City Council Agenda Packet 03-12-2007
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, March 12, 2007 - 7 p.rn.
NOTE: SPECIAL MEETING AT 5:30 P.M. AT PUBLIC WORKS BLDG TO TOUR
FACILITIES
Mayor: Clint Herbst
Council Members: Wayne Mayer, Tom Perrault, Brian Stumpf and Susie Wojchouski
1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance
lA. Presentation of award received for the CSAH 18/1-94 Interchange Project.
2A. Approve minutes of February 26,2007 Special Council Meeting
2B. Approve minutes of February 26,2007 Regular Council Meeting
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
4. Citizen comments, petitions, requests and concerns.
5. Consent Agenda:
A. Consideration of ratifying hires and departures.
B. Consideration of appointment to Police Commission.
C. Consideration of adoption of resolution supporting legislation on change in tax rate for
utilities.
D. Consideration of approving a one year contract extension with Carefree Lawn Service.
E. Consideration of amendments to River City Lanes development agreement
6. Consideration of items removed from the consent agenda for discussion.
7. Public Hearing on 2007 Street Reconstruction Project, City Project No. 2007-01C; order
project and authorize preparation of plans and specifications.
8. Public hearing on adoption of amendments to the nuisancelblight ordinances and ordinance
establishing administrative fee process.
9. Continued Public Hearing - Stabilization agreement with Xcel Energy
lO. Review of proposed ordinances and consideration of approving franchise ordinance and
franchise fee ordinance with Xcel Energy.
Agenda
Monticello City Council
March 12, 2007
Page 2
11. Consideration of needs study for Public Works Department and authorization to request
proposals.
12. Consideration of closing MCC wheel park operations effective 2007; consideration of
authorizing sale of wheel park equipment and authorization to develop alternate uses for the
site.
13. Adjourn.
Special Council Minutes: 2/26107
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday February 26, 2006 - 5:30 p.m.
Members Present:
Clint Herbst, Wayne Mayer, Tom Perrault, Brian Stumpf and Susie
Wojchouski.
Members Absent:
None
1. Call to order.
Mayor Herbst called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. and explained that the purpose of the
special meeting was to discuss a proposed ordinance that would govern rental property.
2. Review and discussion of proposed rental ordinance.
City staff reported that the ordinance came about as a result of increased numbers of rental
units in the conununity that are not being maintained. These rental units are a problem as
they are a source of blight and foster deterioration of the neighborhood they are located in.
Brian Stumpf asked if the problem rental units were apartment complexes or older homes that
had been converted to rental property. Staff explained the problems with the rental units
noting that with the weaker housing market a number of single family homes as well as
townhouse units were being purchased for investment purposes. The rental units that were
not owner occupied tend to generate a more concern since there is a little incentive for the
property owner to maintain the site.
The proposed ordinance would require a license for any rental unit. Prior to issuing a license
the Building Department would conduct an inspection of the unit to verifY that it complies
with all City codes and the International Property Maintenance Code. If the property is in
compliance, a Tier I license would be issued. If the property is not in compliance and the
owner does not bring his property into compliance within a specified time frame, a Tier II
license would be issued.
Brian Stumpf asked about the enforcement of the ordinance. What authority is given by
ordinance to allow for inspection of the premises? Staff indicated that under the proposed
ordinance not allowing inspection of the premises by the appropriate authority is a basis for
revocation of the rental license. The owner agrees as part of the license to allow the City to
inspect their rental units. Staff had initially considered that the rental unit inspections would
be done by the Building Department staff in January-February when construction was slower.
Brian Stumpf felt random inspections would be more effective. Otherwise property owners
would have their property in compliance at the beginning of the year when inspection was
likely and then just leave them the rest of the year. Staff indicated that inspection would also
be done based on tenant complaints. If the tenant has notified the property owner in writing
of an item that is not in compliance with the code and the property owner takes no action to
correct the non-compliance, the tenant may request the City to inspect the premises.
I
Special Council Minutes: 2/26/07
There was discussion on the fees proposed to be charged. Staff indicated an inspection fee of
$50/hour was being proposed with a minimum of one hour. It was questioned whether this
would adequately cover all costs. Clint Herbst said the City doesn't see these fees as a serious
revenue source but felt the City should break even. Wayne Mayer expressed his concern that
enforcement of this ordinance would tie up the personnel resources of the Building
Department. City Attorney Tom Scott concurred that the initial set up of the ordinance and
the follow up would be labor intensive so it was important that the fees cover the cost of the
program.
The impact of the ordinance was discussed. Staff felt that most landlords would require larger
deposits from the renter to protect the landlord from renter activity that would put the property
into non-compliance. City Attorney Tom Scott said the lease should be set up so that if there
is any violation of the ordinance the tenant can be evicted. The landlord must be making a
good faith effort to bring tenants into compliance.
The definition of a rental unit was discussed. It was felt that any residential property that was
non-homesteaded should be looked at to determine ifit was a rental unit. The Council also
discussed the inspections that the Fire Department are doing and whether there would be any
overlap. It was felt the Fire Department and Building Department should work in
conjunction on the inspections. The inspection by the Fire Department is about fire
pre-planning which gives the Fire Department information about specific structures that may
aid them if a fire breaks out at that structure. Brian Stumpf added that there is no authority
given to the person doing the inspections for the Fire Department for entering the structure.
Susie Wojchouski asked if the City opens itself up to any liability by issuing the license. Tom
Scott said by issuing the license, the City is not insuring that there is no violation ofthe
ordinance. He believed anyone filing a lawsuit would have to show that the City was
egregious in their behavior or had repeatedly ignored violations. He did add that there are
facilities that house vulnerable adults or day care facilities where there might be some
additional liability for the City.
It was pointed out that the building code only gives the City authority over new construction
or work that is done under permit. The property management code is a uniform code and
goes beyond the building code.
Staff will make revisions to the ordinance which will come back to the Council. The City will
also have an informational meeting with property owners. It was suggested that staff talks to
other communities who have a rental ordinance to find out what features they felt worked and
which didn't. The consensus of the Council is that the ordinance should be enforceable.
Recording Secretary
2
COWlcil Minutes: 2/26/07
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, February 26, 2006 - 7 p.m.
Members Present:
Clint Herbst, Wayne Mayer, Tom Perrault, Brian Stumpf and Susie
Wojchouski.
Members Absent:
None
1. Call to Order and Pledee of Alleeiance.
Mayor Herbst called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. and declared a quorum present. The
Pledge of Allegiance was said.
2A. Approve minutes of February 12, 2007 Special Council Meetine.
SUSIE WOJCHOUSKI MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 12,
2007 SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING. TOM PERRAULT SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED WITH WAYNE MAYER ABSTAINING.
2B. Approve minutes of February 12,2007 Reeular Council Meeting
BRIAN STUMPF MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 12,2007
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING. TOM PERRAULT SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED WITH WAYNE MA YER ABSTAINING.
3. Consideration of addine items to the agenda.
Brian Stumpf added discussion of signal timing to the agenda.
I
4. Citizen comments, petitions, reQuests and concerns.
No one spoke under citizen comments.
5. Consent Aeenda:
A. Consideration of ratifying hires and departures MCC. Recommendation: Ratify hires
and departures as identified.
B. Consideration of waiving statutory liability limits for City insurance renewals.
Recommendation: Move that the City of Monticello does not waive the monetary
limits on tort liability by Minnesota Statute 466.04.
C. Consideration of temporary beer license for Monticello Lions Club for Riverfest
celebration. Recommendation: Approve a temporary liquor license for the
Monticello Lions Club for the Riverfest Celebration on July 14th -July 15th 2007.
Council Minutes: 2/26/07
D. Consideration of approving monthly renewal of pawn shop license for Walt's Pawn
Shop. Recommendation: Approve the renewal of the pawn shop license for Walt's
Pawn Shop, 1219 State Highway 25 for one month.
E. Consideration to approve a resolution calling for public hearing on the proposed
Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment
Project No. I and the proposed establishment ofTIF District No. 1-38 (Walker
In-Store). Recommendation: Move to approve a resolution calling for a public
hearing by the City Council on the proposed adoption of the modification to the
Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. I and the
proposed establishment ofTIF District No. 1-38 therein and the adoption ofthe TIF
plan therefore.
F. Consideration of request to authorize preparation of an Environmental Assessment
Worksheet relating to proposed development of a Mills Fleet Farm store.
Recommendation: Move to authorize preparation of an Environmental Worksheet
relating to proposed development of a Mills Fleet Farm store.
G. Consideration of accepting feasibility report and setting the public hearing date for the
2007 Street Reconstruction Project, Project No. 2007-0 I C. Recommendation: Accept
the feasibility report and set a public hearing date of March 12, 2007 for the 2007
Street Reconstruction Project, Project No. 2007-0IC.
H. Consideration of approving final payment and accepting improvements for extension
of 7th Street from St. Henry's Church to CSAH 18 and Highland Way from 7th Street
to CSAH 75, City Project No. 2004-02C. Recommendation: Accept the
improvements and approve the final payment of$148,114.43 to Arcon Construction
. Co. Inc. for City Project No. 2004-02C contingent upon receipt of the final paperwork.
1. Consideration of approving Change Order No. I for the 2005 Street Reconstruction
Project, City Project No. 2005-0IC. Recommendation: Approve Change Order
No. I for the 2005 Street Reconstruction Project in the amount of$12,935.20 to Knife
River Corporation.
J. Consideration of approving final payment and accepting improvements for the 2005
Street Reconstruction Program, Project No. 2005-01 C. Recommendation: Accept
the improvements and approve final payment on the 2005 Street Reconstruction
Program, in the amount of$71,318.03 to Knife River Corporation.
K. Consideration of adopting a resolution to Wright County supporting authorization of a
speed zone study on CSAH 18 between School Boulevard and CSAH 75.
Recommendation: Move to adopt a resolution to Wright County supporting
authorization of a speed zone study on CSAH 18 from School Boulevard to CSAH 75.
1. Consideration of approving 2007 Parks Department Tree Program.
Recommendation: Approve the 2007 tree program and authorize the reduced cost
trees for the residents.
2
Council Minutes: 2/26/07
WAYNE MAYER MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA CONSISTING OF
ITEMS #5A, #5B, #5C, #5D, #5E, #5H AND #5L. TOM PERRAULT SECONDED THE
MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
6. Consideration of items removed from the consent a~enda for discussion.
#5F Authorize EA W for proposed Mills Fleet Farm store: Jeff O'Neill explained the EA W
is a way to defme any environmental concerns relating to the 30 acre site lying north of
Chelsea Road and west of the UMC building. The EA W will provide information necessary
to determine whether the development should move forward. A deposit has been made with
the City to cover the cost of the EA W.
Susie W ojchouski asked if doing an EA W was the normal procedure for a large parcel of
land. Jeff O'Neill said it was standard procedure adding that doing an EA W does not obligate
the City to approve the rezoning. Clint Herbst stated the EA W and the rezoning are separate
issues. City Attorney Tom Scott indicated that the City Council has considerable discretion
on the matter of rezoning. There was some discussion on whether the EA W should be done
before the rezoning.
TOM PERRAULT MOVED TO AUTHORIZE PREP ARA TION OF AN
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET RELATING TO THE PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT OF A MILLS FLEET FARM STORE. CLINT HERBST SECONDED
THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED WITH SUSIE WOJCHOUSKI VOTING IN
OPPOSITION.
#5G Accept Feasibility Report and set Public Hearing Date for 2007 Street Reconstruction
Project: Wayne Mayer was concerned about the proposed street widths indicated in the
feasibility report. Currently River Street east of Craig Lane is 30' and he didn't feel it should
be reduced to 28' as called for in the report. In addition Hillcrest Road and Hilltop Drive are
being proposed for 26' . Wayne Mayer did not believe it was appropriate for the City to
reduce their street width standards especially since the City has sufficient right-of-way in this
area.
Shibani Bisson responded that at the neighborhood meetings the street widths were discussed.
They are looking at minimizing the impact of the project and address the residents concerns.
The fact that part of the road didn't carry as much traffic was another reason staff felt the
street width could be reduced and they also wanted to keep the 5' boulevard area.
Clint Herbst said there are areas where it is a tight fit to try to put in a sidewalk within the
standard width street. He added that this is a redevelopment project and some adjustments
have to be made. Shibani Bisson stated storm sewer is going in at the intersection of River
Street and Hilltop Road but is not running the entire length of the street.
Wayne Mayer asked about the sidewalk on River Street. Tom Moores and Tom Bose have
looked at this and they indicated that if the street width was 30' the sidewalk would have to be
jogged I' -2' around one tree but otherwise the sidewalk would not be a problem. John
Simola noted there is 66' of right-of-way in the area.
3
Council Minutes: 2/26/07
Tom Moores showed some pictures that illustrated the difficulty for snowplows and other
emergency vehicles to travel on the narrower width streets when there is parking on both
sides. The Council indicated that if the street was constructed to a narrower width, the City
would restrict parking on the street. Tom Moores stated that the parking restriction was not
made known to him. Clint Herbst reiterated when these reconstruction projects are done the
City should be trying to minimize impact as much as possible. Brian Stumpf stated whether
it was 26' or 28' feet parking would not be allowed on both sides of the street.
There was also discussion on the number of "No Parking" signs that needed to be posted on
the street. Some expressed their concern about a proliferation of signs and felt one or two
well placed signs would be more appropriate.
Wayne Mayer stated he would be flexible on the widths for Hillcrest Road and Hilltop Drive
but he felt River Street should be kept at 30'. Clint Herbst mentioned there is 3' boulevard on
Broadway. Tom Moores stated if the City went to 30' on River Street and cut the green space
down to 3' it would still be adequate but he felt if they went to less than 30' the City should
restrict the parking to one side.
Tom Perrault asked if Hilltop Drive needed curb and gutter since it was not a heavily used
road and also noted concern about the sidewalk going up towards the compost site as the
overhead lines would make sidewalk placement difficult. Tom Perrault also pointed out that
the proposed parking lot improvements for Hillcrest Park should be funded from the pathway
fund.
Wayne Mayer asked how much the feasibility report would change if the City changed River
Street from 28' to 30'. Shibani Bisson indicated it would change the overall cost of the
project but the proposed assessments would not change.
WAYNE MAYER MOVED TO ACCEPT THE FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR THE 2007
STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT AND ORDER THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR
MARCH 12, 2007 WHICH WOULD INCLUDE RIVER STREET FROM CRAIG LANE TO
CSAH 75 BEING CHANGED FROM 28' TO 30'. SUSIE WOJCHOUSKI SECONDED
THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED WITH TOM PERRAULT VOTING IN
OPPOSITION SINCE HE FELT NARROWING THE STREET TO 28' WOULD HAVE
MINIMUM IMPACT.
#51 Change Order #1 for 2005 Street Reconstruction Project: Wayne Mayer questioned the
request for an additional $13,000 for sodding/restoration. Was it something that the
contractor bid wrong or did the City make some change to the project that required the
additional work. The Council felt if the contractor bid something too low or omitted
something in his bid that was not the City's fault. Tom Bose, construction observer,
indicated that the amounts for sodding/restoration had increased from what was in the plans.
WAYNE MAYER MOVED TO APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO.1 IN THE AMOUNT
OF $12,935.20 FOR KNIFE RIVER CORPORATION FOR THE 2005 STREET
RECONSTRUCTION PROGRAM, PROJECT NO. 2005-01 C. TOM PERRAULT
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4
Council Minutes: 2/26/07
#5J Final payment and acceptance of improvements for 2005 Street Reconstruction
Project: With the question of the change order resolved there was no further discussion of
this item.
WAYNE MAYER MOVED TO ACCEPT THE IMPROVEMENTS AND APPROVE THE
FINAL PAYMENT OF $71,318.03 TO KNIFE RIVER CORPORATION FOR THE 2005
STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROGRAM, PROJECT NO. 2005-0lC. TOM PERRAULT
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
#5K Resolution supporting speed zone study on CSAH 18 between School Boulevard and
CSAH 75. Wayne Mayer noted that there are three alternatives listed. One of which is to
look at a different scope for the speed study. He noted that roundabout is signed for 15 mph,
and on leaving the roundabout you are in an area of traffic lights so he didn't see why that
area ofCSAH 18 was being considered as part of the speed study. Bruce Westby stated the
County would like MnDOT to do a speed zone study on CSAH 18 from CSAH 75 in
Monticello all the way to St. Michael. The reason for the request is that there have been a
number of reconstruction projects that have taken place on the roadway. It was noted that the
15 mph on the roundabout is an advisory sign. The speed limit on CSAH 18 in Monticello is
45 mph. City staff did not feel a speed study on CSAH 18 east of Fenning Avenue would be a
benefit but would more likely result in a speed increase to 50 mph.
Brian Stumpf asked if MnDOT conducts all the City's traffic studies. Bruce Westby said the
City could do an informal speed study but this is a county road and the County defers to
MnDOT. The County would pay for the speed study. Brian Stumpf questioned whether the
City should expand the scope ofthe study to include Chelsea Road. John Simola stated any
speed study for Chelsea Road should be done as a separate request by the City.
Wayne Mayer asked ifthere was any type of enforcement on advisory signs such as the 15
mph sign on the roundabout. Sheriff Gary Miller said the advisory signs are not enforceable.
It was felt that if Eastview School opens up again the City should look at a pedestrian crossing
in the area.
BRIAN STUMPF MOVED TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION TO WRIGHT COUNTY
SUPPORTING AUTHORIZATION OF A SPEED ZONE STUDY ON CSAH 18 FROM
SCHOOL BOULEVARD TO CSAH 75. WAYNE MAYER SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
8. Department Report: Police Department - Wri!!ht County Sheriff's Dept.
This item was moved up on the agenda. Sheriff Gary Miller from Wright County was present
to review current law enforcement activities in the City and answer questions from the
Council. Sheriff Miller reviewed the annual report which covered the calls for the past five
years. He said although there was an increase in the number of calls when you look at the
increase in population over that same time, it showed a fairly stable number and actually the
crime rate per 1000 over the last five years had decreased.
Brian Stumpf asked about the traffic calls. Sheriff Miller noted that was a reflection of
Council direction to increase patrols in specific areas. He also noted there were some changes
5
Council Minutes: 2/26/07
in coding on certain calls that impacted the numbers. He added that the Sheriffs Department
puts their efforts into the areas that are requested by the community.
Sheriff Miller stated that have been some change in the way they have done business with
their contract cities. There are district offices are set up within the county including one in
Monticello. He noted they are also experimenting with their reporting forms in attempt to
come up with reports that are more useful in identifying where crime is taking place and
trends in criminal activity.
Wayne Mayer asked if the City requesting more traffic work is pulling away from other areas
of enforcement. Sheriff Miller said it depends on how much discretionary time there is on
patrol. The busiest time of day for calls for service is from 2 p.m. to 8 p.m. with a peak at 3
p.m. The City council should direct through the Police Commission what they want the
Sheriff s Department to focus on.
Clint Herbst asked if the Sheriffs Department had a feel for what is happening in the
residential area of Monticello as compared to other communities. Sheriff Miller stated that
was difficult to say. He said that activity causing a spike in crime can create the image of an
unsafe area. So if an area was experiencing a number of break-ins it would be reflected in the
numbers but once the perpetrators were caught the numbers would go back down. Wayne
Mayer asked if they could add another category to their report which would cover those types
of criminal activity that could be attributed to big box stores. Sheriff Miller said they are
changing over their reporting system so right now it would be difficult to do that but
hopefully that would change in the future.
Sheriff Miller indicated that medical calls is a big area for service calls. The number one
complaint the Sheriffs Department gets are about reckless driving with animal complaints
being second. Sheriff Miller stated that while some may have the perception that crime has
increased in Monticello the statistics do not bear that out. He stated there are 14 different
factors that they look at in providing police coverage for their contract cities. Sheriff Miller
asked as the City looks at expanding their facilities that they keep in mind the Sheriff s office.
Eventually they would like to have an office for detective to work out of. He emphasized
the Sheriffs Department is a very visible presence in the community.
7. Continued Public Hearinl!: on adoption of revenue stabilization al!:reement with Xcel
Enerl!:V.
The public hearing was continued from the last meeting pending additional study by Council
and staff. Legislation was introduced requesting an increase in the tax rate for utility
facilities. This proposed legislation, if passed, would offset the decrease in market value for
utilities. Jeff O'Neill reported that a law judge had ruled in favor of amending the tax laws
for utilities which would result in a drop in market value for Xcel Energy..
Representatives form the City did attend a hearing at the capital on the proposed legislation to
increase the tax rate for utility companies. This provided an opportunity to hear from other
cities with utility facilities as well as representative from the Coalition of Utility Cities.
6
Council Minutes: 2/26/07
Ofthe communities with utility facilities only Red Wing and Goodhue County have signed
stabilization agreements with Xcel Energy.
The Council reviewed reasons to consider entering into the stabilization agreement but
indicated there were some equally valid reasons to table action on the stabilization agreement.
Clint Herbst felt that while the presence ofXcel in the community had positive impacts, there
were negative impacts as well. He felt tabling the item would allow additional time for
something to happen at the legislature. Brian Stumpf asked at what point does the City stop
tabling action on the agreement. If the City does not enter into the agreement what is the
impact of that. City Attorney Tom Scott indicated in this instance there is no time limit on
how often Council could table action. Susie Wojchouski stated the legislation is still moving
forward but there is no guarantee that the legislation will pass both house and senate.
Clint Herbst said he failed to understand why Xcel Energy wouldn't clarifY some of the items
of the agreement. He stated that Monticello was given the identical agreement that Red Wing
received even though he felt that each community's situation was unique.
It was pointed out that the school district will lose $308,000 from the change in valuation for
Xcel Energy and it was questioned what the steps the school will take to handle the impact of
that.
WAYNE MA YVER MOVED TO TABLE ACTION ON THE REVENUE
ST ABILIZAITON AGREEMENT WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT IF EVENTS
DICTATE, THE CITY WOULD CALL A SPECIAL MEETING TO ACT ON IT. TOM
PERRAULT SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Jeff O'Neill asked if the Council would be interested in adopting a resolution supporting the
legislation and outlining reasons for their support. The Council indicated if a resolution was
drafted they would consider it at the next meeting.
9. Consideration of needs study for Public Works Department and authorization to
request proposals.
Public Works Department staff and the City Administrator reviewed the building needs for
the department. The earlier request for proposal was revised and was being submitted for
Council review. The biggest change from the earlier proposal was that the reservoir site was
being excluded. A portion of the reservoir site is proposed to be used for ponding. The
reservoir site would also be the site of a future water treatment plant. The proposed study
would cover two items: 1) Staying where they are and expanding at that site with the land
across the street being utilized or 2) moving to a new site. If approved, the request for
proposals would be submitted to the same firms that applied last time. $35,000 was budgeted
for the study.
7
John Simola stated that the present layout creates a lot of inefficiencies in their operation.
They would like to have a plan in place that would meet the immediate needs but also look
long range for the needs of the department. John Simola said ifthey looked at the site of the
existing facility including the land to the south, it may accommodate them for another 20
Council Minutes; 2/26/07
years. Another possibility would be to have an architect look at what is needed take the City
40 years down the road.
The Council discussed Outlot A of Country Club Manor which the City owns. This parcel is
approximately 16 acres. Clint Herbst felt Outlot A would be a good site. He stated did not
want the Public Works to encroach into the residential area adjacent to their existing site.
Brian Stumpffelt the existing Public Works site should be studied. Susie Wojchouski stated
that residents in the area of the existing facility were not opposed to the Public works
expansion in the area. She added that as County Road 39 continues to carry more traffic that
makes it a less desirable area for residential. She felt the current site was a good one to look
at as well. Outlot A has visibility from the freeway so there is a concern that whatever is put
there is attractive.
Clint Herbst felt the present Public Works site might be utilized as an interim site. Brian
Stumpf would like to look at the existing site but didn't feel there should be expansion across
the street. Clint Herbst asked what would have to change on the present site to allow them to
continue to use the facility for another 5-10 years. He suggested upgrading the existing site
and allow parking to the south and then look at 1-2 other sites for the long term plan.
Wayne Mayer felt with the specifications that John Simola had prepared the City did not need
a study but could get an architect to come up with a plan. John Simola felt it would be wrong
not to have a long term plan.
There was continued discussion on the pros of cons and the existing site and Outlot A as well
as discussion on how much should be invested in an interim solution. Clint Herbst suggested
tabling this until the next meeting and hold a special meeting prior to the regular meeting to
look at the existing site.
TOM PERRAULT MOVE TO TABLE THE NEEDS STUDY FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS
DEPARTMENT AND TO SCHEDULE A SPECIAL MEETING FOR 5:30 P.M. ON
MARCH 12,2007 AT THE PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING TO REVIEW THE EXISTING
FACILITY AND SITE. WAYNE MAYER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
10. Review of plans and specifications for repaintin~ of Monte Hill Water tank and
discussion of lo~o for tank.
John Simola submitted plans and specifications for the repainting of the Monte Hill water
tanle The tank has the original coating on both the inside and outside. The new coating
would be a clear coat system like the one on the new tower. John Simola indicated that some
work would have to be done to bring tower up to grade. This includes some additional
venting and removal of the existing cathodic protection system. It is proposed to have
painting done during July with an option for a fall painting to be bid as an alternate.
John Simola talked abut the containment risk during the sandblasting process.
8
Council Minutes: 2/26/07
John Simola submitted drawings of proposed logos for the tower. Clint Herbst felt since the
logo is not readily visible, nothing should be on the tower other than what is on it now (the
Monticello M) and other Councilmembers agreed.
Brian Stumpf asked if they checked references on the contractors who submit bids. John
Simola stated there are not many contractors who do tower painting. Staff is talking about
having something in the bids about contractors who have paid liquidated damages. The
color selection for the tower will come back to the Council at a later date.
TOM PERRAULT TO MODIFY THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR
REPAINTING OF THE MONTE HILL WATER TANK TO HAVE A FALL PAINTING
BID AS AN AL TERNA TE AND TO HAVE THE LOGO DESIGN REMAIN AS IT IS
CURRENTLY. SUSIE WOJCHOUSKI SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Added Item: Brian Stumpf stated he had talked to consulting engineer, Bret Weiss about the timing
for the signal lights on TH 25 and they were adjusted. Now it appears that signal lights had returned
to their original settings. Bret Weiss said he would check with MnDOT but Bret Weiss never
followed up with him regarding his discussion with MnDOT. Bruce Westby stated he would be
meeting with MnDOT on Tuesday, February 2ih and would bring this matter up.
11. Approve pavment of bills for Februarv.
Susie Wojchouski asked about the 2007 Chamber of Commerce dues. The amount shown did
not appear to be correct. It was noted that this amount was the Fire Department dues not the
City Hall.
BRIAN STUMPF MOVED TO APPROVE PAYMENT OF THE BILLS FOR FEBRUARY.
TOM PERRAULT SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
12. Adiourn.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
Recording Secretary
9
Council Agenda: 3112/07
SA. Consideration of approvinl!: new hires and departures for MCC and Fire Department.
(JO)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Council is asked to ratifY the hiring and departures of employees that have occurred
recently at the MCC and Fire Department. It is recommended that the Council officially
ratifY the hiring/departure of all new employees including part-time and seasonal workers.
B. AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS:
1. RatifY the hiring/departures of the employees as identified on the attached list.
C. SUPPORTING DATA:
List of new employees.
Name
Keith Peterson
Maggie Pawlenty
Name
Susan Brownlee
Darryl Dahl
NEW EMPLOYEES
Title
Firefighter
Childcare
Department
Fire
MCC
TERMINATING EMPLOYEES
Reason
involuntary
voluntary
Department
MCC
Fire
Hire Date
1/1/07 PT
2/22/07 PT
Last Day
2/22/07 PT
2/20/07 PT
Class
Class
employee councillist.xls: 3/6/2007
Council Agenda: 3/12/07
5B. Consideration of appointment to Police Commission. (JO)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
In January when consideration of appointments came before the Council, staff reported that two
applications had been received to fill the vacant position. Since only one of the applicants met
the qualification of being a resident of the City, the Council directed the Police Commission to
meet with the applicant to discuss his interest in the position.
The Police Commission met with Jim Roberts on February 28, 2007 and after reviewing his
background and knowing the interest he has in serving on the Police Commission, the
commission members moved to recommend to the City Council the appointment of Jim
Roberts to the Police Commission. Mr. Roberts has extensive police background. Although he
is currently a detective with the City of Golden Valley he has also worked as a reserve officer,
community service officer, dispatcher, patrol officer and school resource officer and has a good
knowledge oflaw enforcement procedures.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Move to approve the appointment of Jim Roberts to the Monticello Police Commission.
2. Do not approve the appointment.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is unlikely that re-advertising the vacancy will bring in any more candidates than the original
advertisement did. Nor is it likely that there will be a candidate that will be any more qualified
for the position than Jim Roberts. Because of his background and his interest in the position
the Police Commission and the City Administrator recommends the appointment of Jim
Roberts.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
None
5C. Consideration to Adopt a Resolution in Support of HF1113/SF724 as Related
to the Valuation of the Monticello Nuclear Generatinl! Facilitv. (JO)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
As the Council is aware, the Minnesota House and Senate are currently considering
legislation which would offset the recent rules changes made by the Department of
Revenue in the valuation of power facilities. The Department of Revenue changes allow
the devaluation of real and personal property held by these facilities, effectively and
dramatically cutting tax revenue to host communities. The legislation introduced offsets
those changes providing some balance by re-calibrating the class rates on electrical
generating utility property and utility personal property to reflect their reduced values.
The Coalition of Utility Cities has asked host cities to consider testifying before the
legislature and adopting resolutions in support of the legislation. In response, Mayor
Herbst was able to provide testimony to the Senate Tax Committee on March 7th.
Attached for Council's review and consideration is the resolution of support. The
resolution defines the impacts of being a host community and indicates why legislation
helping to maintain tax revenues is critical. This resolution was prepared jointly by City
staff and the lobbyist for the Coalition Cities.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Motion to adopt a resolution in support of HF 11l3/SF724, as related to
the Valuation of the Monticello Nuclear Generating Facility.
2. Motion to deny adoption of a resolution in support ofHF 1113/SF724, as
related to the Valuation of the Monticello Nuclear Generating Facility.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The City Administrator recommends alternative 1 above, recognizing the importance of
maintaining a balance of tax revenue to offset the additional responsibilities of being a
host community.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
Resolution
Monticello's
Resolution in Support of HF1113/SF724
WHEREAS, the City of Monticello is host to the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant and derives
significant property tax revenue from the presence of the plant in Monticello; and
WHEREAS, the City has made significant enhancements to the capabilities of its Fire Department
above and beyond what would be needed to serve the citizens of Monticello, but for the presence of the
nuclear plant in our community; and
WHEREAS, the residents of Monticello and the surrounding area live with significant safety concerns
as a result of the plant's presence in Monticello, especially after the terrorist attacks of September 11,
2001; and
WHEREAS, the nuclear plant occupies prime real estate within our community making it unavailable
for other economic development; and
WHEREAS, the infrastructure needed to support the presence of the plant in Monticello significantly
limits the City's long term growth and transportation needs; and
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Revenue is in the final stages of changing the rules on how
electric generating utility property is valued; and
WHEREAS, the rule change would devalue electric generating utility property across the State of
Minnesota by an average of almost 27% ; and
WHEREAS, the City of Monticello estimates that the city's revenue will decline by approximately
$600,000 as a result ofthe Department of Revenue's rule change; and
WHEREAS, an increase in property taxes of approximately 6.7% and 4.6% would be shifted onto
Monticello homeowners and business owners respectively as a result of the devaluation of the nuclear
plant; and
WHEREAS, the City deems it unfair and impractical to shift this loss of revenue onto Monticello's
homeowners and other small business owners;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VED, that the City of Monticello hereby supports HF 1113 (Rep.
Wollschlager, DFL-Cannon Falls) and SF 724 (Sen. Murphy, DFL-Red Wing), which increases the
class rate on electric generating utility property from 2.0% to 3.0% and the class rate on utility
personal property from 2.0% to 2.25%, offsetting the decrease in property tax revenue that the City
would suffer as a result of the implementation of the new valuation rules proposed by the Department
of Revenue; therefore be it
FINALLY RESOL VED, that this resolution be sent to Governor Pawlenty, House Speaker Kelliher,
House Minority Leader Seifert, Senate Majority Leader Pogerniller, Senate Minority Leader Senjem,
House Tax Committee Chair Lenczewski, House Property Tax Relief and Local Sales Tax Division
Chair Marquart, Senate Tax Committee Chair Bakk, and Senate Property Tax Division Chair Skoe to
show the City's support of these two bills.
Adopted this 12th day of March, 2007 by the City Council of the City of Monticello
ATTEST:
Clint Herbst, Mayor
Jeff O'Neill, City Administrator
Council Agenda -03/12/2007
5D. Consideration of 1 Year Extension of Contract for Mowinl! Services with Carefree
Lawn Service. Inc. (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
In February 2005, the City of Monticello reviewed a proposal from Carefree Lawn Service for a
new 3 year contract beginning in April 2005 with a proposed increase of only 3% in the mowing
rates. If approved the contract would freeze the rates for the full 3 years at only the initial 3%
increase. Upon reviewing that contract, the City attorney advised the council to extend the
contract for only 2 years with a 3rd year option as the total value of the 3 year contract could have
been in excess of $50,000 and required bidding. The City Council then approved a 2 year
contract with Carefree Lawn Service with an option to extend the contract for 1 additional year
upon agreement of that option by both parties.
Jim King, of Carefree Lawn Service, contacted me in January 2007 and requested to exercise the
1 year extension at the same rates as the 2005-2006 contract. I asked Jim to get me a letter in the
next few weeks and I would get it before the council in late February or early March 2007.
Consequently, it is before you this evening and a copy of the existing contract and a letter
requesting the I year extension as outlined in the contract.
The value of the 1 year contract extension is estimated to be approximately $19,000. It should
be noted however, the prices for mowing Waste Water Treatment plant are guaranteed through
this contract but paid through PSG from the Waste Water Treatment plant funds.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
I. The first alternative would be to approve the I year extension of the 2005-2006 contract
at the same rates with those prices to be in effect until expiration of the contract on June
28, 2008.
2. The second alternative would be not to extend the contract at this time.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director and the Parks Superintendent that the City
Council authorize the I year extension as outlined in the existing contract at the same rates as
requested by Carefree Lawn Service, Inc.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the existing contract and copy of the request letter from Carefree Lawn Service, Inc for
contract extension.
, . ,I
l";"f'-;',; J
LLill
, ,
8 FILE COpy
CITY OF MONTICELLO
CONTRACT
FOR
MOWING AND LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE
THIS AGREEMBNT,madeand ent=redintoas of this '-'.,-rh dayofJ1jrJfd1 .2005, by and
between the City of Monticello, Minnesota, a municipal coIpOJ"atio:a.lUlderthe laws of the state of Minnesota,
hereinafter called the "Owner," and Carefree Lawn Service, P.O. Box 1038, Monticello, Minnesota 55362,
hereinafter called the "Contractor,' WITNESSETH:
That in consideration oftheirmutwll COVCI3D.ts and sgremlelltS as herem1fter setforth, tbeownerfotitseli
and the contractor for itself, its successors and assigns, covenants and agrees as follows, to wit:
1. The con1ractor apes to turnish Illl the necessarymatc:ria1s, labor, lIS!: oftoots, cquipmc:ot, and
lMrYothcrthingnecessmytopedimn theworkdesignatedandlt:f~.d to in this contract, including all contractor's
superint=ndcc.tellIld TO fumish everytbingnecessary forthe completion oftheimprovementwbicb. is the subject of
this agreement (except such things as the own=r has specifically agreed to provide according to the contract
documents), and agrees to perlinm and complete thewodc:shown in thepl811S and drawiDgi mulled Specifications
for Mowing andLaodscape Mainte:oance, prepared by tho City ofMonticcllo, Minnesota, and dated March 13,
1997 ,llI1d to cocforminall respectswith thepxovisions lIlldrequircmcnlll oftbespccificatioDS, andthe contractor's
"Sc:hcdule of prices in effect until Febroary 28, 2007" (Attaclunent A).
2. The coDl:nlCtor agrees thlltp=rfonnance sha1l be ill accordam;e with thet=s, ~uirexnents, and
conditions of this instrument, and laws of the state of Minnesota, and the following documents:
Invitarion for l'rotloaals for said specifications for mowing and landscape nWntenance for the fNIUer.
'~~~CAwm\CARffQi!&u~w.et'l'-mI.""
- PAC3E 1 OF2.
Prooosal byibe contra.ctorprescntcd to the CO'W1cil ofibe OWIlI:rOIl February28, 2005, and accepted
by the oWIler on Febroaxy 28, 200S.
Each and all of the aforementioned contract documents are hereby incorporated into this agreement by
specific reference, and the tel1ll.S and provisions thereof are and constitute a part of this agreement as though
attached hereto or fully set forth herem.
3. The owner agrees to pay the cOl1irs.ctorforthepcrfumumce of this agreement, aod the contractor
agrees to accept in full compensation therefor the sums set forth within the aforementioned proposal of the
contractor far eacl1 unit and each type ofunit of work to bllpmcmned. It is understood and agreed that the said
proposal is for mOWing and landscape maintenance OIl. a unit price basis in accordance with said proposal
(Attachment A). Itis fiutherunderstood tbatthis contnJct is not to be considered all inclusive. The Cityreserves
the right to supplement mowing, c;",m;t:t g, or littcrpigkup operations with its OWll forces at anytime. Unless
canceled IlCCOIdingto the specifications, this conlract'Willranain.in effect for a period of two yeaI'3, untilF ebrumy
28,2007. The coIrtrllgtmaybe extended for a p=riod ofone edditional:r=upon agrc:cmmt of this optiOIl by both
~\'o'rM'IIN\ICHNijR~BJlU,.U,~G"~~..
. PAGE 2 OF 2 .
parties no later thBIl thirty days prior to the end of the c:wrent contract period, February 28,2007.
INWTI'NESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto havehcre\Ulto set their hands and seals lIS ofthedayand
year first above written.
CAREFREE LAWN SERVICE
P.O. Box 1038
Monticello, MN 55362
~.
By'
CITY OF MONTICELLO
505 Walnut Street, Suite #1
Monticello, MN 55362
~,Jt!'~41
lie Works Dir~tor)
By
---
(Owner)
DATB
3/ ~ / 2-00 5'
I I
DATE:
#rI
[ATTACHMENT ~
Schedule of prices in effect for the 2006 Jawn season:
Riverside Cemetery
$ 540.7S/per time for lawn maintenance
$ 1D3.00/per time for flower removal
$2,698.00/complete fall cleanup, disposal off site
Waste Water Treatment Plant $ 824.00/per month for lawn maintenance
Fire Hall $ 30.g0/per time for lawn maintenance
Library $ 36.0S/per time for lawn maintenance
Library - adjacent lot $ 51.50/per time for lawn maintenance
Liquor Store $ 41.20/per time for lawn maintenance
Nuisance Mowing $ 61.80/per hour for brush hogging
$ 30.g0/per hour for weed whipping
$ 30. gO/per hour for debris clean up
Schedule of prices in effect for the Z0051awn season
~TTACHMENl~a
Riverside Cemetery
$540.75/per time for lawn maintenance
$103.00/per time for flower removal
Waste Water Treatment Plant
$S24.00/per month for lawn maintenance
Fire Hall
$30.90 per time for lawn maintenance
Library
$36.05 per time for lawn maintenance
Library - adjacent lot
$5 LSD per time for lawn maintenance
Liquor Store
$41.20 per time for lawn maintenance
Nuisance Mowing
$61. SO per hour for brush hogging
$30.90 per hour for weed whipping
$30.90 per hour for debris clean up
rttl-Iq-c~U( U~.~~ Nn
CAREFREE LAWN SERVICE.INC.
PO BOX 1038
MONTICELLO. AIN 55362
February 14,2007
City of Monticello Public Works Dept
Attn: John Simola, Public Works Director
909 Golf Course Road
Monticello,~ 55362
RE: I year extension of city contract
r am requesting that you consider a contract extension for one year as of April 2005 per
our conversation and city counsel meeting in 2005.
I value your business and look forward to the opportunity to serve you again in the future.
Sincerely,
James W.
Owner
1'. I
Council Agenda: 3/12/07
5E. Consideration of Amendments to the Al!:reement between City of Monticello and River
City Lanes nertaininl!: to recent land exchanl!:e (JO)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mark Parnell and Butch Lindenfelser have been striving toward development of the
entertainment/banquet hall facility as proposed in conjunction with the recent exchange of City
owned Jefferson Commons land for the Monti-Club parcel and the River City Lanes sites.
Associated with this exchange is an agreement wherein certain requirements needed to be
completed within certain time frames.
There has been a delay in groundbreaking for the facility due to unexpected problems in
obtaining bank financing. The good news is that the project appears to be ready to move
forward again with bank financing now available, but at scale that will require a phased
approach to construction. Please note that the first phase of the project will include the
bowling alley/restaurant/entertainment portion. The banquet hall facility will be added at a
later date. The basic plan remains virtually the same.
Due to the delay in obtaining financing, it is requested that time lines relating to penalties be
shifted a few months accordingly. In addition it is requested that the River City Lanes be
allowed to continue to operate under the current lease arrangement for three additional months.
Please see the attached requested amendment to the development agreement for more
information. On the proposed amendment I have handwritten the deadline dates on the original
agreement. As you will note, the date shift is relatively small.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to accept amendments to the agreement as requested.
2. Motion to deny acceptance of the amendments as requested
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation ofthe City Administrator to select alternative 1. It is evident that the
developers are operating in good faith and have made every effort to get the project going and
completed in a timely fashion. Although the project is starting later, and it is intended now to
be completed following a phased approach, the project remains similar to the original project.
The City has no immediate needs or plans for use of the River City Lanes building. However it
should be noted that further extensions could be a problem as the City may ultimately want to
make use of the building.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Amendment
AMENDMENT
TO
LAND EXCHANGE AND
PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
THIS AMENDMENT, made on or as of the day of ,2007,
by, between and among L&P VENTURES, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company
("L&P"), L&G, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company ("L&G"), and DUANE
LINDENFELSER and PATRICIA JO LINDENFELSER, husband and wife, and
LYNETTE GAGNELIUS, a single person ("Lindenfelser/Gagnelius") (collectively
referred to herein as "Exchangors") and the CITY OF MONTICELLO, a Minnesota
municipal corporation, (the "City").
WHEREAS, the parties to this Amendment entered into a Land Exchange and
Private Development Agreement dated August 31, 2006 for the property legally
described on the attached Exhibit A ("Development Agreement").
WHEREAS, the parties desire to extend the dates provided under the
Development Agreement for construction of minimum improvements and extend the
lease term for the lease attached as Exhibit C to the Development Agreement.
130553
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual
obligations of the parties hereto and the obligations of the parties under the Development
Agreement, each of them does hereby covenant and agree with the other as follows:
1. Section 4.3 of the Development Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 4.3. Construction of Minimum Improvements. The Exchangors shall
commence construction of the Minimum Improvements on or before September 30, 2006
subject to Unavoidable Delays, the Exchangors shall substantially complete construction
of the Minimum Improvements, except for minor "punch list items", on or before
November 30, 2007.
o (d ~(sc.ft- '301 ::;1....0') .
2. Section 4.4 of the Development Agreement is hereby.)amended to read as follows:
O\ot~AP(;1 1,;1."'''7
Section 4.4. Failure to Con ruct. In the event that footings for the Minimum
Improvements are not poured by M Y 30, 2007, the Exchangors shall (a) delvier a letter
of commitment from Exchangors' Lending Institution or (b) immediately deliver to the
City an irrevocable Letter of Credit or other security satisfactory to the City (cash
deposit) in the amount of $50,000.00 ("Security"). If the Minimum Improvements are
not substantially constructed within the time provided for under Section 4.3 of this
Agreement, the City may draw on and retain the Security. The Security shall be returned
to the Exchangors ifthe Minimum Improvements are substantially constructed within the
time provided under Section 4.3 of this Agreement.
3. Section 2 ofthe Lease attached to the Development Agreement as Exhibit C is
hereby amended to read as follows:
2. TERM. Unless terminated earlier as provided herein, the term of this
Lease shall commence upon execution of the Lease by both parties hereto and shall
terminate on October 30,2007. C ~",~A )
4. Section 5 of the Lease attached to the Development Agreement as Exhibit C is
hereby amended to read as follows:
5. USE. Tenant's use of the Premises shall be limited to its current use as a
bowling alley, restaurant, lounge and banquet facility until October 30, 2007. Thereafter,
the City shall allow Tenant to enter and dismantle Premises and remove furniture and oleO
equipment as identified under Paragraph 12 ofthis Lease through December 30,2007. (:L,.-\; ~~ ~I )
Tenant hereby accepts the Premises on an "as is" "where is" basis without any
representations or warranties as to its fitness for a particular purpose.
5. Section 12 of the Lease attached as Exhibit C to the Development Agreement is
hereby amended to read as follows:
12. SURRENDER OF POSSESSION. Tenant may terminate this Lease
upon 10 days written notice to Landlord. Tenant agrees that at the expiration of the term
of this Lease, Tenant will yield up possession of the Premises to the Landlord, in as good
order and condition as when same were entered upon by the Tenant, reasonable wear and
130553
tear and damage by the elements excepted, and except further that Tenant shall be
permitted to remove and retain at its sole cost those improvements, building fixtures and
components, equipment and furnishings listed on Exhibit B attached hereto. Any ofthe
foregoing property not removed is deemed abandoned. Further, Tenant is hereby
required to remove, at its sole cost, all fixtures associated with the use ofthe Premises as
a bowling alley as further identified under Exhibit B of this Lease by December 30, 2007. LS"eft .b~~
Tenant shall promptly surrender all keys for the Premises to Landlord. Tenant shall not
remove HV AC equipment except as provided under Exhibit B and shall leave fixtures
and equipment that enable the building to be operational for use by future tenants. All
HV AC equipment not permitted to be removed by Tenant must remain on the Premises in
good working order. Except as otherwise provided herein, Landlord agrees to accept all
Tenant improvements not removed in an "as-is" "where-is" condition.
6. Except as specifically set forth in this Amendment, the Development Agreement
and the Lease attached to the Development Agreement as Exhibit C are unmodified and
remain in full force and effect, and are incorporated and restated herein as if fully set
forth at length.
Clint Herbst
Its Mayor
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City has caused this Agreement to be duly
executed in its name and behalf, and the Exchangors have caused this Agreement to be duly
executed in its name and behalf, on or as of the date first above written.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
By:
By:
Jeff O'Neill
Its City Administrator
EXCHANGORS:
L&P Ventures, LLC
By:
Duane Lindenfelser
Its Chief Manager
L&G, LLC
By:
Duane Lindenfelser
Its Chief Manager
130553
Duane Lindenfelser
Patricia Jo Lindenfelser
Lynette Gagnelius
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)ss.
COUNTY OF WRIGHT )
The foregoing instrwnent was acknowledged before me this _ day of
2007, by Clint Herbst and JeffO''Neill, the Mayor and City Administrator, respectively, of
the City of Monticello, Minnesota, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on its behalf.
Notary Public
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)ss.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrwnent was acknowledged before me this _ day of
, 2007, by Duane Lindenfelser, the Chief Manager of L&P Ventures,
LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of the company.
130553
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)ss.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of
, 2007, by Duane Lindenfelser, the Chief Manager of L&G, LLC, a
Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of the company.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)ss.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of
, 2007, by Duane Lindenfelser and Patricia Jo Lindenfelser, husband
and wife.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)ss.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
,2007, by Lynette Gagnelius, a single person.
Notary Public
DRAFTED BY:
CAMPBELL KNUTSON, PA
1380 Corporate Center Curve, Suite #317
Eagan, Minnesota 55121
Telephone: (651) 452-5000
AMP
130553
EXHffiIT "A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF CITY PROPERTY
Outlot F, Jefferson Commons, Wright County, Minnesota, according to the
recorded plat thereof, to be platted as Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Jefferson Commons
Third Addition.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF EXCHANGORS' PROPERTIES
Monte Parcel:
Parcel A:
The South 478.5 feet of the West 495 feet of the Southeast Quarter ofthe
Southeast Quarter of Section 13, Township 121, Range 25.
Parcel B:
Commencing at a point 412.5 feet South of the Northwest comer of the Northeast
Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 24, Township 121, Range 25; thence
East 495 feet to a point; thence North paralleling the West line of the Northeast
Quarter of the Northeast Quarter a distance of 412.5 feet to the North line of said
section; thence West on said section line to the Northwest comer of the Northeast
Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 24; thence South a distance of
412.5 feet to the place of beginning.
Parcel C:
That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 24;
Township 121, Range 25, Wright County, Minnesota described as follows:
Commencing at the southwest comer of the North 412.50 feet of said Northeast
Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence on an assumed bearing of North 88
degrees 52 minutes 59 seconds East along the south line of said North 412.50 feet
of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, a distance of94.39 feet to the
point of beginning of the land to be described; thence South 80 degrees 22 minutes
12 seconds East, a distance of37.54 feet; thence North 88 degrees 52 minutes 59
seconds East, a distance of 48.31 feet; thence South 71 degrees 17 minutes 54
seconds East, a distance of34.64 feet; thence South 85 degrees 16 minutes 45
seconds East, a distance of 44.13 feet; thence North 85 degrees 39 minutes 54
seconds East a distance of89.26 feet; thence North 29 degrees 53 minutes 11
seconds East, a distance of21.26 feet to said south line of the North 412.50 feet of
the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence South 88 degrees 52
minutes 59 seconds West along said south line, a distance of 261.75 feet to the
point of beginning.
130553
Abstract Property
Bowling Alley Parcel:
All of Lot I, Block 1, Oakwood Industrial Park, according to the plat and survey
thereof on file and of record in the Office of the Register of Deeds, in and for said
county, LESS AND EXCEPT, the North 300.79 feet of said Lot 1, Block 1 AND
LESS AND EXCEPT the following described parcel, to-wit: Commencing at the
southwest comer of the North 300.79 feet of Lot I, Block I, Oakwood Industrial
Park, thence in a northerly direction upon the westerly line of said described parcel
75.00 feet, thence easterly at a right angle 100.00 feet, thence southerly at a right
angle 75.00 feet, thence westerly at a right angle 100.00 feet to the point of
beginning on the West line,
AND
South Half of Lot 2, Block I, Oakwood Industrial Park. Subject to easements,
roadways and conditions of record.
Abstract Property.
130553
Council Agenda: 3/12/07
7. Conduct Public RearmS!. Order Proiect. and Authorize the Preparation of Plans
and Specifications for the 2007 Street Reconstruction Proiect (City of MonticeUo
Proiect No. 2007-01C) (WSB)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the February 26, 2007 City Council meeting, the Council accepted the feasibility
report addressing the reconstruction of the remaining streets in Area 3 (River Street,
Craig Lane, Kenneth Lane, Hillcrest Road, Hillcrest Circle, Hilltop Drive, and Matthew
Circle) of the City's Overall Street Reconstruction Program with the following revision to
be presented at the Public Hearing:
. Revise the street width on River Street, from CSAH 75 to Craig Lane, to be 30
feet wide.
In the feasibility report, River Street was proposed to be 28 feet wide to minimize
impacts to properties and better fit the existing conditions, as requested by the residents,
and allow for an adequate boulevard for the sidewalk. The segment of River Street
reconstructed in 2006 was reconstructed to a 30-foot width and the Council discussed
maintaining that standard width. We have reviewed the potential impacts with widening
the roadway to 30 feet and may need to jog the sidewalk closer to the roadway to avoid
impacts to trees, particularly between Matthew Circle and Craig Lane along the south
side of River Street.
The Council also discussed maintaining a 26-foot street width on Hillcrest Road and
Hilltop Drive with parking allowed on one side of the roadway only. Public Works has
indicated that they prefer to use a minimum 28-foot street width instead of the proposed
26-foot-wide street for Hillcrest Road, since this is a standard that was applied to other
reconstructed streets in the area on past projects and they are concerned about a precedent
being set. While it is preferable to use the current standard width, a 26-foot street width
is proposed based on the following criteria:
. Fits the existing conditions ofthe neighborhood with minimal widening and
minimal impacts as requested by residents.
. Emergency vehicles can access Hillcrest Road from two entrances from River
Street.
. Would not create a problem regarding setting a precedent for new street
construction to utilize this non-standard street width, as this project would be
considered more of a retro-fit.
. Parking would be allowed on only one side of the roadway, maintaining adequate
access. No parking signs would be installed sparingly to preserve the residential
character of the roadway.
. This width has worked in other cities.
. The current width is 22 to 24 feet wide, so the widening is minimal.
The City Administrator supports the proposed 26-foot-wide street width due to input
from the residents and to better fit the existing conditions.
c: \DocUlJle1lL< and Seuings\d/l"Mtgro:<si1lger'J..or:a1 Setlingr'Tempwury "'lemel Ftlu'0lXl13IAGN rrM.2007Re<onPublicJfegrillg.(utlrPlimSpec~031207 a/doc
Council Agenda: 3/12/07
Curb and gutter is proposed on both sides of the roadway along River Street from Craig
Lane to the City compost site, with options to extend curb or construct gravel shoulders
along the remaining segment of River Street to CSAH 75. The remaining roadways that
have curb and gutter (Craig Lane, Kenneth Lane, Hillcrest Circle, and Matthew Circle)
are proposed to be improved to their existing width. All the streets are proposed to be
reconstructed, with the exception of Kenneth Lane, which is proposed to be milled,
settled areas corrected, and overlayed.
The total length of the streets proposed to be reconstructed within the Hillcrest
neighborhood is 1.4 miles.
Drainal!e Improvements:
In general, the existing ditch system is proposed to remain in place to maintain the
existing drainage patterns while providing infiltration, water quality, and treatment, as
well as reducing the storm sewer cost. In most cases, the proposed curb would
accommodate runoff from the street and would outlet to the ditch system. Curb and
gutter are proposed as opposed to utilizing a gravel shoulder to contain sand
accumulation within the street instead of filling up the adjacent ditches and to protect the
pavement edge. There are some areas where standing water occurs during springtime
that has created an issue for residents as well as a maintenance issue for Public Works.
These ditches are proposed to be filled in with drainage directed to storm sewer systems
in the streets. In addition, deep ditches on the east end of River Street where the sidewalk
is proposed, as described below, are proposed to be filled in to accommodate constructing
a sidewalk with a 4 to 5-foot boulevard.
C:I~"IS"rrd Seltings'diJ.....grnssingerll.acal SeJlingslTenrporory IrWmel FilesIOLKJJ3'.AGN rJ'M-1007RecmU'tdJJlcHearingAulhPllVISpecs-031207 (2J-dac
Sidewalk Construction:
A sidewalk is proposed to extend on the south side of River Street from the existing
sidewalk at Craig Lane west to the County park trail entrance. City staff discussed not
continuing the sidewalk to the end of River Street at CSAH 75 since there is not a
connection at that point, and given the amount of traffic on the west end of River Street,
residents could utilize the roadway until the sidewalk begins at the trail entrance. A
pedestrian crossing at CSAH 75 has been evaluated at Prairie Road with the federal
funding application; however, the funding was not granted. The City would need to
evaluate the funding for the crossing to consider if the crossing proj ect is feasible.
Utility Improvements:
A segment of sanitary sewer along Craig Lane is planned to be replaced based on City
inspection tapes. Adjustments to sanitary manholes, including replacing old castings, as
well as adjustments to valves and hydrants are proposed. In addition, there are a few
vacant lots and large lots that could be subdivided along River Street. The Council
should consider if it makes sense to extend sewer and water services to these lots at this
time to avoid excavating into the street at a later date.
Council Agenda: 3/12/07
River Street West (CSAH 75 to City Ball Fields):
Also included in the feasibility report is the analysis of the possible reconstruction of
River Street from CSAH 75 west to the City ball fields (approximately 0.3 miles). At this
point, staff is recommending that this segment of River Street not be reconstructed at this
time. The property owner along River Street West (Bill Seefeldt, Electro Industries)
initially requested the City evaluate improving the roadway. We have met with Mr.
Seefeldt and his concern was with past maintenance practices on the roadway and not
necessarily reconstructing the roadway, as well as the impacts with access on River Street
with the future Orchard Road interchange alignment. The preliminary layouts for the
Orchard Road interchange will likely not impact River Street in terms of a direct
connection to the interchange or Mr. Seefeldt's adjacent vacant property. In addition, this
.segment of roadway does not necessarily need to be reconstructed at this time given its
current condition. This street was originally proposed to be improved at a later date and
was proposed to be milled and overlayed; however, the pavement is thin and has several
settlements and cracks which would not make milling or a seal coat feasible since the
cracked areas would come up to the surface within a short period of time. Therefore,
when the roadway is improved, we would recommend it be reconstructed. In addition,
Mr. Seefeldt requested the roadway reconstruction be delayed 3 years. A segment of
water main and sanitary sewer would need to be extended to the end of the roadway if
reconstructed.
Included in the feasibility report is a proposed 8-foot bituminous trail along the north side
of West River Street, as there is significant pedestrian traffic to the City ball fields and
would accommodate pedestrian use from the Xcel Energy training facility. The pathway
would extend to where the existing pathway along CSAH 75 terminates at River Street.
The City had widened the roadway 2-4 feet in the past to accommodate pedestrian access
to the City ball fields as part of the 1995 federally-funded bike path project. The current
on-road pathway has served a purpose, but does not adequately accommodate the current
use. The Council could consider constructing the pathway to address increased
pedestrian needs without reconstructing the roadway. However, this would mean that
runoff from the roadway would go over the trail, causing a maintenance issue, as there
may not be enough right-of-way to construct a ditch along the roadway to accommodate
drainage from the trail. When the road is reconstructed, the trail would drain to the street.
We have contacted the business owners of the other properties (Xcel training center and
the Alano Society) along West River Street. In discussions with the Alano Society, they
do not see the need to reconstruct the roadway at this time and have indicated that they do
not have the funds to contribute to the assessment. Xcel has not commented on the
proposed improvements or assessments.
Hillcrest Park:
Residents requested providing an off-street parking area at Hillcrest Park. We have
estimated the cost to be approximately $10,000 to construct a gravel parking lot and
approximately $35,000 to construct a paved parking lot with curb and gutter. The Parks
Department has indicated that they do not have funds budgeted this year for these
improvements. The Council could consider allocating funds for this improvement along
with the proposed street reconstruction project.
C- '.Documems IUld Seldl'lgSldu>m,gro.f&iIlgeriLocdl Se'lingg',Temporory llllemer Fild,OLKBJ'AGN l7'M_2007ReronPublicHeanngAwhPla..spus.fJ31207 (2)."0<:
Council Agenda: 3/12/07
Costs/Financin2:
The total estimated project cost ranges from $2,082,700 to $2,098,300 for streets within
the Hillcrest neighborhood and $470,380 for River Street West from CSAH 75 to the ball
fields, which includes a 10% contingency and 22% indirect costs. The project is
proposed to be funded through assessments to benefited properties, City contributions,
utility trunk funds, excess State aid funds, and annual street improvement funds. The
residential assessment for street reconstruction is proposed at a rate of $3,300 per single-
family residential lot with access to streets proposed for reconstruction. This is 10%
above the 2006 rate to account for the annual construction cost index, inflation, and to
further increase long-term funding ofthe program. Properties are proposed to be
assessed per driveway access, as per the City's policy established with the Overall Street
Reconstruction Program. So, if two driveways exist, two street assessment rates would
apply. Kenneth Lane is proposed to be assessed at 50% of the street reconstruction rate
since this roadway is to be milled and overlayed. The proposed assessment per single-
family lot on Kenneth Lane is $1,434. Non-residential lots are proposed to be assessed at
$80/per front foot which includes the sidewalk assessment. Sidewalk is proposed to be
assessed at $246 per single-family residential lot which is 25% of the total sidewalk cost
based on the City's policy to fund the remaining 75%.
Non-residential lots along River Street west of CSAH 75 are proposed to be assessed at
$83.42 per front foot which does not include an assessment for the pathway. If the
Council proceeds with reconstructing this segment of River Street, the Council should
consider if the pathway should be assessed since it could be considered a regional benefit
and is a replacement of the existing on-road path. An assessment for the sanitary sewer
and water main extension is proposed to the vacant lot at the west end of River Street on
the south side to provide service to that property.
Below is a summary of the project costs:
2007 Street Reconstruction Program
Hillcrest Neighborhood - Option 1 (Rural)
,
ASSESSMENTS , CITY FUNDS I TOTAL
,
Surface $372,000 $1,215,600 $1,587,600
".,......._--.-......."-.-,-"-.-.-.-._--
Storm - $475,800 $475,800
..........................._..........n...__...._.__..
Sanitary - $19,300 $19,300
, ,
TOTAL $372,000 , $1,710,700 , $2,082,700*
, !
i
*
The rural option includes utilizing a "flat" curb to protect the pavement edge. Utilizing
gravel shoulders instead would reduce the total cost by approximately $15,000.
C: '.Documelll$ and Setring1'iiJa......grossiMger'Ibcal &/IingslTemponuy lruemel FUeslOLKBJiAGN trU_200?ReconPubIicHearingAlllhPlimSpecs_OJ1207 (2).doc
Council Agenda: 3/12/07
2007 Street Reconstruction Program
Hillcrest Neighborhood - Option 2 (Urban)
ASSESSMENTS CITY FUNDS ! TOTAL
, i
Surface $372,000 $1,231,200 $1,603,200
-......--."---.-"..-,--..-.....--.. ...----_...
Storm - $475,800 $475,800
_...__......._........._........._........._....."....,..........n....
Sanitary - $19,300 $19,300
, I
TOTAL $372,000 , $1,726,300 , $2,098,300
,
,
River Street (CSAH 75 to City Ball Fields)
ASSESSMENTS CITY FUNDS TOTAL
Surface $158,240 $182,170 $340,410
....---...--..-"-.............---"'.-..-.---..-----.-.-.-........-...-.._...
Pathway - $35,630 $35,630
___....n....................n.........n...............,.__.......__
Storm Sewer - $34,020 $34,020
................n.........n.........n.........n.....__............_.......
Water Main $7,940 $20,980 $28,920
_._._.._._.__.._._-----_.,----_._._--_..~------..._._-"-...."- .-- _."___._.."___...__...__.____"___.,......n.........n_...
Sanitary Sewer $11,320 $20,080 $31,400
TOTAL $177,500 , $292,800 I $470,380
i
The above costs include using concrete pipe for the storm sewer. Plastic pipe could be
utilized as an alternative, as this was used in last year's street reconstruction project. The
cost savings is estimated at $90,000.
It should be noted that the original cost estimate presented to the Council last fall in order
to evaluate funding of the program was $3,330,000. This cost included constructing the
roadways in !be Hillcrest neighborhood to a 32-foot width with curb and gutter, filling in
the ditches, and constructing an extensive storm sewer system with additional ponding
area. The cost also included constructing West River Street, from CSAH 75 to the ball
fields, as a rural section. The estimated cost has been reduced significantly with the
currently proposed design by reducing street widths, utilizing the ditch system, and
reducing the size and amount of storm sewer pipe. A summary ofthe proposed City
funding of the project is shown on the following page:
C:lDocumellrsami SmingslJawn.grossiflgfriLoca' Setti"8"'ITernporo'Y '''lernel FiluLOLKBJ'AGN ITIII_1OO7l/econPhbiicHean'ngAwhPla>lSfWs-OJ/207 (2),dqc
Council Agenda: 3/12/07
Total Project Cost $2,098,300 *
Less City Street Funds $562,000
Subtotal = $1,536,300
Less Assessments $372,000
Subtotal $1,164,300
Less State Aid Funds (from Cedar/Dundas Project) $420,000
Subtotal = $744,300
Less Trunk Utility Funds (Storm, Water, Sewer) $495,100
TOTAL Remaining Cost = $249,200 **
.
Includes the urban section option for River Street from CSAH 75 to the compost site. Does
not include reconstructing River Street from CSAH 75 to the ball fields.
.. This cost could be back-charged from future State Aid funds to fund this project.
It should be noted that in order to bond for the project, a minimum 20% of the project
cost of which bonds are to be utilized, must be assessed. Using a project cost of
$1,536,300 (does not include the City street fund contribution of $562,000 since this
amount has been budgeted by the City and would not be bonded), approximately 24% of
this project cost is proposed to be assessed, thus meeting the minimum bonding limit.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Conduct the Public Hearing, order the project, and authorize the preparation of
plans and specifications for the reconstruction of streets within the remaining
Area 3 (do not include West River Street from CSAH 75 to the ball fields)
and
a. Utilize an urban section along River Street from CSAH 75 to the compost
site.
OR
b. Utilize a rural section along River Street from CSAH 75 to the compost
site.
2. Conduct the Public Hearing, order the project, and authorize the preparation of
plans and specifications for the reconstruction of streets within the remaining
Area 3 (include West River Street from CSAH 75 to the ball fields) and
a. Utilize an urban section along River Street from CSAH 75 to the compost
site.
OR
b. Utilize a rural section along River Street from CSAH 75 to the compost
site.
C-1D<>cwnentsil/ld Selfi1lgs'Jawn.grossingeriLoc!ll SetringsIT.!IIp(l....ry [,,/emel FiIesLOLKB]'AGN ITM.10fJ7ReconPublicHearingAwh/'ll11ISpecs-03!107 (2).doc
Council Agenda: 3/12/07
3. Conduct the Public Hearing but do not order the project.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the City Administrator that the City Council proceed with
this next phase of the Street Reconstruction Program. It is imperative that these
improvements be completed as the streets are continuing to deteriorate and are in need of
repair. General feedback from the residents was that the streets should be reconstructed.
In addition, it appears that bid prices from contractors have been very competitive this
year due to the reduction of residential development projects. By holding off on these
improvements, costs could increase, putting additional burden on City funds and potential
resident assessments.
Based on discussions with affected property owners and City staff, the Council should
consider the following items:
I. Construct River Street, from CSAH 75 to the compost site, as an urban or rural
section.
2. Realign the intersection of River Street at CSAH 75 on the west end.
3. Delay the reconstruction of River Street west of CSAH 75 to the City ball fields.
4. Increase the standard street reconstruction rate to $3,300 at a minimum per unit
for 2007.
5. Use the mill and overlay rate of$I,434 per unit for Kenneth Lane, which totals
50% of the estimated actual improvement cost. City staff has questioned the
percentage assessed for mill and overlay projects in the past as it appears to have
been less than 50%. The Council should consider setting a standard percentage
for this.
6. Accept the sidewalk assessment rate of$246 per unit. (Actual assessment will be
based on actual construction and indirect costs.)
7. Consider constructing a pedestrian overpass or underpass at Prairie Road at some
point in the future.
8. Consider constructing a gravel or paved parking lot at Hillcrest Park with the
project.
9. Extend sewer/water service to vacant lots or potential subdivided lots.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Memo to residents (dated 3/1/07) included with the Public Hearing notice
C:1DorumenlilJlld Serrrngs'dtJ.....gro.<singerlLoc/J1 Sem'ngslTemporary 17lte""'1 Fi/esIOLKB3'.AGN lTM-2007RR<ml'IIhJicHeruingAulhPl<IIlSpecs-03J107 (2).doc
...
WSB
& Associates, Inc.
Infrastructure. Engineering I Planning I Construction
701 Xenia Avenue South
Su~e 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
rei: 163-541-4800
Fax: 163-541-1700
Memorandum
To:
Property Owners on
River Street, Hilltop Drive, Matthew Cire/e, Kenneth Lane, Craig Lane,
Hillcrest Road, and Hillcrest Circle
From:
Shibani Bisson, PE, Project Manager . ~
WSB & Associates, Inc.
Date:
March 1, 2007
Re:
Public Hearing Notice
2007 Street Reconstruction Project
City of Monticello Project No. 2007-01C
WSB Project No. 1494-21
On February 26, 2007, the Monticello City Council accepted the feasibility report and set the public
hearing date for March 12, 2007 for the 2007 Street Reconstruction Project. The project includes
improvements to the following streets: .
. River Street (from Craig Lane to CSAH 75)
. Hilltop Drive
. Matthew Circle
. Kenneth Lane
. Craig Lane
. Hillcrest Road
. Hillcrest Circle
The feasibility report incorporates a design for reconstructing the streets which addresses comments
received from residents at several neighborhood meetings held in the past few months. The design
includes reducing the standard street width, maintaining drainage ditches, and finding a location for
the sidewalk that would minimize the impact to existing trees.
With the exception of Kenneth Lane, all of the above-mentioned streets are proposed to be
reconstructed. Kenneth Lane is proposed to be milled and overlayed with pavement areas corrected
since it is currently in better condition than the other streets. Streets with existing curb and gutter
(Matthew Circle, Hillcrest Circle, Craig Lane, and Kenneth Lane) are proposed to be constructed to
their current width. River Street, from Craig lane to CSAH 75, is proposed to be reconstructed to a
30-foot width, which is the current width on the recently reconstructed segment of River Street to the
east. (Note that the street width has been revised from the last neighborhood meetings, as requested
by the City Council.) Hillcrest Road and Hilltop Drive are proposed to be reconstructed to a 26-foot
width. Construction of curb and gutter, as well as maintaining some of the ditches along the
roadway, is proposed.
Sidewalk is proposed to extend along the south side of River Street continuing from Craig Lane to
the County Park trail entrance, just west of the compost site entrance.
Assessments proposed to benefiting property owners with access from the streets are outlined on the
following page:
Minneapolis I 51. Cloud J.:. '11~v~_ll.I,{,.u" {).",.JIMIt)""'.."'nI'../lj'JIUT_~'/lJ~.'iJJk..,,,,/"""",II>')lJo..
Equal Opportunity Employer
Property Owners
March 1,2007
Page 2
Street Imorovement Assessment
Sim!le Familv Residential Rate:
.
$3,300/per lot (this applies to all streets except Kenneth Lane).
$1 ,434/per lot (this applies to Kenneth Lane only)""
.
Properties are assessed per driveway access. For example, if two driveways exist, two
street assessment rates would apply (i.e. 2 x $3,300 = $6,600).
"" Properties along Kenneth Lane are proposed to be assessed at 50% of the total cost to
improve the street.
"
Non-residential Use Rate:
. $80 per front foot
Sidewalk Assessment
Simzle Familv Residential Rate:
. $246 per lot.
.
This rate is 25% of the total sidewalk cost for the project. It is the City's policy to fund
the remaining 75% of the cost. Residents along Hillcrest Circle would not be assessed
for sidewalk as they would not have direct access to the proposed sidewalk. All other
properties would be assessed.
In summary, a typical residential lot with one driveway would be assessed at $3,546 for street
reconstruction and sidewalk. A typical residential lot on Kenneth Lane with one driveway would be
assessed at $1,680 for the mill and overlay and sidewalk.
We will provide a brief presentation of the project and then the City Council will open the public
hearing to receive your comments. If the City Council votes to proceed with the project, they will
take action by authorizing the preparation of final constructions plans and specifications. It is
anticipated that the project would then proceed with commencement of construction this summer.
If you have any questions or additional comments prior to the meeting, please don't hesitate to
contact:
cc:
Mayor and Council, City of Monticello
JefTO'Neill. City of Monticello
Bruce Westby, City of Monticello
John Simola, City of Monticello
Tom Moores, City of Monticello
Dawn Grossinger. City of Monticello
skb/srb
Bruce Westby, City Engineer at 763-271-3236 or bruce.westbv[aJ.ci.monticello.mn.us
Bret Weiss, WSB & Associates, Inc. at 763-287-7190 or bweiss@wsbene.com
Shibani Bisson, WSB & Associates, Inc. at 763-287-7162 or sbissonlqlwsbene.com
K..'jl......_:J.I,J,.,"U.....,.\lf~\IU_....,"""",...J;"'II;.:f}tI;,\.rll,-WI./'.I>/"I/'l1""
Council Agenda: 3/12/07
8A. Public Hearin2 and Consideration of adoDtin2 an ordinance amendin2 Title 7. ChaDter
1. Public Nuisances
8B. Public Hearin2 and Consideration of adoDtin2 an ordinance establishin2 a Drocedure
for enforcin2 administrative offenses
8C. Consideration of adoDtin2 a resolution adoDtin2 a schedule of offenses and voluntary
administrative Denalties for city code violations Dursuant to city code Title 1
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
On February 12, 2007 City Council met with Staff for a workshop to discuss amending the
"Public Nuisance" ordinance and a new ordinance for issuing administrative fines.
City Council is asked to consider adopting an ordinance to amend Title 7, Chapter I "Public
Nuisances". This amendment includes updated, more comprehensive, definitions of what we
consider "Junk Vehicles" and for "Prohibited Material Storage" (outdoor storage on
residential properties). This will help staff eliminate the "gray area" in enforcing public
nuisance complaints and conducting "blight" inspections.
City Council is asked to consider adopting an ordinance (Title 1, Chapter 7) to establish a
procedure for enforcing administrative offenses. This ordinance will allow staff to issue
"Administrative Citations" (fines) for violations of city code as an alternative to other
enforcement measures. This will provide a more efficient means to enforce code violations
and help alleviate the cost of enforcement.
An example with the current enforcement method;
1) A person who has an inoperative vehicle parked on their property would receive a
notice in writing from the inspector at their residence.
2) After 15 days a follow-up inspection would be conducted. If the violation still exists it
would be reported to the City Attorney.
3) The Attorney then sends a letter to the property owner ordering compliance within 10
days to avoid prosecution.
4) After 10 days another follow-up inspection is conducted by the inspector. If the
violation still exists it is reported back to the Attorney.
5) The City Attorney files misdemeanor charges for violation of city ordinance. This
process can take longer than six months in the court systern. After this process is
complete the city receives no compensation to offset the cost of attorney fees and staff
time.
6) Each violation of the same ordinance requires the process to start over again from step
one.
An example of the proposed enforcement alternative;
I) A person who has an inoperative vehicle parked on their property would receive a
notice in writing from the inspector at their residence and a copy of the violation will
be mailed to the owners address as listed on the Wright County property records.
2) After 7 days, ifno response has been received from the homeowner, then staffwill
mail a "final notice" to comply with the ordinance.
3) After an additional 7 days, if a response has still not been received from the
homeowner, then the inspector will conduct a follow-up inspection.
Council Agenda; 3/12/07
4) If the violation still exists then an "Administrative Citation" will be issued. This will
reduce the need for the City Attorneys involvement in enforcing the code. (The option
to bring criminal charges against the offender still exists at the leisure of Staff or
through Council direction.)
5) Multiple violations ofthe same ordinance in a 12 month period would not require
additional notices to be sent, the process would start at step four and the fine would be
increased by $50 for each successive violation.
City Council is asked to also consider a resolution to adopt the schedule of offenses and
administrative penalties for city code violations. This resolution outlines which offences can
be enforced with use of administrative citations and the amount of the Penalty fee ($75.00 for
the first offence). This resolution is imperative to the adoption of the ordinance Title I,
Chapter 7 "Administrative Offenses" as defined in Section 9 of that ordinance (1-7-9)
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Motion to recommend approval of adoption of ordinance amendments to Title 7,
Chapter 1 "Public Nuisance" and adoption of ordinance Title 1, Chapter 7
"Administrative Offenses" with the "Resolution adopting a schedule of offenses and
voluntary administrative penalties for city code violations pursuant to city code Title
1". Motion based on the finding that adoption ofthe alternate enforcement measures
will assist staff in administering the code and help recover the cost of enforcement.
2. Motion to deny adoption of ordinance amendments to Title 7, Chapter 1 "Public
Nuisance" and deny adoption of ordinance Title I, Chapter 7 "Administrative
Offenses" with the "Resolution adopting a schedule of offenses and voluntary
administrative penalties for city code violations pursuant to city code Title 1".
3. Motion to Table the issue.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
City staffrecommends alternative 1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
Copy of amendments to City Ordinance Title 7, Chapter 1
Copy of proposed City Ordinance Title 1, Chapter 7
Copy of Resolution to establish a schedule of offenses and administrative penalties for
city code violations.
ORDINANCE NO.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
TITLE 7, CHAPTER 1, PUBLIC NUISANCES
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. Title 7, Chapter I, Section 7-1-1, subparagraph (A) 1., of the Monticello City
Code shall be amended so as to read in its entirety as follows:
7-1-1: (A) 1. Junk Vehicles. A vehicle without a valid current license, or without a
valid current registration (if applicable), or which is apparently inoperable
located outside an enclosed building in a residential area including, but not
limited to, automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, snowmobiles, trailers, all-
terrain vehicles and watercraft.
SECTION 2. Title 7, Chapter I, Section 7-1-1 of the Monticello City Code shall be amended by
deleting, in its entirety, subparagraph 7-1-1 (A) 2.
SECTION 3. Title 7, Chapter I, Section 7-1-1, subparagraph (A) 3., of the Monticello City
Code shall be amended so as to read in its entirety as follows:
7-1-1: (A) 3. Prohibited Material Storage. Any violation of this section is
subject to abatement upon seven days' written notice to the owner
of private premises on which such material is found or any
conditions in violation of this code section exist. The owner of the
property will be determined as shown by the records of the office
of the county recorder. The City may remove such matter or
correct any conditions in violation, and certify the cost of such
removals or corrections as any other special assessment.
Additionally, the City may also seek injunctive relief for violation
of this section. Owners of private property shall remove and keep
removed from all exterior areas of all residential properties the
following items:
(a) Pest harborage. All exterior property shall be free from
rodent harborage and infestation. Boxes, lumber, scrap
metal, and similar materials shall not be allowed to
accumulate outside a structure in a manner that attracts an
infestation of pests. Materials permitted and approved for
exterior storage shall be neatly stacked.
I
130176 v3
(b) Trash and debris.
(i) All household garbage, offal, dead animals, animal
and human waste, and waste materials.
(ii) Accumulations oflitter, glass, scrap materials (such
as wood, metal, paper, and plastics), junk,
combustible materials, stagnant water, plastic bags
or trash.
(iii) Accumulations of clothing and any other items not
designed for outdoor storage.
(c) Non-trash items.
(i) Accumulations of wood pallets.
(ii) Accumulations of vehicle parts or tires.
(iii) All construction and building materials unless such
materials are being used at the time in the
construction of a building, in which case such
construction must be permitted and on a continuous,
uninterrupted basis.
(iv) All appliances or appliance parts.
(v) All indoor or upholstered furniture ofa type or
material which is deteriorated by exposure to
outdoor elements.
(vi) All other non-trash items which:
(I) Are of a type or quantity inconsistent with
normal and usual use; or
(2) Are of a type or quantity inconsistent with
the intended use of the property, or
(3) Are likely to obstruct or impede the
necessary passage of fire or other emergency
personnel.
(d) Fertilizer and burial of waste. No person shall leave,
deposit, or cause to be placed on any private ground any
garbage, sewage, waste, debris, carcass, or other substance
or matter which is offensive or unhealthy by decomposition
unless the same be buried at least three (3) feet under the
surface of the ground; provided, that the use of manure and
phosphorous free fertilizer in the normal course for
agriculture or horticulture is permitted.
SECTION 4. Title 7, Chapter I, Section 7-1-4 of the Monticello City Code shall be amended so
as to read in its entirety as follows:
2
Il0176vl
CHAPTER 1
PUBLIC NUISANCES
7-1-4: ENFORCEMENT:
(A) Any person owning and/or occupying property within the city where
activities described in subsections 7-1-1 (C), (D), and (E) are in violation
of this ordinance shall be so notified in writing by the City of the violation
by certified mail and given seven (7) days to either correct the violation or
appeal to the City Council for a determination that the complained of
activity does not violate the ordinance.
An appeal to the City Council is perfected within the seven (7) day period
if the person in violation files with the City Administrator a written
request to be placed on the next City Council agenda fur purposes of the
Council hearing the appeal. No further action shall then be taken by the
City until such time as the City Council shall determine that a violation
does exist. Any party aggrieved by a decision hereunder by the City
Council may appeal the decision to the District Court, Wright County,
Minnesota, within thirty (30) days of the Council's decision. Ifafter seven
(7) days of the notice of violation the person in violation ofthis ordinance
fails to correct the violation or appeal to the City Council, the City shall
either:
1. petition the District Court for civil relief from the violation; or
2. remove and dispose of the material creating the violation and
assess the cost of clean up, removal, and disposal against the
property where such activity in violation of this ordinance
occurred.
3
For purposes of7-1-1 (C), (D), and (E), the City need only provide the person in
violation thereof one notice in anyone 12-month period. If after a notice and
within 12 months of such notice repeated violations occur, the City, without
additional notice, may correct the conditions creating such violations and assess
the cost therefore against the property where such activity in violation of 7-1-1
(C), (D), or (E) occurred.
(B) PENALTY: Any person who violates any of the proVISIons of this
ordinance is guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be
punished not more than the maximum penalty for a misdemeanor as
prescribed by state law.
130176 v3
SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and
publication.
ADOPTED by the Monticello City Council this _ day of
,2007.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
By:
Clint Herbst, Mayor
ATTEST:
Jeff O'Neill, City Administrator
4
130176 v3
ORDINANCE NO.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A PROCEDURE
FOR ENFORCING ADMINISTRATIVE OFFENSES
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. The following chapter shall be added to Title I of the Code of the City of
Monticello.
1-7-1:
1-7-2:
1-7-3:
129764v3
CHAPTER 7
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFENSES
PURPOSE. Administrative offense procedures established pursuant to this
chapter are intended to provide the public and the City with an informal, cost
effective, and expeditious alternative to traditional criminal charges for violations
of certain ordinance provisions. The procedures are intended to be voluntary on
the part of those who have been charged with administrative offenses. At any
time prior to the payment of the administrative penalty as is provided for
hereafter, the individual may withdraw from participation in the procedures in
which event the City may bring criminal charges in accordance with law.
Likewise, the City in its discretion, may choose not to initiate an administrative
offense and may bring criminal charges in the fIrst instance. In the event a party
participates in the administrative offense procedures but does not pay the
monetary penalty which may be imposed, the City will seek to collect the costs of
the administrative offense procedures as part of a subsequent criminal sentence in
the event the party is charged and is adjudicated guilty of the criminal violation.
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFENSE DEFINED. An administrative offense is a
violation of a provision of this code and is subject to the administrative penalties
set forth in the schedule of offenses and penalties referred to in Section 9,
hereafter.
NOTICES.
(A) Before an administrative citation may be issued, staff shall mail a notice of
violation to the last known address of the individual committing the
alleged offense. In the event there is no response to the initial letter, staff
shall mail a fmal notice of violation to the last known address of the
individual committing the alleged offense and provide them notice that
failure to comply with the final notice will result in the issuance of an
1
1-7-4:
1-7-5
1-7-6:
1-7-7:
1-7-8:
1-7-9:
129764v3
administrative citation. No additional notice shall be required before
issuing a citation if the property owner has already been issued a citation
within the last twelve (12) months.
(8) Any officer of the Wright County Sheriff's Department or any other
person employed by the City, authorized in writing by the City
Administrator, and having authority to enforce this code, shall, upon
determining that there has been a violation, notify the violator and provide
the violator with notice. Said notice shall set forth the nature, date and
time of violation, the name of the official issuing the notice, and the
amount ofthe scheduled penalty.
PAYMENT. Once such notice is given, the alleged violator may, within seven
(7) days of the time of issuance of the notice, pay the amount set furth on the
schedule of penalties for the violation, or may request a hearing in writing, as is
provided for hereafter. The penalty may be paid in person or by maiL and
payment shall be deemed to be an admission of the violation.
HEARING. Any person contesting an administrative offense pursuant to this
chapter may, within seven (7) days of the time of issuance of the notice, request a
hearing by a hearing officer who shall forthwith conduct an informal hearing to
determine if a violation has occurred. The hearing officer shall have authority to
dismiss the violation or reduce or waive the penalty. Ifthe violation is sustained
by the hearing officer, the violator shall pay the penalty imposed.
HEARING OFFICER. A City representative designated in writing by the City
Administrator shall be the hearing officer for all administrative offenses. The
hearing officer is authorized to hear and determine any controversy relating to
administrative offenses provided for in this chapter.
FAILURE TO PAY. In the event a party charged with an administrative offense
fails to pay the penalty, a misdemeanor or petty misdemeanor charge may be
brought against the alleged violator in accordance with applicable ordinance or
statutes. If the penalty is paid or if an individual is found not to have committed
the administrative offense by the hearing officer, no such charge may be brought
by the City for the same violation.
DISPOSITION OF PENALTIES. All penalties collected pursuant to this chapter
shall be paid to the City Treasurer and may be deposited in the City's general
fund.
OFFENSES AND PENALTIES. Offenses which may be charged as
administrative offenses and the penalties for such offenses may be established by
resolution ofthe City Council from time to time. Copies of such resolutions shall
be maintained in the office of the City Administrator.
2
1-7-10:
SUBSEQUENT OFFENSES. In the event a party is charged with a subsequent
administrative offense within a twelve (12) month period of paying an
administrative penalty for the same or substantially similar offense, the
subsequent administrative penalty shall be increased by Fifty and nollOOths
($50.00) dollars.
SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and
publication.
ADOPTED by the Monticello City Council this _ day of
,2007.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
By:
Clint Herbst, Mayor
ATTEST:
Jeff O'Neill, City Administrator
3
129764v3
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION
Date
Resolution
Motion By
Seconded By
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A SCHEDULE OF OFFENSES
AND VOLUNTARY ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES FOR
CITY CODE VIOLA nONS PURSUANT TO CITY CODE TITLE 1
WHEREAS, the Monticello City Council has adopted a City Code of ordinances and
wishes to provide for the effective and efficient enforcement of those ordinances; and
WHEREAS, as part ofits City Code, Title 1, Chapter 7, establishes a procedure for
adjudicating administrative offenses as an alternative to other enforcement measures; and
WHEREAS, the provisions of Title I, Chapter 7, authorize the City Council, by
resolution, to identify administrative offenses, establish a schedule of penalties for these
offenses, and to modify the schedule from time to time in the discretion ofthe Council;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Monticello, Minnesota, as follows:
Administrative offenses and administrative penalties for such offenses listed below are
hereby established.
Offense
City Code
Penaltv
Public Nuisance
Off-Street Parking
7-1
10-3-5
$ 75.00
$ 75.00
EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date of the resolution is the date of its passage by a
majority of the members of the City Council. Passage of this resolution implements the
provisions of City Code Title 1, Chapter 7.
The foregoing resolution offered by City Councilmember and
supported by City Councilmember , was declared carried on the
following votes:
Ayes:
Nays:
130175
Passed:
ADOPTED this
Monticello, Minnesota
ATTEST:
day of
Jeff O'Neill, City Administrator
130175
,2007, by the City Council of the City of
CITY OF MONTICELLO
By
Clint Herbst, Its Mayor
Council Agenda: 3/12/;07
9. Continued Public Rearin!! on adoption of revenue stabilization a!!reement with Xcel
Enerl!V. (10)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the previous meeting of the City Council, the Council tabled this item pending
development of additional information that could lead to a decision. Little has changed since
the previous meeting. However, on Thursday a tax committee met to discuss the potential of
an increase in tax rates for utility companies where the proposed legislation was met with a
positive response. Mayor Herbst attended this session. Following is an excerpt from Joe
Sullivan email regarding this session.
As you all know, this morning Rep. Wollschlager's bill-H.F. 1113 which increases the classification
rate on electrical generating utility property and utility personal property-had its first House hearing in
Rep. Marquart's Property Tax Division. This was a major step forward for the Coalition because we
had not been able to have any of our bills heard in the House during past sessions. Mayor Paulson
from the City of Becker, Council President Duff and Marshall Hallock from Red Wing, Mayor Herbst
from Monticello, Gary Carlson with the League of Minnesota Cities and Keith Carlson from the
Minnesota Inter-County Association all testified in support of H.F. 1113. Xcel, Ottertail Power, and a
host of pipeline utilities all testified against the legislation. No vote was taken, but Rep. Marquart will
lay the bill over for possible inclusion in his tax bill.
We had a great turnout in support of HF 1113 and this made an impact. More than 20 people came in support
of our Legislation and I want to thank all of you for putting the time in to drive down, or up, to 51. Paul in
support of this legislation. Representative Wollschlager was very pleased by the turnout and told me that Rep.
Lenczewski, Chair of the Tax Committee, was very impressed that all of the cities, school districts, and
counties made it to the hearing. As the Property Tax Division puts together its Division bill for the full Tax
Committee we need to keep the pressure on by telling the members how important this legislation is for our
communities. The message to the members is that Rep. Marquart needs to include HF 1113 in the Division
bill and that the full Tax Committee needs to support our approach to making the communities whole. If you
have any questions or comments, feel free to contact either Bradley or myself.
In a phone conversation with Joe Sullivan, Sullivan expressed optimism regarding the prospects for
the bill but said this is far from over.
Joe Sullivan believes that Amy Koch continues to support the bill but it is not known ifher support
would waiver ifthe City adopted the stabilization agreement. We need to make contact with Amy on
this topic.
We need to get the school district involved in the lobbying effort as the drop in market value without
the concurring increase in tax rate results in a the loss of $308,000 for the school district.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
I. Motion adopting Stabilization Agreement.
. Like it or not it appears that the base tax rate used for computing the stabilization
payment will be the current rate. According to the calculations provided by Ehlers and
Associates, the City will be ahead financially by adopting the agreement. If the
agreement is not adopted property taxes would needed to increase overall by $604,000
in order to offset the reduction in tax capacity.
Council Agenda: 3/12/;07
. If adopted, Monticello would be following the Red Wing approach which is to protect
itself financially in the short term (10 years) by adopting the agreement, while at the
same time continue to fight for restructuring of tax rates.
. It is not known how long Xcel will continue to offer the agreement. Xcel
participation could be withdrawn at any time.
2. Motion to table or deny adoption of agreement at this time.
. There are points of clarification and other questions regarding administration of
the agreement. Xcel is not willing to review the agreement further. It is a take it
or leave it arrangement.
. Perhaps not signing the agreement contributes to the effort to lobby for the
changes to the tax rate structure. It is not known to what extent taking this chance
improves the viability of the legislation.
. It is not known at this point if signing the agreement will impact Amy Koch
support for the property tax legislation.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the public hearing be closed at this time.
The safe play at this point from a financial standpoint is to follow Red Wing's lead and adopt
the agreement. Then in turn fight for structural changes to the tax rate structure that would
result in reinstatement of the status quo for the short term and beyond.
Council could strategically withhold approval ofthe agreement pending progress on
legislation and perhaps continue to request amendments to the agreement that are of particular
importance to the City Council. This option has its risks, as it is not known at what point
Xcel might withdraw the offer. On the other hand, it might be bad form for Xcel to
withdraw the offer during the legislative process, as doing so would play into the hands of
those who seek a change in the tax rate structure.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
None.
Council Agenda -3/12/2007
10. Consideration of electric distribution and transmission franchise ordinance. and
franchise fee ordinance with Northern States Power. doinl!: business as Xcel.. (1.S. J.J)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The City's current franchise with Xcel has expired and City and Xcel representatives have recently
concluded negotiations regarding a renewal franchise.
The proposed franchise is for a twenty year period (as was the previous franchise) and is based on a
model franchise ordinance prepared by the League of Minnesota Cities and the Suburban Rate
Authority, a joint powers group of metropolitan cities that works collectively on utility issues.
The franchise is designed to work in conjunction with the City's right of way management ordinance
and federal and state laws regulating the location of facilities, one-call locates, mapping information,
relocation of facilities, and restoration of public grounds and right of ways.
In lieu of paying permit fees, if the City adopts the accompanying franchise fee ordinance, the
Company will pay a franchise fee collected by charging various classes of customers a per month
premises fee. Unlike a gross revenues fee, it will not increase along with the company's service
charges, but will grow with the addition of new customers to the system. The amount of the fee was
adjusted to take into account that unlike other right of way users the company will not pay ongoing
permit fees. An estimate of the expected revenues from the fee, prepared by Xcel, is attached as
Supporting Data to this report.
The franchise conditions the franchise fee on the City extending it to other energy providers unless
the City limits the expenditure of funds generated by the fee to the betterment of electric facilities
such as pole relocations, undergrounding power lines and facilities, facilities or paying for the city's
streetlight system, including new or improved lighting.facilites and ongoing service charges and
maintenance.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
I. The first alternative would be to approve both the franchise and franchise fee ordinance.
2. The second alternative would be approve the franchise ordinance but not the franchise fee
ordinance.
3. The third alternative would be to not approve either and to direct staff to resume negotiations
with Xcel regarding modifications or amendments sought by Council to one or both of the
proposed ordinances.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve both the franchise and franchise fee ordinance.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
I. Franchise ordinance for Northern States Power, d/b/a Xcel.
2. Franchise fee ordinance for Northern States Power, d/b/a Xcel.
3. Xcel Electric Franchise Fee Estimate.
I
ORDINANCE NO.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ELECTRIC FRANCHISE ORDINANCE
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 8, CHAPTER 7 OF THE CITY CODE,
GRANTING A FRANCHISE TO NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY, A
MINNESOTA CORPORATION, D/B/A XCEL ENERGY ITS SUCCESSORS AND
ASSIGNS, TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE, REPAIR AND MAINTAIN AN ELECTRIC
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM AND TRANSMISSION LINES IN THE CITY OF
MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA, INCLUDING NECESSARY POLES, LINES, FIXTURES
AND APPURTENANCES, FOR THE FURNISHING OF ELECTRIC ENERGY TO THE
CITY, ITS INHABITANTS AND OTHERS AND TO USE THE PUBLIC WAYS AND
PUBLIC GROUNDS OF THE CITY FOR SUCH PURPOSES.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, WRIGHT COUNTY,
MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
TITLE 8, CHAPTER 7, IS HEREBY DELETED IN ITS ENTIRETY (SECTIONS 8-7-1
THROUGH 8-7-10), AND REPLACED BY THE FOLLOWING NEW CHAPTER 7:
SECTION 8-7-1. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this Ordinance, the following capitalized te= listed in alphabetical order
shall have the following meanings:
City. The City of Monticello, County of Wright, State of Minnesota.
City Utility System. Facilities used for providing public utility service owned or operated by
City or agency thereof, including sanitary sewer, storm sewer, street lighting and traffic signals, and
water service, but excluding facilities for providing heating, lighting or other fo= of energy.
Commission. The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, or any successor agency or
agencies, including an agency of the federal government, which preempts all, or part of the authority to
regulate electric retail rates now vested in the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission.
Company. Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation, d/b/ a Xcel Energy its
successors and assigns.
Electric Facilities. Electric transmission and distribution towers, poles, lines, guys, anchors,
conduits, fixtures, and necessary appurtenances owned or operated by Company for the purpose of
providing electric energy for public use.
Notice. A written notice served by one party on the other party referencing one or more
provisions of this Ordinance. Notice to Company shall be mailed to the General Counse~ 414
Nicollet Mall, 5th Floor, Minneapolis, MN 55401. Notice to the City shall be mailed to the City
I
Administrator, 505 Walnut Street, Suite 1, Monticello, MN 55362. Either party may change its
respective address for the purpose of this Ordinance by written notice to the other party.
Public Ground. Land owned by the City for park, open space or similar putpose, which is
held for use in common by the public.
Public Way. Any street, alley, walkway or other public right-of-way within the City.
SECTION 8-7-2. ADOPTION OF FRANCHISE.
2.1 Grant of Franchise. City hereby grants Company, for a period of 20 years from the
date this Ordinance is passed and approved by the City, the non-exclusive right to transmit and furnish
electric energy for light, heat, power and other putposes for public and private use within and through
the limits of the City as its boundaries now exist or as they may be extended in the future. For these
putposes, Company may construct, operate, repair and maintain Electric Facilities in, on, over, under
and across the Public Ways and Public Grounds of City, subject to the provisions of this Ordinance.
Company may do all reasonable things necessary or customary to accomplish these putposes, subject,
however, to such reasonable regulations as may be imposed by the City pursuant to ordinance and to
the further provisions of this franchise agreement.
22 Effective Date: Written Acceptance. This franchise shall be in force and effect from
and after passage of this Ordinance, its acceptance by Company, and its publication as required by law.
The City by Council resolution may revoke this franchise agreement if Company does not file a written
acceptance with the City within 90 days after publication.
2.3 Service and Rates. The service to be provided and the rates to be charged by Company
for electric service in City are subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission. The area within the City
in which Company may provide electric service is subject to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes,
Section 216B.40.
2.4 Publication Expense. The expense of publication of this Ordinance will be paid by
Cityand reimbursed to City by Company.
25 Dispute Resolution. If either party assens that the other party is in default in the
performance of any obligation hereunder, the complaining party shall notify the other party of the
default and the desired remedy. The notification shall be written. Representatives of the parties must
promptly meet and attempt in good faith to negotiate a resolution of the dispute. If the dispute is not
resolved within 30 days of the written notice, the parties may jointly select a mediator to facilitate
further discussion. The parties will equally share the fees and expenses of this mediator. If a mediator
is not used or if the parties are unable to resolve the dispute within 30 days after first meeting with the
selected mediator, either party may commence an action in District Court to interpret and enforce this
franchise or for such other relief as may be permitted by law or equity.
2.6 Continuation of Franchise. If the City and the Company are unable to agree on the
terms of a new franchise by the time this franchise expires, this franchise will remain in effect until a
new franchise is agreed upon, or until 90 days after the City or Company serves written Notice to the
other party of its intention to allow the franchise to expire but in no event shall this franchise continue
for more than one year after expiration of the 20 year term set forth in Section 2.1.
2
SECTION 8-7-3. LOCATION. OTHER REGULATIONS.
3.1 Location of Facilities. Electric Facilities shall be located, constructed and maintained
so as not to interfere with the safety and convenience of ordinaty travel along and over Public Ways
and so as not to disrupt or interfere with normal operation of any Gty Uti1ity System previously
installed therein. Electric Facilities shall be located on Public Grounds as determined by the Cty.
Company's construction, reconstruction, operation, repair, maintenance, location and relocation of
Electric Facilities shall be subject to permits if required by separate ordinance and to other reasonable
regulations of the Cty to the extent not inconsistent with the terms of this franchise agreement.
Company may abandon underground Electric Facilities in place. At the Cty's request, Company will
remove abandoned Electric Facilities interfering with a Cty improvement project, but only to the
extent such Electric Facilities are uncovered by excavation as part of the Cty improvement project.
3.2 Field Locations and Mapping Information. Company shall provide field locations for
its underground Electric Facilities within Cty, including any abandoned Electric Facilities consistent
with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, O1apter 216D. Company shall provide accurate and
current mapping information for any of its Electric Facilities in accordance with Minnesota Rules Parts
7819.4000 and 7819.4100 and other applicable state and federal laws .
3.3 Street Openings. Company shall not open or disturb any Public Way or Public
Ground for any pmpose without first having obtained a permit from the Cty, if required by a separate
ordinance, for which the Cty may impose a reasonable fee. Permit conditions imposed on Company
shall not be more burdensome than those imposed on other utilities for similar facilities or work
Company may, however, open and disturb any Public Way or Public Ground without permission from
the Cty where an emergency exists requiring the immediate repair of Electric Facilities. In such event
Company shall notify the Cty by telephone to the office designated by the Cty as soon as practicable.
Not later than the second working day thereafter, Company shall obtain any required permits and pay
any required fees.
3.4 Restoration. After undertaking any wolk requiring the opening of any Public Way or
Public Ground, Company shall restore the same, including paving and its foundation, in accordance
with Minnesota Rules Part 7819.1100, to as good a condition as formerly existed, and shall maintain
any paved surface in good condition for two years thereafter. The wolk shall be completed as
promptly as weather permits, and if Company shall not promptly perform and complete the work,
remove all dirt, rubbish, equipment and material, and put the Public Way or Public Ground in the said
condition, the Cty shall have, after demand to Company to cure and the passage of a reasonable
period of time following the demand, but not to exceed five days, the right to make the restoration at
the expense of Company. Company shall pay to the Gty the cost of such wolk done for or performed
by the Cty. This remedy shall be in addition to any other remedy available to the Cty for
noncompliance with this Section 3.4.
3.5 Avoid Damage to Electric Facilities. Nothing in this Ordinance relieves any person
from liability arising out of the failure to exercise reasonable care to avoid damaging Electric Facilities
while performing any activity.
3.6 Notice of Improvements. Except in emergencies, the Gty must give Company at least
sixty (60) days notice of plans for improvements to Public Ways or Public Ground where the Cty has
3
reason to believe that Electric Facilities may affect or be affected by the improvement. The notice
must contain: W the nature and character of the improvements, (il) the Public Ways and Public
Grounds upon which the improvements are to be made, (ill) the extent of the improvements, (iv) the
time when the Oty will stan the work, and (v) if more than one Public Way or Public Ground is
involved, the order in which the work is to proceed. The notice must be given to Company a
sufficient length of time in advance of the actual commencement of the work to permit Company to
make any necessary additions, alterations or repairs to its Electric Facilities.
3.7 Shared Use of Poles. Company shall make space available on its poles or towers for
Oty fire, water utility, police or other Oty facilities whenever such use will not interfere with the use of
such poles or towers by Company, by another electric utility, by a telephone utility, or by any cable
television company or other form of communication company. In addition, the Oty shall pay for any
added cost incurred by Company because of such use by Oty.
SECTION 8-7-4. RELOCATIONS.
4.1 Relocation of Electric FaciJities in Public Ways. The Company shall comply with
Minnesota Rules, Part 7819.3100 and applicable Oty ordinances to the extent consistent with
applicable law regarding use of Public Rights of Way and Public Grounds. If the Oty determines to
vacate a Public Way for a city improvement project, or at Ory's cost to grade, regrade, or change the
line of any Public Way, or construct, reconstruct, or make any improvement to, or within any Oty
Utility System within any Public Way, it may order Company to relocate its Electric Facilities located
therein if relocation is reasonably necessary as determined by the Oty to accomplish the Qty's
proposed public improvement. Except as provided in Section 4.3, Company shall relocate its Electric
FaciJities at its own expense within sixty (60) days of Notice from the Oty as specified in Section 3.5.
If a relocation is ordered within five years of a prior relocation of the same Electric Facilities, which
was made at Company expense, the Otyshall reimburse Company for non-betterment costs on a time
and material basis, provided that if a subsequent relocation is required because of the extension of a
Oty Uility System to a previously unserved area, Company may be required to make the subsequent
relocation at its expense. Nothing in this Ordinance requires Company to relocate, remove, replace or
reconstruct at its own expense its Electric Facilities where such relocation, removal, replacement or
reconstruction is solely for the convenience of the Oty and is not reasonably necessary for the
construction or reconstruction of a Public Way or Oty Utility System or other Oty improvement.
4.2 Relocation of Electric Facilities in Public Ground. Oty may require Company at
Company's expense to relocate or remove its Electric Facilities from Public Ground upon a finding by
Oty that the Electric Facilities have become or will become a substantial impairment to the existing or
proposed public use of the Public Ground. Company shall relocate its Electric Facilities within sixty
(60) days notice from the Oty as specified in Section 3.6, or, if such relocation cannot be accomplished
within 60 days, then within a reasonable period of time as mutually agreed to by Cty and Company.
4.3 Proiects with Federal Funding. Relocation, removal, or rearrangement of any
Company Electric Facilities made necessary because of the extension into or through Oty of a
federally-aided highway project shall be governed by the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section
161.46, as supplemented or amended. It is understood that the right herein granted to Company is a
valuable right. Oty shall not order Company to remove or relocate its Electric Facilities when a Public
Way is vacated, improved or realigned because of a renewal or a redevelopment plan which is
financially subsidized in whole or in part by the Federal Government or any agency thereof, unless the
4
reasonable non-beuerrnent costs of such relocation and the loss and expense resulting therefrom are
first paid to Company, but the City need not pay those portions of such for which reimbursement to it
is not available.
4.4 No Waiver. The provisions of this franchise apply only to facilities constructed in
reliance on a franchise from the City and shall not be consuued to waive or modify any rights obtained
by Company for installations within a Company right-of-way acquired by easement or prescriptive
right before the app~cable Public Way or Public Ground was established, or Company's rights under
state or countypenmt.
SECTION 8-7-5. TREE TRIMMING.
Company may trim all trees and shrubs in the Public Ways and Public Grounds of City, but
only to the extent Company finds the trimming and cutting necessaty to avoid interference with the
proper construction, operation, repair and maintenance of any Electric Facilities installed hereunder,
provided that Company shall save the City harmless from any liability arising therefrom, and subject to
permit or other reasonable regulation by the City.
SECTION 8-7-6. INDEMNIFICATION.
6.1 Indemnity of City. Company shall indemnify, keep and hold the City free and
hannless from any and all liability on account of injUty to persons or damage to property occasioned by
the construction, maintenance, repair, inspection, the issuance of permits, or the operation of the
Electric Facilities located in the Public Ways and Public Grounds. The City shall not be indemnified
for losses or claims occasioned through its own negligence except for losses or claims arising out of or
alleging the City's negligence as to the issuance of permits for, or inspection of, Company's plans or
work The City shall not be indemnified if the injUty or damage results from the performance in a
proper manner of acts reasonably deemed hazardous by Company, and such performance is
nevertheless ordered or directed by City after notice of Company's determination.
62 Defense of City. In the event a suit is brought against the City under circutnstances
where this agreement to indemnify applies, Company at its sole cost and expense shall defend the City
in such suit if wriuen notice thereof is promptly given to Company within a period wherein Company
is not prejudiced by lack of such notice. If Company is required to indemnify and defend, it will
thereafter have control of such 1itigation, but Company may not seule such 1itigation without the
consent of the City; which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. This section is not, as to third
parties, a waiver of any defense or immunity otherwise available to the City; and Company, in
defending any action on behalf of the City shall be entitled to assert in any action evety defense or
inmnmitythat the City could assert in its own behalf. This franchise agreement shall not be interpreted
to constitute a waiver by the City of any of its defenses of immunity or limitations on liability under
IvIinnesota Statutes Cbapter 466.
SECTION 8-7-7. VACATION OF PUBLIC WAYS.
The City shall give Company at least two weeks prior wriuen notice of a proposed vacation of
a Public Way.
5
Except where required for a City improvement project, the vacation of any Public Way, after
the installation of Electric Facilities, shall not operate to deprive Company of its rights to operate and
maintain such Electric Facilities, until the reasonable cost of relocating the same and the loss and
expense resulting from such relocation are first paid to Company. In no case, however, shall City be
liable to Company for failure to specifically preserve a right-of-way under Mnnesota Statutes, Section
16029.
In accordance with Mnnesota Rules, Part 7819.3200, if the City's order directing vacation of
the Public Way does not require relocation of the Company's Electric Facilities to prevent
interference with a current public improvement, the vacation proceedings shall not be deemed to
deprive Company of its right to continue to use the right-of-way of the former Public Way for its
Electric Facilities installed prior to such order of vacation.
SECTION 8-7-8. CHANGE IN FORM OF GOVERNMENT.
Any change in the form of government of the City shall not affect the validity of this
Ordinance. Any governmental unit succeeding the City shall, without the consent of Company,
succeed to all of the rights and obligations of the City provided in this Ordinance.
SECTION 8-7-9. FRANCHISE FEE.
9.1 Fee Schedule. During the term of the franchise hereby granted, and in lieu of any
pennit or other fees being imposed on Company, the City may impose on Company a franchise fee
by collecting the amounts indicated in the Fee Schedule set forth in a separate ordinance from each
customer in the designated Company Customer Class. The parties have agreed that the franchise
fee collected by the Company and paid to the City in accordance with this Section 9 shall not exceed
the following amounts.
~
Fee Per Premise Per Month
Residential
SmC&I-Non-Dem
SmC&I - Demand
Large C&I
Public Street Ltg
Muni Pumping - N/D
MuniPumping-Dem
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
1.95
5.50
31.00
190.00
12.00
12.00
31.00
9.2 Separate Ordinance. The franchise fee shall be imposed by a separate ordinance duly
adopted by the City Council, which ordinance shall not be adopted until at least 60 days after written
notice enclosing such proposed ordinance has been served upon Company by certified mail. The
fee shall not become effective until the beginning of a Company billing month at least 60 days after
wriuen notice enclosing such adopted ordinance has been served upon Company by certified mail.
Section 2.5 shall constitute the sole remedy for solving disputes between Company and the City in
regard to the interpretation of, or enforcement of, the separate ordinance. No action by the City to
implement a separate ordinance will commence until this Ordinance is effective. A separate
ordinance which imposes a lesser franchise fee on the residential class of customers than the
maximum amount set forth in Section 9.1 above shall not be effective against Company unless the
6
fee imposed on each other customer classification is reduced proportionately in the same or greater
amount per class as the reduction represented by the lesser fee on the residential class.
9.3 T eons Defined. For the purpose of this Section 9, the following definitions apply:
9.3.1 "G1stomer Class" shall refer to the classes listed on the Fee Schedule and as
defined or determined in Company's electric tariffs on file with the Commission.
9.3.2 "Fee Schedule" refers to the schedule in Section 9.1 setting forth the various
customer classes from which a franchise fee would be collected if a separate ordinance were
implemented immediately after the effective date of this franchise agreement. The Fee Schedule in
the separate ordinance may include new G1stomer Class added by Company to its electric tariffs
after the effective date of this franchise agreement.
9.4 Collection oCthe Fee. The franchise fee shall be payable quarterly and shall be based
on the amount collected by Company during complete billing months during the period for which
payment is to be made by imposing a surcharge equal to the designated franchise fee for the applicable
customer classification in all customer billings for electric service in each class. The payment shall be
due the last business day of the month following the period for which the payment is made. The
franchise fee may be changed by ordinance from time to time; however, each change shall meet the
same notice requirements and not occur more often than annually and no change shall require a
collection from any customer for electric service in excess of the amounts specifically permitted by this
Section 9. The time and manner of collecting the franchise fee is subject to the approval of the
Commission. No franchise fee shall be payable by Company if Company is legally unable to first
collect an amount equal to the franchise fee from its customers in each applicable class of customers by
imposing a surcharge in Company's applicable rates for electric service. Company may pay the Gtythe
fee based upon the surcharge billed subject to subsequent reductions to account for uncollectibles,
refunds and correction of erroneous billings. Company agrees to make its records available for
inspection by the Gty at reasonable times provided that the Gty and its designated representative agree
in writing not to disclose any information which would indicate the amount paid by any identifiable
customer or customers or any other information regarding identified customers. In addition, the
Company agrees to provide at the time of each payment a statement summarizing how the franchise
fee payment was determined, including information showing any adjustments to the total surcharge
billed in the period for which the payment is being made to account for any uncolleCtlbles, refunds or
error corrections.
9.5 Equivalent Fee Requirement. The separate ordinance imposing the fee shall not be
effective against Company unless it lawfully imposes and the Gty monthly or more often collects a fee
or tax of the same or greater equivalent amount on the receipts from sales of energy within the Gty by
any other energy supplier, provided that, as to such a supplier, the Gty has the authority to require a
franchise fee or to impose a tax. The" same or greater equivalent amount" shall be measured, if
practicable, by comparing amounts collected as a franchise fee from each similar customer, or by
comparing, as to similar customers the percentage of the annual bill represented by the amount
collected for franchise fee purposes. The franchise fee or tax shall be applicable to energy sales for any
energy use related to heating, cooling or lighting, or to run machinety and appliances, but shall not
apply to energy sales for the purpose of providing fuel for vehicles. If the Company specifically
consents in writing to a franchise or separate ordinance collecting or failing to collect a fee from
7
another energy supplier in contravention of this Section 9.5, the foregoing conditions will be waived to
the extent of such written consent.
9.6 Exception to Equivalent Fee Requirement. The requirement in Section 9.5 to
impose an equivalent fee on any other energy supplier does not apply if the City uses the franchise fee
collected for no purpose other than bettennent of the Electric Facilities, including such things as
relocating poles, placing the Electric Facilities underground or installing lighting above ground, or to
pay charges for the operations and maintenance of the streetligbt system installed in Company's service
territory in the City, and incorporates the provisions of this Section 9.6 by reference or restatement. If
the City wishes to take advantage of this exception, the City must separately account for all franchise
fees received from Company. The City must provide a report to Company no later than 30 days after
the due date for each franchise fee payment indicating the current balance of the franchise fee account,
the expenditures from the account since the last report, the budgeted expenditures from the account
for the current calendar year, and the amount committed by contract for expenditures in the current
budget year. The City will promptly give Notice to Company if and when the unallocated balance
reaches $1,000,000.00. The unallocated balance means the balance minus any amounts committed by
contract for expenditures. Upon receiving this Notice, Companywill cease collection at the end of the
first full monthly billing cycle, which occurs after receipt of the Notice and thereafter Company will
have no further obligation to pay the franchise fee to the Cityuntil the first billing month commencing
90 days after Notice that the unallocated balance has fallen below $300,000.00. The City will have no
obligation to return any amount which exceeds the $1,000,000.00 unallocated balance or any balance
remaining upon any repeal of the separate ordinance by the City, provided such balance will be
reinstated by the City to the separate account if said separate ordinance is subsequently reenacted Any
franchise fee imposed on Companyas authorized by this Section 9.6 shall be the exclusive fee payable
by Company under this franchise until the City, by ordinance, repeals the separate ordinance imposing
the fee under this Section 9.6.
SECTION 8-7-10. PROVISIONS OF ORDINANCE.
10.1 Severability. Every section, provision, or part of this Ordinance is declared separate
from every other section, provision, or part; and if any section, provision, or part shall be held
invalid, it shall not affect any other section, provision, or part. Where a provision of any other City
ordinance conflicts with the provisions of this Ordinance, the provisions of this Ordinance shall
prevail.
10.2 Limitation on Applicabili1;y. This Ordinance constitutes a franchise agreement
between the City and Company as the only parties and no provision of this franchise shall in any
way inure to the benefit of any third person (including the public at large) so as to constitute any
such person as a third party beneficiary of the agreement or of anyone or more of the terms hereof,
or otherwise give rise to any cause of action in any person not a party hereto.
SECTION 8-7-11. AMENDMENT PROCEDURE.
Either party to this franchise agreement may at any time propose that the agreement be
amended to address a subject of concern and the other party will consider whether it agrees that the
amendment is mutually appropriate. If an amendment is agreed upon, this Ordinance may be
amended at any time by the City passing a subsequent ordinance declaring the provisions of the
amendment, which amendatory ordinance shall become effective upon the filing of Company's
8
written consent thereto with the Gty Gerk within 90 days after the date of final passage by the Gty
of the amendatory ordinance.
SECTION 8-7-12. PREVIOUS FRANCHISES SUPERSEDED.
This franchise supersedes any previous electric franchise granted to Company or its
predecessor.
Passed and approved:
,2007.
Attest:
Mayor
Gty Gem.
9
ORDINANCE NO.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ELECTRIC FRANCHISE FEE ORDINANCE
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 8, CHAPTER 7 OF THE CITY CODE,
IMPOSING AN ELECTRIC SERVICE FRANCHISE FEE ON NORTHERN
STATES POWER COMPANY, A MINNESOTA CORPORATION, D/B/A XCEL
ENERGY, ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, FOR PROVIDING ELECTRIC
SERVICE WITHIN THE CITY PURSUANT TO ITS FRANCHISE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, WRIGHT COUNTY,
MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
TITLE 8, CHAPTER 7 OF THE CITY CODE IS AMENDED BY ADDING THE
FOLLOWING SECTIONS:
SECTION 8-7-13. Franchise Fee. During the term of the franchise granted by Ordinance
No to Northern States Power Company, D/B/ A Xeel Energy, its successors
and assigns (Compan~, and subject to the terms and conditions specified in that Ordinance,
in particular Section 8-7-9, the City hereby imposes on Company a franchise fee determined
by collecting the amounts indicated in the following Fee Schedule from each customer in the
designated Company Customer Oass as defined in tariffs filed by the Company with the
Minnesota Public Utilities Corrunission..
Oass
Fee Per Premise Per Month
Residential
SmaIlC&I- Non-Dem
Small C&I - Demand
Large C&I
Public Street Lighting
Municipal Pumping - Non-Demand
Municipal Pumping - Demand
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
1.95
5.50
31.00
190.00
12.00
12.00
31.00
SECTION 8-7-14. Collection of the Fee. The fee is an account-based fee on each
premise and not a meter- based fee. In the event that an entity covered by this ordinance has
more than one meter at a single premise, but only one account, only one fee shall be
assessed to that account. If a premise has two or more meters being billed at different rates,
the Company may have an account for each rate classification, which will result in more than
one franchise fee assessment for electric service to that premise. If the Company combines
the rate classifications into a single account, the franchise fee assessed to the account will be
the largest franchise fee applicable to a single rate classification for energy delivered to that
premise. In the event any entities covered by this ordinance have more than one premise,
each premise (address) shall be subject to the appropriate fee. In the event a question arises
as to the proper fee amount for any premise, the Company's manner of billing for energy
used at all similar premises in the city will control.
SECTION 8-7-15. Payment of the Fee. The franchise fee shall be payable by the Company
quarterly and shall be based on the amount collected by Company during complete billing
months during the period for which payment is to be made by imposing a surcharge equal to
the designated franchise fee for the applicable customer classification in all customer billings
for electric service in each class. The payment shall be due the last business day of the
month following the period for which the payment is made. No franchise fee shall be
payable by Company if Company is legally unable to first collect an amount equal to the
franchise fee from its customers in each applicable class of customers by imposing a
surcharge in Company's applicable rates for electric service. Company may pay the City the
fee based upon the surcharge billed subject to subsequent reductions to account for
uncollectibles, refunds and correction of erroneous billings.
The Company shall provide at the time of each payment a statement summarizing how the
franchise fee payment was determined, including information showing any adjustments to
the total surcharge billed in the period for which the payment is being made to account for
anyuncollectibles, refunds or error corrections. Company shall make its records available for
inspection by the City at reasonable times.
SECTION 8-7-16. Surcharge. The City recognizes that the Minnesota Public Utilities
Commission allows the utility company to add a surcharge to customer rates to reimburse
such utility company for the cost of the fee and that Xeel Energy will surcharge its
customers in the City the amount of the fee.
SECTION 8-7-17. Enforcement. Any dispute, including enforcement of a default
regarding this ordinance will be resolved in accordance with Section 2.5 of the Franchise
Agreement.
SECTION 8-7-18. Effective Date. The franchise fee shall be become effective after
publication and sixty (60) days after written notice to the Companyas provided in the
Franchise, and thereupon collection of the fee for all Customer dasses shall commence at
the beginning of the Company's June 2007 billing month.
Passed and approved:
,2007.
Mayor
Arrest:
CityOerk
City of Monticello
Electric Franchise Fee Estimate
Information Based on Year Ending July 2006
Customer Class
Monthly Fee
Annual Collection
Residential
Small C&I Non-Oem
Small C&I Demand
Large C&I
Public Street Lighting
Muni Pumping Demand
$1.95
$5.50
$31.00
$190.00
$12.00
$31.00
$92,781.00
$27,852.00
$56,916.00
$93,480.00
$3,312.00
$2,604
$276,945.00
Total Estimate
Council Agenda: 3/12/07
11. Consideration of needs study for Public Works Deoartment and
authorization to reauest orooosals. (J.S.)
Prior to the regular meeting a special meeting is being held at the Public Works
building and facilities. At the regular meeting the Council will be asked to take
action on this item which was tabled at the last meeting. Below is the
information supplied to you at the previous meeting.
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the direction of the City Council, the Public Works Director with the assistance of
City staff developed an RFP for a Public Works Needs and Expansion Study. The
study was to include the existing facility along with the adjoining City owned parcels,
as well as the existing water reservoir site located on Chelsea Road, and a small site
located near Well #4 on Dundas Road was considered for inside storage. That RFP
was distributed in April of 2006 and seven proposals were received from various
architectural firms from St. Cloud to the Twin Cities in May. Although one low
proposal of $11,010 was received, the majority of the proposals were in the $18,500
to $30,500 range. There were several well written proposals in the $20,750 to
$25,000 range. A sum of $35,000 was budgeted for this study. After a discussion
considering the pros and cons of doing long term planning, the Council voted 3 to 2
to not proceed with the Public Works Study at that time.
Since the spring of 2006, the secretarial staff and Public Works Director have
relocated from the old NSP building at 909 Golf Course Road to the conference and
training room in the building at 901 Golf Course Road. This improved the working
conditions slightly with better lighting, less noise from the heating and cooling
system, and the ladies room was available for secretarial staff without having to leave
the building. The ladies room, however, now has become a combination restroom
and filing room due to lack of space. In addition, we still have no privacy at all when
dealing with many issues, whether it be personnel issues, phone calls, city project
issues or a resident wishing to select a grave for a deceased family member.
I have included in the packet a copy of the minutes from the tour taken of the Public
Works Facility by the Mayor and Council on the evening of February 14, 2005. City
staff, including the public works employees, would like the City Council to again
consider distributing requests for proposals for a public works needs and expansion
study. The RFP has been redrafted to include only two options; 1) The expansion of
the existing facility, or 2) The full relocation to an entirely new piece of property with
more potential for growth. Removed from consideration for a partial move or a
complete move was the reservoir site. With a portion of the reservoir site being
considered for ponding, as well as looking at the size of two reservoir expansions and
a water treatment facility there would be little room left on the site for relocated
public works or even the water department if that should again be considered. Instead
of relocating the Public Works Facility to an existing site with other uses, the study
will include development of a new facility and site plan showing buildings and
Council Agenda: 3/12/07
outside space needs for 20 years and room for expansion. This will give us a
footprint of the size of property we would need to build an entirely new facility.
The old bowling alley is not considered for a relocation of Public Works as access to
the building and the height of the building for other than small equipment storage is
not practical. Even the cost to renovate the southerly one-third to one-half of the
building for small equipment storage would be expensive and possibly cost
prohibitive.
The Council is being asked to consider distribution of the RFP as included in your
packet which will study the existing site and determine the size and needs for a totally
new site along with the costs of both. We assume that this RFP will result in
proposals slightly less costly than those previously received. There are adequate
funds in the budget to do this study and without this type of long range planning we
have no direction or light at the end of the tunnel for the Public Works Department.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative is to approve the RFP in your packet for distribution to the
architects and engineers who responded to the last one. The progosals will be due
the 3rd of April to be reviewed by the City Council at the April 9 meeting.
2. The second alternative is to amend the RFP as determined by the City Council
and then send the RFP to those architectural firms which showed interest the last
time.
3. The third alternative would be not to approve the RFP or distribute it and to delay
any long term planning needs for some time in the future.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the City Administrator, Public Works Director, City
Engineer, Street Superintendent, Water Superintendent, Park Superintendent, and
the secretarial staff that the City Council approve and authorize the request for
proposals for a Public Works Needs and Expansion Study and allow its
distribution as outlined in alternative #1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
None.
12. Consideration of closine: MCC wheel Dark operations effective 2007: consideration of
authorizine: sale of wheel park eauiDment and authorization to develop alternate uses for
the site. (KB)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Since the wheel park's hay day in 2001 and 2002, we have continued to see a decline in the use of that
amenity. The community center has seen an increase in use every year in all other amenities. The
Advisory Board has been particularly watchful of the wheel parks for over two years and have received
regular usage and financial updates at their meetings. As you know, we've done periodic updates to
the Council regarding our findings and recommendations. The Advisory Board recently voted to
request the City Council's approval to close the wheel parks effective this spring and to advertise to
sell the equipment in the parks. Their reasoning includes declining usage, financial considerations and
the desire to find an amenity for that space that would appeal to not only teenagers, but all ages.
The usage for the wheel parks is as follows:
YEAR TOTAL USAGE PASSES SOLD
2000 1,082* no info
2001 3,132 no info
2002 2,682 116
2003 1,631 no info
2004 1,386 41
2005 762 15
2006 1,178** 10
'We got better at record keeping in 2001, so this number might be low.
**We cut the admission rate in half to encourage usage. This number in broken down to 229 season pass holder check-ins
and 949 paying guests. We do not have information on unique visits for the paying guests.
At the October 2006 Advisory Board meeting, the financial update to the Board indicated that the gap
between the revenue and expenses for the wheel parks was too great to justify its continued operation,
even though it satisfied an important recreational need. The feeling was that by eliminating this
amenity we wouldn't see a problem in a different area, i.e. skate boarders on the streets of the
community, due to the seemingly drop in popularity of this activity as witnessed in our wheel park.
The Board wanted to see if there might be another amenity that would have overall age appeal, would
see more guests and could increase revenue for the community center. We contacted a couple of
recreational architect firms to help us generate ideas for this approximately 16,000 square foot space,
we've brain-stormed as a staff and as an Advisory Board. Some ofthe ideas that have been generated
are basketball hoops, batting cages, new fitness area, flow rider (surfing wave machine), splash pad,
miniature golf, outdoor pool, etc. Weare planning to meet with the Parks Commission at their March
meeting to further brain-storm ideas. This information would come back to the City Council for
further review and then hopefully to the public for their input.
I have been in touch with True Ride, the firm that built our equipment, over the years to talk about
usage and if they dealt in used equipment. They do not resell equipment, however, they gave me an
idea of what we might be able to ask for our bike park equipment. The skate park equipment was
custom built to sit on the ledges in the park and would not work as a stand alone piece of equipment.
Because the bike park equipment is tier two, higher than four feet, I would advertise the equipment to
current tier two parks specifically or to neighboring states which don't have the tiering system
restrictions that Minnesota does. I would also advertise to all communities, however, our best options
would come from current tier two park owners or out of state. True Ride felt that a minimum bid
should be $10,000 and they would hope to see it go for $15,000. The purchaser would have the
additional costs of deconstruction, shipping and reconstruction that would add to the equipment cost.
If we were to purchase the equipment we currently have in the bike park today, we could expect to
spend $65,000 to $70,000. So given the good condition of our bike park equipment, this price increase
could work well in our favor.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
I. To approve closing the wheel parks effective 2007 and to authorize the sale of equipment.
2. To require the continuation of service in the wheel park for 2007 and continue to monitor its
usage and financial information.
3. To take no action pending further discussion.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
The City Administrator and the Community Center Advisory Board recommend alternative number
one.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
None