Loading...
03-15-1982 CC MIN REGULAR SEMI-MONTHLY MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER CITY COUNCIL HELD AT THE ELK RIVER PUBLIC LIBRARY MARCH 15, 1982 --, Members Present: Mayor Hinkle, Councilmembers Schuldt and Engstrom. Councilman Duitsman arrived at Item 7. Councilman Totharrived at Item 9. Members Absent: None 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor Hinkle. 2. Agenda COUNCILMAN ENGSTROM MOVED APPROVAL OF THE MARCH 15, 1982 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA. COUNCILMAN SCHULDT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 3-0. 3. Minutes COUNCILMAN SCHULDT MOVED APPROVAL OF THE MARCH r, 1982 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES. COUNCILMAN ENGSTROM SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 3-0. 4. Open Mike The City's attorney, Dave Sellergren, introduced Mr. Peter Beck, an associate of his from their firm, Larkin, Hoffman, Daly, Lindgren, Ltd. 5. Sale of 1939 Fire Truck Mayor Hinkle indicated that four quotations for the purchase of the 1939 fire truck had been received by the City, and further indicated that the four quo- tations are as follows: $1,150 - Jim Nystrom, Elk River $1,112.59 - Rodney Krisel, Princeton $660 - Weldon Schuldt, Elk River $500 - Larry Morrell, Elk River COUNCILMAN SCHULDT MOVED TO ACCEPT THE QUOTATION FROM JIM NYSTROM FOR $1,150 AND AUTHORIZED THE SALE OF THE 1939 FORD PUMPER FIRE TRUCK TO MR. NYSTROM. COUNCILMAN ENGSTROM SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 3-0. 6. Concept Discussion Regarding the Creation of City Park Mayor Hinkle indicated that Mr. Harold Gramstad and Mr. Bill Lampson, representing the Elk River Lion's Club, were present to discuss the concept of a city park in what is now referred to as the peat bog. Harold Gramstad indicated that the Lion's Club now owns 7 acres of land adjacent to the Salk Junior High, and further indi- cated that the Lion's Club does not feel that land is most ideal for a city park; therefore, they are willing to work with the City of Elk River to develop a park in what is now called the peat bog. Mr. Gramstad indicated that the Lion's Club would sell the land adjacent to the Salk Junior High and use the funds to purchase land in the peat bog area and proceed with the development of a park. Mr. Gramstad indicated that the Lion's Club concept of a park in the peat bog would consist of approximately twenty-five acres to be used as picnic area, playground, pathways and bike trails, with a shelter and picnic tables. City Council Meeting Minutes March 15, 1982 Page 2 Councilman Engstrom questioned whether the whole twenty-five acres would be used as a park area. The City Administrator indicated that the complete bog area is approximately fifty-five acres and the proposed twenty-five acres to be used for the park area is unbuildable land. Councilman Schuldt indicated that he was in favor of the type of park proposed rather than another athletic-type park. Coun- cilman Engstrom questioned the funding of the project and who would maintain the park. Mr. Gramstad indicated that the Lion's Club would like to work with the City in the development of the park in proposed phases, and further indicated that the funding the Lion's Club would be able to provide would come from the sale of the seven acres of land near the Salk Junior High. Councilman Schuldt questioned the location of parking area for the park. The City Administrator indicated that th~ city planner had done some preliminary planning for that area and has shown park- ing on both Jackson and on School Street. Mr. Gramstad indicated that the Lion's Club has talked with the owner of the land proposed for the city park and the owner has indicated that he is interested in working with the City of Elk River and the Lion's Club. The City. Administrator indicated that the City will also have a certain amount of park dedications money coming in to be used for a park area. The City Administra- tor further indicated that the Lion's Club and City staff are looking to the Coun- cil for approval of the concept and to authorize the City staff and the Lion's Club to proceed to develop a formal concept for the park for presentation to the City Council. Mayor Hinkle indicated that it was the concensus of the Council to ap- prove the concept and to authorize the City staff to proceed to develop a formal concept for the park. COUNCILMAN ENGSTROM MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY STAFF AND THE LION'S CLUB TO PRO- CEED TO DEVELOP A FORMAL CONCEPT FOR THE PARK. COUNCILMAN SCHULDT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE.MOTIONPASSED 3-0. 7. Genck Conditional Use Permit Request - Public Hearing Mayor Hinkle indicated that Mr. Genck has requested a conditional use permit for the purpose of conducting a home occupation of piano tuning and repair out of his home located at 11681 194th Avenue Northwest. Mayor Hinkle further indicated that the Planning Commission had reviewed and considered Mr. Genck's request and unani- mously approved the conditional use permit request. Mayor Hinkle opened the public hearing. No one appeared to voice their opinion either for or against the conditional use request. COUNCILMAN DUITSMAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST BY MR. BRUCE GENCK TO OPERATE A PIANO TUNING AND REPAIR BUSINESS OUT OF HIS HOME LOCATED AT 11681 194TH AVENUE NORTHWEST FOR A TWO-YEAR PERIOD WITH THE STIPULATION THERE BE NO ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES OUTSIDE THE HOME AND THAT THE HOURS OF OPERATION ARE UN- RESTRICTED WITH THE EXCEPTION OF DELIVERY OF PIANOS TO BE BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 8:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M. COUNCILMAN ENGSTROM SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 3-0. City Council Meeting Minutes March 15, 1982 Page 3 , General discussion was carried on regarding the issuance of conditional use permits for a period of two years. Councilman Duitsman questioned whether it was necessary to specify the two years when the Council had the authority to revoke a conditional use permit at any time should the person not abide with the stipulations of the conditional use. The City Administrator indicated that the Planning Commission would be reviewing and making a recommendation to the City Council regarding a renewal procedure for conditional uses at a reduced fee, and further indicated that it was the feeling of the Planning Commission that a re- newal procedure would provide the control necessary for the conditional use permits. 8. Lundberg Conditional Use Permit Request Mayor Hinkle indicated that Mr. and Mrs. Jon Lundberg are requesting a conditional use permit to operate a light electronic assembly business out of their garage lo- cated at 20791 County Road #1, and further indicated that the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the Lundbergs request for a conditional use permit and that the Planning Commission unanimously approved the request. Mayor Hinkle opened the public hearing. No one appeared either for or against the conditional use permit request by the Lundbergs. Councilman Schuldt indicated that the Planning Commission approved the conditional use permit request by the Lundbergs with the specifications that two employees other than family could be allowed and that the City staff recommendation is that only one employee outside of the family be allowed. Mr. Jon Lundberg indicated that at the present time he did not know if any employees outside of the family would be necessary but wanted the option to have at least two if the business required it. Mayor Hinkle indicated that he could not see any probelms with two employees with regard to traffic congestion as their home is located at the end of a dead-end street. Councilman Engstrom further indicated that he did not see a problem with two employees because of the location of their home. Martin Tracy of the Planning Commission also indicated that the Planning Commission did not have a problem with the request for two employees. COUNCILMAN ENGSTROM MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST BY JON AND CAROL LUNDBERG TO OPERATE A LIGHT ELECTRONIC ASSEMBLY BUSINESS OUT OF THEIR GARAGE LOCATED AT 20791 COUNTY ROAD #1 FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS, WITH THE STIPU- LATION THAT TWO EMPLOYEES OUTSIDE OF THE FAMILY BE ALLOWED AND THAT THE HOURS ARE GENERALLY UNRESTRICTED WITH THE EXCEPTION OF DELIVERIES WHICH SHOULD BE BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 8:00 A.M. AND 8:00 P.M. COUNCILMAN DUITSMAN SECONDED THE MOTION. . THE MOTION PASSED 3-0. 9. Industrial Revenue Bond Issue to Finance Single Family Homes in Tamarack Sub- division Mayor Hinkle indicated that the procedure to be used in the discussion of the industrial revenue bond issue for single family housing in the Tamarack Subdivision would begin with the City Administrator reviewing what has happened to date, then Mr. Carson, developer of the Tamarack Subdivision, will make a presentation about City Council Meeting Minutes March 15, 1982 Page 4 the Tamarack Subdivision and the request for industrial revenue bond financing, and then the discussion would be opened to the public for questions and opinions either for or against the project. The Mayor further indicated that the City Attorney was present to answer any legal questions. The City Administrator indicated that on April 2, 1979, the City Council approved a preliminary resolution which authorized the issuance of industrial revenue bonds to finance the construction of single-family homes in the Tamarack Subdivision. The City Administrator further indicated that the Council vote on the approval of the resolution was 2-1, Councilman Toth opposed. The City Administrator further indicated that since April 2, 1979, the state and federal governments have passed legislation which severely restricts issuance of industrial revenue bonds for single family housing; but recently, the state legislature adopted a bill which gave certain specific communities the right to issue industrial revenue bonds for single family housing by granting a limited grandfather right to certain preliminary reso- lutions and allowing said issues to proceed under rules in effect prior to April 1979. The City Administrator further indicated since the recent legislation, the developers of the Tamarack Subdivision had renewed interest in the project and are asking the City to approve the industrial revenue bonds for the single family hous- ing in the Tamarack Subdivision. Mr. Dick Carson presented the City Council with a copy of correspondence and other relevant information that has been generated since April of 1979, and also a fact sheet regarding the development. Mr. Carson also introduced Mr. Mark Haggerty of Miller-Schroeder, and Mr. Jim Casserly from O'Connor and Hannan, who would later further explain the mechanics of the financing of the project and answer questions. Mr. Dick Carson indicated that as outlined on the fact sheet, the project would pro- vide lower than market interest rates for housing. It would provide additional jobs; it would increase the school enrollment; it would increase the tax base; it would renew the home buyers' market and it would provide long-term financing at low in- terest rates for home mortgages. Mr. Dick Carson further indicated that the in- dustrial revenue bond financing for the single family homes would not be a problem or present some liability for the City of Elk River~as the City only lends its name to the issuance of the bonds to provide tax exempt interest earnings to the purchaser. Mr. Dick Carson indicated that Miller-Schroeder is working with the City of Coon Rpaids on a 30 million dollar issue for single family housing, and further indicated that he would like to proceed as rapidly as possible for industri- al revenue bond financing for the Tamarack Subdivision project. Mr. Dick Carson indicated that the Tamarack Subdivision is owned by NDH, Inc. and he is working with them as a developer for the project. Mr. Dick Carson further indicated that the development has received plat approval from the City of Elk River. Mr. Dick Carson indicated that the industrial revenue bond financing can be for NDH or Car- son and assigns, for the Tamarack Subdivision and further indicated that 94 single family homes are proposed with 72 acres of developed park area. Mr. Mark Haggerty of Miller-Schroeder Municipals, Inc., security underwriters, in- dicated that the resolution adopted by the Elk River City Council April 2, 1979, specifically indicated Tamarack Subdivision in the resolu~ion and as such, the funds must be used only in Tamarack. Mr. Haggerty indicated that he felt the bonds could be marketed and further indicated that the development would have to be opened to other developers and builders. Mr. Haggerty further indicated that the ---, City Council Meeting Minutes March 15, 1982 Page 5 industrial revenue bond financing would pose no liability exposure to the City and that it would just allow the purchasers of the bonds to borrow the tax exempt status provided by the City. Mr. Mark Haggerty indicated that the City could receive a cash return for the administrative cost and other fees that might be incurred with the financing of the project. Mr. Mark Haggerty further indicated that time is of essence because at the present time there is a market for tax exempt bonds and that the interest rates could possibly be even less, and further indicated that the economy may be in this phase for approximately two to three months. Mr. Haggerty further indicated that the process would take approximately two months prior to the sale of the bonds for the Tamarack Subdivision. Mr. Jim Casserly of O'Connor and Hannan, bond counsels, introduced Mr. Jim Reyer also of his office, and indicated that he has worked with this type of housing finance in the City of Minneapolis, and further indicated that this type of housing finance issue is the same as an industrial revenue bond and is not a general obligation or assessment project. Mr. Casserly explained that the City basically approves the project by allowing the tax exempt status for bond pur- chases. Mr. Casserly said there is no free lunch since the Internal Revenue Service loses the ability to tax the interest paid. Mr. Casserly indicated that the industrial revenue bond financing would be similar to the project in progress in the City of Coon Rapids. Mayor Hinkle asked if the bonds are issued under the City of Elk River's nam~ and the project defaults, does it affect the City's bond rating. Mr. Haggerty in- dicated that there is 100 percent pool insurance for nonpayment by owners and that chances are very slim that all homeowners would default at the same time. Mr. Haggerty indicated that because of the various levels of insurance and other protection~ housing industrial revenue bonds are considered strong and safe issues. Mr. Casserly indicated that he has not experienced a situation in which a failure of industrial revenue bond had a negative impact on the general obligation rating for the municipality. Mr. Casserly further indicated that the mortgages and property are the security for the industrial revenue bonds where the entire tax base of the City is the security for the general obligation bonds. The City Administrator questioned the 8 million dollar issue and indicated that it was his impression that the state bill approved of one million dollars per 1,000 people in the city. The City Administrator further questioned the amount of cash return the City of Elk River could receive on that small of an issue. Mr. Haggerty explained that on April 25, 1979, the legislature changed the re- quirements regarding the one million dollars per 1,000 population issue and further indicated that the cash return could be approximately one-sixteenth of one percent which, over a period of years could amount to a fair sum of money. The City Administrator further indicated that the City's financial consultants expressed concern that there could be a back lash of questions or a clouded effect on the City's bond rating, should any industrial revenue bonds default. Councilman Engstrom questioned the fact that Carson, developer of the Tamarack project, had a monopoly on the money available for the low interest financing and further questioned whether there could be a process whereby more than one builder or developer could be involved in the project. Mr. Carson indicated that they wanted qualified builders in the project and further indicated that they wanted the project to proceed as Soon as possible but could not quote a price for the lots until all the project costs were known. ---, City Council Meeting Minutes March 15, 1982 Page 6 Mr. Haggerty indicated that the City Council could structure a program as equit- able as they might want for developers and builders. Mr. Lloyd Anderson, a devel- oper in the City of Elk River, indicated that he felt the issuance of industrial revenue bonds for financing in the Tamarack Subdivision was unfair and discrim- inatory. Mr. Anderson indicated that he felt the use of the credit.of the City of Elk River was to benefit only one developer and put all other developers at a disadvantage. Mr. Anderson further indicated that he felt all developers should have a fair share and that the 8 million dollar issue was .to help only one developer. Mr. Anderson indicated that homes in the Tamarack Subdivision would be cheaper because of lower interest rates and would therefore pose unfair competition to the other developers. Mr. Tom Noon asked how many developers were involved in the 30 million dollar project in Coon Rapids. Mr. Haggerty and Mr. Reyer explained that several areas of Coon Rapids were funded but that because of the resolution specifying Tamarack Subdivision adopted by the Elk River City Council on April 2, 1979, the industrial revenue bond financing can only be for that project in Elk River. Mr. Noon indicated that he was in opposition of the approval of the industrial revenue bond financing for the Tamarack Subdivision. Mr. John Pearce, a member of the Planning Commission, indicated that he felt all citizens pay on the federal level and it was a backward way of reducing interest rates for a specific project. Mr. Pearce indicated his opposition to the project. Mr. George Zabee, Superintendent of School District 11728, indicated that he felt the Tamarack Subdivision would have a positive influence for the schools and the community, as school space was availabe and when the schools are at full capacity they can operate more efficiently, which would therefore be a benefit to the community. Mr. Mel Beaudry indicated that at the present time there are many people out of work and that this development could provide jobs for people in the community. Mr. Beaudry indicated that he felt the City Council should make a decision on what is best for the entire community. Mr. Beaudry further indicated that the project would bring people to the community and therefore also promote industry in the community. Ms. Barb Olson expressed her op1n1on that the community should take the opportunity to provide financing for single family housing to help younger couples purchase homes. Mr. Ken Barthel indicated that he felt the bond issue and project were a community benefit rather than an individual benefit. Mr. Kuhn indicated his opposition to the industrial revenue financing for single family homes and futher indicated that at the present time, it si impossible for a small developer to sell lots even at a dollar down and five dollars a month. Mr. Kuhn further indicated that the Tamarack project would put every other de- veloper at a disadvantage and that it would also kill the second home market. City Council Meeting Minutes March 15, 1982 Page 7 Mr. Dick Enstead indicated, that as a developer interested in seeing the industrial park develop, he felt the project was well-needed in the community and that the community needs housing for industry. Mr. Enstead further indicated that he felt it was an innovative way of creating financing and that the developer should not be penalized because other developers did not have the foresight to get money for financing. Mr. Haggerty indicated that the interest rate would be approximately 13 percent for a long-term mortgage and further indicated that buyers could qualify at a lower down payment. Mr. Haggerty indicated that the borrower would pay approxi- mately one point and the lender-developer would pay the other fees. Councilman Duitsman questioned the one-sixteenth of one percent available to the City for the issue. Mr. Haggerty explained that the one-sixteenth of one percent could be for administrative fees and that a reserve would be set aside for the possibility of default which would be invested in government securities to generate interest income, which the City might be able to utilize. Mr. Jim Smith questioned the restrictions in order to qualify for the purchase of a home under the industrial revenue bond financing procedure. Mr. Casserly indicated that the maximum approximate home price would be $80,000. with a maximum family income of approximately $26,000, but further indicated that these figures would be adjusted. Mr. Ken Barthel indicated that he felt thei City should put this tool to work to provide housing in the community. I Mayor Hinkle asked Mr. Carson and his othe representatives if they had any further information to provide to the City Council regarding the industrial revenue bond financing project for Tamarac Subdivision. Mayor Hinkle suggested that the issue of the industrial revenue b nd financing for Tamarack Subdivision could be tabled if Mr. Carson wished to de elop additional information, or if more time was necessary to obtain informat"on. Mr. Dick Carson indicated that there wasn additional information they wished to present and asked that the City Cou~cil not table the decision of the approval or disapproval of industrial revenue bond inancing for the Tamarack Subdivision, as a lot of work has already been put into the project. Mr. Carson indicated that the City Council could always say no t a later date in the process of the financing project. Mr. Carson further ind"cated that he was interested in a decision from the City Council as the rate and bond market could change. Mayor Hinkle again asked if anyone wished subject to the council. Mayor Hinkle proc Dave Sellergren, for comments. Mr. Seller issue as the state law has changed over th posal could probably be legally accomplish there was no further information that. the City Council, there was no point in delayi that he felt the Council could make a deci have received. The City Administrator indicated that Mr. o present more information on the eded to ask the City's attorney, ren indicated that it was a complex past three years, but that the pro- d. Mr. Sellergren indicated that if pplicant wished to present for the g the decision. He further indicated ion based on the information they arsons reference to the Councils City Council Meeting Minutes March 15, 1982 P ag e 8 ability to say no at any point of the project was based on technical problems Or considerations rather than the basic policy decision or question to proceed at all. Councilman Duitsman indicated his opposition to the industrial revenue bond financing project for single family homes ashe felt it was a special interest for one developer and that it was unfair to the other developers in the community and as such not beneficial to the community. Councilman Duitsman further in- dicated that he felt the City should be developed from the inner core out and with the cutbacks in state aid, funds would not be available to service the outlaying areas of the city. Councilman Schuldt intent for the use not home building. indicated that it was his impression that the present Council's of industrial revenue bonds was business and industry, and He was not in favor of the proposal. Councilman Engstrom indicated that he could see the issues both for and against the project and further indicated that he could appreciate what Mr. Carson has done in order to provide financing for a project. Councilman Engstrom further indicated that he could see the benefit to the school system but could see the problems the project would cause for the other local developers and builders in the community and therefore, indicated that he was not in favor of the project. Councilman Toth indicated that as referred to in the 1979 resolution, he was the one dissenting vote, and further indicated that he felt industrial revenue bonds are for industrial financing and not single family financing. Councilman Toth further indicated that he felt the growth of the City should happen from the inner city out and therefore, was not in favor of the financing project for the Tamarack Subdivision. COUNCILMAN DUITSMAN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 82-4, A RESOLUTION RESCINDING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL FOR A PROJECT PROPOSED BY CARSON, INC. COUNCILMAN TOTH SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Dick Carson asked if he could provide information indicating that the majority of builders and realtors in the City of Elk River were in favor of the project, would the City Council reconsider the industrial revenue bond request. The City Administrator indicated that there were enough negatives from the proposal and changes in law and state and federal policy, that should more positive builder input be provided, it would not counter-act the negative factors already present. Councilman Toth indicated that his view would not change. Councilman Engstrom indicated that he was not in favor of the industrial revenue bond financing and further indicated that he felt the City should develop from the inner city out and therefore, would not change his opinion. Councilman Duitsman indicated that in 1979, he was in favor of the project because of the parks the project would provide to the City, but with levy limit restrictions now placed on the City, the City would not be able to provide the maintenance for the park and therefore, he could not at this time approve the industrial revenue bond financing project. THE MOTION PASSED 5-0. City Council Minutes March 15, 1982 Page 9 10. Non-intoxicating Malt Liquor Off-Sale License Policy Mayor Hinkle indicated that the proposed resolution before the City Council regarding a policy for the issuance of non-intoxicating malt liquor off-sale licenses is due to the concern of the Council regarding the issuance of non- intoxicating malt liquor off-sale licenses to gas stations and convenience stores selling gasoline. Councilman Toth questioned the City's authority to say no without something to base their decision upon. Mr. Sellergren, the City's Attorney, explained that the City must have an ordinance, resolution, or a policy to base their decisions upon and further indicated that the City Council does set a precedence in making decisions. General discussion was carried on regarding the resolution as presented. Councilman Engstrom indicated that he felt gas and beer should not be sold at the same location. Mr. Sellergren indicated that the resolution as written does go beyond the limitation of the sale of non-intoxicating malt liquor off-sale from gas stations, and service stations. General discussion was carried on regarding the deletion of drive-in rest- aurants, roadside stands and/or other drive-in facilities as specified in the proposed resolution and specifically restaurants in general. The deletion of the last paragraph as follows: non-intoxicating malt liquor off-sale licenses will be issued only to establishments primarily selling food or food products such as but not limited to grocery stores, was also discussed. Councilman Duitsman questioned if the establishments now selling non-intox- icating malt liquor have been problems for the police department. TheCity Administrator indicated that he has not had any problems directly reported to him from the police department. COUNCILMAN TOTH MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 82-3 AS AMENDED PER DISCUSSION. THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Further discussion was carried on regarding the issuance of non-intoxicating malt liquor off-sale licenses to restaurants and other types of facilities in- cluding bait shops. COUNCILMAN TOTH AGAIN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 82-3 AS AMENDED. COUNCILMAN ENGSTROM SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 3-2. COUNCILMAN SCHULDT AND COUNCILMAN DUITSMAN OPPOSED. 11. Food-n-FuelRequest for Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor Off-Sale License COUNCILMAN ENGSTROM MOVED TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR A NON-INTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR OFF-SALE LICENSE FOR FOOD-N-FUEL. COUNCILMAN TOTH SECONDED THE MO- TION. THE MOTION PASSED 3-0. COUNCILMAN DUITSMAN ABSTAINED. City Council Minutes March 15, 1982 Page 10 12. Administratorts Update A. Board of Equalization Meeting Date The City Administrator indicated that the Board of Review meeting date has been scheduled for Tuesday, May 4th, 1982. It was the concensus of the City Council that this date was acceptable. B. Public Official Liability Insurance Coverage The City Administrator indicated that should their be an award for a settlement over 1.5 million dollars, the City would be resonsible rather than the individual. The City Administrator further indicated that the deductible is the responsibility of the City and not a responsibility of the individual. C. Speed Zone Study The City Administrator indicated that the Minnesota Department of Trans- portation has agreed with basically all of the requests that the City made for urban zoning at the 30 miles per hour and further indicated that the County would have to request speed zones for the county and state aid roads and county roads. The City Administrator indicated that the Minne- sota Department of Transportation could not determine the need for Tyler Street and would do a study and then make a recommendation. The City Administrator indicated that the Minnesota Department of Transportation will move the 55 miles per hour sign further east on Highway 10 for east- bound traffic and install another 30 miles per hour sign for the westbound traffice near the Union 76 station. The City Administrator indicated that the City would make a request to the County Board to have the County state aid highways and county roads signed for urban zoning. Councilman Schuldt asked when the signs would be put in place. The City Administrator indicated that due to the cost, he would ask the police chief to make a list of priorities as to which streets should be signed first. D. Beck's Addition Final Plat The City Administrator indicated that the developers have asked that the City close the public hearing on the Beck's Subdivision as they have pulled out of the project. The City Administrator further indicated that the Beck's Subdivision will have to be redone, and anything new will re- quire a new public hearing. E. Alltool Industrial Revenue Bond Issue The City Administrator indicated that he had met with the owner of Alltool and their accountant and through their discussion had the questions asked by Springsted, Inc., clarified. The City Administrator indicated that he will forward the information to Springsted, Inc. City Council Minutes Ma,rch 15, 1982 Page 11 F. Meeting for Review of Storm Sewer Concept - March 25th It was the general concensus of the City Council that March 25th could be scheduled for review of the storm sewer project at the City Hall at 7 :30 p.m. G. Selection of Date for Finance Committee to Review Budget The City Administrator indicated that the previously scheduled meeting between the City Council and the Utilities Commission has been changed to April 1st and suggested that March 29th be used as a Finance Committee meeting date. It was the general consensus of the City Council that a Finance Committee meeting could be scheduled for March 29th at 7:30 p.m. at City Hall. 13. Check Register COUNCILMAN ENGSTROM MOVED TO APPROVE THE MARCH 15th, 1982 CHECK REGISTER. COUNCILMAN SCHULDT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 4-0. 14. Tentative Agenda Plaisted rezone request is tentatively scheduled for the April 5th City Council meeitng. There being no further business, COUNCILMAN TOTH MOVED THAT THE MEETING BE ADJOURNED. COUNCILMAN ENGSTROM SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 4-0. Respectfully submitted, 67~~ Phyllis Boedigheimer 4 vei!&d ~ Deputy City Clerk/Treasurer PB:dkk