City Council Agenda Packet 06-11-1984AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Monday, June 11, 1984 - 7:30 P.N.
Mayor: Arve A. Grimsmo
Council Members: Fran Fair, Ken Maus, Jack Maxwell, Dan Blonigen.
1. Call to Order.
2. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held May 29, 1984.
3. Citizens Comments/Petitions, Requests, and Complaints.
Public Hearings
4. Public Hearing - Consideration of Issuance of Industrial Revenue
Bonds, Applicant - Swart Hoglund.
Old Business
5. Consideration of a Resolution Granting Preliminary Approval for
the Issuance of Industrial Revenue Bonds.
G. Consideration of Sower Extension for Rondhus Property.
New Business
7. Consideration of the Renewal of Annual Licenses.
8. Adjournment.
C
MINUTES
REGULAR FIEETIt7G - MONTICELLO CITY COU17CIL
May 29, 1984 - 7:30 P.M.
Members Present: Arve A. Grimsmo, Jack Maxwell, Ken Maus, Fran Fair,
Dan Blonigen.
Members Absent: None.
1. Call to Order.
2. Approval of Minutes.
Motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Fair, and unanimously carried
to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held May 14, 1984, as
presented.
4. Consideration of Cost Studies for Public Improvements Petitioned for
by Affected Propertv Owners.
At the May 14 Council meeting, two petitions for sower and water
extensions werepresented to the City Council. The City Council
directed the staff to prepare cost estimates for serving both of
these proposed projects, which included the First National Bank
Building at the corner of Fourth and Pine Streets, and Bondhuo
Corporation on County Road 75.
The Public Works Director, John Simola, recommended that a 4 inch
sanitary sewer service and a G inch water service for the First National
Bank property be installed off of Fourth Street to their property. The
estimated cost would be $5,700.00. Mr. Simolo noted that the Security
Federal proposed now banking facility could also be served off of this
sewer and water extension on Fourth Street, as Security Federal is
proposing to locate their building at the southerly end of the Oakwood
block. And at this particular time, the only services available for
the Oakwood Block are on Third Street, approximatoly 300 foot away.
tto decision hoe been made by Security Federal at this time, but if
Security Federal were to join in with the project, the cost par parcel
would be reduced substantially.
Motion was made by Maus, seconded by Blonigon, and unanimously carried
to adopt the Resolution 1984 023 approving plane and specifications and
ordering the improvement for the First National Bank property along
Fourth Street.
Mr. Simola also noted that there were two alternatives for serving the 2
nondhus Corporacion with sower and water extensions. Ono alternative
- 1 -
0
Council Minutes - 5/29/84
would be to extend the planned G inch water line from Hart Boulevard
,y across County Road 75 to the Bondhus property. The estimated cost
of this water extension was $11,450.00. Sanitary sewer service could
be served by two options. The first option would be to allow the
Bondhus Corporation to connect to the interceptor sewer, which is
adjacent to their property, or to extend sanitary sewer from near
the WWPP, under County Road 75 to the Bondhus property. Mr. Simola
noted that firm cost estimates had not yet been received, but the
cost estimate in his opinion could range from $8,000.00 to $20,000.00
depending on which alternative is selected.
Mr. John Bondhus informed the Council that the primary reason he was
interested in water service to his property was for fire protection
service but felt that the estimated cost of $11,450.00 at the present
time was too high to justify the extension. tie noted that he did
not necessarily need the water for his operations but was only
interested in lowering his fire protection rates. Since a firm
cost figure was not available for the sewer extensions or hook-up,
it was the consensus of the Council to table any action on this
extension until more cost information is available. But at the
recommendation of the Public Works Director, motion was made by
Blonigen, seconded by Fair, and unanimously carried to adopt the
Resolution 1984 #24 approving the extension of a small segment of
water main along Hart Boulevard at a cost of approximately $300.00
to got the water main out of the center of Hart Boulevard for future
crossing County Road 75.
5. Consideration of Crantinq Permission to the Monticello Lions Club
to Erect a Picnic Shelter in West Hridgo Park.
Recently, the Monticello Lions Club lies indicated a desire to erect
a picnic shelter in West Bridge Park. The Lions Club had plans to
build a metal roof pull structure as a shelter estimated at approximately
$2,000.00. while the Council supports and endorses the concept of
service organizations contributing to public recreation facilities,
soma concerns were raised over the inconsistent appearance of this
now structure compared to present and future planned facilities in
tho City parks. It was noted that the City currently is in the
process of replacing the warming house roof, which is presently metal,
with an asphalt shingle roof and the proposed structure by the tions
Club would be in contrast with this remodeling.
City Administrator Tom Bidem noted that lie discussed this conflict
with members of the Lions Club and recommended that possibly the
Lions Club contribute their proposed $2,000.00 toward a development
of a hexagon picnic shelter that would blend in with the proposed
park improvements. Tho hexagon structure would have more wood material
with an asphalt roof and,deponding on size, was ostimated to cost
butwoun $5,341.00 for a 28 -foot hexagon or $7,529.00 for a 38 -foot
hexagon shelter.
_ a
0
Council Minutes - 5/29/84
It was the Council's consensus that a metal roofed structure would
not be appropriate; and since the Lions Club has indicated a
willingness to donate approximately $2,000.00 and some labor to
help erect a hexagon structure, a motion was made by Fair, seconded
by Blonigen, and unanimously carried to accept the Lions Club offer
to cooperate with the erection of a hexagon picnic shelter with a
$2,000.00 donation and authorized the expenditure of approximately
$7,529.00 for a 36 -Coot hexagon structure.
G. Consideration of a Resolution Setting a Public Hearing Reltting to
a Recluest to Issue Industrial Revenue Bonds - Stuart Hoglund,
Applicant.
Mr. Stuart Hoglund has applied to the City for issuance of Industrial
Revenue Bonds for the construction of a 32 -unit motel to be located
soutli of I-94 on Oakwood Drive. Although federal legislation is
currently being considered that may limit the City's ability to
issue Industrial Revenue Bonds, Mr. Hoglund requested that a public
hearing be set to got his project started in light of possible
changes in the legislation.
Motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously
carried to set a public hearing for June 11, 1984, to consider pre-
liminary approval of Mr. Hoglund's request for Industrial Revenue
CBonds for a 32 -unit motel. See Resolution 1984 M25.
I
7. Consideration of a Request for the City to Assume Partial Responsibility
for the Upgrading and Maintenance of the Monticello Softball Diamonds.
The Monticello Softball Association roquested that the City of Monticello
assist the Association with the upgrading and maintenance of the softball
fields located on that property wast of town leased from Northern States
Power Company. Representatives of the Softball Association requested
that 1) Lila City hull) in bringing the softball fields up to good or
excellent standards and than maintain the fields. Tho Public Works
Director, John Simola, estimated that approximately $2,000.00 would be
needed to enlarge the existing wall on the property to provide for
adequate sprinkler capncity and that an additional $800.00 worth of
material for seeding, black dirt, and lime would be needed to bring
Ilia fields up to a suitablo condition. 2) Tho second request of the
Softball AaBocidLiOn w.ru that Lila City, in Lite future, do the i.oeuosary
mowing and maintenance_ of Lho fields to keep it in a playable condition.
Public Works Director esLindted that Lho City expanIitura for maintenance
could total between $2.4U0.00 and $3,000.00 par year. This estimate
includea Lha COAL 01 labor and machinery to mow and level the playing
field along with Lha 010cLrical cosL for the pump and garbage service
along with satellite rental and pumping.
0
Council Minutes - 5/29/04
• Itwas noted that if the City should consider taking over annual
maintenance of the softball fields, a recommendation was made by
the City Administrator that each softball team within the League
kcontribute $250.00 to the City for maintenance with a minimum of
J
$2,500.00 per year. Although many items would have to be determined,
it was the consensus of the Council to appoint Park Superintendent
Roger Mack as the City's representative to coordinate with the Softball
Association guidelines and possible needs of the AssOeiati,+n and to
report back to the Council at a future date. It was noted that
possibly something could be started yet this year by the City
including possible well repairs and seeding this fall.
8. Consideration of Amendinq Title 4, Chapter 1, of the City Code
to Reflect the Current Building Trades Code Requirements.
Building Inspector Gary Anderson recommended that the City Council
consider an Ordinance Amendment that would update and incorporate
additional codes, appendices, standards, and supplemental material
to this particular chapter of the Building Code. Additionally.
the proposed Ordinance Amendment will allow any additional changes
in the future to be added without going through another Ordinance
Amendment.
Councilman Blonigen questioned whether the City had any choice in
adopting the updated amendments to the Building Code and felt that
if the City did not have any choice, he could not see why it was
necessary to adopt an Ordinance Amendment if the State Statutes
require automatically that the City must adhere to any changes.
As d result, motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Fair, to adopt
the Ordinance Amendment as recommended. Voting in favor was Grimsmo,
Fair, Maxwell, Maus. Voting in the opposition was Rlonigen. Soo ordinance
Amendment 0135•
9. consideration of an Amundmcnt to TiLI.: 7, Chapter 1, of the City Code
Reducing the Time Allowed for Nuisance Abatement.
Currently, the City Ordinancea allow a property owner 30 days to
comply with and correct nuisances ones they have been notifed by
the City. The current problem with thtu time requirement is that
the property owner initially tins 30 days to remedy the issue, and
than the City Attorney may giant an AdrliLional 15-20 days Lo comedy
the matter on the second notico. Thus, anywhere from 45-60 days may
pass before the City cnn even 1flaW: !r citation. In order to expedite
the nuisance abatement, it wan recommended that the Ordinance be
amended to read 14 days to remedy Lilo matter. At the end of the
14 -day period, the City Attorney cnn submit an additional letter
again referring to a 14 -day period reducing the time period to
30 days or loss before a citation can be issued.
Motion was made by Fair, soconded by Maun, and unanimously carried
to adopt the Ordinance Amendment reducing the time period for
abatement of nuisances to 14 days rather than 30 days. See Ordinance
Amendment 0136.
U
Council Minutes - 5/29/84
10. Consideration of Establishing a Date and Time for a "Work" Session
on the Comprehensive Plan.
By Council consensus, a meeting was set for Saturday, June 9, 1984,
at 6:30 A.M. for the purpose of reviewing the Goals and Policies
section of the Comprehensive Plan, which have been previously roviewed
by the HRA and Planning Commission. Staff comments as to changes
along with comments from the City Planner and City Engineer will
be reviewed by the Council for incorporation into the new Goals and
Policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
11. Consideration of Purchasing a Now Typewriter.
The City Administrator recommended that a Panasonic 708 Electronic
Typewriter be purchased to replace an existing typewriter in City
Hall. This item was budgeted for in 1983, but a machine was not
purchased at that time. The estimated cost of the new Panasonic
would be $1,390.35. Motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Maus,
and unanimously carried to authorize the City Administrator to
make the purchase for $1,390.35.
12. Consideration of Approval of Bills for the Month of May.
Motion woe made by Blonigen, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously
r carried to approve the bills for the month of May as presented.
See Exhibit 5/29/84 al.
Rick Wolf stollu y
Assistant Administrator
Fc,
0
I�
Council Agenda - 6/11/84
4. Public Hearing - Consideration of Issuance of Industrial Revenue
Bonds, Applicant - Stuart Hoqlund. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the last Council meeting you adopted a resolution establishing a
public hearing for the proposed issuance of Industrial Revenue Bonds
in the amount of $650,000.00 for the construction of a 32 -unit motel.
This hearing is for the purpose to allow the applicant, members of
the public, and the council to discuss the merits of the proposal.
No formal action may be taken within the confines of the public
hearing. One question that was raised in the staff meeting,and which
you may wish to put to Mr. Hoglund at the hearing, relates to the
City approving the issuance of bonds a few years earlier for Mr.
Hoglund to construct a motel, which he then sold his share of. This
is more or less a question of propriety, not legality. After all
comments have been heard, the hearing should be closed before the
Council takes any action.
There is no Supporting Data for this item.
-I -
Council Agenda - 6/11/84
5. Consideration of a Resolution Granting Preliminary Approval for the
Issuance of Industrial Revenue Bonds. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Under the new Minnesota Statute regulating the issuance of Industrial
Revenue Bonds, all applicants must fulfill four out of a possible
19 criteria to have their application considered by the Department
of Energy and Economic Development. This proposal meets exactly
four of the criteria, hence it is eligible to be submitted to
Department of Energy and Economic Development for their consideration.
A number of questions were raised by staff with respect to the nature
of the proposal, not the proposal itself. In light of recent
legislation and the brouhaha over IRB's and their abuses, there
are concerns as to the propriety of issuing IRS's for essentially
commercial enterprise as opposed to industrial enterprise. There
is the question with respect to issuing IRS's for a project for the
same applicant as one that was issued a few years earlier. There
is some concern over the rather small amount of jobs and payroll
that will be created for the size of the issuance. (Please note
that the applicant does not meet the State criteria on number of
jobs per dollar required.)
Nationwide, there have been many IRB's issued for restaurants, motels,
health clubs, etc., which, in legislative circles, have been called
r abuses of the system, These alleged abuses are what has prompted the
legislative efforts Lo curtail the issuance of IRB's, There are at
least two perspectives with which we can view the current situation
with bonds. First, we could agree that certain expenditures do seem
like abuses and, hence, we will not participate in those forms of
projects so as to riot further jeopardize this funding toot. The other
perspective is to say that eventually we are going to lone IRB'o all
toyetirsr, so why don't we get right in there and get all we can while
we can. Frankly, the former position in more attractive to me. This,
however, must be a position that the Council has to assume for itself.
If, upon completion of the hearing, you are satisfactorily convinced
chat this is a worthy project and wish to pursue application through
the State, you must adopt the resolution granting preliminary approval.
At the last meeting the question wall raised with respect to the number
of voles required to pass thio resolution. The attorney from Holmes
S Graven advises me that the Statute reads a majority of the members
of tho Council, not a majority of the msmborn present. Hance, there
being only three members present, the rosolution must pass unanimously.
If application is approved and the resolution adopted, it may be
conceivable that the formal application can be submitted to the State
by Cho June 20 deadline. If we do not make that particular deadline,
we could attempt to make the July 20 cut-off period. In either calls,
- 2 -
Council Agenda - 6/11/84
should you approve the resolution does not necessarily guarantee
approval by the State since IRS's for the allocation pool which we
are in has become competitive.
As a final reminder, we will be submitting the application for
IRB funds for the Fulfillment Systems Project as of ,lune 20.
Representatives of Key Tool s Plastic will be meeting with us
early next week to determine whether or not they wish to continue
pursuing IRS's. As I noted at the last meeting, these are both
projects that you have already granted preliminary approval to.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Adopt the resolution granting preliminary approval and authorize
submission to the State of Minnesota - this largely takes the
project out of our hands and moves it to the State level. They
will make the determination whether or net it is worthy of funding.
If the State should approve it, then the entire project will be
turned over to the attorneys,who will draft all of the necessary
documentation and sometimO in the future will return to the
Council for a resolution of final approval.
2. Do not adopt the resolution granting preliminary approval - this
will terminate the proposal for IRS funding. According to Mr.
Iloglund, the project will not happen but for IRB funding, and
assuming this to be the case, the project will be dropped all
together. If, of course, tiro WWI, is still built even after
denial, then ex Post facto we will know that the "but for" provision
was not met.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It in difficult for staff to make a recommendation on this particular
proposal, since tho City to date has not established a clear cut
policy with respect to eligible activities. I am reluctant to
recommend approval for the reasons I stated earlier with respect
to tine Ongoing scrutiny, legislation, and limitation of the use of
IRS's. I am also reluctant to recommend denial since the City has
had a history of being progressive in the use of IRA's, and my
recommendation could be easily construed as a personal rather titan
professional preference.
B. SUPPORTING DATA.
Copy of the check list measuring the project against the 19 critorla
Ostablished Ly the State, a copy of the resolution granting preliminary
approval.
Council Agenda - 6/11/84
E. ADMINISTRATOR'S ADDENDUM
This additional information is being provided as a result of my
conversation with John Gries, the attorney representing Stuart
Hoglund on his project. He expressed some concern over my apparent
reluctance to give my full endorsement to the project. I explained
to him that it was the nature of the project being essentially
commercial that concerned me and not the project per se,and it certainly
had nothing to do with Mr. Hoglund. During our conversation, he
did clarify that the official request for bonds is in the sum of
$550,000.00, not $650,000.00 as was originally sulamitted. This
being the case, then Stuart's project does meet the threshold for
employees. Thus, Stuart's project meets 5 of the 19 criteria rather
than 4.
I informed Mr. Cries that I had not submitted a formal staff
recommendation and the reasons I had not. I indicated that I
thought it was critical that the Council try to establish a policy
determining eligible activities and that such a policy should be
established prior to Lila adoption of this resolution. Mr. Cries
concurred. tie went on to indicate that he had some concern that
such a policy might be adopted Monday without the benefit of the
full Council being prosent and extensive discussion of such a
policy. His concern is that the policy might be established to
not include these kinds of Irrojccts without due consideration, and
thus the project would be totally jeopardized. I indicated that
because I was under the understanding that they wish to move their
project along as quickly as possible, I thought it was essential
to address it at this time. Mr. Cries said that, indeed, they were
trying to move Lha project along, but they did not want to jeopardize
the possibility of funding because of moving too quirkly. We did
discuss somewhat the possibility of postponing any action on Lilo
resolution until such a policy is adopted as well as the possibility
of adopting a resolution with some contingency provisions included.
As a result of our discussion, I believe there is a third alternative
action, to wit, postlone any action on the resolution until a formal
policy statement has been drafted and approved by Lilo City Council.
While the decision to postpone action on any IRB request until a
formal policy .in adoptod may delay this project and other potential
projectu, I sue no reason why they should interfere with the two
for which you have already given approval. Mr. Cries will bo attending
the hearing Monday night,
1 wish to emphasize one other point that results from the nowapapoi
coverage of our last mooting when we discussed this issue. When I
indicated thuwt approval of this project may jeopardiza future projocta,
I did not mean in terms of quality or eligibility. The pool of money
that we will apply to for funding is limited. Ones all of the monoy
4
Council Agenda - 6/11/04
has been issued to communities, there will be no more for that given
calendar year. Thus, the only way this project could jeopardize a
future one is that it will use up a certain amount of the available
funds. If that, in fact, happened, and another worthy project came
before us, we simply would have to indicate to the new applicant
that they would have to wait until a new allocation was made available.
That would not be unique to Monticello but to all cities in the state.
When the funds are gone for one of us, they will be gone for all of
us. That was the point that 1 was trying to make when 1 indicated
you should give priority consideration to the two resolutions of
approval that you have already adopted. I think it would be in-
consistent to submit an application for a new project that may draw
on available funds before submitting an application for a project
that was given prior approval.
. 5 .
IL
Yes
NO
No
No
� HR rRl'I'ERIA 140:+};SNEET
Name of Firm :�IlI�SC�A;}�gn,Hog�pr}dTelephone 612-295-2866
Pd.lry s :— Rt- _3—BD&-U-1iQntJce;llg—MN__,1U362
Contact Prison :�S.tuaILJiS)9 L1Ad QL..1Qhr�ri,Q Tr.lepl: on__ As above L497_3099
Type of bu sineas Motel
Site location r 220 Oakwood Drive, Monticello, MN 55362
N3tur0 of Project The construction and equiping of a 32 unit motel.
Nmber of present Jobe a -0- new jobs : -12- projected jobs :
Size of building i Tvpe Lend needs: Owns
Estimated Project Cost i land $100,000
Didg. b7U,000
Equip. a3v,vuv
Other Du,000 :.egdi, etc.
Total $950,000
Estimated Bond Issue :_ _s650,000 Other Financial Incentives: none
Applications for Issuance authority are due by the 20th day of each month.
Applications must be submitted with evidence of enactment of a preliminary resolution
and o deposit of one percent of the requested allocation.
Applications will be ranked on tire basis of whether the Issuer and the project
proposed meet certain criteria. Each application receives a numerical rank based on the
following criteria, with one point fur meeting each. The criteria are Intended to provide
an objective threshold requirement; once this Is met, the point is awarded without further
project comparison. The criteria are as follows:
a. The current rate of unemployment for the applicant Is at or above one
hundred ten percent of the statewide average unemployment rete for the previous
year, as determtnpd by the department of economic security. The unemployment
rate for the appllfpnt shall be the greeter of (i) the most recent eatlm-!: available
for the amaUes jrt�dletlon which wholly includes tho jurisdiction of the applicant, as
reported by the department of economic securltyl or (11) such other estimate suppllea
by the applicant with respect to its jurisdictlon, which is documented by the
applicant.
b. The number of Individuals employed In the applloanfe jurisdiction declined
from the second calender year prior to the application, to the first calendar year
prior to the application. The estimate of the number of Individuals employed for
each year &hall be based on the same source, and shall be (q the most recent estimate
available for the smallest jurisdiction which wholly Includes the applicant, as
reported by the department of economic security, or (Il) such other estimate supplied
by the applicant with re+pect to Its jurisdiction, which Is documented by the
applicant.
C. The number of jot., to t+c created by the project described In the application
i• ::t Ir.nat one-tenth of un:! percent of the number of Individuals employed In the first
chlejokir year prior to the upplicullon as determined in the manner provided in (b.)
W V ve.
d. The number of jots to be created by the project described In the application
is at least 2 jobs for each $100,000 of Issuance authority requested for the project.
lu providing 12 now Jobe. Needs 13 to moot this criteria..
C. ns o+ tno Cate oe aplmcauon CM Aat maraat vows aL CUA taws. P+"r. Ijw
in the applicant- ' risdictioo, as bas -d on the most recent ccrufieatlon of assessed
No value to the con. issloner of the Minnesota department of revenue, hes either (1)
declined In relation to the first calendar year prior to such certification Or (11)
increased In relation to the first calendar year prior to such certification at a rate
which is not In excess of ninety percent of the rate of Increase of the state average
market value over the same period.
19.9% Monticollo's EMV 1982 pay 1983 1983 pay 1984
$212,213,430.00 $254,407,799.00
4.6% Minnesotans EMV $114,942,835,732.00 $120,223,315,406.00
No f. The estimated market value of the project described In the application Is at
least 1/2 of 1% of the total market value of aR taxable property in the epplicanrs
jurisdiction to based on the most recent certification of assessed value to the
commissioner of the Minnesota department of revenue.
.005 X 254,407,799.00 - $1,272,038.00
$950,000.00 is less than $1,272,038.00
g. The project is wholly located In an enterprise zone designated Pursuant to
No section 273.1312.
No h. The project site meets the criteria necessary to qualify as a tax Increment ,
redevelopment district as defined in section 273.73, subdivision 10, provided that the
project site does not have to he included in a tax increment financing district.
c� I. The project meets one of the following energy conservation criteria: (i) the
project is eligible for addition federal investment tax credits for energy property; (Ii)
the project Involves construction or expansion of a district heating system as defined
in section 116J.36; or (iii) the project involves construction of an alternative energy
source as described In section 116J.26(a), (b) or (d), or in section 116J.922, subdivision
6 or 7.
No j. Ninety percent or more of the proceeds of the proposed obligations will be
used for comtruction, installation, or addition of equipment used primarily to abate
or control pollutants and to meet (yr exceed state laws, rules or standards.
No k. The project coreists of the renovation, rehabilitation or reconstruction of an
existing building which is (i) located in a historic district designated under section
138.73, or on a site listed in the state registry of historical sites under sections
138.53 to 138.5819; or (ii) desilmated in the National Register pursuant to 16 U.S.C.
5470s.
No 1. Ninety percent or more of the proceeds of the proposed obligations will be
used to finance facilities for waste management as defined In section 115A.03,
subdivision 38 of solid waste as defined in section 116.08, subdivision 10.
Yes m. Service connections to sewer and water systems are available to the project
at the time the application is submitted.
NO n. The minority population in the applicant's jurisdiction is at least one hundred
ten percent of the statewide average as determined from the most recent census
data.
Yes o. As of the time the application Is submitted either (a) neither the anticipated
owner of the project, nor any party of which such owner was a controUing partner or
shareholder, or which was a controlling shareholder or partner of such owner. owned
or operated a substantially similar business within the state or (b) the project is an
exprinsion of a Minnesota business which does not reduce other employment In the
state.
p. A controlling Interest in the project will be owned by one or more women or
No minority pamorw.
No q. Seventy-five pervvent er more of the proceeds of the proposed Issue will be
aced to rehabilitate an existing structure.
Yes r. At the time of apidu•ation, the property on whI^h the project Is to be
located is properly zoned fur the proposed tae.
No t. The project involvoa u credit enhancement device providing additional
security fur bondholders uwulving commitments or fees to be paid by the Lauer other
then out of bund proceeds. No puints shall be arded for credit enhancement
devices financed directly or imlire-tly by a privet, for-profit party which hu a
financial Interest 'n the i rolecl.
31
EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO
A PROJECT UNDER THE MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT ACT, REFERRING THE PROPOSAL
TO THE INIINNESOTA ENERGY AND ECONOMIC
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 as
passible, 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 economic deterioration of such areas to the point where the process
can be reversed only by total redevelopment through the use of local, state and
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 movement of talented, educated personnel of mature age to
areas wherm their services may be effectively used and compensated and the
lessening attraction of persons and businesses from other areas for purposes of
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 baso to finance these costs; and
WHEREAS, Stuart do Arleen Iioglund (the "Developers"), have advised this
City Council that they desire to acquire land and construct and equip a 32 unit
motel (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 and
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
borrowing that the Project would not be economically feasible without the
availability of Industrial development bond financing; and
-105--
-
WHEREAS, this Council has been advised by the Developers 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
apply for an allocation of authority to issue its revenue bonds subject to a federal
limitation act, and upon a grant of such authority to issue such 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 Developers, and the issuance of such bonds by the City would be a
substantial inducement to the Developers 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
Developers in an amount presently estimated not to exceed $550,000.
NOW, THEREFORE, RE IT RESOLVED THAT:
1. The Project is hereby given preliminary approval by the City and the
Issuance of the revenue bonds for such purpose and In such amount approved,
subject to approval of the Project by, and an allocation of authority to issue
private activity bonds from, the Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic
Development and subject 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 oL the City except the Project, and the bonds, when, as, find if issued,
shell 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. It is hereby found and determined that the Project would not be
undertaken but for the availability of Industrial development bond financing.
3. In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 474.01, Subdivision 7a
and Section 474.16, the Mayor o t shy �a—FeFFby authorized and directed to
submit the proposal for the Project and an application for authority to issue private
activity bonds to the Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development
(as long as the Developers pay the fees associated with an application for authority
to issue private activity bonds). 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 and on allocation Is granted by the Minnesota Energy and Economic
Development Authority.
4. The law firm of Ifolmes @ 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.
5. In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 474.01, Subdivision
11, the City Administrator and other officers, employees and agents of the City
are hereby authorized and directed to encourage the Developers 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 Developers agree to
use a designated State employment office as a first source for employment
recruitment, referral, and placement.
6. The preliminary approval granted hereby shall not operate to give
priority to the Project over any other project if any maximum limit is
hereafter imposed on the amount of tax exempt industrial development bonds
the City may issue in any year. The City Council reserves the right to
allocate any such maximum bonding authority in any manner which, in its
discretion, the Council deems to be in the best interests of the City and
does not intend to use and specifically disclaims using any portion of an
allocation that may be available to the City for this Project.
CAttest:
C
Council Agenda - 6/11/84
G. Consideration of Sewer Extension for Bondhus Property. (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the last meeting, the City Council passed a resolution to
add enough water main to Hart Boulevard to allow for future
crossing on County Road 75 for hook-up of the Bondhus property.
The sewer connection, however, was tabled for lack of firm bids.
The staff recommended hook-up at the interceptor sewer and
asked for additional time to look for an economical method to
make the hook-up and obtain firm bids.
As of Friday A.M., we only have one bid. I do expect to have
a second bid early next week, possibly in time. If not, I will
recommend tabling a socond time.
- 6 -
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE
MONTICELLO FIRE DEPARTMENT
President — Doug Pitt
Vice President — Greg Dahlheimer
Secretary — Lee Trunnell
Treasurer — David Kranz
Chief — Willard Farnick Joint Committeemen — Lee Trunnell
Assistant Chief — Gordon Link Paul Klein
1st Captain — George Liefert Training Officer — Gene Jensen
2nd Captain — David KRanz Asst. Training Officer — Ted Farnam
The following is an annual report of the Monticello Fire Department for the year of 1983.
There were 67 personal assists by the Chief and/or Assistant Chief.
There were 75 calls which required 1567 man hours. The average attendance at a
call was 15.
During the past year, there were 12 training sessions which required 353'1, man
hours and an average of 20 men attending. A training session at the new NSP
building required 15 men and 15 man hours. A simulated mass accident, which
the department participated in, required 15 men and 15 man hours.
MUTUAL AID: Mutual aid was given to Big Lake on two occasions. One time required
6 men and the other required 9 men. Total man hours was 15. Also,
Q+ mutual aid was given to Buffalo on one occasion.
SCHOOLS: Two men attended a sectional school on May 7.8, which required
12 hours.
Two men attended a state school on May 20.22, which required
15 hours.
TRAINING: The training officers went to both motels in town and gave an emergency
procedure training session to the employees which required 2 hours at
each place.
PUBLIC RELATIONS: On March 21, 1983, the department manned a booth at Expo.
Two men attended a Locke Lake Association Melting which
required 2 hours.
In the past year, 4 tours have been given of the fire barn.
These tours required one or two men for about on hour.
The Chief and/or Assistant Chief attended 4 quarterly meetings of
the Wright County Fire Chiefs Association.
Sincerely,
1. n .' Jam/
/�Ku.•CC I� / Z/LaL.
David B. Kranz
Reporter
L
BREAKDOWN OF CALLS FOR 1983
MONTICELLO CITY:
Structure .................
5
Auto....................
9
Grass ....................
2
Extrication
................
0
Other....................13
TOTAL
29
MONTICELLO TWP.:
Structure ....
.............
22
Auto ....................
1
Grass ....................
5
Extrication
... .......... ...
1
Other ..................
4
TOTAL
33
SILVER CREEK TWP.:
Structure ....
.......... ...
4
Auto....................
2
Grass ....................
0
Extrication
.................
0
Other ...................
1
TOTAL
7
OTSEGO TOWNSHIP:
Structure ..................
4
Auto ....................
0
Grass ....................
0
Extrication
................
0
Other ....................
1
TOTAL
5
MUTUAL AID RECEIVED ......... 2
MUTUAL AID GIVEN ...... ..... 3
TOTAL NUMBER OF CALLS .......... 77
QUARTERLY REPORT
OF THE MONTICELLO FIRE DEPARTMENT
President — Doug Pitt
Vice President — Greg Dahlheimer
Secretary — Lee Trunnell
Treasurer — David Kranz
Chief — Willard Farnick Joint Committeemen — Lee Trunnell
Assistant Chief — Gordon Link Paul Klein
1st Captain — George Liefert Training Officer — Gene Jensen
2nd Captain — David Kranz Asst. Training Officer — Ted Farnam
The following is a quarterly report of the Monticello Fire Department from Oct. 1,
1983 to December 31, 1983.
There were 14 personal assists by the Chief and/or Assistant Chief.
There were 15 calls which required 309 man hours. The averago attendance at a
call was 15.
During the past three-month period there were 5 training sessions. The usual three
{ training sessions required 61 man hours. The average attendance was 20. The two
other training sessions required 30 man hours. One training session was a tour of
the new NSP Building, the other was a simulated mass accident which the
department participated in.
Sincerely,
David B. Kranz
Reporter
k
Council Agenda - 6/11/84
7. Consideration of the Renewal of Annual Licenses. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
In the past, you have renewed the licenses listed below in a single
motion. I believe that the motion has been a contingent motion such
that licenses are approved depending upon successful completion of
the application, filing of the bond, aprroval at the State level, etc.
The fees listed are the new fees, which were increased by Council
action last fall.
The licenses submitted for your consideration are as follows:
Intoxicating Liquor, On -sale (Fee $3,300)
Renewals
1. Monticello Liquor, Inc.
2. Silver Fox
3. Charlies West
4. Joyner's Lanes
Intoxicating Liquor, On -sale, Sunday (Fee $100)
Renewals
1. Monticello Liquor, Inc.
2. Silvor Fox
3. Charlies West
4. Joyner's Lanes
Non -intoxicating Malt, On-salo (Poo $245)
Renewals
1. Rod 6 Gun
2. pizza Factory
3. Country Club
Non-intoxicatinq Malt, On -mala, Temporary. (Fee 810/day)
1. St. Ifenry'a Fall Festival, 2 days - $20.00
Nan-intoxicatinq Malt. Off-salo (Foo 850.00)
Renewals
1. Monticello Liquor
2. Ernias Sport c Bait Shop
r 3. Waynoo Rod Owl
i
MAC
IN
Council Agenda - 6/11/84
4. Maus Foods
5. River Terrace
6. Tom Thumb
7. Charlies West
8. holiday
Wine/3.2 Beer Combination, On -sale (Fee $400)
Renewal
1. Dino's Deli
Set-up License (Fee $250)
1. Country Club
2. Rod 6 Gun
Club Licenses (Fee - set by Statute)
1. V.F.W. - $500 (membership 26B)
2. Am. Legion - $650 (membership 580)
Bingo, Temporary (Foe $20)
1. St. Henry's Fall Festival
LGambling,
Temsorary ($20 per device)
1. St. Henry's Fall Festival - $60
A single motion approving these licenses should read similar to "I move
that the following licenses be approved effective July 1, 1984".
There is no supporting data for this item.
IN