The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10-10-1968Record of Official Proceedings of the Common Council of the City of Rochester, -Minn., October 10, 1968 1 1 41 1 Minutes of an adjourned regular meeting of the Common Council of the City of Rochester, Minnesota, held in the Council Chambers in the City Hall, in said City, on October 10, 1968. President DeVries called the meeting to order at 11:30 o'clock A. M., the ' following members being present: President DeVries, Aldermen Brunnette, Ellison, Folkert, Larson, Perry, Postier. Absent: None. The following resolution was read and upon motion by Larson, second by Folkert and all voting in favor, the resolution was adopted as read: "BE IT RESOLVED that the annual budget of the City of Rochester, Minnesota for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 1968 which has been submitted by the several departments and modified and approved by the City Council is hereby adopted; the totals of said budget and the major divisions thereof being as follows: REVENUE AVAILABIE General Property Taxes 4,388.887 Licenses & Permits 170,000 Fines, Forfeits & Penalties 143,000 Use of Money &Property 185,578 Revenue From Other Agencies 1,620,919 Charges for Current Services 385,660 Special Assessments 275,000 Other Receipts 1,386,418 Prior Year Revenues 1.316.061 Total Revenue 9,871,523 REQUIREMENT Appropriations Employee 3,641,924 Other Current Expense 1,939,926 Capital Outlay 446,950 Capital Improvements 2,787,800 Debt Service 1,054,923 Total Appropriations 9,871,523 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the modified, approved and adopted copy marked "Adopted 1969 Budget" be placed on file in the City Clerk's office, and that effective January 1, 1969 the Director of Finance - Treasurer is hereby directed to cause the appropriate accounting entries to be made in the books of the City. " The following resolution was read and upon motion by Ellison, second by Postier, and all voting in favor, the said resolution was adopted as read: "BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of Rochester, Olmsted County, Minnesota, that the following sums of money be levied for the current year, collectable in 1969, upon the taxable property 'in'said City of Rochester, for the following purposes: General Fund $2,646,366 PERA & FICA 293,475 Library 160,240 Fire Relief 23,255 Police Relief 1 mill Permanent Improvement 913,811 *Debt Service 276,240 Equipment Revolving 27,500 *Previously certifiedby deferred levy. .Be it further resolved that the City Clerk is hereby instructed to transmit a certified copy of this resolution to the County Auditor of Olmsted County, Minnesota." The recommendation of the Public Safety Committee (signed by two members, Vincent Folkert and William Perry) stating that at a meeting on October 7, 1968 and on is 14 Record of Official Proceedings of the Common Council of the City of Rochester, Minn., October 10, 1968 October 10, 1968, considered the application of Arden E. Grubb, President - G & A Grubb Incorporated, dba - North Star Bar at 315 First Avenue N. W. to have the on -sale intoxicating 4, ; cx liquor license now issued to them at 315 First Avenue N.W. transferred to 114-118,First.Avenue N. E. and the Committee recommends that this transfer be denied, was read. Mr. Richard White, Attorney representing the applicant, was present and stated that he felt this request should be granted, this area is primarily old residential but is zoned as light industrial so if anyone wishing.to put in a plumbing business or something similar they could apply for a zoning and building permit and:it would be issued to them; he said his client is planning on constructing a new building on these lots and this would be added revenue on the tax rolls; he said this new building would probably enhance the property and could not see where it would work adversely, he requested that this be reconsidered and the transfer granted. R. V. Ehrick, City Attorney, said that there were three basic problems involved down here (1) at the present time this area is substantially residential use and this would be placing an establishment that is licensed to sell liquor and will remain open until 1:00 A. M. , this has caused problems to the City in other areas (2) this area is within the Urban Renewal project area and although phases of Urban Renewal under this new Federal Act adopted on 8-1-68 are not fully concluded, he was informed by Mr. Heald that the acquisition of the property in this entire block would be a very early phase and so the Council and Urban Renewal may be placed in the position of buying this building in one or two months if the Urban Renewal goes into effect; Mr. White is correct that 4t at this time any authorized use could be constructed here, however, the fact that the Council might be powerless with respect to other buildings that could be built and would have to spend funds to acquite them if Urban Renewal goes into effect but as far as liquor licenses are concerned the Council does have authority to deny or grant transfer of locations (3)under your suggested first phase of Urban Renewal, First AVenue N.E.-S.E. is to be reconstructed or revised and at the north end here, it is my understanding it is proposed to cbrve First Avenue N. E. to west in the vicinity of the railroad tracks and as a part of the plan part of 1st Avenue N.E. from 2nd St. N. E. south to where it would meet the new curved is to be cut and there would be only a service entry and I think you could be sued for damage for loss of access; the proposal to extend 2nd Avenue N. E. along the power plant and making a connection to 7th Street N. E. has had a hearing before the Commission and they are considering the closing of the crossing at 1st Avenue and this is another problem that involves the construction of 1st Avenue N. E. Alderman Ellison said he did not feel the Council had the right to deny this, if any other business requested a building permit they would be allowed to build, he said the owners were aware of all the ramifications and were willing.to go along with this. Alderman Larson also stated he felt the City did not have the right to deny these people (1) the right to sell sell their property and (2) to engage in an enterprise which is legally and according to the zoning in that area. Alderman Folkert stated that the owner is not taking any risk, 1 • • f- Record of Official Proceedings of the' Common Council of the City of Rochester, Minn., October 10, 1968 1 1 we do not have any freeze on any building in this area but we do have jurisdiction of transfer of the liquor license, even if the present plan of Urban Renewal does not become a reality, there will be renewal and we will have to go back and acquire this property and pay as much and more than it costs to build it now; we are guardians of taxpayers money and therefore should take care of it. A motion was made by Perry, second by Folkert, that the recommendat; be approved and the request denied;; President DeVries now called for a vote and uponroll call Brunnette, Folkert, Perry and DeVries voting "aye" and Ellison, Larson and Postier voting "nay", the recommendation was approved and the transfer denied. A motion was then made by Postier, second by Ellison, that the Planning & Zoning Commission be instructed to initiate proceedings to annex the surrounded property from 12th Street S. E. to 20th Street S. E. between T. H. 63 and the Railroad tracks and 3rd Avenue S. E.; all voted in favor. Upon motion by Perry, second by Postier, and all voting in favor, the meeting was adjourned until 7:30 o'clock P. M. on October 21, 1968. City Clerk 0 Record of Official Proceedings of the Common Council of the City of Rochester, Minn., I 1 1 1 'S 1 L�