh for puhht mytsuon at tai onahlc time+ .Ind plate, SuhJ 14 (iamfthar de%itc%+half Inc oo�scr.tted Snl raffles %indittled h% a hcCnseJ org,uuz.ruun only uihm lift! c% 6 uth n owns At trash cucpl Uut otkeo for rafflh conducted in attorJanc:e with this .moon m is he moi off the '�%promisee 1 cases. unless authorizeJ In another location h% the Itwal unit of government. %hail he (An is pco od %4 not (cw th.in lute year anil shall t%e on wmtng ORDINANCE NO. 1-83 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 5 BY ADDING THERETO SECTION 5.40 RELATING TO THE REGULATION, LICENSING AND USE OF GAMBLING DEVICES, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER I AND SECTIONS 5.01 THROUGH 5.11 AND SECTION 5.99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. City Code Chapter 5 shall be and is amended by adding thereto Sec. 5.40 which reads as follows: SEC. 5.40. GAMBLING DEVICES. Subdivision 1. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to regulate and control the conduct of certain gambling activities pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 349.26. Subd. 2. Definitions. For the purposes of this ordinance the terms defined in this ordinance have the fallowing meanings. (a) "Gambling devices" means those gambling devices known as "paddle wheels" or "tip boards", "pull tabs" (or "ticket jars"), or apparatus used in conducting raffles. (b) "Paddle wheel" means a wheel marked off into sections containing one or more numbers, and which, after being turned or spun, uses a pointer or marker to indicate winning chances. (c) "Tip board" means a board, placard or device measuring at least twelve incites square, marked off in a grid or columns, in which each section contains a hidden number or numbers, or other symbol, which determines the winning chances. (d) "Raf tie" means a game in which a participant buys a ticket for a chance at a prize with the winner determined by random drawing to take place at a Iocaticn and date printed upon the ticket. (e) "Pull tabs" (or "ticket jars") means a single folded or banded ticket or a card, the face of which is initially covered, or otherwise hidden from view, to conceal a number or set of numbers or a symbol or set of symbols. A few of the numbers or symbols out of every set of pull tabs (or ticket jars) will have been designated in advance and at random as prize winner- The participant pays a consideration to an operator for the opportunity to obtain a folded or banded ticket or a card, view the numbers or symbols on it and possibly obtain a prize winning pull tab (or ticket jar). a (f) "Profit" means the gross receipts from the operation of gambling devices and the conduct of raffles, less reasonable sums expended for prizes, local licensing fees, taxes and maintenance costs for the devices. (g) "Gambling manager" means a member who has paid all his dues to the organization and has been a member of the organization for at least two years and has been designated by an organization to supervise gambling activities conducted by it. (h) "Active member' means a member who has paid all his dues to the organization and has been a member of the organization for at least six months. (f) "Organization" means a fraternal, religious, veterans or other nonprofit organization which is a corporation, fund, foundation, trust, or association organized for exclusively scientific, literary, religious, charitable, educational, or artistic purposes, or for the purpose of making contributions to or for the use of the United States, the State of Minnesota, or any of its political subdivisions for exclusively public purposes, or for any combination of the above enumerated purposes, if no part of the net income of any such corporation, fund, foundation, trust, or association inures to the benefit of any private member, stockholder, or individual, or is a club organized and operated exclusively for pleasure, recreation, or other nonprofitable purposes, no park of the net income of which inures to the benefit of any private member, stockholder or individual, which organization has been in existence for at least three years and has at least IS active members. "Lawful purpose" means one or more of the following% (1) Benefiting persons by enhancing their opportunity for religious or educational advancement, by relieving or protecting them from disease, suffering or distress, by contributing to their physical well being, by assisting them in establishing themselves in life as worthy and useful citizens, or by increasing their comprehension of and devotion to the principals upon which this nation was founded; (2) Initiating, performing, or fostering worthy public works or enabling or furthering the erection or maintenance of public structures; (3) Lessening the burdens born by government or voluntarily supporting, augmenting or supplementing services which government would normally render to the people; or (4) The Improving, expanding, maintaining or repairing real property owned or leased by an organization. "Lawful purpose" does not Include the erection or acquisition of any real property, unless the Cit ;necifically authorizes the expenditure after finding that the property will be used exclusively for one or more of the purposes specified in this subdivision_ (k) Nothing in the City Code shall be construed to authorize any use, possession or operation of t (1) Any gambling device which is activated by the insertion of a coin or token; or (2) Any gambling game or device in which the winning numbers, tickets or chances are in any way determined by the outcome of any athletic contest or sporting event. Subd. 3. license Requirement. A system for the licensing of organizations to operate gambling devices and to conduct raffles is hereby established. No person shall directly operate a gambling device or conduct a raffle except as authorized by statute and the City Code and unless a license to do so, as provided in this section has first been obtained. Subd. 4. Fees and Application Procedure. (a) There are two types of licenses which may be issued by the City for each device or occasion: (1) A single occasion temporary license or (2) An annual license. All single occasion temporary licenses are valid only on the dates specified, which may not exceed 3 consecutive days. Annual licenses shall expire one year after the date of issuance. (b) Action on the application shall be taken in decordance with section 5.03 of the City Code, provided however the application shall be acted on within 130 days from the date of application, but a license shall not be issued until at least 30 days after the date of the application. (c) The application shall contain an agreement on the part of the applicant that if the license being applied for is granted, the licensee will save the City, its officers and agents harmless against any claims or actions and the cost of defending any claims or actions arising out of or by reason of the granting of the license or the conduct of any of the activities authorized by the license. Subd. 5. Issuance of License. An annual license may be issued only to a fraternal, religious or veterans organization. A single occasion temporary license may be issued only to an organization. Subd. 6. Profits. Profits from the operation of gambling devices or the conduct of rdffles shall be uwd solely for lawful purposes and as authorized at a regular meeting of the organization, provided, however, except for profits from the conduct of raffles by the holder of a single occasion temporary license, at least 60 percent of the profits must be used for one or more of the purposes enumerated in (1), (2) or (3), subparagraph (j), Subd. 2 of this Section for persons or objects within the City. Subd. 7. Conduct of Gambling. All operation of gaw' :'.ng devices and the conduct of raffles shall be under the supervision of a single gambling manager designated by the organization. The gambling manager shall be responsible for gross recvipts and profits from garttbling davices and raffles and for their operation. The gambling manager shall give a fidelity twnd in the surn of $10,000 in favor of the organization conditioned on the faithful performance of his duties. A gambling manager for a single organization shall not act as a gambling manager for any other organization. A gambling manager for an organization shall be an active member of the organization. Subd. S. Compensation. No compensation in excess of $25 a week, shall be paid in connection with the operation of a gambling device or the conduct of a raffle by a licensed organization except a licensed organization may elect to pay a percent of raffle ticket sales to nonprofit organizations selling for the licensed organization. No person who is not an active member of an organization, or its auxiliary, or the spouse or surviving spouse of an active member may participate in the organization's operation of a gambling device or conduct of a raffle except the licensed organization may utilize nonmember nonprofit organization in raffle ticket sales. Subd. 9. Reporting Requirements. (a) Each organization licensed to operate gambling devices shall keep records of its gross receipts, quantity of free plays, if any, expenses and profits for each single gathering or occasion at which gambling devices are operated or a raffle is conducted. All deductions from gross receipts for e;�Ch single gathering or occasion shall be documented with receipts or other records indicating the amount, the description of the purchased item or service or other reason for the deduction, and the recipient. The distribution of profits shall be Itemized as to payee, purpose, amount and date of payment. (b) Gross receipts from the operation of gambling devices and the conduct of raffles shall be segregated from other revenues of the organization and placed in a separate account. Each organization shall have separate records of its gambling operations. The person who accounts for gross receipts, expenses and profits from the operation of gambling devices or the conduct of raffles may be the same person who accounts for other revenues of the licensed organization. (c) Each organization licensed to operate gambling devices or to conduct raffles shall report monthly to its membership, and to the City Clerk, Its gross receipts, expenses and profits from gambling devices or raffles, and the distribution of profits itemized as required in this section. (d) Records required by this ordinance shaft be preserved for three years, and organizations shall make available their records relating to operation of gambling devices and the conduct of rat ties for public inspection at reasonable times and places. (e) The City Manager may require a licensee at its expense to cause a review and examination by a licensed certified public account or other qualified person approved by the City Siartager of the books and records of the organization holding a license relating to the gambling activities conducted by It pursuant to such license and a report thereon by such person • , such extent and in such forth as the City Manager may require. Subd. 10. Eligible Premises. Gambling devices shall be operated and raffles conducted by an organization (a) holding an annual license only upon premises which it owns and (b) holding a single occasion temporary license only upon premises which it owns or leases, except that tickets for rallies conducted in accordance with this section (nay be sold off the premises by an organization holding either type of license. The City Clerk, upon approval by the City Council, may authorize raffles to be conducted by a licensed organization on premises not owned or leased by the organization. Leases shall be for a period of not fess than one year and shalt be in writing. No lease shall provide that rental payments be based on a percentage of receipts or profits from gambling devices or raffles. A copy of each lease shall be filed with the City Clerk at the time of the application for license and shall comprise a part of the application. Subd. 11. Prize Award Limits. (a) Total prizes from the operation of paddle wheels, tip boards and pull tabs (or ticket jars) awarded in any single day in which they are operated shall not exceed $1,000. Total prizes resulting from any single spin of a paddle wheel, or from any single seal of a tip board, each tip board limited to a single seat, or from a single pull tab (or ticket jar), shall not exceed $150. Total prizes awarded in any calendar year by any organization from the operation of paddle wheels, tip boards and pull tabs (or ticket jars) and the conduct of raffles, except as provided in clause (b) of this subdivision shall not exceed $35,000. Merchandise prizes shall be valued at fair market retail value. (b) (1) An organization which directly or under contract to the state or a political subdivision delivers health or social services and which is exempt from taxation pursuant to section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended through December 30, 1981, may award prizes in a calendar year born the conduct of rattles, in excess of the limitation provided in this section, provided the prizes consist of real or personal property donated to the organization by an individual, corporation, or other organization and, except as provided in clause (2), provided the organization complies with the other requirements and restrictions of this ordinance. (2) for the purposes of this subdivision, an organization covered by clause (1) is not subject to the membership limitations nor to the compensation limitations of this ordinance. Subd. 12. Termination Provision. This Sec. 5.40 shall terminate and cease to be effective on December 31, 1986, unless prior thereto the Council shall adopt an ordinance amending this Sec. 5.40 to extend its effective duration beyond such termination date. Any and all permits, licenses, privileges or rights of whatever nature issued, extended or granted in any manner by virtue of this section will terminate and become void on the date this section terminates. Section 2. City Code Chapter f entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and sections 5.01 through 5.11 and section 5.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective from an -latter Its passage and publication. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the ],I_ day of fthr_01v , 1983, and finally read and adopted and 13 -3- ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the .=day of Fepruap,__,198 3. ?ATES� Maypr ' JHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of , 1982. Council Agenda - 10/24/83 15. Consideration of Setting the Annual Salary Mectina. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE A14D BACKGROUND: Iasi year a special meeting for the express purpose of meeting with employees and setting salaries was held in November. Prior to that meeting I had met with the various employees and negotiated a salary increase. That amount was decreased by the Council at their meeting. In an earlier memo I suggested that a percentage ceiling be set by the Council, and that I be authorized to set salaries within that framework. This would separate the salary function and the evaluation function at that meeting. It is simply one alternative. To date, I have not discussed salary with any employee. As a result of the discrepancy last year, 1 am requesting some direction from the Council before I meet with the employees. Some of the things I think should be discussed are as follows: a) basic salary increase b) merit increase - where warranted c) position adjustment - are we paying comparable salaries for positions in other cities with like responsibilities? Ono additional note: if we are to maintain our past practice of meeting with the employee and setting the salary at the same time, 1 suggest we set the salary while the individual employee is present. That allows him/her to negotiate with the Council directly rather than having a verdict passed down after he/she has presented their caso. It allows the employee to respond to the salary offer. Basically, I think it would be best to either eliminate negotiations and simply have the Council mandato the salary adjustment, or keep the negotiations but in a direct employee -Council setting. Doing the former would not eliminate the need for an employee evaluation by the Council. Also, at ouch a meeting the employee may wish to appeal the original salary decision. The only action I am roquooting at this meeting is to set a special meeting. However, I would like acme idea of what direction you wish to Lake so that I may properly prepare. You may wish to have a special meeting (breakfast?) to determine otratogy and a second special meeting with the employees. No Alternative Actions, Staff Recommendation, or Supporting Data provided for this item. - 20 - LIQUOR FUND LIQUOR FUND DISBURSEMENTS - OCTOB?.h - 1983 AMOUNT CHECK N0. Commissioner of Revenue - Sales tax - August 6,924,50 10920 Ed Phillips 6 Sona - Liquor 2,281,.78 10921 MN. State Treasurer - PERA 38.36 10922 State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded. 20.00 10923 Commissioner of Revenue - SWT - Sept, 235.00 10921, Wright County State Bank - FWT - Sept. 369.50 10925 State Treasurer •- Social Security Contribution Fund - FICA - Sept. 399.06 10926 MN. State Treasurer - PERA 131.10 10927 Griggs, Cooper b Co. - Liquor 3,037.23 10928 Twin City Wine Co. - Liquor 1,579.56 10929 Northern States Pover - Utilities 752.49 10930 Ed Phillipe 6 Sons - Liquor 6,919.16 10931 State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded. 20.00 10932 Ed Phillips 6 Sons - Liquor 9,020.32 10933 Twin City Wine Co. - Liquor 1,640.13 10934 Griggs. Cooper 6 Co. - Liquor 2,270.87 10935 Commissioner of Revenue - Sales tax - Sept. 5,991.23 10936 Banker's Life Ins. - Group Ins. 542.82 10937 Monticello Office Products - Office supplies 5.00 10938 Yonak Sanitation - Garbage contract 92.80 10939 Liefert Trucking - Freight 249.87 10940 Monticello Times - Adv. 210.80 10941 Wright County State Bank - Deposit slips printing 6.75 10942 Maus Foods - Store expense 39.78 10943 Schabol Beverage, Inc. - Beer 2,125.40 109LL Kathy's Specialties - Misc. mdse. 81.00 10945 Day Diet. Co. - Beer 300.80 1091,6 7 Up Bottoming Co, - Misc. mdse. 254.40 10947 Viking Coca Cola - Misc. mdse. 440.25 10948 Jude Candy 6 Tobacco - Misc. mdse. 424.65 10949 Dick Beverage - Beer 2,361.00 10950 Dahlheimer Diet. Co. - Beer 7,883.52 10951 Thorpe Dist. - Beer 3,262.10 10952 Grosslein Beverage - Beer 7,918.45 10953 Old Dutch Foods - Misc. mdse. 113.11 10954 Flicker's T. V. - Micro vave 199.95 10955 MN. State Treasurer - PERA 121.84 10956 Bridgevater Telephone - Telephone 52.89 10957 Lovegren Iee - Purchase of ice 257.85 10958 Payroll for Septembor 3,520.86 TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS - OCTOBER $72,099.18 1983 -- GENERAL FUND - OCTOBER AMOUNT Lindsay Bros. - Parts for truck 47.08 Monticello Times - Publishing for August 202.21 North Central Section AWWA - Reg. fee for Walt Mack - Seminar 35.00 MN. NAHRO - Seminar fee for T. Eidem - Tax Exempt Revenue Bond 90.00 Corrow Sanitation - Contract payment 4,485.00 Gerald Hermes - Janitorial services at Library _125.00 MN. State Treasurer - Dep. Reg. fees 12.00 VOID 0 NJ1. State Treasurer - Dep. Reg. fees 29.00 Ultra Homes - Reimburse for fees previously paid - to be assessed 6,571.37 James Preusse - Cleaning city hall 250.00 Arve Grimsmo - Mayor salary 175.00 Dan Blonigen - Council salary 125.00 Mrs. Fran Fair - Council salary 125.00 Ken Maus - Council salary 125.00 Jack Maxwell - Council salary 125.00 YMCA of Mpls. - Montbly contract payment 28L.16 Gwen Bateman - Animal control for Sept. 753.13 MR. State Treasurer - PERA W/H 409.02 State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded. 144.04 State of MN. - NDC Training Session - Reg. fee for A. Pelvit 100.00 Commissioner of Revenue - SWT - Sept. 2,274.00 Wright County State Bank - FWT - Sept. 3,285.00 MN. State Treasurer - FICA - Sept. 4,232.60 State Treasurer - Building Code Div. - Permit surcharge - 3rd qtr. 859.70 MN. Pollution Control Agency - Reg. fee for A. Meyer 6 J. 11offmar 90.00 North Central Public Service - Utilities ,154.37 MN. State Treasurer - Pere W/H 1,350.66 Northern States Pover - Utilities 8,210.35 Richard Knutson, Inc. - Payment N5 - 82-2 Project 49,547.54 M.N. State Treasurer - Dep.. Reg. fees 10.00 MN. State Treasurer - Dep. Reg. fees 22.00 J. L. Shiely Co. - Rock 51.85 Int. Conf. of Building Officials - Membership duea - G. Anderson 15.00 Gerald Hermes - Janitorial services at library 125.00 MN. State Treasurer - Dep. Reg. fees 16.00 M14. State Treasurer - Dep. Reg. fees 36.00 State Capitol Credit Union- Payroll ded. 144.OL U. S. Postmaster - Postage for UDAG material 9.35 Internal Revenue Service - Add. FWT for 3rd qtr. 1.00 Fred Gille - Purchase of garage from Riverview Clinic 300.00 Wright County Sheriff - Police contract payment 91OL1.98 North Star Waterworks - Meters for Water Dept. 544.68 State Treasurer- Surplus Property Fund - St. Dept. supplies 23.10 Mobil Oil - Gas for Fire and Water Depts. 26.26 Brock White Co. - Caulking for city hall roof repair 373.00 Central Eyevear - Glasses 14.00 Fyle Backhoe Service - B/W hookup at rental house b latrine rentGl 2,408.00 Horthvestern Bell - Fire phone 37.43 Footer Franzen Agency - Fire Dept. policy payment 340.20 First Bank Mels. - Public fund charge 4.00 Phillips Petro. Gas for Water Dept. 59.20 Hovard Dahlgren Assoc. - Services for Sept. 22.50 Buffalo Bituminous - Gravel. etc. 8,980.68 Monticello Ford - Mtce. of fire truck 52.72 Holiday Inn - Hotel charges for Albert Meyer . Seminar 132.36 S14A Construction - Prints for pump house 16.50 GENERAL FUND AMOUNT Lindberg Decorating - Paint for St. Dept. b dog pound 115.14 SMA Construction - Prints for pump house 7.50 Marco Business Products - File cabinets 6 supplies 812.39 Flickers T. V. - Fire Dept. supplies 6 video tape for Meadow Oak L39,15 Stephens -Peck, Inc. - Dep. Reg, manual for 1984 24.00 Maus Foods - Supplies for all Depts. 210.13 John Hoffman - Mileage reimb, for seminar to New Ulm 50.00 Nelson Radio Communications - Repairs to civil defense sirens 1,261.27 Smith, Pringle L Hayes - Legal for Sept. 375.00 VOID 0 AutoCon Industries - Repairs on water system at Res. 2,011.00 Harry's Auto Supply - Parts for St. Dept. 301.66 Leef Bros. - Uniform rental 178.75 Our Own Hardware - Supplies for all Depts. 270.13 Banker's Life - Group Ins. 3,607.64 MN. Dep. Reg. Assoc. - Dep. Reg. dues for 1984 75.00 Davis Electronic Service Co. - Pager repairs for Fire Dept. 98.24 Zep Mfg. Co. - Deodorant for sludge 796.95 MN. Bearing Co. - Mtee. of equipment 72.30 Century Laboratories - Dye and soap for Sever Dept. 124.77 Fidelity Bank A Trust - Interest on 74 Parking Bonds 2,476.47 Meyer Rohlin - Pumphouse prints 6.60 Metropolitan Fire $quipment - Misc. supplies for Fire Dept. 22.20 Diane Jacobson - Mileage reimb. for seminar 19.00 Bould Bros. - Repairs to Fire Dept. -Water Dept. trucks 125.25 National Bushing - Parts and supplies - St. A Park Depte. 85.02 Monticello Printing - Sever/water cards L envelopes 224.90 Persian's Office Products - Dictaphone machine for John Simola 380.00 National Life Ins. Co. - Tom Eidem pension plan 85.00 Sean Hancock - Mileage reimb. for seminar 53.00 Walter Mack - Mileage reimb. for seminar - also motel 6 meals 153.87 Gruys, Johnson - Computer service for August 290.00 Miller Davis - Receipt books and pada 247.67 Snyder Drug - Band aids for Plant and Lab. 4,38 St. Regie Corp. - Parking lot posts 180.00 Local N49 - Union dues 95.00 Independent Lumber - Supplies - St. 6 WWTP 38.60 Fair's Carden Center - Craso seed 90.00 Monticello Office Products - File cabinet 6 deck - Mtce. Bldg. - 548.03 $408.87 ; balance for mise. office supplies Water Products - Meter valves and mise. Water Dept. supplies 481.62 Coast to Coast - Supplies for all Depta. 61.00 Oinan Construction - Sand for St. Dept. 534,98 Tom Eidem - Mileage and meals - League meeting 51.55 Gordon LInk - Gas - St.. Park, Tree and Sever Depta. 1.622.60 Figs It Shop - St, supplies 4.72 Brenteson Const. - Installmanhole and fittings 870.00 Whalen Engineering Co. - Repair flaahing light on loader 21.60 OSM - August eng. fees 322.23 Liefort Trucking - Freight for Water Dept. 15.00 Earl Peterson Equip. - Saw rental 40.00 Marlene Hellman - Mileage to Buffalo 5.00 MN. Public Employer Labor Relations Assoc. - Membership dues 85.00 C VOID 0 Nelson Oil Co. - Fuel - Mtce. Building 40.22 R 6 C Associates - Cloaning supplies 11.40 Share Corp. - Freight on weed control 25.43 Central McGowan Inc. - Cylinder rental 4.96 GENERAL FUND AMOUNT CHECK ! Gary Anderson - Mileage for October Rick Wolfsteller - Mileage and conference expense VOID VWR Scientific, Inc. - 12 tubes WWTP MN. State Treasurer - PERA W/H MN. State Treasurer - Dep. Reg. fees MN. State Treasurer - Dep. Reg. fees Commissioner of Revenue - Water excise tax - 3rd Qtr. Allen Pelvit - Mileage expense Olson 6 Sons Electric - Pump house repair Hoglund Bus - Truck repair VOID Wright County Treasurer - 30% gross rent in lieu of taxes- Lindbe•g's Bridgevater Telephone - Utilities Payroll for September 87.99 112.50 0 94.18 1.341.76 6.00 54.00 216.66 86.63 54.00 51.50 0 288.75 748.99 23.587.63 TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS FOR OCTOBER - 1983 $154.806.99 18010 18011 18012 18013 18014 18015 18016 18017 18018 18019 18020 18021 18022 18023