Loading...
City Council Agenda Packet 02-26-19904 AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Monday, February 26, 1990 - 7:00 p.m. Mayor: Ken Maus Council members: Fran Fair, Warren Smith, Shirley Anderson, Dan Blonigen 1. Call to order. 2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held February 12, 1990, and the special meeting held February 20, 1990. 3. Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaints. 4. Public hearing and consideration for adoption of a resolution relating to the modification by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Monticello of the redevelopment plan relating to Redevelopment Project No. 1, the modification of the tax increment financing plans relating to Tax Increment Financing District Nos. 1-1 through 1-8, and the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-9, all located within Redevelopment Project No. 1, and the approval and adoption of the tax increment financing plan relating thereto. 5. Consideration of adopting a resolution calling for a public hearing on the proposed modification by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Monticello of the redevelopment plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1, the modification of the tax increment financing plans for Tax Increment Financing District Nos. 1-1 through 1-9, and the approval and adoption of the tax increment financing plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-10, all located within Redevelopment Project No. 1. 6. Consideration of a resolution calling for a public hearing on the tax increment financing plan--K-Mart. 7. Review and authorization to proceed with fire department tanker truck modifications. B. Consideration of an additional extension to probationary period/residency requirement --Tony Strands. 9. Consideration of adopting settlement agreement with Jones Intercable and adoption of cable franchise ordinance amendment. l 10. Consideration of renewing gambling license request --Wright County Ducks Unlimited. Council Agenda February 26, 1990 Page 2 11. Review of annual liquor store financial report for 1989. 12. Consideration of bills for the month of February. 13. Adjournment. C C= C MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday, February 12, 1990 - 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Ken Maus, Warren Smith, Shirley Anderson, Fran Fair, Dan Blonigen Members Absent: None Approval of minutes. Motion was made by Warren Smith, seconded by Shirley Anderson, to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held January 22, 1990, with the addition of a notation that the public hearing was opened and closed under item #4. Motion carried unanimously. Citizens comments/petitions. requests, and complaints. Ben Smith, member of the Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority, thanked Council for sending him to the tax increment financing all -day seminar. During his presentation, Smith reviewed proposed legislation affecting the use of tax increment financing. He also noted that every city needs a comprehensive tax increment financing policy and that a joint policy should be adopted by the City and by the HRA. Smith noted that the HRA and the City should discuss this matter together and establish a common guideline. Ken Maus thanked Smith for his comments and agreed that the City and the HRA should sit down together and develop a policy statement guiding the City in its use of tax increment financing. Public hearinq on proposed increases in retail license fees for non-intoxicatinq and intoxicatinq liquor licenses. The public hearing was opened. There being no comments from the public, the hearing was closed. Administrator Wolfstollor reviewed his recommendation regarding liquor license fees. Wolfstollor noted that he surveyed a number of communities and established a proposed foe structure based on the average fees charged by other communities. Fran Fair asked if there had been any comments regarding the proposed fee schedule from individuals affected. Administrator Wolfsteller replied that no comments had been forthcoming. 0 Council Minutes - 2/12/90 ` After discussion, a motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Dan Blonigen, to adopt the proposed recommended fee schedule for all intoxicating and non - intoxicating liquor licenses as follows: On -sale liquor $3,750 Sunday liquor $ 200 On -sale 3.2 beer $ 275 Off -sale beer $ 75 On -sale wine $ 275 Set-up license $ 275 Combination wine/3.2 beer on -sale $ 500 Motion carried unanimously. 5. Public hearinq - 7th Street improvement prosect. AND 6. Consideration of a resolution ordering plans and specifications for street and utility improvements and appurtenant work - 7th Street and Minnesota Street. Mayor Maus opened the public hearing. Assistant Administrator O'Neill requested that Council consider ordering plans and specifications for plan 01 or plan A2. O'Neill noted that due to timing constraints, it may not be possible to wait until March 12, 1990, to decide on which plan to follow. OSM needs time between February 12 and March 26 to complete the plans. O'Neill went on to review the finance plans associated with the two plans. Discussion focused on the financing of the extension of sanitary sewer and water services from the present location at the corner of Minnesota Street and 7th Street to the freeway. O'Neill explained that the cost to the Brennan and Kramer property to extend sewer and water amounts to $24,000. Council discussed a proposal to defer these assessments until such time that the utilities were needed. Under this sconorio, the assessment amount would equal the cost to install the improvements at the time they are needed. Adjustments to the assessment to be based on the construction index. Tax increment financing revenue would be used to pay the initial cost of the improvement. Tom Brennan indicated that he would support the plan to extend sewer and water as proposed if the assessment for such improvement is deferred. He also noted that he would record the proposed assessment at such time that the final construction cost is known. 0 C. Council Minutes - 2/12/90 Council also discussed the extension of storm water service to serve the Brennan property as well. The estimated cost to serve this area is $23,000. It was proposed that tax increment financing be used to finance the initial cost with Brennan paying an assessment for this service at such time that the property being served is developed. Under this scenerio, the assessment amount would equal the cost to install the improvements at the time they are needed. Adjustments to the assessment to be based on the construction index. The City Engineer noted that the City will save $30,000 in the future by installing this structure as part of the 7th Street improvement project. Dan Blonigen asked if plan t2 can be bid as an alternate. John Badalich responded by saying that the reduced plan can be bid as an alternate and could be selected at a later date. After discussion, motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by warren Smith, to authorize plans and specifications per plan 11 contingent on The Lincoln Companies paying $10,000 toward the cost of plan development. Said plan development will not begin until a $10,000 deposit is provided to the City by The Lincoln Companies. Motion carried unanimously. SEE RESOLUTION 90-4. Consideration of the petition from McAdnw Onk development residents. Council reviewed a petition submitted by Meadow Oak residents which requested that the City take action to control development of proposed low income, first-time home buyer housing in the Meadow Oak Second, Third, and Fourth additions, as such a development will decrease the value of their current residences. Building Inspector, Gary Anderson, indicated that plans for development of this typo of housing have been withdrawn by the developer; therefore, the problem identified by the Meadow Oak residents has been eliminated for the time being. Mayor Maus noted that the withdrawal of the development plans gives Council the opportunity to housing development explore alternatives. 0 Council Minutes - 2/12/90 Pat Faltersack, area resident, noted that he was not against the housing program; however, he did feel that the homes proposed were not consistent with the nature of the existing subdivision. Rhonda Thielen noted that this type of development could happen in any neighborhood and that it is not a city-wide problem. She also noted that the public nuisance ordinance violations are not corrected on a timely basis. Fran Fair commended the local residents for their attempts to upgrade their neighborhood and thereby improve the community. She supported stronger efforts to eliminate public nuisance problems. Warren Smith asked what the minimum standards are for residential construction in neighboring cities. He wondered if Monticello's residential housing construction standards should be changed. Ken Maus noted that the size of a home is not a major factor in establishing its value. It's not so much the size, as small homes are not always the cause of a poor neighborhood. Assistant Administrator O'Neill noted that there is a ry demand in the Monticello area for starter homes. A plan `- should be developed to accommodate this need without creating a negative impact on established residential areas. Mayor Maus concurred that City staff contact the City planner and develop a proposal for accommodating the single family housing need in the community without creating a negative impact on existing residential neighborhoods. Motion was made by Shirley Anderson, seconded by Fran Fair, to authorize City staff to contact the City planner for the purpose of studying this matter further. Motion carried unanimously. 8. Consideration of an ordinance amendment further defininq public nuisances. Administrator Wolfsteller noted that since our underlying purpose in having a public nuisance ordinance is to eliminate blight and unsightly conditions in both residential and commercial noighborhoods, the staff and the City attorney feel that it is necessary to amend our ordinance to eliminate the possibility of individuals storing a large number of automobiles outdoors. As a result, it was suggested by tho City attorney that the ordinance amendment be adopted, which would strengthen 0 Council Minutes - 2/12/90 1 the City's ability to control storing of unused vehicles on residential property. At this po'_nt, Council reviewed the proposed amendment. Council did not achieve a consensus on this matter; therefore, motion was made by Shirley Anderson, seconded by Fran Fair, to postpone a decision regarding this matter until the second meeting in March. Motion carried unanimously. Consideration of ordinance to requlate cigarette vendinq machines. Mori Malone was in attendance and reviewed the reasons why she submitted the idea of development of the ordinance. Malone noted that by eliminating cigarette vending machines we can improve the health of our youth by decreasing the easy availability of cigarettes. She also noted that it's the 16th anniversary of D -Day, which had its origin in Monticello. Assistant Administrator O'Neill noted that prior to development of the final wording of the ordinance, staff would like to know if Council wishes to enact a complete ban on cigarette vending machines or a partial ban. O'Neill went on to note that the City of Big Lake prohibits cigarette sales through vending machines everywhere except in an establishment that has on -sale intoxicating liquor licenses. On the other hand, the City of white Bear Lake does not allow cigarettes to be sold through vending machines anywhere in the city. Ken Maus noted that in Minneapolis, cigarette machines are allowed to operate in motels. Dan Blonigon reviewed his opposition to regulating cigarette sales through vending machines. He noted that tobacco is a legal substance and is even still subsidized by the government. By eliminating vending machines, we will create a now set of problems. Our efforts would be better spent educating youth regarding the hazards of cigarette smoking. Aftor discussion, it was the general consensus to develop an ord nance which would allow cigarette vending machines to be operated in liquor establishments or other areas where it is impossible for individuals under 18 years of age to access the cigarette vending machines. 0 Council Minutes - 2/12/90 10. Update by City Attornev on current litigation issues. City Attorney, Tom Hayes, updated the Council on the status of the Senior Citizen Director lawsuit. Hayes informed Council that the note of issue has been filed and no response to the City's offer has been received. A pre-trial conference is now coming forward. Council took no action on this matter. 11. Review of Monticello Softball Association financial report for 1989 and update on expenditures relatinq to NSP softball field complex. Rick Wolfsteller updated the Council on total expenditures at the softball complex and reviewed the Softball Association's financial report. Wolfsteller noted that the fees collected from the Softball Association do not cover 1009 of the annual maintenance cost of the field; however, he also noted that the Men's Softball Association is not the only organization that utilizes the field. Wolfsteller went on to say that if Council feels additional revenue is needed, we may want to investigate charging other organizations that utilize the complex also or charge the Softball Association a higher fee to use the field. Ken Maus asked how the Monticello fees compare to fees required by other communities. Roger Mack noted that the fee schedule was established two years ago and was based on fees charged at a field in Mankato. Maus suggested that once we demonstrate what others are requiring for fees, we can then set our own fees. Warren Smith noted that the Softball Association is doing a good job, and he saw no need to adjust fees at this time. After discussion, motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Warren Smith, to accept the financial report submitted by the Monticello Softball Association. Amendments to the existing fee structure to occur only after review of fees charged by other cities. Motion carried unanimously. 12. Consideration of award of bids for Project 90-1, booster Pump refurbishment, at the water reservoir on Chelsea Road. John Simola reported that it's the recommendation of the City Engineer, Public Works Director, and Water Superintendent that the City Council award the refurbishment of existing pumps to the lowest bidder able D Council Minutes - 2/12/90 to satisfy technical requirements. The two bids received were submitted by E.H. Renner b Sons at a cost of $35,296. The second alternative would be to award the bid to Traut Wells, Inc., in the amount of $39,900. Simola went on to note that the last estimate given the City Council for the work was $42,000; therefore, the bids are within the latest proposed budget projections. After discussion, motion was made by warren Smith, seconded by Shirley Anderson, to award the bid to the lowest bidder able to satisfy technical requirements. Motion carried unanimously. 13. Consideration of renewinq contract for enqineerinq and consultinq services and revised enqineerino fee schedule. Shirley Anderson noted her concern regarding the length of time it takes for the City to obtain updated base maps. John Badalich responded by saying that updates to base maps are usually done on an annual basis and are not done at the end of every project. It is less expensive in terms of printing costs to update maps on an annual basis rather than on a project basis. Shirley Anderson also was concerned that the City did not receive up-to- date monthly reports on project expenditures. John Badalich responded by saying OSM will make a better effort to make sure that the City receives up-to-date project cost information on a monthly basis. Rick wolfsteller noted that the continuation of engineering services with OSM does not have to be a guaranteed commitment that all engineering services have to be performed by OSM. The City Council may wish, and the staff would like the option, to utilize other engineering firms should the need arise for a specific project or task. If staff feels that a future project would be more appropriately handled by another engineering firm, this would be brought to the Council for their approval. Assistant Administrator O'Neill and Public Works Director, John Simola, both indicated that the engineers from OSM supporting John Badalich have been doing a good job of late and have boon providing timely service to the City. After diecussion, a motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Warren Smith, to continue the consulting services agreement with OSM and adopt the revised foe schedule. During discussion, Ken Maus noted that this agreement can be terminated upon 30 days notice if the O C Council Minutes - 2/12/90 need arises. Voting in favor of the motion: Ken Maus, Fran Fair, Warren Smith, Shirley Anderson. Opposed: Dan Blonigen. In explaining his opposition, Dan Blonigen stated that he was not satisfied with the number of change orders associated with projects throughout the years. John Badalich responded by saying that many of the change orders were not foreseeable and were found necessary only after the project is started. 14. Consideration of hirinq an inspector. John Simola reported that over the last few years we have considered hiring our own inspector for various public improvement projects. In addition, the work load in other departments, primarily the sewer and water utilities department, has increased to a point where additional staffing is needed. In addition, OSM indicated that if the individual hired was competent, the City engineer would have no problems signing off on improvement projects. Simola also noted that in 1989 the City spend $42,000 on improvement inspections. About 7.38 of this time was on private projects. At the same time, it would cost the City approximately $29,000 to $34,000 per year to hire an inspector, including salary and benefits. Based upon OSM's new rate for construction observation, it is easy to see that we only need to provide 655 hours of inspection work on public projects to pay for 1008 of the individual's salary for the whole year. Aside from the public improvement projects, there are other numerous duties that the inspector could perform for the City. Ken Maus noted his support for the idea, as hiring an inspector will improve quality control while saving money at the same time. After discussion, motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Warren Smith, to develop a job description based on the above task descriptions and advertise for a full-time inspector with a salary range of $24,000 to $27,000 per year depending on qualifications. Motion carried unanimously. L Council Minutes - 2/12/90 15. Consideration of adontina a resolution calling for a public hearing on the proposed modification by the Housinq and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Monticello of the redevelopment plan for Redevelooment Project N1, the modification of the tax increment financing plans for Tax Increment Financing District Nos. 1-1 through 1-8, and the approval and adoption of the tax increment financinq plan for Tax Increment Financinq District No. 1-9. After discussion, motion was made by Dan Blonigen, seconded by Shirley Anderson, to adopt a resolution calling for a public hearing date on February 26, 1990, for TIF plan relating to Tax Increment Financing District 1-9. SEE RESOLUTION 90-5. 16. Consideration of adoptinq a resolution qivinq preliminary approval for the Tapper, Inc., project and qivinq preliminary approval. for the issuance of small business development loan revenue bonds. Shirley Anderson asked if adopting the resolution will create a financial liability for the City. Pat Pelstring of Business Development Services responded by saying that the resolution states that the City supports the development proposed by Tappor, Inc., which gives the State the authority to issue the small business development loan revenue proceeds to Tapper, Inc., for purposes of financing a portion of the Tapper, Inc., project. After discussion, a motion was made by Warren Smith, seconded by Fran Fair, to adopt a resolution giving preliminary approval for the Tapper, Inc., project and giving preliminary approval for the issuance of small business dovelopmont loan rovenuo bonds. Motion carried unanimously. SEE RESOLUTION 90-6. C Council Minutes - 2/12/90 17. Reconsideration of adopting a resolution relating to the modification by the Housinq and Redevelopment Authority in and for the Citv of Monticello of the Redevelopment Prosect No. 1, the modification of the tax increment financinq plans relating to Tax Increment Financing District Nos. 1-1 through 1-10, and the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-11, all located within Redevelopment Prosect No. 1, and the approval and adoption of the tax increment financinq Plan. 011ie Koropchak reported that the Housing and Redevelopment Authority requests that Council reconsider this resolution which was not adopted at the previous Council meeting. Koropchak went on to report that additional information is available that might cause Council to reconsider its previous position on this matter. Ken Maus noted that the Council may have misunderstood the main thrust of Martie's Farm Service business activity. He went on to note that after reading the business description submitted by Mr. Martie, a large portion of the business activity is commercial rather than retail. At this point in the meeting, Council discussed policies with regard to the use of tax increment financing. Pat Pelstring of Business Development Services noted that the Housing and Redevelopment Authority struggled with the same issue that Council discussed at the previous meeting. The HRA was also concerned that this type of project was purely retail versus commercial. As a result of the HRA's concern, the HRA recommended that the use of tax increment financing equal the portion of the project focusing on commercial rather than retail business use. Pelstring went on to note that the HRA supported the project because it folt that the local business community and business owners should receive consideration when requesting assistance via TIF; and although the Martie's Farm Service project is not pure manufacturing, it does have substantial aspects that relate to manufacturing. Dan Blonigon noted that he's bothered by the fact that the City is forced into using tax increment financing in order to compete with financial programs provided by other cities. He noted his desire that the State restrict it appropriately and that it is out of control. Ken Maus noted that it is likely that the legislature will modify the TIF statutes so as to control its use. 10 0 Council Minutes - 2/12/90 He also went on to note that the Martie's Farm Service business is a business that has a regional draw. In fact, the farm service could locate elsewhere. It may make sense for the City to utilize tax increment financing in order to keep this business in Monticello. Mr. Martie mentioned that he did not attend the original meeting. He apologized for not making it. It was his understanding that his presence would not be necessary. He went on to note that he does operate a unique business that is generally non-competitive with other retail businesses in the community and that his draw is regional and local. Fran Fair asked why tax increment financing is necessary when it appeared that the business is going to relocate anyway. Mr. Martie indicated that the use of tax increment financing was always a major component of the finance plan and that the relocation to a large degree was predicated on the ability to obtain the financing. Ken Maus asked Martie to describe the ratio of retail versus wholesale business that his business conducts. Martie explained that a major portion of his business comes from wholesale distribution of salt, pet food, oats, animal feeds. Fran Fair asked if Martie is going to expand into other product lines. Martie explained that yes, he will be expanding into agriculture related hobby farm products, different foods for different animals. He did note that he would be doing some retail but not a lot of volume. Ken Maus noted that the HRA felt an obligation to bring this information forward regarding the nature of the business. He also went on to note that the State will act to rectify the tax increment financing legislation; however, at this time we are bound to operate within the rules that exist. Shirley Anderson asked, "Are we satisfied that this development would not occur without tax increment financing?" Ken Maus responded by saying that the "but for" question is not simply a findncial distinction. In other words, if it was not "but for" tax increment financing used in Monticello, the development would have gone elsewhere. Rn 9 Council Minutes - 2/12/90 if Dan Blonigen brought the discussion to a close by making a motion to reverse the previous decision and adopt the i resolution approving use of tax increment financing in this case. Warren Smith seconded by motion. Motion carried unanimously. SEE RESOLUTION 90-7. 18. Consideration of change order 11 and final payment for Improvement Project 88-06, water main and appurtenant work near the old wells and to the new water tank. Motion was made by Warren Smith, seconded by Fran Fair, to approve change order 01 in the amount of $4,153.25 and approve final payment to the contractor, Richard Knutson of Savage, Minnesota, in the amount of $25,993.99. Motion carried unanimously. 19. Consideration of authorizing the purchase of Remmele property. Rick Wolfsteller informed Council that City staff has been working extremely hard in attracting Remmele Engineering, Inc., of Big Lake to locate their new facility in Monticello. As part of the proposal to relocate in Monticello, Remmele proposed that the City purchase 68.7 acres of land adjacent to the city. The money used in this purchase would be contributed toward the costs associated with building the manufacturing plant in Monticello. Ken Maus noted that he supports the purchase of the property at its appraised value and noted that the property is a sellable piece of property, which would allow the City to recover its investment. After discussion, motion was made by Dan Blonigen, seconded by Shirley Anderson, to authorize the preparation of a purchase agreement at the stated market appraisal of $55,000 contingent upon Remmele starting construction of their new facility in Monticello. Motion carried unanimously. 20. Consideration of a resolution adopting a records retention schedule. After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson, seconded by Warren Smith, to table adoption of the resolution adopting a records retention schedule pending further review by staff. Motion carried unanimously. 12 E❑ Council Minutes - 2/12/90 21. ouarterly department head reports. At this time in the meeting, department head reports were received from Don Hozempa, Karen Hanson, Jerry Wein, Rick Wolfsteller, Jeff O'Neill, Gary Anderson, John Simola, and 011ie Koropchak. There being no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned. Jff Neill Ass Stant Administrator 11 0 MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, February 20, 1990 - 7:30 a.m. Members Present: Ken Maus, Fran Fair, Warren Smith, Dan Blonigen, Shirley Anderson Members Absent: None Assistant Administrator, Jeff O'Neill, reported that 80 acres of land near the site of the existing Pilot's Cove Airport is available for sale and that Council might wish to consider purchasing this land in anticipation of potential development and expansion of the existing airport. O'Neill noted that the existing airport land area is too small to qualify for State funding. In order for the airport to expand, a portion of the land north of the airport must be purchased. At this time, Council has the opportunity to buy 80 acres north of the land needed for purchase and then attempt to work a trade with the owner of the property directly north of the airport. O'Neill went on to note that the State will fund 500 to 758 of the land cost purchase if the airport development plans qualify for funding. The City must provide up -front money with reimbursement from the State of Minnesota when the project is funded by the State. In reviewing the proposal to purchase the land, O'Neill noted that there is considerable risk involved. For instance, there is no guarantee that the airport would qualify for State fundiny; the State does not generally fund airports with north/south runway alignments; there is no guarantee that the City could work out a deal with the owner of the property directly north of the existing airport; in order for the airport to expand, rezoning must occur, and there is no guarantee that an application for rezoning acceptable to the State will be approved by the local jurisdiction. To mitigate the risk, the City could rent the land and resell it if the airport did not get funded; however, the total cost of the land might not be recovered. In addition, there would be considerable staff and consultant time and expense necessary to see the project through without any guarantees. Mayor Maus noted that development of an airport represents an investment in the City's future and that tho City should seriously consider development of the airport; however, he was not sure if it is the right time to purchase the land that is now available given the numerous unansworod questions regarding airport development at the site. 0 Special Council Minutee - 2/20/90 Dan Blonigen mentioned his opposition to the idea of investing significant money into a facility that is not used by the general public and that benefits a small group of fliers. He also noted that it is not clearly demonstrated that the presence of the airport would encourage economic development. Fran Fair agreed that significant research needs to be conducted prior to a major investment by the City. Shirley Anderson agreed that we should look at development of the airport carefully and make sure that we have support from the local jurisdictions before investing a significant amount of money toward the development of the airport. It was the general consensus of Council that staff, working with the airport development advisory committee, should prepare additional information as follows: 1. Determine the true potential of development and expansion of the airport at its existing site. 2. Obtain a clear idea of who is using other municipal airports in an attempt to determine the economic development benefit of an airport in Monticello. �P-D Jeff 1 Assis an Administrator 0 C Council Agenda - 2/26/90 3. Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaints. (R.W.) Mr. Tom Moores, representing the Little League Baseball organization, has indicated he will be attending the Council meeting under citizens comments to discuss with the Council the Little League program and its needs in the future. Mr. Moores may have briefly discussed his intentions with the Council members prior to the meeting; and since there has not been a specific request, I felt he could approach the Council under citizens comments at this time. L Council Agenda - 2/26/90 Public hearing and consideration for adoption of a resolution relating to the modification by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Monticello of the op redevelopment plan relating to Redevelment Project No. 1, the modification of the tax increment financing plans relating to Tax Increment Financing District Nos. 1-1 through 1-8 and the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-9, all located within Redevelopment Project No. 1-9, and the approval and adoption of the tax increment financing plan relating thereto. (O.K.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The public hearing may be opened for oral or written comment from the public and oral or written comment from the school district, the hospital district, and the county commission. Bill and Barb Tapper, owners of Tapper, Inc., contacted the City of Monticello last summer/fall of their interest and need to expand their operations. They considered Elk River, the St. Michael area, Monticello, and others for a possible site location. Tapper, Inc., does business as Genereux Fine Wood Products and Westlund Distributing. Genereux manufactures a full line of unfinished custom storage systems primarily for the single family home market. Westlund Distributing distributes hardware to the cabinet manufacturing industry. The company currently operates out of a 12,000 sq ft facility in St. Michael, which is leased. The initial Monticelln PxpanRinn will he a 24,000 sq ft manufacturing facility with a 3,000 sq ft mezzanine/office area. Jobs will include the retention of 25 plus an approximate addition of 25 skilled and semi -skilled labor. Location site is Lot 4, B1ocY 2, Oakwood Industrial Park, 7.6 acres. The Induotrial Development Promotion/Prospect Committee visited their operations in St. Michael. The Tappers were guests at the fall IDC banquet, they have toured Monticello and its industrial parks, and they have appeared before the HRA and the Planning Commission for approval of their planned project and TIP plan. C Council Agenda - 2/26/90 As part of the industrial recruitment process, Business Development Services, Inc., prepared a financial package for Tapper, Inc., based on the total project cost (uses) and sources. The financial package includes TIF, $77,500 land acquisition; Small Business Development Loan, approximately $820,000; Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund, approximately $100,000; and equity, approximately $28,800 for building, equipment, and soft costs. The SBDL soon to be approved for dollar allocation will determine the dollars requested from the GMEF. upon financing approvals, the Tappers plan to begin construction in March/April with construction completion in the fall. Bill and Barb Tapper will be present at the City Council meeting to present their expansion plans. Deb Grains of BDS, Inc., will also be present. The City Council, after having called for a public hearing date of February 26 at the previous Council meeting, after notice having appeared in the local newspaper for two weeks, and with the assumption of no public comment, may close the public hearing, and the Council should consider adoption of the resolution for Tax Increment District and Finance Plan No. 1-9 (Tapper, Inc.). B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Adopt the resolution relating to the modification by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Monticello of the redevelopment plan relating to Redevelopment Project No. 1, the modification of the tax increment financing plans relating to Tax Increment Financing District Noe. 1-1 through 1-8, and the eatablishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-9, and the approval and adoption of the tax increment financing plan relating thereto. 2. To not adopt the resolution. 1. Table adoption of the resolution. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Recommendation to City Council is for the adoption of the resolution because the project increases the annual tax base by approximately $25,000, the project provides increased employment of approximately 25 now jobs, and has a positive impact to the community at large. The HRA approved the finance plan meeting HRA policy considerations: The project is consistent with the City's comprehenaive plan, the project demonstrates long-term economic and housing benefits to the community, the project shall create employment, and the C L Council Agenda - 2/26/90 project shall be deemed to promote additional desired spin-off development. The Planning Commission approved the finance plan, as the project was consistent with the comprehensive plan. The project also meets several of the Redevelopment Project No. 1 objectives. The IDC, the HRA, Business Development Services, Inc., and the City staff have put ample time into the recruitment of Tappers, Inc., and find the company and owners to be of high equality, interested in the community, and a growing, well-managed company. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the resolution for adoption; Copy of a portion of the TIF plan; Project plans to be presented at the Council meeting. Councilmember introduced the following resolution, the reading of which was dispensed with by unanimous consent, and moved its adoption: CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA 10 - RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE MODIFICATION, BY THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN RELATING TO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1, THE MODIFICATION OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS RELATING TO TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS NOS. 1-1 THROUGH 1-8 AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-9, ALL LOCATED WITHIN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1, AND THE APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN RELATING THERETO. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") of the �► City of Monticello, Minnesota (the "City"), as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01. It has been proposed and adopted by the Housing And Redevelopment Authority in and for the City (the "Authority") that the Authority modify, by increased project costs, Redevelopment Project No. 1, pursuant to and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047, inclusive, as amended. It has been further proposed and adopted by the Authority that the Authority modify the Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment Financing Districts Nos. 1-1 through 1-8 and establish Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-9, located within Redevelopment Project No. 1, and approve and adopt the Tax Increment Financing Plan relating thereto, pursuant to and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.179, inclusive, as amended. 1.02. The Authority has caused to be prepared and this Council has investigated the facts with respect thereto, a pro- posed Modified Redevelopment Plan (the 'Modified Redevelopment Plan") for Redevelopment Project No. 1, defining more precisely the increased project costs to be made to Redevelopment Project No. 1, the proposed Modified Tax Increment Financing Plans for C Tax Increment Financing Districts Nos. 1-1 through 1-8 and the proposed Tax Increment Financing Plan (the 'Tax Increment Financing Plan") for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-9 (collectively referred to as the "Plans"). G) 1.03. The Authority and the City have performed all actions+ required by law to be performed prior to the modification of Redevelopment Project No. 1, the modification of Tax Increment Financing Districts Nos. 1-1 through 1-8 and the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-9 and the adoption of the Plans relating thereto, including, but not limited to, notification to Wright County, Independent School District No. 882 and Monticello -Big Lake Community Hospital, having jurisdication over the property to be included in Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-9; a review by the City Planning Commission of the proposed Modified Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1, the proposed Modified Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment Financing Districts Nos. 1-1 through 1-8, and the proposed Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-9; and the holding of a public hearing upon published and mailed notice as required by law. 1.04. The Authority hereby determines that it is necessary and in the best interest of the City at this time to modify Redevelopment Project No. 1, to modify Tax Increment Financing Districts Nos. 1-1 through 1-8 and to establish Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-9 and approve the Plans relating thereto, contingent upon execution of the Redevelopment and Assessment Agreements by and between the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Monticello, and William R. Tapper and Barbara R. Tapper. Section 2. Findings for the Modification of Redevelopment Project No. 1, Modification of Tax Increment Financinq Districts Nos. 1-1 throuqh 1-8, and the Establishment of Tax Increment Financinq District No. 1-9. 2.01. The Council hereby finds, determines and declares that the modification of Tax Increment Financing Districts Nos. 1-1 through 1-8 and the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-9, all located within Redevelopment Project No. 1, is intended and, in the judgment of the Council, its effect will be, to further provide an impetus for commercial and industrial development, increase employment and otherwise promote certain public purposes and accomplish certain objectives as specified in the Modified Tax Increment Financing Plans and Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing Districts Nos. 1-1 through 1-9. 2.02. The Council hereby finds that Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-9 does meet the requirements of an economic development district in that it consists of any project, or any portions of a project which does not meet the requirements found in the definition of a redevelopment district, mined underground space development district, housing district or soil corrections district, but which the Authority and City finds to be in the ( public interest because: 1. It will discourage commerce, industry, or manufacturing from moving their operations to another stater or -2- O n 1. It will discourage commerce, industry, or manufacturing from moving their operations to another state; or 2. It will result in increased employment in the municipality; or 3. It will result in preservation and enhancement of the tax base of the municipality. 2.03. The Council finds, determines and declares that the proposed development, in the opinion of the Council, would not occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and, therefore, the use of tax increment financing is deemed necessary. 2.04. The Council finds, determines, and declares that the proposed Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-9 will afford maximum opportunity and be consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole for the development or redevelopment of Redeveloment Project No. 1 by private enterprise. 2.05. The Council further finds, declares and determines that the City made the above findings stated in Section 2 and has set forth the reasons and supporting facts fcr each determination in writing, attached hereto as Exhibit A. 2.06. The Council determines and declares that Redevelopment Project No. 1 is hereby modified, that Tax Increment Financing Districts Nos. 1-1 through 1-8 are hereby modified and that Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-9 is hereby established, contingent upon execution of the Redevelopment and Assessment Aqreements by and between the Housinq and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Monticello and William R. Tapper and Barbara R. Tapper. Section 3. Adoption of Respective Plans. 3.01. The respective Plans presented to the Council on this date are hereby approved and adopted, contingent upon execution of the Redevelopment and Assessment Agreements by and between the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Monticello and William R. Tapper and Barbara R. Tapper, and shall be placed on file in the office of the City Administrator. Section 4. Implementation of the Modified Redevelopment Plan, Modified Tax Increment Financinq Plans and Tax Increment Financinq Plan. 4.01. The officers of the City, the City's financial advi- sor, underwriter and the City's legal counsel and bond counsel are authorized and directed to proceed with the implementation of the respective Plans and for this purpose to negotiate, draft, prepare and present to this Council for its consideration all further plans, resolutions, documents and contracts necessary to accomplish this purpose. -3-O The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was y duly seconded by Councilmember , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: And the following voted against the same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, and was signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Administrator. Dated February 26, 1990 Attest: City Administrator (SEAL) C Mayor EXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTION NO. G l � J The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the establishment of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-9 as required, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subd. 3, are as follows: 1. Finding that Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-9 is a "economic development district" as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subd. 12. Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-9 consists of one parcel which does not meet the requirements of a redevelopment district, mined underground space development district, housing district or soils correction district. The Authority and City find Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-9 to be in the public interest because: 1. It will discourage commerce, industry, or manufacturing from moving their operations to another state; and 2. It will result in increased employment in the municipa- lity; and 3. It will result in preservation and enhancement of the tax base of the municipality. 2. Finding that the proposed development, in the opinion of the Council, would not occur solely through private investment within the reasonable foreseeable future, and therefore, the use of tax increment financing is deemed necessary. City staff has reviewed the available financing costs for the development. Due to the high costs of the public improvements, the project would not be financially feasible without the City's assistance. 3. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan conforms to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the munici- pality as a whole. The Monticello Planning Commission reviewed the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-9 on February 6, 1990, and determined that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-9 conforms to the Comprehensive Plan of the City. 4. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-9 will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development of Redevelopment Project No. 1 by private enterprise. -5- 0 C The project to be developed, which will be located within Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-9, consists of the construction of a 25,000 square foot office/production facility to be ccnatructed in the spring of 1990 and completed by December 31, 1990. It is anticipated that 25 additional full- time jobs will result from this project. 5. Finding regarding. the method of tax increment computation set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subd. 3, Clause (b), if applicable. The Council does not elect the method of tax increment com- putation set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subd. 3, Clause (b). 6. Finding regarding duration of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-9. The duration of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-9 will be eight (8) years from the date of receipt of the first tax increment or ten (10) from the approval of the Tax Increment Financing Plan, whichever is less. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subd. 3, the City requests 100 percent of the available increase in assessed value for current expenditures. BUDGET Land Acquisition $104,000.00 Current Assessment 6,600.00 Future Assessment 11,600.00 Plan/Agreement 5,000.00 City Contingency 8,200.00 Discount 2,000.00 Financial/Bond Counsel 12,100.00 Capitalized Interest 20,500.00 $170,000.00 Tax Increment Financinq District No. 1-8. (As'adopted January 23, 1989) BUDGET Land Acquisition $21,200.00 Improvements 1,800.00 Subtotal $23,000.00 Administration 500.00 Professional Services 3,500.00 Capitalized Interest 7,000.00 $34,000.00 rTax Increment Pinancinq_District_No. 1-9 (As adopted February 26, 1990) �BtlDC;ET—� Land Acquisition $ 77,500.00 Subtotal $ 77,500.00 Administration 15,000.00 Professional Services 5,000.00 Capitalized Interest 24,500.00 Discount 3.000.00 $125,000.00 (As adopted November, 1982) Subsection 1.11. Land Use. All new and/or existing development on land identified on Exhibits I -C through I -F as •property to be acquired" or 'possible acquisition• will be subject to the following uses and requirements: 1. Uses Permitted in Designated Areas. a. Industrial --All permitted, accessory and conditional uses as specified in Chapters 15 and 16, Monticello Zoning ordinance, relating to 1-1 (Light Industry) and I-2 (Heavy Industry) zones. Planned Unit Developments. where r applicable, will be considered. 1 I-27 D I AN I SECTION X TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-9 Subsection 10.1. Statement of Objectives. See Subsection 1.4 of the Redevelopment Plan. Subsection 10.2. The Redevelopment Plan. See Section I, Subsections 1.1 through 1.20. Subsection 10.3. Description of the Project. The project, located within Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-9, consists of the construction of a 25,000 square foot office/ production facility. This facility is to be constructed in the spring of 1990, and completed by December 31, 1990. It is anticipated that 25 additional full-time positions will be created as a result of this construction. Subsection 10.4. Parcels to be Included in Tax Increment Financinq District No. 1-9. The following property is located in the City of Monticello, County of Wright, State of Minnesota. Leqal Description Lot 4, Block 2, Oakwood Industrial Park, City of Monticello, Minnesota, County of Wright. PTD NO.: 155-018-002040 Owner: Oakwood Industrial Park Subsection 10.5. Parcels in Acquisition. The Authority intends to acquire the property listed in Subsection 10.4, which property is located within Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-9. Properties identified for acquisition will be acquired either by the City or the Authority in order to accomplish public improvements listed in Subsection 1.9 of the Redevelopment Plan hereof. X-1 J c Subsection 10.6. Development Activity in Tax Increment Financinq District No. 1-9 for Which Contracts will be Siqned. The following contract(s) will be entered into by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority and the person(s) named below: Prior to the certification of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-9, a Development and Assessment Agreement will be executed between the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Monticello and William R. Tapper and Barbara R. Tapper. Subsection 10.7. Other Specific Development Expected to Occur within Redevelopment Protect No. 1. (As specific development is expected to occur, it will be inserted into this Subsection.) Subsection 10.8. Estimated Public Improvement Costs and Supportive Data. See Subsection 1.10 of the Redevelopment Plan for estimated costs associated with Redevelopment Project No. 1. Subsection 10.9. Sources of Revenue. Public improvement costs, and other costs outlined in Subsection 1.10 of the Redevelopment Plan will be financed through the annual collection of tax increments. Subsection 10.10. Oriqinal Tax Capacity. Pursuant to Section 469.177, Subd. 1, of the Tax Increment Financing Act, the original tax capacity value for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-9 is estimated to be $2,641, based on the tax capacity value of all taxable real property within Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-9. Pursuant to Section 469.177, Subds. 1 and 4, of the Tax Increment Financing Act, the County Auditor of Wright County (the "County Auditor') shall certify in each year the amount by which the original tax capacity value has increased or decreased as a result in a change in tax-exempt property within Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-9, reduction or enlarge- ment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-9 or changes in connection with previously issued building permits. In any year in which the current tax capacity value of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-9 declines below the original tax capacity value, no tax capacity value will be captured and no tax increment will be payable to the Authority. x-2 0 l Subsection 10.11. Estimated Captured Tax Capacity Value. Pursuant to Section 469.175, Subd. i, and Section 469.177, Subd. 2, of the Tax Increment Financing Act, the estimated captured tax capacity value in Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-9 at final completion will approximate $2,849. This estimated annual captured capacity value is determined in the following manner: Estimated Tax Capacity Value at Final Completion $31,130 Original Tax Capacity 2,641 Captured Tax Capacity Value $28,489• 'Please refer to Exhibit X-8 for the year-to-year expected tax increment for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-9. Subsection 10.12. Type of Tax Increment Financinq District. Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-9, is pursuant to Section 469.174, Subd. 12, an Economic Development District as described below: "'Economic Development District' means a type of tax increment financing district which consists of any project, or portions of a project not meeting the requirements found in the definition of redevelopment district or housing district, but which the authority finds to be in the public interest because: (a) It will discourage commerce, industry or manufacturing from moving their operations to another state; or (b) It will result in increased employment in the municipality; or (c) it will result in the preservation and enhancement of the tax base of the municipality,• Subsection 10.13. Duration of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-9, Pursuant to Section 469.176, Subd. 1, of the Tax Increment Financing Act, the duration of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-9 will be ten (10) years from the approval of the Tax Increment Financing Plan, or eight (8) years from receipt of the first tax increment, whichever is less. Subsection 10.14. Proposed Development Analysis, Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subd. i(7), specific findings and analysis relating to the proposed development in Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-9. Additional relevant documentation relating to the findings and analysis will be on file and available for review in the City Administrator's office. X-3 0 Subsection 10.15. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions. Test No. 1: The estimated impact on other taxing jurisdic- tions assumes construction would have occurred without the creation of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-9. If the construction is a result of Tax Increment Financing, the impact is $0 to other entities. Test No. 2: Notwithstanding the fact that the fiscal impact on the other taxing jurisdictions is $0 due to the fact that the financing would not have occured without the assistance of the City, the following estimated impact of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-9 would be as follows if Test No. 1 (the 'but for• test) was not met: IMPACT ON TAX BASE Original Future Captured Net Tax Net Tax Net Tax Capacity Capacity Capacity District Payable Payable Payable % of Entity Tax Base 1990 1990 1990 Entity Wright County S 42,798,916 $2,641 $31,130 $28,489 .0678 City of Monticello $ 15,874,595 $2,641 $31,130 $28,489 .1799 I.S.D. 882 $ 18,312,425 $2,641 $31,130 $28,489 .1568 Hospital District $ 22,886,660 $2,641 $31,130 $28,489 .1249 IMPACT ON TAX CAPACITY MILL RATES Net Tax Capacity Potential Entity Rate 1990 Taxes Wright County 21.314 $ 6,072 City of Monticello 16.187 4,612 School District 882 40.861 11,641 Hospital District 2.813 801 81.1758 $226 Please refer to Exhibit X -B for the year-to-year expected tax increment for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-9. Subsection 10.16. Cash Plow Assumptions and Analysis. A. Future Tax Capacity. The estimated future tax capacity of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-9 at final completion C as determined by the City Assessor is $31,130 payable 1992. Please refer to Exhibit X -e for the year-to-year expected tax increment from Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-9. X_4 0 R B. Projected Timing. The payment of the first full tax increment from Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-9 will be received by the Authority in 1992. C. Oriqinal Tax Capacitv. The County Assessor's records show the original tax capacity of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-9 to be $2,641 for taxes in 1989 and payable in 1990. D. Gross Tax CapacitY Rate. The gross tax capacity rate is 81.175 percent. E. Tax Increment. Total tax increment at the completion of all redevelopment activity has been calculated assuming a static gross tax capacity rate and a valuation increased by zero percent (08) compounded annually. F. Capital Expenditures. Capital expenditures are a summary of the items associated with the public improvement costs set forth in Subsection 10.8 and are to be financed from the pro- ceeds of the Bonds and tax increment revenue. Subsection 10.17. Estimated Amount of Bonded Indebtedness. It is anticipated that $125,000 of bonded indebtedness will be incurred with respect to this portion of the Redevelopment Project. Subsection 10.18. Tax Increment Pinancinq Account for Tax increment Pinancinq District No. 1-9. The tax increment received with respect to Tax increment Financing District No. 1-9 will be submitted by the Authority to the City and segregated by the Authority in a special account or accounts (the "Tax Increment Account*) on its official books and records or as otherwise established by resolution of the city to be held by a trustee or trustees for the benefit of holders of the Bonds. Subsection 10.19. Modification of Tax Increment Pinancinq District No. 1-9. As of February 26, 1990, there have been no modifications made to Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-9. X-5 0 EXHIBIT X -A M 0 hanesota DE-ARNA.147. OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, Industrial Park Profile Oakwood Industrial Park Monticello, Minnesota 0 200 400 FEET 0 A1AA.AaLE PARCELS ga PARK so 1 r �IA' VIAL. ou—m X -A 0 C EXHIBIT X -B EXPECTED YEAR-TO-YEAR TAX INCREMENT'S RELATING TO TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-9 AND TAX CAPACITY ANALYSIS YEAR BASE TC ADJ FACTOR ADJ BASE FUT TC NET CAP TC 1990 TCR ANNUAL TI $180,793 X -B 0 $31,130 89/90 $2,641 1.04 0.81175 90/91 $2,747 $28,383 91/92 $2,857 $28,273 $22,951 92/93 $2,971 $28,159 $22,858 93/94 $3,090 $28,040 $22,762 94/95 $3,213 $27,917 $22,661 95/96 $3,342 $27,788 $22,557 96/97 $3,475 $27,655 $22,449 97/90 $3,614 $27,516 $22,33E 98/99 $3.759 $27,371 $22,218 $180,793 X -B 0 EXHIBIT X-C DISTRICT CERTIFICATION FORM Date Prepared: January 26, 1990 Name of District or Modification: Tax Increment Financinq District No. 1-9 Date of City Council Approval: February 26. 1990 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CERTIFICATION At the time of district creation or modification, the followinq conditions apply: X The project does not meet the requirements found in the definition of a redevelopment district, housing district, or a mined underground space development district. X The project was created after August 1, 1979, and was designated an economic development tax increment district, as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subd. 12, because: X a) It will discourage commerce, industry or manufacturing from moving their operations to another state. X b) It will result in increased employment in the municipality. X c) It will result in preservation and enhancement of the tax base of the municipality. Supportinq documentation on file: Land Use Plan Map X City Council Resolution Project Objectives Other: This Form Prepared by: Business Development Services, Inc. Title Original Building Condition Data Collected bys N/A Title i Documentation in support of District Certification is on file at the City offices. X-C 0 Council Agenda - 2/26/90 Consideration of adopting a resolution callinq for a public hearing on the proposed modification by the Housinq and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Monticello of the redevelopment plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1, the modification of the tax increment financlnq plans for Tax Increment Financinq District Nos. 1-1 throuqh 1-9, and the approval and adoption of the tax increment financinq plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-10, all located within Redevelopment Project No. I. (O.K.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: This agenda item is to call a public hearing for the adoption of the TIF plan for Remmele Engineering, Inc. Remmele Engineering is a supplier of high quality, technologically advanced services in the areas of: 1) contract fabricating, machining, and assembly; 2) designing and building custom equipment for automating or mechanizing a variety of manufacturing processes; and 3) fabricating and building machinery designed by customers where it fits our manufacturing capabilities. Customers for all Remmele Engineering services consist primarily of manufacturing industries. Remmele Engineering currently has 400 employees located in four plants. Two plants are located in Big Lake and two plants are located in St. Paul. Based upon the long term needs of the company, the site muse be able to accommodate future expansion of a facility up to 60,000 sq ft. The initial plant will be 23,333 sq ft with two planned expansions. Initial employment will be 50 skilled labor Jobs. Site location is Lot 6, Block 1, Oakwood Industrial Park, 6.58 acres; vacated Fallon Avenue, .82 acres; Boyle property, 2.1 acres for a total of 9.4 acres. Additionally, Remmele Engineering will purchase an approximate .92 acres and deed to the City for realignment of Fallon Avenue. Plane call for the City to acquire a small triangular piece of Boyle property south of Chelsea Road to complete the realignment of Fallon Avenue. The TIF plan relating to TIF District No. 1-10 is available in complete form for review at the City Hall. A portion of the plan will be included with the March Council agenda. The total Phase I TIF budget is $260,000 (land acquisition $120,000 and on -alto uti1itles/grading/landscaping $65,000 from the HRA oxcoss fund). Remaining costs are soft costs, capitalized interest, otc. Representatives from Rommole Engineering will be present at the March 12 Council mooting. C Council Agenda - 2/26/90 The Council should consider calling for a public hearing for the Remmele TIF plan relating to District No. 1-10, said hearing to be Monday, March 12, 1990. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: To adopt the resolution calling for a public hearing on the proposed modification by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Monticello of the redevelopment plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1, the modification of the tax increment financing plans for Tax Increment Financing District Nos. 1-1 through 1-9, and the approval and adoption of the tax increment financing plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-10. 2. Do not adopt the resolution. 3. Table adoption of the resolution. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Recommendation is for the City Council to adopt the resolution calling for a public hearing on March 12, 1990, for the TIF plan relating to TIF District No. 1-10. Recommendation is consistent with HRA approval of the TIF plan and with the assumption of the HRA public hearing for disposition of lands not hearing public opposition, and with the assumption the Planning Commission approves the project plan being consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, respective meeting to be held on March 7 and March 6. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the resolution for adoption; Copy of site location plan. 6 Councilmember introduced the following resolution, the reading of which was dispensed with by unanimous consent, and moved its adoption: CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION, BY THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1, THE MODIFICATION OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS FOR TAX FOR TAX INCREMRNT FINANCING DISTRICTS NOS. 1-1 THROUGH 1-9 AND THE APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-10, ALL LOCATED WITHIN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") of the City of Monticello, Minnesota (the "City"), as follows: Section 1. Public Hearinq. This Council shall meet on March 12, 1990, at approximately 7:00 p.m., to hold a public hearing on the following matters: (a) the proposed modification, by increased project costs, of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority's (the "Authority") Redevelopment Project No. 1; (b) the proposed modification, by increased project costs, of Tax Increment Financing Districts Nos. 1-1 through 1-9, located within Redevelopment Project No. 1; (c) the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-10, located within Redevelopment Project No. 1; (d) the proposed adoption of the Modified Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1; (e) the proposed adoption of the Modified Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment Financing Districts Nos. 1-1 through 1-9; and (f) the proposed adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-10, all pursuant to and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047, inclusive, as amended, and Sections 469.174 to 469.179, inclusive, as amended. 0 Section 2. Notice of Hearing{ Filinq of Proqram. The City ` Administrator is authorized and directed to cause notice of the hearing, substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, to be given as required by law, to place a copy of the proposed Modified Redevelopment Plan, Modified Tax Increment Financing Plans and Tax Increment Financing Plan on file in the Administrator's Office at City Hall and to make such copy available for inspection by the public no later than February 16, 1990. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: And the following voted against the same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted by the Council in and for the City of Monticello, Minnesota, on February 26, 1990. ATTEST: C Administrator Mayor L r ,0,901 p,XNiQ1T XI -A 1 � Council Agenda - 2/26/90 6. Consideration of a resolution calling for a public hearing on the tax increment financing plan--K-Mart. W .O.) A. REFERENCE. AND BACKGROUND: Council is asked to consider calling a public hearing on the proposed establishment by the City of Monticello of development district -1, the proposed establishment of the development program relating thereto, the proposed establishment of a tax increment financing district.• 1-1, and the proposed adoption of the tax increment financing plan relating thereto. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to adopt the resolution. The public hearing is scheduled for March 12, 1990, at 7:00 p.m. 2. Motion to deny adoption of the resolution. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the resolution. According to state statutes, in order for the K-Mart tax increment finance plan to be adopted, Council must first call the public hearing as outlined in the resolution. Unless Council has a change of heart regarding the K-Mart development finance plan, Council should adopt this resolution. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of resolution. 7 J Councilmember introduced the following l resolution, the reading of which was dispensed with by unanimous consent, and moved its adoption: CITY OF MONTICELLO COUNTY OF WRIGHT STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT BY THE CITY OF MONTICELLO OF DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 AND THE PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM RELATING THERETO AND THE PROPOSED ESTABLISRMENT OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-1 AND TRE PROPOSED ADOPTION OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN RELATING THERETO. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the 'Council') of the City of Monticello, Minnesota (the "City"), as follows: Section 1. Public Hearing. This Council shall meet on March 12, 1990, at approximately 7:00 P.M., to hold a public hearing on the following matters: (a) the proposed establishment of the City's Development District No. 1, (b) the proposed adoption of the Development Program relating thereto, (c) the proposed establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-1 therein, and (d) the proposed adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan relating thereto, all pursuant to and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 669, as amended. Section 2. Notice of Hearinq: Filinq of Proqram. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to cause notice of the hearing, substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, to be given as required by law, to place a copy of the proposed Development Program and the Tax Increment Financing Plan on file in the Clerk's office at City Hall and to make such copy available for inspection by the public no later than February 15, 1990. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by councilmember , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: C 9 Council Agenda - 2/26/90 Review and authorization to proceed with fire department tanker truck modifications. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: On January 8, the City Council was presented with a proposal by the fire department and Monticello Township Board member, Ted Holker, regarding the purchase of a used 1982 Ford chassis to be utilized for a new water tank truck for the fire department. The City Council had approved the concept of purchasing the used chassis and authorized an estimated $21,500 to be allocated for improvements to the truck for a tank and related items. The Fire Board did acquire the 1982 Ford chassis for $6,500. The chassis was then taken to Gould Brothers Chevrolet for a mechanical inspection, which determined that a number of items needed to be repaired prior to the fire department utilizing the vehicle for its Intended purpose. It was naturally assumed that a paint job would be required and that some minor mechanical improvements would be necessary; but the inspection also noted that a brake job would be needed at an estimated cost of $800 to $1,100. In addition, a couple of the tires are in need of replacement, and it is also being suggested that six new tires for approximately $800 be part of the Improvements in the future. The Joint Fire Board met on February 8 to discuss the needed repairs to the truck and to review quotations on the best method for installing a tank for the vehicle. Initially, the fire department had anticipated purchasing a stainless steel water tank but later determined that the chassis was not of sufficient gross vehicle weight capacity to utilize a 2,000 gallon steel tank, and thus we're researching a fiberglass tank option. Apparently, a number of fire departments have gone to fiberglass tanks as a method of reducing weight and still supplying the necessary volume of water for smaller trucks. Attached is a summary of the anticipated expenditures to date nocessary for refurbishing a now tanker truck. Although the joint board is assuming there may be some additional items necessary, it appears they should have no problem coming in at or under the budgeted $21,500 figure utilizing a fiberglass tank. The main purpose of this agenda item is to update the Council on the progress and also to seek the Council's authorization regarding miscollanooue repairs that may be needed to the mechanical system, especially a brake overhaul. ouotations wore received from Gould Brothers Chevrolet for a complete brake job at $1,100 and from Hoglund Bus Company for $855; but Council Agenda - 2/26/90 the Monticello Township members have indicated that they have current staff that is available to do the brake job at what they feel will be a reduced cost in the neighborhood of $500 to $600 total. The Township is willing to purchase the parts and have their personnel do the brake job; but they would like to be able to have the Joint Fire Board reimbursed for their labor cost. Prior to starting the repairs, I felt the Council should be aware of this possibility and approve the concept of utilizing Township employees to do the repair with the labor cost being reimbursed by the fire fund. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative would be to accept the Township's offer of utilizing Township employees to do the brake repairs and other miscellaneous mechanical repairs with the understanding that the joint fire fund would reimburse the Township for any labor cost. It is anticipated that under this option, the joint fire fund could realize a savings of up to $500 in repair cost versus utilizing an auto repair facility. 2. Do not accept the offer of utilizing Township employees to do the repairs. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: While the purpose of this item was to update the Council on the progress toward meeting the budget allocated for this new fire truck, I felt it was important that the Council be aware of the Joint Fire Board's proposed cost saving measure of having the Township employees do the mechanical repairs to the truck instead of a service garage such as Gould's or Hoglund Bus Company. While the fire department members do not have a problem with the Township doing the work, I thought it was best that the City Council be aware of this option prior to any work being done. If the Council has a problem with this arrangement and would rather see a service establishment do the repairs, we should so inform the Township at this time. If the Council doesn't have a problem with this arrangement, I will contact Ted Holkor of the Township and arrange to have the work commenced. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Estimated cost summary of refurbished tank truck as of February B, 1990. I SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED COSTS FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT TANK TRUCK •Could Brothers Chevrolet Estimated: Brake job $1,100 Misc. meth, repairs 1,000 �� Hoglund Bus Company estimated brake job @ $855. Township estimates brake job could be done for $450-$600 using Township employees. 0 1982 Ford Chassis $ 6,500 Repairs (brakes 6 mist)• 1,500 Radio, lights, electronics 1,000 New tires 1,000 Paint 1,500 2,000 gallon fiberglass tank 6,000 with valves, etc. Shorten frame 600 Side cabinet for portable pump 850 TrF—lm •Could Brothers Chevrolet Estimated: Brake job $1,100 Misc. meth, repairs 1,000 �� Hoglund Bus Company estimated brake job @ $855. Township estimates brake job could be done for $450-$600 using Township employees. 0 Council Agenda - 2/26/90 Consideration of an additional extension to Drobationary period/ residency requirement --Tony Strande. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: On June 10, 1988, the City hired Tony Strands to work in the water department to fill the vacancy that was created by Walt Mack's retirement. Matt Theisen was offered the supervisor's position, and Tony then filled Matt's former job classification. The union contract requires a six-month probationary period at 808 of the prevailing wage for the first six months, then 908 of the prevailing wage for the next year. But because Tony had been a past City employee, we started him at 908 of union scale and made a separate agreement with him that he signed that would increase his wage to 1008 of union scale upon completion of the probationary period. In addition, because of the time factor on answering emergency calls in the water and sewer collection system, we also included in the agreement that Tony would be required to move from Palmer, Minnesota, into the Monticello area within six months so that he could answer an emergency call within a 10 -minute time period. Currently, it takes Tony at least 20-25 minutes to reach the city after being notified of an emergency. The original six-month probationary period expired on December 10, 1988, and the City Council on December 12, 1988, agreed to extend Tony's probationary period for an additional eight months or until he had relocated. I believe the reason for the eight-month extension was to allow Tony sufficient time through the summer of 1989 to sell his house and relocate to within that 10 -minute response time area. On August 14, 1989, the City Council again agreed to extend Tony's probationary period for another six months or until he relocated. As of today, Tony has not yet sold his home and relocated. The question now being asked of the City Council is whether additional extensions should be granted or whether the terms of the employment agreement should be initiated which would result in a termination notice being given to Tony. Although there has not been a life or death emergency call situation relating to his ability to respond, there have been numerous occasions where he has been difficult to got ahold of or Matt Theisen, the Water Superintendent, has boon required [o respond to the emergency calls. To give you an idea, Matt has had to respond to at least 26 call-backs or emergency situations after hours or on weekends; whereas Tony has only responded to 6 in the last 1-1/2 years. Since it is to be the responsibility of. Tony to rospond to these emergency calls or call-backs and not the Superintendent's normal responsibility, 10 Council Agenda - 2/26/90 you can see that a disapportioned amount of calls are being taken by the supervisor due to his residency in Monticello versus Tony who is up to one-half hour away. This current situation is putting our supervisor in an uncomfortable position in knowing that if he waits to rely on Tony to respond to any call, the situation could become an emergency or result in further problems or damage by waiting for Tony to respond. When Walt Mack was the Water Superintendent, it was Matt's responsibility to answer the emergency calls. Now that Matt is the supervisor, it should be Tony's responsibility to be the first one to respond to the calls; but as you can see by the number taken by Matt, this is not being done. I believe the requirement of the job position, having the employee within a 10 -minute response time, is a valid concern and a reasonable condition of employment in this position. While it was Initially felt that there was enough incentive to anticipate Tony moving closer to Monticello because of the 90% pay scale, over 18 months have passed since his employment; and it does not appear that at this point Tony is any closer to moving than he was the day he started. I have discussed this situation with our labor attorney, Mr. Mike O'Connor, who has Indicated that our employment agreement requiring Tony to move was a valid condition of employment; but he did caution that continued extensions of the probationary period may not be appropriate forever. He cautioned that if any additional extensions are granted, the next one should be the last one with a specific date being established and termination proceedings being initiated if this date is not met. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: The first alternative could be to extend Tony Strande's probationary period again for a reasonable time period with a specific ending date, at which time his employment would be terminated if he did not meet the conditions agreed to. Under this alternative, the Council would be reaffirming that the 10 -minute response time is a valid concern of the City, and the Council would indicate that this condition must be mot to retain employment. Also, it is / e recommended that Tony again acknowledge this � -4--understanding by./ resigning the original employment agreemdnt with those terms and conditions spelled out. 2. The second alternative would be to end Tony Strande's probationary period and increase his wages to 1006 of union scalo. Under this alternative, the Council would be agreeing to eliminate the 10-minuto response time as a condition of X Council Agenda - 2/26/90 employment and as a result would be resigning itself to requiring the supervisor to respond to emergency calls rather than the operator. Although the City's policy could be to have Tony still respond to all emergency calls instead of Matt, we would in effect be accepting the fact that emergency calls would be handled probably 30 minutes after we were notified and would be taking a chance that no serious problem would occur during that time period. As I indicated before, Matt, being a conscientious employee, is responding first because he knows that Tony would not be able to get here before a half hour has passed. I think this puts Matt in an uncomfortable position if he chose not to respond; and if we waive the condition of employment now for Tony, we are In effect condoning this in the future. 3. The third alternative would be to not grant any additional extensions and initiate termination proceedings at this time for not meeting the conditions of his original employment agreement. While I feel it's not in the best interest to continue to grant extensions on the employment agreement forever, it may be appropriate to allow some additional time for Tony to meet his residency requirement but with the knowledge that this would be the last time it would be extended. 4. The fourth alternative could be to transfer Tony to another department within the public works and reassign a current employee to the water system operator position. Public Works Director, John Simola, and myself discussed this briefly; and while there is one employee who had previously expressed an interest in working within the water/collection system, this employee also is not a current resident of the city but does live closer. While I do not know if this option is feasible, John may have more comments at the Council meeting on this option. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff's position has not changed in our opinion that a 10 -minute response time is necessary for this position. In light of the recommendations made by our labor attorney, Mike O'Connor, continued extensions of the probationary period should not be granted forever. Because the City has previously granted extensions, it is recommended that any termination proceedings against Tony provide for a reasonable advance notice that the City intends to terminate his position undor the terms of the agreement. As a result, it is the staff's recommendation that alternate I1 be adopted informing Tony that the probationary period would be extended one more 12 14 Council Agenda - 2/26/90 time only until April 1 and that the notification should be given to Tony that the position will be terminated on that date if he has not completed his move to within a 10 -minute response time. By April 1, Tony would have been given almost two years to make the move, which certainly has been a reasonable amount of time to accomplish this. Two weeks prior to this date, I would also send a second notice to provide ample warning that the position would terminate April 1. This recommendation is based upon the assumption that the City Council does not wish to change the job description to require the supervisor to be responsible for all emergency calls. Although I•m sure the Council does not wish to cause any hardship to any employee, I do want to again point out that Tony accepted Lhe job with the full understanding that a relocation would be required, and he did sign the agreement indicating he would do this within a reasonable amount of time. In addition, I would recommend that the City, if adopting this motion, also require Tony to sign an additional acknowledgement of the employment agreement and the conditions being imposed for the April 1 deadline. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of employment agreement of June 13, 1988. 13 A C [YyI. a hY31&1 WATER SYSTE24S/WASTfi:7ATER COLLECTION SYSTEM OPERATOR POSITION I, , hereby acknowledge that I have received a rnpy t e job escription for the Water System/Wastewater Collection System Operat and understand that the general requirement of this position with the City of Monticello is to be able to respond to emergency needs of the community in regards to the water and sewer systems and understand that as a condition of employment within this position for the City of Monticello that I must be able to respond to an emergency call within a 10 -minute period of time after being notified at my residence. Because the response time to an emergency is a bona fide condition of employment, I understand that 1) although residency within the corporate city limits is not a requirement, a condition of employment with the City requires the ability to respond to any emergency within the city within a 10 -minute period of time; 2) I understand that if I am not presently residing in the city or within an area within a 10 -minute response time, I agree to relocate my residency within a 6 -month period of time; 3) failure to do so will result in termination of my employment with the City of Monticello. F M0 d\mw 'John Simola, Public Works Director R2V�Iof`ste�r, City Administrator -/4EMp e � S DATED: 3, /9Pp 4 s� OF Council Agenda - 2/26/90 Consideration of adopting settlement agreement with Jones Intercable and adoption of cable franchise nrdinance amendment. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The City of Monticello, as one of ten cities comprising the Sherburne/Wright County Cable Communications Commission, has been involved in a lawsuit with Jones Intercable, the franchise holder for our cable TV system, for over a year. A settlement agreement has been reached with Jones Intercable and the Commission which now requires each member city to adopt along with an ordinance amendment relating to our franchise agreement with Jones Intercable. Enclosed with the agenda package is a memorandum from the Commission's Attorney, Mr. Tom Creighton, which summarizes the lawsuit settlement and also the recommended ordinance amendments you are asked to adopt. While I do not want to make this a lengthy item, I will provide a brief summary of the reasons for the lawsuit and the effects of the settlement agreement. In the fall of 1988, Jones Intercable had requested permission of the Commission to delete the USA network channel and replace it with TNT, Turner Network Television. The commission voted to deny Jones' request to delete USA after a public hearing was held, finding that the substitution of TNT for USA would affect the level of service required by the franchise ordinance. Jones Intercable then initiated a lawsuit against the Commission and the cities contending that the Commission's decision was erroneous and not valid. Over the past year or so, the Commission's Attorney, Mr. Tom Creighton, has been negotiating with Jones Intercable to arrange a suitable settlement, which the Commission has recently approved. A summary of the agreement indicates that the Cable Commission will drop its objection to the substitution of USA network with TNT conditioned upon: 1. The cable television franchise fee being increased from 3% to 58, effective September 1, 1989. 2. Jones Intercablo be required to hire a part-time employee for local origination programming. As a result of the increase in franchise fees being charged to Jones Intercable and the hiring of the part-time employee for a local origination, tho Cable Commission agreed to a two-year / delay in requiring Jonas to Implement a regional channel 6, the elimination of the narrow casting requirements of the ordinance until franchise renewal or sale of the system, 14 Council Agenda - 2/26/90 allowing Sones to provide one letter of credit for $10,000 rather than ten separate letters of credit to each city, and finally, allowing the cable company to move access programming currently carried on channels 10 and 13 to a higher channel designation. The ten member cities' commission representatives voted in favor of the settlement agreement, as it was our primary concern to have the franchise fees increase from 3% to 56 in an effort to help support the Commission and generate more revenue for all member cities. It should be pointed out that the City of Monticello was named in the lawsuit, but only because it was a member of the Commission and the Commission itself has covered all legal expenditures. The Commission feels that the settlement is a fair compromise and will certainly benefit all communities in the future. The settlement agreement and the adoption of the ordinance amendment are required of all ten city commission members to be effective. As I indicated, the Commission members' representatives have all voted in favor of accepting the settlement offer which now only requires City Council approval and adoption of the ordinance amendment that increases the franchise fees, etc. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Adopt the enclosed settlement agreement and adopt the ordinance amendment. The changes in the ordinance are underlined. 2. Do not adopt the ordinance amendment or the settlement agreement. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION As the Commission member for the City of Monticello, I recommend that the settlement agreement and the attached ordinance agreement be adopted. I am not aware of any reason why the member cities would not approve this settlement agreement and resulting ordinance agreement, as the Commission, as a result of a lawsuit, was able to obtain a franchise fee Increase to 5% without sacrificing the quality of service provided for our residents. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Memorandum from Commission Attorney; Settlement agroemont; Ordinance agreement. 15 O'CONNOR 6 HANNAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW ,y...i°.bo�,•om. ria 3800 IDS CENTER 1O;',b°,'^'•"' 80 SOUTH EIGHTH STREET Y•'"`. MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402.2254 s. 00 ��• 18121 341-3800 ""'a•"' TELEX 29-0584 TELECOPIER 16121 343.1256 "" THOMAS D. CREIGHTON 16121 343.1298 INCLUDING THE FORMER FIRM MACINTOSH & COMMERS lCENDRANDUM DATE: January 8, 1990 TO: Cities of Buffalo, Big Lake, Cokato, Dassel, Delano, Elk River, Maple Lake, 45.<t icello, Rockford and Watertown FROM: Thomas D. Creighton, Legal Couns Sherburne/Wright County Cable C cations Comm ssion RE: Settlement of Jones Intercable, Inc. vs. Commission and Member Cities Litigation As you know the Cable Commission has worked for a number of months in an attempt to settle the lawsuit by Jones Intercable against the Commission and its Member Cities. The lawsuit stems from the Commission's objection to the substitution of the USA Network with Turner Network Television (TNT) by Jones Intercable. Please be advised that the Commission has negotiated a Settlement Agreement. In summary, the Settlement Agreement provides that the Cable Commission and its Member Cities will agree to drop the objection to the substitution of USA Network with TNT conditioned upon the following ordinance amendments by the Member Cities: 1. The Cable Television Franchise Fee will be increased from an annual Franchise Fee of three percent (39) to five percent (56), effective September 1, 1989. I The cable company will be relieved of its obligation to implement the "narrow -casting requirements" of the ordinance until the earlier of tat the renewal of the Franchise Ordinance, or (b) the sale or transfer of the system. 3. The cable company will be relieved of its obligation to implement the regional channel 6 for at least two years from the date of the adoption of the enclosed Ordinance, 4. The cable company will be allowed to provide one $10,000 irrevocable and unconditional Letter of Credit naming the City as one of the drawers thereon, as opposed to ten $10,000 Letters of Credit, one to each City. This one Letter of Credit will be replenishable and available to each City so as not to appreciably decrease the security available to each City. 5. The cable company will implement immediately its obliga- tion to hire a part-time employee who will focus on local origination programming. 6. The cable company may move the access programming currently carried on channels 10 and 13 to a higher L channel designation. The hiring of a part-time employee for local origination as well as the increase in the Franchise Fees from three percent (38) to five percent (58) are both significant concessions by the cable company which will enhance the long term health of the community programming and franchise administrative efforts of the Member Cities for the years to come. Please find enclosed the Settlement Agreement, the proposed Ordinance Amendments, and the Stipulation of Dismissal for the lawsuit. In order to effect the Settlement Agreement the Commis- sion requests that each Member City: 1. Adopt the enclosed Settlement Agreement and execute the document on behalf of your City at the correct signature block at the end of the document. Please be sure to date your signature. 2. A.dopp�tt the enclosed Ordinance Amendments through your Clty'a regular ordinance procedures. Please fill in the ordinance number at the top of page 1, in the second all capitalized paragraph of page 1, and in -2- the paragraph numbered "2" on page 1. Please fill in the City's name at the top of page 1 and on signature page 8. please fill in the appropriate dates, and execute the document on page 8. 3. Please return the executed original_ Settlement Agreement and executed original ordinance to this office so that they may be forwarded to Jones Intercable for its signature. I will execute 'the Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice and forward it to Jones Intercable for its signature and transmit- tal to Federal District Court. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. TDC/be Enclosure cc: Edward J. Pluimer, Esq. Barbara Guffey, Cable Administrator 3 Ordinance No THE CITY OF MINNESOTA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: ORDINANCE NO. OF THE CITY ENTITLED CABLE COMMUNICATIONS ORDINANCE IS HEREBY AMENDED AS FOLLOWS: 1. ARTICLE III, Section 8 is amended by addition as follows: The Grantee its successors or assiqns will not be required to implement the "narrow—casting requirements" until the earlier of (a) the renewal of the Franchise Ordinance by the City or the Commission, or (b) the sale or transfer of the system. 2. ARTICLE III, Section 9 is amended by addition as follows: The obliqation of Grantee to implement a "reqional channel" will be stayed and deferred for at least two years from the date of this Ordinance No. Future stays or deferrals of this obliqation are subject to further approval by the City. 3. ARTICLE VI, Section d.B. is amended by addition as follows: (1) Throughout the term of this Franchise, Grantee shall pay to the City or its designee, within sixty (60) days after the end of each fiscal year of Grantee, an annual Franchise Fee of five percent (5t) of all Gross Revenues. C EXHIBIT 1 C -D This change in the annual Franchise Fee shall be effective i, as of September 1, 1989. No payment will be allowed of any Franchise Fee that is different from five percent (50), other than the filing fee and payment required of the guccessful applicant as established by City to recover the cost of franchising and any other additional payments which are required by the terms of this Franchise. (2) Payment will be made to City or its designee with an itemization of the Gross Revenues. 4. ARTICLE VII, Section 4 is amended as follows: A. At the time of acceptance of this PranchiseY Grantee shall deliver to eity Commission an irrevocable and unconditional Letter of Credit, in form and substance acceptable to the eity Commission from a National or State bank approved by eity Commission, in the amount of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00)x, naminq City as one of the drawers thereon. B. The Letter of Credit shall provide that funds will be paid to City or Commission upon written demand of City or Commission and in an amount solely determined by City or Commission in payment for penalties charged pursuant to this section, in payment for any monies owed by Grantee pursuant to its obligations under this Franchise, or in payment for any damage incurred as a result of any acts or omissions by Grantee pursuant to this Franchise. J C. In addition to recovery of any monies owed by Grantee to City or Commission or damages to City or Commission as a result of any acts or omissions by Grantee pursuant to the Franchise, City or Commission in its sole discretion may charge to and collect from the Letter of Credit the following penalties: (1) For failure beyond the reasonable control of Grantee to complete System construction in accordance with Grantee's initial service area plan, unless City or Commission approved the delay, the penalty shall be Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250.00) per day for each day, or part thereof, such failure occurs or continues. (2) For failure to provide data, documents, re- ports or informatiori after adequate notice or to co- operate with City or Commission during an application process or System review, the penalty shall be One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) per day for each day, or part thereof, such failure occurs or continues. (3) For failure to reasonably comply with any of the provisions of this Franchise for which a penalty is not otherwise specifically provided pursuant to this Paragraph C, the penalty shall be One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) per day for each day, or part thereof, such failure occurs or continues. (4) For failure to test, analyze and report on the performance of the System within sixty days following a C request by City or Commission the penalty shall be One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) per day for each day, or part thereof, such failure occurs or continues. (5) For failure beyond the reasonable control of Grantee to modify the System or to provide additional services within sixty days after required by binding arbitration the penalty shall be Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250.00) per day for each day, or part thereof, such failure occurs or continues. (6) Forty-five days following notice from City or Commission of a failure beyond Grantee's reasonable control of Grantee to comply with operation or main- tenance standards and sixty days following notice from City or Commission of a failure beyond Grantee's reasonable control of Grantee to comply with construc- tion standards, the penalty shall be Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250.00) per day for each day, or part thereof, such failure occurs or continues. (7) For failure beyond the reasonable control of Grantee to provide the services Grantee has proposed or their equivalent, including but not limited to the implementation and the utilization of the access chan- nels and the making available for use of the equipment and other facilities, the penalty shall be Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250.00) per day for each day, or part thereof, such failure occurs or continues. -4- (8) Each violation of any provision of this Fran- chise shall be considered a separate violation for which a separate penalty can be imposed, but in no event shall the City or Commission maximum daily penalty exceed One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) per day. D. Whenever City or Commission finds that Grantee has violated one or more terms, conditions or provisions this Franchise, a written notice shall be given to Grantee informing it of such violation. At any time after twenty days following local receipt of notice provided Grantee remains in violation of one or more terms, conditions or provisions of this Franchise, in the sole opinion of City or Commission, City or Commission may draw from the Letter of Credit all penalties and other monies due City or Commission. E. Whenever a penalty has been assessed, Grantee may, within thirty days of local receipt of notice, notify City or Commission that there is a dispute as to whether a violation or failure has, in fact, occurred. Such notice by Grantee to City or Commission shall specify with particularity the matters disputed by Grantee. (1) City or Commission shall hear Grantee's dispute at the next regularly scheduled Council or Commission meeting. City or Commission shall supplement the Council or Commission decision with written findings of fact. (2) Upon.determination by City or Commission that l no violation has taken place, City or Commission shall C refund to Grantee without interest all monies drawn from the Letter of Credit by reason of the alleged violation. F. If said Letter of Credit or any subsequent Letter of Credit delivered pursuant hereto expires prior to 15 months after the expiration of the term of this Franchise, it shall be renewed or replaced during the term of this Franchise to provide that it will not expire earlier than 15 months after the expiration of this Franchise. The renewed or replaced Letter of Credit shall be on the same form and with a bank authorized herein and for the full amount stated in paragraph A of this section. Failure to renew or replace the Letter of Credit shall be grounds for termination of this Franchise. G. If City or Commission draws upon the Letter of Credit or any subsequent Letter of Credit delivered pursuant hereto, in whole or in part, Grantee shall replace the same within fifteen days and shall deliver to City or Commission a like replacement Letter of Credit for the full amount stated in paragraph A of this section as a substitution of the previous Letter of Credit. H. If any Letter of Credit is not so replaced, City or Commission may draw on said Letter of Credit for the whole amount thereof and hold the proceeds, without interest, and use the proceeds to pay costs incurred by City or Commission - 6 - 0 / in performing and paying for any or all of the obligations, duties and responsibilities of Grantee under this Franchise that are not performed or paid for by Grantee pursuant hereto, including attorneys' fees incurred by City or Commission in so performing and paying. The Eailure to replace any Letter of Credit may also, at the option of the City or Commission be deemed a default by Grantee under this Franchise. The drawing on the Letter of Credit by City or Commission and use of the money so obtained for payment or performance of the obligations, duties and responsibilities of Grantee which are in default, shall not be a waiver or release of such default. I. The collection by City or Commission of any i damages, monies or penalties from the Letter of Credit shall not affect any other right or remedy available to City or Commission nor shall any act, or failure to act, by City or Commission pursuant to the Letter of Credit, be deemed a waiver of any right of City or Commission pursuant to this Franchise or otherwise. C r Passed and adopted this _ day of , 19_ ATTEST: CITY OF By By Mayor This Franchise, as amended, is accepted, and we agree to be bound by all its terms and conditions subject to federal, state and local laws. JONES INTERCABLE, INC. By Its Date: By Its Date: - 8 O SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT is made and entered into upon the last of the dates of signature herein by and between JONES INTERCABLE, INC., General Partner of Cable T.V. Fund 14-A Ltd., a Colorado limited partnership ("JONES"); SFIERBURNE/WRIGHT COUNTY CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ("the COMMISSION"); and the CITY OF BUFFALO, Minnesota, CITY OF BIG LAKE, Minnesota, CITY OF COKATO, Minnesota, CITY OF DASSEL, Minnesota, CITY OF DELANO, Minnesota, CITY OF ELK RIVER, Minnesota, CITY OF MAPLE LAKE, Minnesota, CITY OF MONTICELLO, Minnesota, CITY OF ROCKFORD, Minnesota and CITY OF WATERTOWN, Minnesota (collectively referred to as the "CITIES"). The COMMISSION is a duly constituted joint powers commission of which the CITIES are members. JONES and Cable T.V. Fund 14-A Ltd. hold the franchises for the cable television system located in and serving the CITIES and adjacent areas. RECITALS 1. In 1984, the CITIES entered into franchise agreements and passed ordinances granting cable television franchises to Rite Cable Company of Minnesota, Ltd. to serve the CITIES and adjacent areas. 2. In 1987, Cable T.V. Fund 14-A, Ltd., a Colorado limited partnership for which JONES is the General Partner, purchased the franchises for the CITIES from Rite Cable Company of Minnesota, Ltd., and assumed all obligations under the franchises with the approval and consent of the CITIES and the COMMISSION. 3. The cable television franchises and ordinances of the CITIES presently in effect granting JONES and Cable T.V. Fund 14-A, Ltd. the right to be the cable television operator and franchisee in the CITIES are substantially identical in form and content. 4. In September 1988, JONES sought the approval of the COMMISSION, as agent for the CITIES, to change the programming provided to the CITIES by deleting the USA Network ("USA") and replacing it with Turner Network Television ("TNT"). 5. - At a meeting of the COMMISSION held in Buffalo, Minnesota on November 16, 1988, the COMMISSION voted to deny JONES' request to delete the USA service and to replace it, with TNT. On January 20, 1989, the COMMISSION, as agent for the CITIES, approved formal Findings of Fact and Conclusions denying JONES' request. 6. JONES has initiated litigation against the COMMISSION and the CITIES, contending, among other things, that the actions of the COMMISSION in denying JONES' request were erroneous under the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984. The lawsuit, Jones Intercable, Inc. v. Sherburne/wright County Cable Communications Commission, et al., is presently pending before the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, Case No. 4-88 Civil 1115. 7. In addition to the disputes between JONES, on the one hand, and the COMMISSION and the CITIES, on the other, relating to the replacement of USA with TNT, other issues and disputes concerning the franchise agreements have arisen between the parties. 8. As a result of settlement discussions and negotiations in which all parties were represented by counsel, all parties to the litigation and to this Agreement have agreed, and desire, to settle and compromise all outstanding disputes between the parties. To effect this Agreement, the parties have agreed to dismiss the pending litigation, and to effect certain changes in the franchise agreements and ordinances between JONES and Cable T.V. Fund 14-A, Ltd., on the one hand, and the CITIES, on the other. AGREEMENT In consideration for the mutual promises and agreements set forth herein and the Exhibits to this Agreement, it is hereby agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows. 1. The COMMISSION and CITIES acknowledge that there were certain errors and omissions in the previous action taken by the COMMISSION denying JONES' request to delete the USA service and to replace it with TNT. The COMMISSION, as agent for the CITIES, agrees to rescind its Findings of Fact and Conclusions dated January 20, 1989. - 3 V 2. JONES, Cable T.V. Fund 14-A Ltd. and the CITIES will enter into written amendments to the CITIES' Cable Television Franchise Ordinances in a form attached hereto as Exhibit 1 for each city in order to resolve various other issues and disputes that have arisen concerning the interpretation and application of the Cable Television Franchise Ordinances with the CITIES. The COMMISSION and the CITIES undertake and agree to use their best efforts to secure passage of the amended ordinances, with full compliance with applicable law, as soon as practicable. 3. JONES, the COMMISSION and the CITIES will dismiss with prejudice and without costs to any party the litigation now pending between them. The parties will instruct their legal counsel to execute and file a Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice and related Order in the form attached hereto as Exhibit 2 immediately upon the COMMISSION'S rescinding the Findings of Fact and Conclusions. Immediately upon execution of this Agreement, counsel for the parties will jointly approach the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, and request that further proceedings in the litigation be stayed or held in abeyance pending the COMMISSION'S rescinding the Findings of Fact and Conclusions. 4. JONES shall, implement, as soon as practicable, its obligations under the Franchise Ordinances to hire a part- time employee whose work will focus on local origination 4 - programming. The COMMISSION agrees that a part-time l position for such programming will satisfy JONES' obligations related to such a part time position, 'and further acknowledges that the local origination position is not and will not be eligible for full-time employment benefits. 5. The COMMISSION agrees that JONES may move the access programming currently carried on channels 10 and 13 to a higher channel designation. 6. This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties hereto, and their successors, administrators and assigns. 7. This Agreement has been entered into by the parties as an accord and satisfaction to settle and compromise pending litigation and other disputes. Nothing contained in this Agreement, nor the dismissal of the pending litigation, shall be interpreted nor construed to be an admission on the part of, nor to the prejudice of, any party executing this Agreement. 8. Each of the parties named below, and the persons executing this Agreement on behalf of any party, represents that he/she has been duly authorized to enter into and execute this Agreement on behalf of the party named. 9. Each party acknowledges it has been represented by counsel with respect to this Agreement, and has been fully advised in respect to all the rights which are affected by this Agreement and the Exhibits thereto. 5 - O C10. This Agreement shall be construed and the legal relations between the parties determined in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. 11. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original without the production of the others, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 12. Each of the parties named below, and the persons executing this Agreement on behalf of any party, represents that he/she has been duly authorized to enter into and execute this Agreement on behalf of the party named. The parties below named have executed this Settlement Agreement as of the day and year first above written. Dated: JONES INTERCABLE, INC. C, By Its Dated: SHERBURNE/WRIGHT COUNTY CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION By Its Datedi CITY OF BUFFALO By Its 6 - O Dated: CITY OF BIG LAKE By Its Dated: CITY OF COKATO By Its Dated: CITY OF DASSEL By Its Dated: CITY OF DELANO By !I L Its Dated: CITY OF ELK RIVER By Its Dated: CITY OF MAPLE LAKE By Its Dated: CITY OF MONTICELLO By Its C Dated: CITY OF ROCKFORD By Its Dated: CITY OF WATERTOWN By Its -e- 11 Council Agenda - 2/26/90 10. Consideration of renewinq gamblinq license request --Wright County Ducks Unlimited. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The Wright County Ducks Unlimited organization has applied to the State Gambling Board for an exemption from licensing requirements for a one -day gambling license to conduct raffles and tip boards at the banquet scheduled for May 7 at the Monticello Roller Rink. The City of Monticello has a permit fee for these one -day events of $20; and unless the City Council passes a resolution to specifically deny the activity, the State will issue the license within 60 days. No action is necessary by the Council unless they wish to specifically prohibit the State from issuing this license. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of gambling license application. 16 CGY20 Minnesota L=dW OamDUng d''• Oft Application for Exemption from Far office Use, only Lawful Gambling License RlInthumha*dpordmddr4ppfl=kvAxemn,* nwemnddUatwtfSdrysbobvYftr9a 0(41111= 11* 1* Name and Address of Organization - o'o.+:,mn aemep..e-Hamm@maee aimopW-UA I nmm� l4 �-rr-r-�! �G((/�7! 4)(rC.FS L%✓/%f%q7C� k j(p(1/Z� %� I /_= G�i�r/%� n SM by as carp 4ra i 3 . C,l a •7 Z %(:,I ice I�c� �l�i! 55�(oZ 1�.�/�, yT : /Ile- »Mbr�iG���� Type of Non-prgfit Organization Years InaxWertoe I M Attedt proo/d Uwo yaan a mora d a d9&v& Nwnbw d ago mwnbare Q 0 Fratemal ❑ Relgimn O Veteraru 210ther nonVofi you dt.dred ear bradma nprol4 dtaatt ww d th bbwktp and.t�d� proof d wpvft staan ❑ IRS desipnalbn 0' - - p orated with so ma y d State 9YMim of pared nortprdi oryankiffi- (darter) Gambling Site Nome of do woos aaMpr WE tdu p = ;��, r,�•;f�Lr.L' ..rI.LFI.: rC�IN1L Street t1.1n� .l?;K ►vIVL- f�4� ,�I(,Ir, fl1?Jm5S36T 6uw(kti°'T Des(e) of *Wft 5 _ . 90 nines of Gamin Financial Report ame Tee w Onw♦ wwba Learnrr. YnMMeN rtt swat tYrter Veale Set>r Etl� Dior ^ � @i91lt f;e' rl , PaMkMh IS r] d TWmards 011 ❑ 1}� pulkabe f- Gy q Now WID pro(A bed DYMamr San whan g etsrlpe ors PWO-ed 9 %, ( ^,'•'tL E%F:lf� L b , u. obvALears know nwbw 1 I erdere d b6maim erbrrtlfd b dor Qepwetwdd Ge rAV I d An of b*m dm awdon/erd to dr Dryaraene el Orem b Mo. aoa.ar.sold coves" b etq.ae/abt atdeemplle •. ..�'Ia{t . '-/5-90 .,W r hr Lova! Gooernment Acknowledgement I haw naaiwd a dopy of f epploeAott. rrh eppk.Sm wN be Is by dor Depenneut of Gwft end we borne efeotee AO em do r Flu n�iunt»,i.oeb�ee�eyd�iea ftT&V�~30jpa�ot eddMb inbbww. C"a tWI tdWhM60dIPh eAi)dt b de.ftw M ecAelgr. Clty or County Towtehlo &y or campy na ns , Townkp rune Slpnwte d paean rpplatbn SWUS" d ocean ntaeM tp epploSat Ti1e_n I Oew Tye ' OefetedeAed MO 00 vOkslim and 1n o1 SIS (duds made an b Camniuiaw d Rentor) to: ` .�°C....ew.r. Dapartnwo of aaminp • GambWtp ConW Walon a•— �"""' htaY brt 331 /D St. P" MN 53148 -MIS Council Agenda - 2/26/90 11. Review of annual liquor store financial report for 1989. (R.W.) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Enclosed with your agenda you will find a copy of the financial report for the year 1989 with a comparison to 1988. Joe Hartman, Liquor ;tore Manager, will be available at the meeting to answer questions you may have regarding this report and/or other items relating to the liquor store operation. In a brief review of the financial statement, sales for the year were up approximately $35,574 (38 increase) while, unfortunately, cost of goods sold was also up 58, or $43,924, resulting in a gross profit decline of approximately 39 when compared to 1988. General operating expenses also increased 4.88 or $7,446 above last year's when excluding transfers out of the liquor fund to other funds. As a result, the operating income, which is the important figure for determining how the store is doing, was down approximately $15,800, or 148 decline when compared to 1988. The overall net operating income amounted to $97,250 compared to approximately $113,000 during the previous year. While the net income is still respectable at 8.138 of sales, I think our target for our off -sale operation should be in the 9-1/28 to 109 range. This means that our operating income should be 9% to 104 of sales, and we are a little short this year over what I would like to see. It appears that the gross profit on liquor and beer is slightly below what it was last year, and it looks like these areas do need some improvement; and Joe and I will be looking at whether our pricing is appropriate to accomplish our 99 to 108 return. An item that Joe and I have talked about concerning the liquor store inventory process is computerization at the liquor store, especially for inventory purposes. Currently, the Inventory and the resulting quarterly financial statements do take a while to prepere, which loavos us receiving the information sometimes two months after the end of each quarter. If a computer system can be found that would allow us to got an accurate inventory after the close of each quarter, we would be better able to determine if adjustments are needed to keep us on our goal during the year. Joe is currently checking on the type of equipment and software that is available that possibly could be used with our existing cash register system. I Council Agenda - 2/26/90 No action is needed by the Council other than acceptance of the report as presented at this time. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of financial report. Is MONTICELLO NUNtC.-AI LIQUOR REVENUE ANO EXPENSES RUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE .............................. FOR ...................................................................................................�.. iH[ T... AOnTNS AND TWEIv[ NONTN9 EnDlO DECC HOER 7l, 1898 AND if 81 CURRENT -PERIOD CUR -PD YEAR -TO -GATE Y -T -D FARE-PD-LST-YA PO-LYR Y-T-O-LST-YA YTO-LY AROUNT RATIO AAOUNT RATIO ANOUNi RATIO AR0 UNT RATIO SALES LIQUOR f 7]1.770.1! 28.:1 t 136,77o.1f 28.21 1 111.717.11 20 ..5 S 311,311.11 21.68 SEER 681.77..70 67.06 181.778.30 67.01 8{2.89!. 12 57.21 6{2. {!8.12 67.21 DINE 140.011.7{ 11.17 160.071.1{ 11.73 116.360.11 12.46 164,340.11 12.46 OTHER ROSE ]1.116.71 3.11 37,110.71 ].11 71,216.67 7.21 37,216.63 3.2L RISC. NON-TAXA:LI SALES 2.608.86 .71 2.508.8/ .21 6.!/8.67 .47 4.168.6] .4] DEPOSITS AND RC IUNO! (7.8!0.06) (.10) (3.950.06) (.70) (3.:03.77) (.1{) 11.80].771 (.381 5077![ DEPOSIT - RISC 71.83 .00 7!.67 .00 11.11 .01 47.91 .01 OISCOUNTS (305.60) (•03) (]08.101 (.031 (676.37) (.04) (425.37) (.04) TOTAL SALE{ •------------ f 1.196,004,00 ----•- f9.f8 1 ---•-____---_ 1.194.001.00 ----__ 99.;9 _--________ S 1.368.130.26 ------ 100.00 t --------•---- 1.168.670.24 100.00 COST of GOODS SOLO S (976.120.71) (18.3215 (!35.320.11) (79.32) 1 (591,198.21) (76.931f (191.118.21) (71.63) LRO51 PROFIT f ---------- 259.683.29 ...... 21.61 5 ------------- 268,887.29 ------ 21.61 ---------- --- S 267,234.04 ------ 27.01 f ...--------- 267.234.04 ------ 2].07 GENERAL AND AOIM. EXPENSES 1I:VLALf tA/E{O. LAA[NR[R f 13.001.27 1.11 1 77,001.21 1.31 i f9, 56].!0 6.07 6 {1.847.10 1.07 ►CRA 2,685.63 .72 2.68! .62 .J7 7.6.2 ,67 .22 2.612.47 .2E REOICARC WITNNOl0IN.8 194.6] .02 194.47 .02 170.17 .Ol 170.77 .01 IN SURA HCI. MlOIC AL AMO LIFE 5.206.72 .95 8.209.15 .If 1.129.7• .85 I,Itf LOGIA! 7LCURlTY 6.105.11 .71 6.105.17 .77 1,{13.26 .7f 1,567.2! .Sf U14EMPLOYRENT SENCFIT .00 !. .00 .00 .00 36.51 .00 36.41 .00 TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES ----------- f 11.795.11 ------ 1.11 1 ------------- 55.39!.11 ---- - 7.41 ------------- f 0].986.15 ----- 1.27 f --------..... a J95.11 ._---- 7.2] f UPPLI.. 0111,E fund I GENERAL OPERATIRI fUP PLIC! AA INT!RANCE e► 5LO:. SUnlltt CI NOR [QUI►N[NT TOTAL SUPPLICf (D S 170.{1 .O1 f U{. Lf .01 f 11!.13 .O1 / 1{2.11 .01 0.1]1.10 .\I •.1]1.10 .{1 f.lf1.14 .\0 •.100.16 .10 .00 .eo .er 21:.rz .oa 206,6: .O2 214.40 .02 271,1. .O2 7]7,10 .Or 1 6.002.27 .64 S 6.562.22 .64 S 0,111, 1f .96 f 6,117.9! .50 Y E 7 MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR REVCnUC NND Cf►ENSlS nUNICIPAI LIQUOR STDRE 70R .................................................................................................................................... T."C TNR:! MONTHS AMO TY!LVC MONTHS [XDCO DCCCNf lA 7l. 1109 AND 19th CLARE NT-/lRI00 CUR PO YlAR-TO-DAT! Y -T -D SARI -/D-l3T-YR ID-LYA r-T-O-ISi-YR YTD -LY AMOUNT AATIO AROUMT RAT 10 A10UMY RA T10 AROUNT RATIO OTNCA Sl:VICl3 ANO CHARGES PROIC3f IONAL SERV.[.! (AUDIT) t ],170.00 •2! { 3.120.00 .2! f 3.602.00 .31 6 7.{02.00 .J1 CONMUNICATION 817.{7 .07 :17.{] .07 727.:7 .Of 127.+2 .06 TRAVEL -CONFERENCE -SCHOOLS 10.00 .00 10.00 .00 2]1./0 .02 231./0 .02 AOVlRTItiM6 1,{07.{6 .7f 1.{07./6 .]! 3.166.!/ .30 3.166.!6 .30 IM3UTAMC[. GE X[RAL 17,2{].t2 1.16 17,263.02 1.16 17.00+ .1f 1.61 17.081./! 1.61 UTILITIES. ELECTRICAL 0.26:.l1 .ft :.266•+1 .{9 0.316.61 .72 0.36{.{1 .72 UTILITICO. HIATIN6 1.111.0] .10 1.1{1.03 .10 1.161.16 .10 1.161.15 .10 UTILITIANC 6 i W 17!.10 .01 1]9.60 .01 226.01 .02 226.01 .02 OF EOUIPRENT 2,020.21 .21 2.020.21 .2/ 1.727.16 .16 ►.722.16 .16 'AINTCNAICC COOI►RENT 1.107.61 .09 1.107.01 .0! +71.11 .06 911. 11 .08 outs. 1[1111/."11. tUOSCRI►TION 310.00 .07 710.00 .01 .00 .00 .00 .00 TA[E! AMD IICEM6lf 2{2.00 .02 217.00 .02 310.00 .03 360.00 .01 CAPITAL OUTLAY BUILDING 1MPR. .00 .00 .00 .00 031.+2 .07 011.62 .07 6AR0A0C 1.011.60 .16 1.081•!0 .1/ 1.{30.00 .11 1.1,0.00 .3A OCP:. - ACQUINtO ASSETS 16.169.2: 1.27 16.1!+.2+ 1.27 17,061.31 1.17 17,061.31 1.17 6CCU1ITr 0.+87.00 .76 6.: p.00 .71 {.I p,00 .1/ s.Ip .00 .0 OTNEN 116.06 .07 116.:6 .03 113.71 .01 113.3A .O1 IRAN GF[N OUT .Go .00 .00 .00 ►6.100.00 6.S1 7{,100.00 ..........._. 6.67 -....... ............. TOTAL OTHER SERVICES G CHAR4916 {0.675.03 ...... f.6! 1 ............. {6.676.03 ...... S.;S S13+.02,.31 .-........._-. .__... 12.0{ f 1,+.12].31 12.06 0[l7 !CAVI[[ y 431 TRAN:I[R OUT S l f 7.00 f :2.000.00 -------- 7.00 ------ ----- TOTAL DEBT SERVICES { ------00 ----00 60 f ___-___--..00 __--00 { __-_42.000.00 ------ 1.01 1 _....- ;--;; __-_02.000-00 7,01 ........ ----- TOTAL GENERAL 6 ADIN. CMPENSLS{ -_-__ 161.{72.37 ___ --- 13.51 { -------- ---60 161,632.71 --- 13.61 { ----02-0000: ---- 712.201.71 2t.f2 S 312.296.31 ------'.-..-. 26.12 ...-... ............. TOTAL OPERATING INCOME { 97,250.92 ...... 0.13 { ............. 97,2+0.12 .13 ..... 0.17 { .-.-......__. (16.062.011 ------ 17.:f )3 f .711 17./6) 71f;,CyP OTNCR I1CO1L IEXPENSES) INTEICST IOR[ 1 1+.17:.0f 1.17 { 1+.171.0+ 1.1! f 16.100.91 7.11 { 10.18/.91 7.17 OTX[1 INC*:[R 91.24 .01 ff.21 .Ol +11.0: .01 {II.Of .01 CASH LOWSHORT 790 as .O1 1:0.:9 .:7 181:. 97) (.01) (810.811 (•O:) TOTAL OTHER INCOME (EXPENSES) { 70.066.10 A.2- ! SO.{f G.30 1.20 { 79.961.01 -------..-... 1.11 { ---... ft.:61.07 ....-_...-... 7.11 ...-.. ------- MCT INCOME { ............. -- --- - 117,711.10 ------ 12.77 8 ...... ----- -------- 117.717.1: ............. •_�--- 12.73 { ...... (1,1/0.711 ............. !•111{ ...... 16.1+0.711 ....I........ ...... �p oV I i PRIOR YE11R I.500.00 .:20.0 7 150. 717. 71 - 210:77 119.719.00 6:710.79 � 6 591.711.20, r 116 .666.70 oE, 7..753.00 60.006.11. (66.1 66;7}0.:16.601 (7) ----(1i"-61950) 4 6 161,.6}0.95 6 -------------- 0 t° ISIB. 912.1$1 g �U ° U �i MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR BALANCE '11:'TNUNICIPAL°LIQUOR STORE oecca:ea 71, 1989 -AND '1900 CURRENT YEAR ASSEl CURRENT ASSETS CNANOE PUMD { 1'.500:00, I CASH IX BARK - CNCCRIN6 67,177.60 G INVCST RCNI9 100.916.16 N8P CNEC K�- aECE IVASLE 66.12 ]NV[XT0RIC9 170.619.91 PREPAID INSURANCE 7.961.91 TOTAL CUaRENT ASSETS o { 692.766.69 PROPERTY AND EOUIPRENT IAN.. 6 6,019.95 { BUILDINGS AND , IRPAQVERENTS 186:665AB PARKINDLOT' 79;151.00 'UR..". RC AND PIKTURCS 60,}92.11 ACCUR. DCPR. - BUILDINOB„ 166.0}6.60) ACCUM .EPR-PURNITUREi PIRTUPE (67;162:16) ' ACCUM., DEP.:- PARKIN. LOT (16,167.60 ) 1 TOTAL PROPERTY `AND IOUIPe6N7 '6 167.906:66 10TAI ASSETS: { ... 050.677:7: PRIOR YE11R I.500.00 .:20.0 7 150. 717. 71 - 210:77 119.719.00 6:710.79 � 6 591.711.20, r 116 .666.70 oE, 7..753.00 60.006.11. (66.1 66;7}0.:16.601 (7) ----(1i"-61950) 4 6 161,.6}0.95 6 -------------- 0 t° ISIB. 912.1$1 g �U ° U �i CURRENT LIABILITIES ACCOUNTS PAYABLE SALES TAI PAYABLE PAYROLL V/X - CREDIT UNION PAYROLL N/X - PICA PAYROLL U/N - PERA ACCRUED SICK LEAVE 6 VACATIONS SALARIES PAYABLE PAYROLL WIN - MEDICARE PAYROLL WIN - INSURANCE TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES LONG-TERM LIABILITIES TOTAL LONG-TERM LIABILITIES TOTAL LIABILITIES EQUITY RCTAINEO EARNINGS PEVENUE9 OVER EXPENDITURES TOTAL EQUITY TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY DECEMBER 71. 1969 ANO 1988 .................................................................................................. CURRENT YEA P PRIOR YEAR LIABILITIES AND EQUITY 6x.77 t (17.00) 7.07 116.01 105.00 2.011.55 2.192.44 (276.571 100.00 -------------- 1 5.002.47 -------------- .00 S 6.082.4] 1.467.41 .00 .00 176.26 100.00 1.720.06 2.654.67 1 i of .00 S 6.125.77 --------------f 00 t 6.126.71 696.277.92 6 767,986.06 147,711.10 (6,196.74) -------------- -------------- 6 646,690.92 f 767.786.02 -------------- f 860.677.70 f 766.912.19 .............. .............. a f MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR BALANCE SHEET MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE CURRENT LIABILITIES ACCOUNTS PAYABLE SALES TAI PAYABLE PAYROLL V/X - CREDIT UNION PAYROLL N/X - PICA PAYROLL U/N - PERA ACCRUED SICK LEAVE 6 VACATIONS SALARIES PAYABLE PAYROLL WIN - MEDICARE PAYROLL WIN - INSURANCE TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES LONG-TERM LIABILITIES TOTAL LONG-TERM LIABILITIES TOTAL LIABILITIES EQUITY RCTAINEO EARNINGS PEVENUE9 OVER EXPENDITURES TOTAL EQUITY TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY DECEMBER 71. 1969 ANO 1988 .................................................................................................. CURRENT YEA P PRIOR YEAR LIABILITIES AND EQUITY 6x.77 t (17.00) 7.07 116.01 105.00 2.011.55 2.192.44 (276.571 100.00 -------------- 1 5.002.47 -------------- .00 S 6.082.4] 1.467.41 .00 .00 176.26 100.00 1.720.06 2.654.67 1 i of .00 S 6.125.77 --------------f 00 t 6.126.71 696.277.92 6 767,986.06 147,711.10 (6,196.74) -------------- -------------- 6 646,690.92 f 767.786.02 -------------- f 860.677.70 f 766.912.19 .............. .............. a f ROATICEILO RUIICIPAL LIQUOR GROSS PROFIT BY PRODUCT 5010 for the Period 10101/89 to 12/31189 .................................................................................................................................... C Current - Period Year - to - Data, Sue-FArind-East-Tr Tau-lo-Date-Laot-Tr Amount 1 Amount 1 Amount 1 Amount 1 LIQUOR SALES 1 99,582.45 100.11 1 336,110.19 :00.09 1 94,220.66 100.19 1 111.361.15 100.14 DISCOUITS (109.55) .11 (308.60) .09 (III.OS) .19 (425.311 .16 COSI OF SALES - LIQUOR 21,102.10 18.11 259,418.95 11.12 13,235.15 11.11 ....__ •--•--------- 251,19S.81 16.36 ...... GROSS PROFIT -••.......... 1 21,110.10 ............. ...... •••----_____- 21.19 1 ...... 16,982.64 ............. ...... ------------- 22.11 1 ...... ............. 20.106.56 22.12 1 ...... ............. 13,116.51 23.62 ...... BEER SALES 152,705.81 160.30 661,318.10 100.53 153,110.65 100.09 612,699.12' 100.21 DEPOSITS AND WORDS (595.53) .31 (31590.05) .63 (131.60) .09 (1,103.33) .22 COST OF SALES - BEER 121,994.40 11.61 $50.661.34 11.25 121,265.16 19.11 619,004.10 10.04 ............. .----- ...... .._---•...... ............. ...... ---- ...... ............. 32,021.11 20.19 1 ...... 111,130.99 ........ I.... 19.96 ...... HIRE SAILS 66,169.23 100.00 160.011.16 100.00 46,661.22 100.00 111.311.11 100.00 COST 09 SALES - HIRE 21,511.01 62.31 90,511.19 66.61 30,111.41 66.09 13.116.14 65.04 GROSS PROFIT 1 11,215.16 31.69 1 69,111.51 31.33 1 15.190.81 33.91 1 60.413.31 34.96 (0:0 ............. ...... ............. ...... ............. ...... ............. ...... SALES 1,611.35 99.11 31.06.31 91.19 1.191.13 100.01 31,216.53 99.12 BOTTLE DEPOSIT - RISC 9.10 .13 39.63 .11 (6.60) .01 11.11 .10 COST 02 SALES - 01111 1,093.21 10.21 21,046.22 11.61 1,169.52 $3.11 11,261.11 50.33 GROSS PROFIT 1 1,191.61 ............. 19.13 1 ...... 10,119.62 ............. 21.31 1 ...... ............. 3,112.41 16.66 1 ...... 11,611.21 ............. 19.61 ...... RISE. 101-TAIAILE 1111$ 666,22 100.00 2.606.66 100.00 1,116.13 100.00 1,911,63 100.00 COS - RISt. 101 T{IAILE 536.11 10.61 1,111.25 10.10 1,312.13 116.66 6.124.16 111.30 GROSS PROFIT 1 129.11 ............. 19.43 1 ...... 129.31 ............. 29.10 1 ...... ............. 1116.001 11,66 1 ...... (1.111.211 ............. 21.30 ...... TOTAL SARIS 310,191.11 516.14 1,194.213.01 116.90 103,116.19 801.11 1.I61,III.I1 322.55 TOM COSI 01 SARIS 242,461.14 196.10 93S,120.11 306.94 212,101.65 116.)$ N1,11{.21 931.12 TOTAL GROSS PROFIT 1 61,132,12 ............. 111.11 1 ...... 259.112.36 ............. 131.96 1 ...... ............. 10.151.06 015.13 1 ...... 261.191.60 ............. 316.13 ...... C