City Council Agenda Packet 03-08-1999
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, March 8,1999 - 7 p.m.
.
Mayor: Roger Belsaas
Council Members: Clint Herbst, Brian Stumpf, Roger Carlson, Bruce Thielen
1. Call to order.
2.
A.
Approval of minutes of the special meeting held February 22, 1999.
B. Approval of minutes ofthe regular meeting held February 22,1999.
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
4. Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaints.
5.
Consent agenda.
~r b)
\lJM.C/
A.
Consideration of a request for an amendment to the zoning ordinance to establish
a zero lot line subdivision for twin home development. Applicant, City of
Monticello.
.
B. Consideration of reviewing and accepting the year-end EDA Financial
Statements, Activity Report, and 1999 proposed Budget.
C. Consideration of modifying the Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund (GMEF)
Guidelines.
D. Consideration of modifying the Downtown Monticello Revitalization Fund
(DMRF) Guidelines.
E. Consideration of reviewing Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund (GMEF) Loan
No. 015 (Mainline Distribution Properties, LLC) for compliance with the GMEF
Guidelines.
F. Consideration of resolution designating individuals authorized to sign checks.
G. Consideration of quotes for telephone and computer cabling, network electronics
and fiber optic cabling, security and closed circuit television, and paging system
for the Monticello Community Center.
.
II.
Consideration of waiving statutory liability limits for City insurance renewals.
1. Consideration of establishing relocation benefits for bulk tank facilities displaced
by community center.
.
Agenda
Monticello City Council
March 8, 1999
Page 2
6.
Consideration of items removed from the consent agenda for discussion.
7.
Review results of community survey and consideration of ordering completion of
recreation components of community center, including aquatics, child play area, wheel
park, and climbing wall.
Consideration of a request for a zoning district amendment from AO to R-4 to allow the
expansion of Kjellbergs West Mobile Home Park. Applicant: Kjellbergs, Inc.
8.
@
10.
A.
Consideration of concept layout approval of County State Aid Highway No. 75
improvements from Hennepin Street to County State Aid Highway No. 18 and
approval to proceed with right-of-way acquisition for the extension of Hart
Boulevard.
B.
Consideration to order WSB & Associates, Inc., to proceed with construction
plans and specifications for the proposed County State Aid Highway No. 75
improvements from Hennepin Street to County State Aid Highway No. 18.
.
11. Consideration of a resolution approving construction plans and specifications and
authorizing advertisement for bids for Trunk Highway 25, Project 96-04C.
11 A. Discussion of SuperAmerica Median Access.
12. Consideration of a request for a simple subdivision in the industrial park to allow the
relocation of a lot line. Applicant: Greg Ebert Construction.
13. Consideration of accepting Sanitary Sewer and Water System Trunk Fee Analysis.
14. Consideration of bills for the first half of March 1999.
I,.A
Adjournment.
~\;J 6f ~~i1 ~ "J 'iJ~ ~ ftw.V
~ R~.tt e ~~
/" DUMbcu M ~~
./ (QMJt (,..~ ~ rte Q., \c.
15.
.
__ 0 uJ~ t Pr , (, C ~V\""".,to
.
MINIJTES
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING
MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
MONTICELLO HRA
Monday, February 22, 1999 - 5:30 p.m.
Council Members Present: Roger Belsaas, Clint Herbst, Brian Stumpf, Roger Carlson,
Bruce Thielen
Council Members Absent: None
HRA Members Present:
Steve Andrews, Brad Barger, Darrin Lahr, Bob Murray
HRA Members Absent:
None
2.
Discussion of 1999 HRA appointments.
Councilmember Clint Herbst expressed his disappointment with the action taken by the
HRA in November of 1998 to continue with the community center project in spite ofthe
request by the newly-elected Council majority to delay voting on the community center
until January 1999 to allow taxpayers to vote on the project through a special election. It
was also his view that HRA Commissioners Bob Murray and Steve Andrews overstepped
their bounds by attempting to move forward on the issue without first receiving all the
information at the November meeting, and he suggested that the City Council assume the
duties of the HRA.
.
Councilmembers Bruce Thielen and Roger Carlson and Mayor Roger Belsaas stated that
they were not in favor of assuming the duties of the BRA; however, Mayor Belsaas did
have some reservations as to whether or not the HRA acted in the best interest of the
taxpayers. He stated he would like to feel confident that if the BRA remained separate
from the Council that they would be able to develop and promote a mutually agreeable
relationship.
HRA Chair Steve Andrews responded that the community was divided over the
community center issue but didn't feel the lIRA acted in a manner that was not in the best
interest of the community, and he looks forward to working on new projects with the
Council.
.
'-
BRA Commissioner Bob Murray noted that the letter presented to the HRA by
Councilmembers Clint Herbst and Brian Stumpf and Mayor-Elect Roger Belsaas
regarding the community center put the HRA in a difficult position. Since the HRA was
under the direction ofthe City Council in office at that time, he didn't feel he could make
a decision based on a future Council views. HRA Commissioner Darrin Lahr added that
decisions regarding the community center were the result of nearly two years of
discussion and meetings.
Page 1
1-14-
.
.
,
Special Joint Council/BRA Minutes - 2/22/99
The group discussed keeping communication open between the Council and H RA, and it
was suggested that the Council and HRA meet occasionally to discuss current issues.
AFTER FURTHER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRUCE THIELEN AND
SECONDED BY ROGER CARLSON TO REAPPOINT MR. DAN FRIE TO THE HRA, WITH
A TERM EXPIRATION OF DECEMBER 31,2003. Motion carried unanimously.
There being no further business, the special meeting was adjourned.
Karen Ooty
Deputy City Clerk
Page 2
III-
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, February 22, 1999 - 7 p.m.
.
Members Present: Roger Belsaas, Clint Herbst, Brian Stumpf, Roger Carlson, Bruce Thielen
Members Absent: None
2.
A,
A roval of minutes of the s ecial meeti n held F ebruar 8 1999.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY CLINT HERBST AND SECONDED BY ROGER
CARLSON TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING HELD
FEBRUARY 8,1999, AS WRITTEN. Motion carried unanimously,
B. A roval of minutes ofthe re ular meetin T held Februar 8 1999.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRUCE THIELEN AND SECONDED BY BRIAN
STUMPF TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD
FEBRUARY 8, 1999, AS WRITTEN, Motion carried unanimOusly,
3, Consideration of addin!.! items to the a~enda,
None.
.
4,
Citizens comments/
None.
5, Consent alfenda,
A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRUCE THIELEN AND SECONDED BY ROGER CARLSON
TO ADD ITEM #7 TO THE CONSENT AGENDA AS 5B, WITH THE RECOMMENDATION
OF ALTERNATIVE #2, Motion carried unanimously,
A. Consideration of a resolntion conditionall consentin to the transfer of a cable
television franchise from Jones Intercable to Comcast Co orati n and then to
Bresnan Communications. Recommendation: Adopt the resolution consenting
to the transfer of the cable franchise to Comcast Corporation, and adopt the
resolution consenting to the ultimate transfer from Comcast to Bresnan
Telecommunication Company, SEE RESOLUTIONS 99-3 and 99-4,
B.
Consideration of re uestin MOAA a roval of annexation of water tower/ ark
property. Recommendation: Request MOAA approval of annexation of the
water tower and newly-acquired park site upon completion ofthe MOAA Land
Use Plan.
It
A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN STUMPF AND SECONDED BY BRUCE THIELEN TO
APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS RECOMMENDED. Motion carried unanimously.
Page 1
Z8
.
.
.
Council Minutes - 2/22/99
6.
Consideration of items removed from the consent agenda for discussion.
None.
7.
Consideration of re
This item was added to the consent agenda as item 5B.
8. Consideration of Change Order No.1 for the Monticello Community and Training
Center: and consideration of establishing a procedure allowing the City Administrator
and Owner's re resentative to authorize chan e orders not cxccedin 10000.
Change Order No. J
Mark Wentzell of Ankeny Kell Architects reviewed items 1-7 ofthe proposal request and
noted that Change Order No.1 for the community center project resulting in a net savings
of $103,872, bringing the new contract sum to $8, lOO,928.
City Engineer Bret Weiss requested that Council strike item #7 from the proposal request
regarding the revision of the bituminous paving until he has a chance to review it.
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN STUMPF AND SECONDED BY
BRUCE THIELEN TO APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO.1 WITH THE REMOVAL OF
ITEM #7 OF THE PROPOSAL REQUEST PENDING REVIEW BY THE CITY ENGINEER.
Motion carried unanimously.
Change Order Procedure
City Administrator Rick Wolfsteller reported that City Council is asked to reaffirm the
previously-discussed procedure for efficient processing of change orders for the
community center project by authorizing the City Administrator and Chief Building
Official together to administratively approve change orders that result in a
savings/deductive change, and to approve individual change orders that result in
additional cost to the project, not to exceed $10,000.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY CLINT HERBST AND SECONDED BY BRUCE THIELEN TO
AUTHORIZE THE ClTY ADMINISTRATOR AND CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL
TOGETHER TO ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVE CHANGE ORDERS FOR THE
COMMUNITY CENTER PROJECT THAT RESULT IN A SAVINGS/DEDUCTIVE CHANGE,
AND TO APPROVE INDIVIDUAL CHANGE ORDERS THAT RESULT IN ADDITIONAL
COST TO THE PROJECT NOT TO EXCEED $ J 0,000. Motion carried unanimously.
9.
Community center update.
Bulk Tank Relocation
Deputy City Administrator Jeff O'Neill reported that, as directed by the City Council,
staff has met with bulk tank operators to discuss plans for relocation of the bulk tanks.
Page 2
1.&
Council Minutes - 2/22/99
.....
The conccpt bcing considered included the City providing the standard relocation benefits
provided by law, plus a low interest or no interest loan to be repaid in its entirety
January 1,2004, The amount of the loan would be based on the projectcd cost that the
operators would have faced to upgrade their tanks by the end on003, which was
estimated to range from $40,000 to $65,000, All land cost would be funded solely by the
operators, However, it was noted that it is difficult to separate cost items that the City is
funding through relocation benefits from items that would be eligible for the loan, and
staff is currently working with the operators on this mattcr. According to the City
Attorney, a low or no interest loan for a relatively short duration appears supportable,
although the Council must still make a finding of public purpose.
Mr. Jeff Michaelis, owner of Riverside Oil, noted that the gap appeared to be in the same
$50,000 range as the loan amount being discussed, and he requested that Council
consider a no interest loan.
After further discussion, the Council indicated they would be in favor of some type of
loan and directed staff to continue discussions with the bulk tank operators.
.....
Aquatics Center Hold
Deputy City Administrator Jeff 0 'N eill reported that staff was recently surprised by a
notice from Donlar Contractors stating that the cost to place the aquatics portion of the
community center project on hold until the survey is completed was estimated at
$154,000, The City Attorney has advised staff that tbe City should plan for thi s amount
financially but that the City may not be required to pay this amount.
Mark Wentzell of Ankeny Kell Architects stated that he felt $154,000 was an exorbitant
amount and explained that part of the architect's job is to decide what amo unt would be
appropriate, Ifthe City and contractor disagreed with the amount calculated by the
architect, the issue would go to arbitration.
.
No action by Council was required at this time.
10. Consideration of bills for the last half of F ebrua 1999.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRUCE TIllELEN AND SECONDED BY CLINT HERBST TO
APPROVE THE BILL FOR THE LAST HALF OF FEBRU ARY 1999 AS PRESENTED.
Motion carried unanimously.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRUCE THIELEN AND SECONDED BY ROGER CARLSON TO
ADJOURN THE MEETING. Motion carried unanimously.
.
~--
Karen Doty
Deputy City Clerk
z.&
Page 3
.
SA.
.
.
Council Agenda - 3/8/99
of Monticello. (JO)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
This item was raised in the initial staffreview on the Village Builders application to develop
a twin home on a parcel in the B-3 District. Under current ordinance language, twin homes
are permitted uses in the R-2 and R-3 Districts. The requirements ofthe Zoning Ordinance
state that the allowable density for such uses is one unit per 6,000 square feet of lot area,
however, the minimum lot size in the R-2 District is 12,000 square feet, and 10,000 square
feet in the R-3 District. With adequate area, then, a developer can construct a two-family
structure but can not provide for separate owner-occupancy, except by PUD or condominium
plat. The concern is that the ordinance language actually encourages rental occupancy
without a simple zero lot line subdivision clause.
Such a clause would not have the effect of increasing density, since the same requirements
for 6,000 square feet per unit would apply. Therefore, every twin home would require
12,000 square feet onand, but the clause would permit the simple subdivision in the R-2 and
R-3 Districts allowing owner occupied units. The ordinance currently makes it more difficult
to create an owner occupied pattern.
B.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to recommend approval of the zoning ordinance amendment, based on a
finding that it will facilitate owner occupied twin home development. This is the
alternative recommended by the Planning Commission.
2. Motion to recommend denial ofthe amendment, based on a finding that additional
City review oftwin home projects is preferable.
3. Motion to table action on the amendment, subject to the submission of additional
information.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the amendment. PUD is not very well adapted to the
construction of a single twin home structure, and condominium plats are often undesirable,
except in large projects. The amendment will not compromise density, and should encourage
increased owner-occupancy in such developments.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
-1-
.
Exhibit A - Proposed Amendment
.
.
Council Agenda - 3/8/99
-2-
.
City of Monticello
Wright County, Minnesota
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 3, SECTION 3 [El, OF THE
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO TWIN HOME SUBDIVISIONS IN
THE R-2 AND R-3 ZONING DISTRICT.
THE CITY COUNCil OF THE CITY OF MONTICEllO, MINNESOTA HEREBY ORDAINS
AS FOllOWS:
Section 1.
Chapter 3, Section 3 [E] is amended to read as follows:
[E] Subdivision of non-sinqle familv base lots in R-Z and R-3 Districts.
1.
lots of non-sinqle family multiple housing unit structures may be divided for
the purpose of condominium ownership provided that the principal structure
containing the housing units shall meet the setback distances of the
applicable zoning district. In addition, each condominium unit shall have the
minimum lot area for the type of housing unit and usable open space as
specified in the area and building size regulations of this ordinance. Such lot
areas may be controlled by an individual or joint ownership.
.
2. lots containin twin homes or townhouses ma be subdivided alon the
common wall in a "zero lot line" arran ement rovided each resultin lot
contains the required amount of lot area per unit as prescribed elsewhere in
this Ordinance. and all other setback and performance standards of the
Zonina District are met.
Section 2.
This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication.
Ilsll
.
..6~\
Council Agenda - 3/8/99
. SB. Consideration of reviewin~ and acceptin~ the year-end EDA Financial Statements.
Activity Report. and 1999 Proposed Bud~et. (O.K.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
This item is presented to comply with City Ordinance Amendment No. 172, Section 2-3-
6 (A), "The Authority shall prepare an annual budget projecting anticipated expenses and
sources of revenue;" and (B), "The Authority shall prepare an annual report describing its
activities and providing an accurate statement of its financial condition. Said report shall
be submitted to the City Council by March 1 of each year."
The financial reports were prepared by Executive Director Koropchak. The Economic
Development Authority (EDA) accepted the year-end reports and budget at the annual
meeting held February 23, 1999. All Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund (GMEF) loan
paybacks are current.
Therefore, the EDA noW submits to the City Council a copy of the EDA-GMEF Balance
Sheet; Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance for the Year;
Annual Activity Report; and 1999 Cash Flow Projections (Budget) for review.
.
You will note on the Balance Sheet, the EDA-GMEF cash balance as of December 31,
1998, is $555,046.13. As you recall, in 1997 the EDA appropriated $200,000 from the
GMEF for the Downtown Monticello Revitalization Fund (DMRF) for matching facade
improvement grants, loans, and fee reimbursements. In 1998, the EDA extended the
DMRF appropriation through December 31, 1999. The DMRF cash balance as of
December 31, 1998, is $181,501.62.
In addition to the EDA Year-End Reports, enclosed is a copy ofthe UDAG and SCERG
Year-End Statement. The UDAG-FSI Fund cash balance as of December 31,1998, is
$170,209.90. FSI prepaid the loan in October; therefore, satisfying the terms and
conditions of the loan agreement. The SCERG-Aroplax Fund cash balance as of
December 31, 1998, is $60,453.62. The remaining balance ofthe SCERG loan is paid to
the State and will be satisfied in November 1999. In summary, the EDA has available
$785,709.65 for GMEF loans and DMRF grants, loans, and reimbursement fees. This is
the sum of the cash balance ofthc GMEF, UDAG, and SCERG Funds.
If a Council member has questions of the year-end report, please remove from the consent
agenda; otherwise, the EDA requests the City Council make a motion to accept the
GMEF reports.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
.
1.
A motion to accept the EDA Balance Sheet; Statement of Revenues,
Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance; 1999 Cash Flow Projections; and the
Annual Activity Reports as presented.
-3-
Council Agenda - 3/8/99
.
2.
A motion to deny acceptance of the EDA Balance Sheet; Statements of Revenues,
Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance; 1999 Cash Flow Projections; and the
Annual Activity Report as presented.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Recommendation is alternative # 1. Reason for the recommendation is that all reports are
reported as true and correct; the budget is based on projections only; therefore, said
motion would affirm compliance of Ordinance Amendment No. 172.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy ofthe Year-End Statements, Activity Report, and 1999 Cash Flow Projections for
the EDA; DMRF, UDAG, and SCERG Year-End Statements.
.
,
-4-
.
MONTICELLO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MONTICELLO
GREATER MONTICELLO ENTERPRISE FUND (GMEF)
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance
For the Year Ended December 31, 1998
REVENUES
Appropriations -
1997 GMEF
1998 SCREG
Interest Income - Notes
Interest Income - Investment
Loan Fees
Legal Fees
Miscellaneous
$ -0-
$ 87,500.00
$ 22,065.47
$ 22,815.31
$ 200.00
$ 564.25
$ -0-
$ 133,145.03
TOTAL REVENUES
EXPENDITURES
.
Downtown Monticello Revitalization Fund $
Legal Fees $
$
$
$
$
$
Professional Fees
Service Fees
Miscellaneous Other
Int. Adjustment - Notes
17,498.38
564.25
34.32
-0-
-0-
-0-
o
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
$ 18,096.95
Excess of Revenues Over Expenditures
$ 115,048.08
FUND BALANCE - End of Year
$ 976,278.70
$1, 091, 326.78
FUND BALANCE - Beginning of Year
.
5r
,
!
.
MONTICELLO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MONTICELLO
GREATER MONTICELLO ENTERPRISE FUND (GMEF)
Balance Sheet
December 31, 1998
ASSETS
Cash in Bank
$555,046.13
Notes Receivable - Tapper, Inc.
Notes Receivable - Muller Theatre
Notes Receivable - SMM, Inc.
Notes Receivable - Aroplax Corp.
Notes Receivable - Custom Canopy,
Notes Receivable - standard Iron
Notes Receivable - Vector Tool
Notes Receivable - Tapper, Inc.
Notes Receivable - SELUEMED
Notes Receivable - T J Martin
Appropriations Receivables -
1998 GMEF
1998 SCREG
Inc.
-0-
-0-
$ -0-
$ 12,992.69
-0-
$ 45,791. 61
$ 45,943.34
$ 93,319.39
$ 50,733.62
$ 87,500.00
$100,000.00
$100,000.00
.
TOTAL ASSETS
$1, 091, 326.78
FUND EOUITY
Fund Balance
Reserved for Participation Loans
(Economic Development)
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND FUND EQUITY
$1. 091. 326.78
$1. 091, 326.78
.
I' ~~r
.
MONTICELLO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
GREATER MONTICELLO ENTERPRISE FUND (GMEF)
1999 CASH FLOW PROJECTION
BEGINNING CASH BALANCE, January 1999
RECEIPTS
Appropriations, Expected -
SCERG
UDAG
Notes Amortization payments -
Tapper Inc.
Muller Theatre
SMM, Inc.
Aroplax Corp. ($1,241.73 Mo.) 11-99
Notes Receivable
custom Canopy, Inc.
standard Iron ($795.49 Mo.) 7-01
vector Tool ($380.18 Mo.) 11-00
Tapper's II ($760.36 Mo.) 4-01
SELUEMED ($1,031.01 Mo.) 9-03
. T.J. Martin (Avg In $473.95 Mo) 3-05
_lterest Income - Investment (est.)
Loan Fees
Miscellaneous
TOTAL RECEIPTS
TOTAL BEGINNING BALANCE AND RECEIPTS
EXPENDITURES
GMEF Loans -
Groebener (SCREG)
( UDAG )
B & B Metal stampings (UDAG)
Other (UDAG)
DMRF Grants
Loans
Legal Fees
Miscellaneous
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
4ItPECTED CASH BALANCE, December 1999
$ 60,453.62
$139,546.38
-0-
-0-
-0-
$ 13,338.57
-0-
-0-
$ 9,545.90
$ 4,562.16
$ 9,124.32
$ 12,372.12
$ 5, 766.52
$ 10,000.00
$ 600.00
E! 1.000.00
$ 60,453.62
$ 39,546.38
$ 50,000.00
$ 50,000.00
$ 30,000.00
$ 20,000.00
$ 1,000.00
S 500.00
$555,046.13
;;266,309.59
$821,355.72
.?251,500.00
$569,855.72
""'"
;' "
.!"
.
1998
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACTIVITY REPORT
MEETING DATE
SUBJECTS
1-20-98
Approved GMEF Loan No. 014 for T. 1. Martin, Inc. dba
Lake Tool, Inc., $87,500 M&E. Five jobs at wages
between $30,000 to $40,000.
Approved DMRF No. 103 disbursement of$500 fee
reimbursement to Kathy Froslie.
2-17-98 Annual meeting
Approved DMRF No. 104 to Rich and Sylvia Cline in the
amount of $2,500 facade grant and $500 fee reimbursement.
EDA officers elected for 1998:
President Ron Hoglund
Vice President Barb Schwientek
Treasurer Rick W olfsteller
Assistant Treasurer Ken Maus
Secretary Ollie Koropchak
.
Accepted EDA 1997 Year-End Financial Statements and
Activity Report. All existing GMEF loan paybacks are
current.
4-14-98
Approved DMRF No. 105 to AI Loch in the amount of
$2,500 facade grant and $500 fee reimbursement.
Approved DMRF No. 106 to Dan and Andra Olson in the
amount of $6,467.42 facade grant and $500 fee
reimbursement.
5-20-98
Approved DMRF No. 107 to Steve Johnson in the amount
of $2,450 facade grant and $200 fee reimbursement.
Approved modifications to the DMRF Guidelines and
application form.
6-23-98
Approved nMRF No. 108 to Bruce Hamond in the amount
of $7,500 facade grant and $500 fee reimbursement.
8-11-98
Approved a 37-day non-perfonnance extension for DMRF
No. 101.
.
,
:/ ,
"...{;I
...~/:.,~
.
.
.
Approved a 5-month non-performance extension for DMRF
No. 102.
Approved disbursal of $2,500 facade grant for DMRF No.
102 upon removal of the black adhesive.
Reviewed draft copy ofDMRF procedure manual as
suggested by DAT. EDA recommended the Building
Official and DAT explore identified buildings for original
exterior materials and estimate cost for revitalization, and
DAT report back to EDA. Procedure manual to be
approved by EDA Chair and Executive Director prior to
printing.
11-17-98
Approved DNlRF No. 109 to Fred and Dorothy Topel in
the amount of$5,377.28 facade grant and $500
reimbursement fee
Tabled action to approve DMRF No. 110 to Brad Larson.
Ratified execution of a Partial Release of Mortgage and
Consent Easement relating to the GMEF Loan No. 010
(Vector Tool).
/ " I'
J ~,
~ ..,-"
t
'r;j,";
.
.
<'
Q
~
--
Q
Z
;:J
~
;;;.
~
~
~~
OP:::oo
=00'\
~~O'\
;:J~-
<~-
~~M
Z < iiJ
~~.o
f ~ ~
o < Il)
~~Q
~~
>-
~
Q
U
~
~
o
z
o
u
~
.
...- LD
...- ...-
tA- tA-
en
Cl
z
z
c::
<t:
w
I-
en
W
c:: 0 ...- N M ~ LD ID ~ ~
W m m m m m m m m 1-<
I- m m m m m m m m
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0
I- I-
Z
W
~
I-
en
w
>
~
<Ii
a ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
<litrla ~ ;>,;>. ~
.... co.>;>' trl trl M
~o;>. trl Cc c
;>..3trl cOO 0
~ ~ c 0 .3.3 .3
c ~ 0 .3 ~ - ~
o ~.3 ~ ~ 2 ~ ~
~~c; ..D cnU;~cn
ct]\U.J::J L..,,-",O'-
~;>.~ ~. ~~;>.~
,,;0.... o0;>';;:"~;>'
....N ~ <Ii ;>'-OO"ON
~"O ;>.ao ~0101 ~;>.
;>. ~ 0 ~ 01 ;>. 'Z "0 "-2 c
~ "-2 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~
"0 0 0.> "0 No.>.... "-2 E ~
0.> EN., '€ .~ 0 0 c<l e
N c<l t NOt E E ~ .,
t ~ 0 t E 0 c<l c<l trl ]
o ~ E 0 c<l E ~ ~ 01
E ~ c<l E ~ c<l ~ ~ ~ ~
; 0 ~ ; trl ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~
".... Vl ~ 0 0 goo" 0
g ~ 0 g ~ g 0 g ~ trl
o ~~ g o. ~: ""' 0" o. ~ ~.
00 ~ "trl ~
~~~~~~~~-~~
..c -0<';0.. i::
~ I- <.; <,; C 0.> ~ <,; ~ t
~ .... ~ ~ c<l = U ~ c<l c<l
&~ ~ g 'ii <l>E 0.> &"O:E
0. .....-..;.: ::lo.C
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 m ~ ~ ~
01 ~ trl ~ ~ 0 M ~
<:;;> 0 0 <:;;> <:;;> 0 - -
o 0 <:;;> 0 0 0 0 0 0 <:;;>
C C C C C C C C C C
<<:l <<:l <<:l <<:l <<:l <<:l <<:l c<l <<:l c<l
o 0 0 000 0 000
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
w w w w w w w w w w
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
o 0 000 0 0 0 0 0
o
<(
0....
I--
CJ)
W
n:::
w
I--
Z
a\!)O co
c.DQ)c.DQ)
omC0CO
1'-C0'<:tC0
..--c.DC0c.D
\!)C00CO
v..--..--..--
w- w- w- w-
I'-I'-OLOQ)N
'<:tOOLOCO'<:t
C'?coooaco
I'-v..--enl"-"-
NI"-OCOLOLO
0lC00c.DCO'<:t
w-..--..--..-w-w-
w- w- w-
C0
1.0
'<:t
o
co
o
LO
..--
w-
ooomo..--'<:tenNOLO
000 c.D0c.DC0C'0c.D0 c.D
000NO..--C0enC000
w-w-w-enw-en'<:t..--C00CO
en I"-mC0I'-LON
N LOLOC001"-c.D
..-- vvenLOCOC0
w- W-W-W-W-W-C0
w-
z
<(
-l
<(
co
o
<(
0....
-l
<(
0....
o
z
n:::
0....
ooo..-oenc.D"--COOLO
000 C'?0C'0c.Dc.DC'00 C0
OOOl'-ococoocooen
OOOOOOLOCOCOW-..--
OOOOLONOCO_N I"-
coOONNenvcoen ..--
COLOLOI'-VNW-W-..-- <D
w-w-w-w-w-w- w- C'0
w-
00000000000
00000000000
00000000000
00000000000
OOOOLOOOOOLOO
COOOLONLOOOOI'-CO
COLOLOCO'o:tI"-LOOI"-COm
W-W-W-W-W-fFj.-fFj.-..--fFj.-W-<D
w- fFj.-
(j)
-l
<(
- I--
C"')-iO 0
- OlC"')en -
o enencn CO I--
_en ..--en..-- en
OmN ____..-- en
m0enNC------ 0
en enenroco -
0~..-enOOo coo
......__..- ....1-- m 0
xcoc--E........... ml--
~ Q) - x 0 ~ 0-"-
Q).c "" c......co--Q)
(j)1---2 rot) ro om c~
::J a.~U5~m 05
c ~ .0 0 0 -.. <- ..-- -= -..
Q)O:J;:-..Ulo..---- c
CJ (j)""""'O _Q) ,- Ul "'0 :;::;
-..~-..c c .c-........
....-......Q)m::Jo co-
Q) .... 'v .....Q) ....... ~
0..Q)Q)0a;Q) ~..:;;
0..= ~.c ~ E Q) 0.. C
ro::Jrou....Q)~g-~""")
I--~CO(j)COOCOI--CJ)1--
m
m
-..
co
...-
N
(f)
x
.:{
o
ill
\
'~
~
,
~?
..~;,
GREA TER MONTICELLO ENTERPRISE FUND (GMEF)
. LOAN STATUS
December 31, 1998
Economic Development Authority (EDA) was created in 1989.
APPROVED LOANS
Tapper/Genereux (1990) $88,000.00
Muller/Monti Theatre (1990) $50,000.00
Barger/Suburban #004 (1992) $50,000.00
Schoen/Aroplax #005 (1992) $85,000.00
Birkeland/Custom Canopy #006 (1993) $42,500.00
Demeules/Standard Iron #007 (1993) $75,000.00
Blue Chip DevNector Tool #010 (1995) $50,000.00
Tapper's #011 (1996) $100,000.00
Standard Iron/Seluemed #013 (1996) $70,000.00
T J Martin #014 (1998) $87,500.00
TOTAL APPROVED LOANS $698,000.00
. LOAN DISBURSEMENTS
Liquor Fund:
1991 to Tapper $73,000.00
1992 to Suburban $50,000.00
1992 to Aroplax $65,000.00
1994 to Standard Iron $75,000.00
1995 to Vector Tool $50,000.00
1996 to Standard Iron $70,000.00
Total Liquor Fund $383,000.00
UDAG Fund:
1991 to Tapper $15,000.00
1991 to Muller $50,000.00
1992 to Aroplax $20,000.00
1993 to Custom Canopy $42,500.00
1996 to Tapper's $100,000.00
Total UDAG Fund $227,500.00
SCERG Fund:
. 1998 to T J Martin $87,500.00
Total SCERG Fund $87,500.00
,\
TOTAL LOAN DISBURSEMENTS $698,000.00 i (~"~ "~'.
..
GMEF.xls: 2/18/99 ,;
., ~
.
.
.
MONTICELLO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
DOWNTOWN MONTICELLO REVITALIZATION FUND
December 31,1998
Fund Balance, December 31, 1997
Revenues
Appropriations
TOT AL REVENUES
Expenditures
DMRF 101, Kathy Froslie, 2-6-98
8-31-98
DMRF 102, Steve Johnson
DMRF 103, Kathy Froslie, 2-6-98
DMRF 104, Rich Cline, 10-11-98
11-24-98
DMRF 105, AI Loch, 11-6-98
DMRF 106, Dan Olson, 7-27-98
DMRF 107, Steve Johnson
DMRF 108, Bruce Hammond
DMRF 109, Dorothy Topel
TOT AL EXJ>ENDITURES
Fund Balance, December 31, 1998
o
$2,500.00
$2,500.00
$ 500.00
$2,394.13
$ 180.12
$2,610.00
$6,814.13
$199,000.00
o
$ 17,498.38
$181,501.62
..
.. ,
~
-~
~)-'
..J
.
URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACTION GRANT (UDAG) - FSI
FINANCIAL REPORT
December 31, 1998
Payback began in January, 1988 for 12 years ending in January, 2000.
Annual principal and interest payback total is $27,971.40.
GRANT TOTALS
Principal
Interest
TOTAL
ORIGINAL
$256,957.71
$78,700.35
$335,658.06
WQ
$256,957.71
$77,315.88
$334,273.59
REMAINING
$0.00
$1,384.47
$1,384.47
REVENUES
.
Principal Payback
Interest Payback
Interest Income - Investment:
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
Transfer from GMEF - [company)
$256,957.71
$77,315.88
$6,342.02
$8,593.59
$8,436.32
$5,227.10
$3,756.77
$12,297.72
$9,775.19
$9,007.60
TOTAL REVENUES
$397,709.90
EXPENDITURES
1991 Transfer to GMEF
1992 Transfer to GMEF
1993 Transfer to GMEF
1996 Transfer to GMEF (Tapper's)
$65,000.00
$20,000.00
$42,500.00
$100,000.00
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
'.
$227,500.00
FUND BALANCE FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
UDAG.xls: 2/18/99
$170,209.90
, ,.l)
-
.
GMEF Cash Balance
DMRF Cash Balance
UDAG Cash Balance
SCREG-Aroplax Cash Balance
TOTAL
'.
--
SOURCES OF FUNDS
January 1, 1999
$373,544.51
$181,501.62
$170,209.90
$ 60,453.62
$785,709.65
"--=UUll1--'-
.\
\ '.:"
.1I1.'tI"'\ 1
~,.
.
.
.
5C.
Council Agenda - 3/8/99
Consideration of modifying the Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund (GMEF)
Guidelines. (O.K.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the annual meeting of the EDA, the commissioners made a motion to recommend
modification of the GMEF Guidelines. To comply with the guidelines section, Fund
Guideline Modifications: "At a minimum, the EDA shall review the Fund Guidelines on
an annual basis. No changes to the GMEF Guidelines shall be instituted without prior
approval of the Council." Therefore, this item appears before the Council.
The recommendation is to include a wage level goal in the GMEF Guidelines as each
government agency must report wage and job goals and the results for each project in
achieving those goals. See the attached 1999 Minnesota Business Assistance Form. The
ED A's reason to add a wage level goal in the guidelines was for informational purposes.
Recommendation: To add under DEFINITION OF PUBLIC PURPOSE, 1. (b) At least
90% of the jobs to pay a rate equal to or greater than 160% of the federal minimum wage,
exclusive of benefits, for individuals over the age of 20 during the term of the assistance.
The recommendation is consistent with the amended "Green Acres" Law for
establishment of Economic Districts for TIF assistance. The majority of Monticello's
industrial property has a classification status of "Green Acres." The federal minimum
wage today is $5.15; therefore, 160% equals $8.24.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. A motion to approve the recommendation to modify the GMEF Guidelines as
recommended by the EDA.
2. A motion to approve the recommendation to modify the GMEF Guidelines with
modifications to the EDA recommendation.
3. A motion to deny the recommendation to modify the GMEF Guidelines as
recommended by the EDA.
4. A motion to table any action.
C. RECOMMENDA'I'ION:
Recommendation is alternative #1. The Economic Development Director notes
businesses are encouraged to be realistic when projecting job creation and wage level
goals, as businesses not reaching the goals must repay the assistance. The reporting is for
assistance of $25,000 or greater.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Business Assistance Form; Excerpt from the GMEF Guidelines.
-5-
,
.
.
s
~
::
~
i]
a
a
i
~
''I
;j
-'!
~
11. Ha...e all wage ilnd job goals been achieved? U Yes - do not submit future forms for this project.
o No _ please submit the 2000 Minnesota Business Assistance Form.
This jonn r~places all previous fonns. Please complete one form for each business assistance agreement your
agtnc)' signcd bttlO'~e/l )uly 1, 1995 and December 31,1998 which provided $25,000 or more in public funds
or ustd tlU incr~nunJ financing. A fonn should be submitted annually for each assistance agreement until a
submitted form indicates that aU wage andjob creation goals have been achieved. Do not submit thisfoml if
your agency}UJS not agreed to provide assistance to a business since July 1, 1995. ",."
(over)
'--
....
.....JIIr\~
.--
iot___
1999 Minnesota Business Assistance Form
(Please return by April 1, 1999)
+9r~
-Trade&-
Economic
Development
Please complete lines 1 through 16 for all agreements.
1. Funding government agency name 2. Contact name
3. Agency street address 4. City
5. Zip code 6. Phone number (area code) 8. Type of government agency
7. Fax number (area code) _City _County _Regional _State
_ Other (please indicate)
9. Name of business receiving assistance 10. Industry of recipient (SIC code)
11. Type of assistance (e.g. loan. TIF, grant, infrastructure. etc.) 12. Name of TIF district (if applicable)
13. Date of business 14. Date assistance first 15. Date project (building( 16. Dollar value of business
assistance agreement provided machinery/etc.) was assistance
placed in service
For assistance agreements signed between July 1, 1995 and December 31, 1997, complete lines 17 through 20. For
agreements signed during 1998 and future years, please complete lines 21 through 24.
17. lob creation goals for business receiving assistance 18. Average hourly wage level goals for business receiving
assistance
19. Actual jobs created since business received assistance 20. Acrual average hourly wage paid to employees hired since
business received assistance
Goals of business receiving assistance: (please indicate Actual performance since project placed in service: (Please
number of employees at each wage level and indicate the indicate number of employees at each wage level and indicate
corresponding benefit level.) the corresponding benefit level.)
21. Job Creation Hourly Wage 22. Hourly Value 23. lob Creation Hourly Wage 24. Hourly Value
Level of Voluntary Level of Voluntary
FulHime part-time (excL benefits) Benefits ($) Full-time pan-time (excl. benefits) Benefits (S)
less than $7.00 - less than $7.00
$7.00 to $7.99 - $7.00 to $7.99
$8.00 to $9.99 $8.00 to $9.99
$10.00 to $11.99 $10.00 to $11.99
$12.00 and higher - $12.00 and higher
If necessary. please attach additional documentation. If necessary, please attach additional documentation.
\
Please complete lines 25 through 27 for all agreements.
25. Last date acrual wage and job creation levels documented 26. Date this Minnesota Business Assistance Form completed
.
,
~
~
"'T
.
.
.
+\~NESOl'-1
o
-Trade&-
Economic
Development
Please send completed form annually by April 1, 1999 to:
Minnesota Business Assistance Form - AEO
Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development
Analysis and Evaluation Office
500 Metro Square
121 East 7th Place
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
or fax report to:
(651) 215.3841
For information, call:
(651) 297-2335 or 1-800-657-3858
Minnesota Statutes 116J.991:
A business that receives state or local government assistance for economic development
or job growth purposes must create a net increase in jobs in Minnesota within two years of
receiving the assistance.
The government agency providing the assistance must establish wage level and job creation
goals to be met by the business receiving the assistance. A business that fails to meet the goals
must repay the assistance to the government agency. -
Each government agen(.y must report the wage and job goals and the results for each
project in achieving those goals to the department of trade and economic development. The
department shall compile and publish the results of the reports for the previous calendar year
by June 1 of each year. The reports of the agencies to the department and the compilation
report of the department shall be made available to the public.
For the purposes of this section. "assistance" means a grant or loan in excess of $25,000,
or tax increment financing. --
.f~'
..
~-
.......
.
.
'A-~ d ~
.
GREATER MONTICELLO ENTERPRISE FUND GUIDELINES
CITY OF MONTICELLO
250 EAST BROADWAY
MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA 55362
(612) 295-2711
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund (GMEF) is to encourage economic
development by supplementing conventional financing sources available to existing and new
businesses. Through this program administered by the Economic Development Authority and
participating lending institution(s), loans are made to businesses to help them meet a portion of their
financing needs. All loans must serve a public purpose by complying with four or more of the
criteria noted in the next section. In all cases, it is mandatory that criteria #1 be satisfied, which
requires the creation of new jobs. It is the responsibility of the EDA to assure that loans meet the
public purpose standard and comply with all other GMEF policies as defined in this document.
Along with establishing the definition of public purpose, this document is designed to outline the
process involved in obtaining GMEF financing.
DEFINITION OF PUBLIC PURPOSE
1. To provide loans for credit worthy businesses that create new jobs.
(a)
One job is equivalent to a total of 37.5 hours per week.
At least 90% of the jobs to pay a rate equal to or greater than 160% of the federjl
minimum wage, exclusive of benefits, for individuals over the age of20 during the
term of the assistance.
t
2. To provide loans for credit worthy businesses that would increase the community tax base.
3. To assist new or existing industrial or commercial businesses to improve or expand their
operations. Considerations for loans shall take into account factors including, but not limited
to, the nature and extent of the business, the product or service involved, the present
availability of the product or service within the city of Monticello, the compatibility of the
proposed business as it relates to the comprehensive plan and existing zoning policies, and
the potential for adverse environmental effects of the business, if any.
4. To provide loans to be used as a secondary source of financing that is intended to supplement
conventional financing (bank financing).
5. To provide loans in situations in which a funding gap exists.
6.
To provide funds for economic development that could be used to assist in obtaining other
funds such as Small Business Administration loans, federal and state grants, etc.
KAREN\OFFICE\POUCIES\GMEF: 2/25/99
~3
Page 1
.
.
'"
5D.
Council Agenda - 3/8/99
Consideration of modifying the Downtown Monticello Revitalization Fund (DMRF)
Guidelines. (O.K.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the annual meeting of the EDA, the commissioners made a motion to recommend
modification of the DMRF Guidelines. To comply with the guideline section, Fund
Guideline Modification: "At a minimum, the EDA shall review the Fund Guidelines on
an annual basis. No changes to the DMRF guidelines shall be instituted without prior
approval of the City Council"; therefore, this appears before the Council.
The recommendations are housekeeping items to clean up language within the guidelines.
The recommended modifications elarify DA T's organizational structure for consistency
with their role or purpose. The first recommendation is to delete "Mep" from pages 4
and 5 ofthe guidelines. At the time the guidelines were prepared, the Design Advisory
Team (DAT) was assumed to be the Design Committee of the MCP. As time went on,
the Downtown and Riverfront Plan was adopted as part ofthe Monticello Comprehensive
Plan and DAT was established as an advisory team to the Planning Commission through
the City Ordinance. The MCP can still recommend to the City Council names of
individuals for appointment to DA T, but the Council appoints the members like any other
City commission.
The second recommendation is to add the verbiage "within the Monticello
Comprehensive Plan" on page 4. Please refer to the highlighted areas of the attached
excerpts ofthe DMRF Guidelines.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. A motion to approve the first and second recommendation to modify the DMRF
Guidelines as recommended by the EDA.
2. A motion to approve the first recommendation and deny the second
recommendation to modify the DMRF Guidelines as recommended by the EDA.
3. A motion to deny the first recommendation and approve the second
recommendation to modify the DMRF Guidelines as recommended by the EDA.
4. A motion to deny the first and second recommendation to modify the DMRF
Guidelines as recommended by the EDA.
5. A motion to table any action.
-6-
Council Agenda - 3/8/99
.
c.
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommendation is Alternative # 1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Excerpts of the DMRF Guidelines highlighting the proposed modifications.
.
.
-7-
.
.
.
D!v1RF GUIDELINES
PARTICIPATING LENDING INSTITIITION
1. Participating lending institution shall be determined by the DMRF applicant.
2. Participating lending instinrtion shall cooperate with the EDA and assist in carrying out
the policies of the DMRF as approved by the City Council.
3. Participating lending institution shall analyze the funding application and indicate to the
ED A the level at which the lending institution will participate in the finance package.
LOAN APPLICA TION/ ADMINlSTRA TIVE PROCEDURES
The EDA desires to make the DMRF application process as simple as possible. However, certain
procedures must be followed prior to EDA consideration of a loan request. Information
regarding the program and procedures for obtaining funding is as follows:
City Staff Duties:
The Economic Development Director, working in conjunction with the Assistant City
Administrator, shall carry out DMRF operating procedures as approved by the EDA and Council.
Staff is responsible for assisting an applicant in the application process and will work with the
applicant in development of the necessary information.
Application Process'
1. The applicant will meet with city staff to obtain information about the DMRF, discuss the v':-
prop~ect, and obtain a funding application form and a copy of Section 3,4, and 5 0.-X"
of tli~1Jesign Guidelines of the Iri1 L'. SHv Downtown and Riverfront Plan. ~ '{h~ ~ . \'t ~'
Staffwill direct the applicant to contact t~esign Advisory Team as a resource for
suggestions and review of improvernentsu:ti;?~;~lPIY with the design guidelines, codes,
and ordinances of the Morrticello Downtown and Riverfront Plan.
Staff will request the applicant contact a lending institution regarding financing needs and
indicate to applicant that further action by the EDA on the potential loan will require
indication of support from a lending institution.
2. The applicant shall complete a DMRF application. Staffwill review the application for
consistency with the policies set forth in the Downtown Monticello Revitalization Fund
Guidelines.
,
4
50.
. DMRF GUIDELINES
3. City staffwill accept the findings ofa lending institution regarding applicant credit and
financial viability of the project. EDA approval will require a letter of support from the
lending institution. Upon receipt of the letter of support, City staff shall submit a written
recommendation to the EDA and a decision regarding the application shall be made by the
EDA within 14 days of submittal of the letter of support from the lending institution.
4. The EDA shall have authority to approve or deny the financial assistance of the
Downtown Monticello Revitalization Fund.
5. The EDA shall not disburse approved DMRF without a written acknowledgment from the
(MCllDesign Advisory Team that construction of the improvements are complete and
comply with applicable design guidelines and all codes and ordinances.
6. The EDA shall not disburse approved DMRF (grants and reimbursement) without certified
documentation of the actual costs of the improvements and completion of the
improvements.
7. The EDA shall not disburse the approved DMRF (loan) without proof of financing for
costs not funded by the grant and execution of the loan closing documents.
. ORIGINAL FUNDING
SOURCE - Economic Development Authority, Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund
AMOUNT - $200,000 (For Year Ending December 31, 1999).
The EDA shall disburse approved DMRF dollars from the payback of GMEF Liquor Fund dollars
at such time the approved DMRF is disbursed.
REPORTING
Staff shall submit quarterly summaries and/or an annual report detailing the status of the D11R.F.
FUND GUIDELINE MODIFICATION
At a minimum, the EDA shall review the Fund Guidelines on an annual basis. No changes to the
DMRF guidelines shall be instituted without prior approval of the City Council.
5
{<"
"'''
,L
.
_4
.
.
.
5E.
Council Agenda - 3/8/99
Consideration of reviewin~ Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund (GMEF) Loan No.
015 (Mainline Distribution Properties. LLC) for compliance with the GMEF
Guidelines. (O.K.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The EDA requests the City Council review GMEF Loan No. 015 for compliance with the
GMEF Guidelines. The GMEF Guidelines state: "The EDA shall have authority to
approve or deny loans; however, within 21 days of ED A approval, the City Council may
reverse a decision by the EDA to approve a loan if it is determined by Council that such
loan was issued in violation of the GMEF Guidelines."
On February 23, 1999, the EDA approved GMEF Loan No. 015 for Mainline Distribution
Properties, LLC dba Groebner & Associates, Inc. 'r-he approval was subject to lender
approval and submission of financial statements to the EDA office. For your review,
enclosed as supporting data is the outline used by the EDA for determination of GMEF
public purpose and policy compliance and a letter from the lender, Franklin National
Bank.
The real property acquisition loan was approved for $100,000 at a 5.75% fixed interest
rate with amortization up to 20 years, balloon payment in five years, loan fee set at $200,
and GMEF legal fees the responsibility ofthe applicant. The GMEF loan will take a
second position behind the lender. Collateral, guarantees, and other condition
requirements to be determined and prepared by the GMEF attorney. The company
immediately brings 11 new jobs (non-owner) at an average hourly wage of $19.90,
exclusive of benefits, to the City of Monticello and projects an additional 2 full-time jobs
at an hourly wage between $10-$12 per hour, exclusive of benefits, to the City and State
within two years.
Legal description ofthe property is Lot 1, Block 1, Monticello Commerce Center Third
Addition, Wright County, Minnesota.
After review of the EDA outline for GMEF public purpose and policy compliance, the
EDA requests the City Council consider the following actions.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. A motion stating that City Council has determined the EDA approval of GMEF
Loan No. 015 for Mainline Distribution Properties, LLC was approved without
violation of the GMEF Guidelines; therefore, Council supports the decision by the
EDA for loan approval.
-8-
Council Agenda - 3/8/99
.
2.
A motion stating that City Council has determined the EDA approval of GMEF
Loan No. 015 for Mainline Distribution Properties, LLC was issued in violation
of the GMEF Guidelines; therefore, the Council reverses the decision by the EDA
for loan approval.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Recommendation is for alternative #1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
GMEF criteria used by the EDA; Preliminary application; GMEF approval form; Letter
from lender.
.
.
-9-
.
.
i.
EDA Agenda - 2/23/99
4.
Consideration to review for approval the preliminary GMEF loan application from
Mainline Distribution Properties. LLC.
A. Reference and Background:
GMEF Loan Request:
$100,000 Real Estate Property Loan.
Project Summary:
In January 1999, Groebner & Associates, Inc. relocated from Plymouth and has a three-
month lease with option to purchase the real estate property located at 9530 Fallon
Avenue. The property is currently owned by Midwest Graphics, Inc. The business
became aware of Monticello and the available building through the City's Office of
Economic Development and Steve and Paul Schoen of Aroplax. The company supplies
materials and equipment to natural gas utilities and their contractors. Mainline
Distribution Properties, LLC (MDP) was formed in December 1999, to purchase the
property and lease to Groebner & Associates. MDP has six shareholders, all of which are
key employees of Groebner & Associates. Groebner & Associates is a family-owned
business which was started by Joe's father, Charles, in 1976.
The real estate property consist of2.20 acres ofland and a 14,080 sq ft metal building,
1,280 sq ft office space and 12,080 sq ft manufacturing/warehousing space. The
estimated market value of the property for payable 1998 was $254,700. The purchase
price is $550,000. The shareholders have committed $145,000 of equity into the
purchase of the property (26.36%). Closing is anticipated in May 1999.
Legal description: Monticello Commerce Center, 1"1 Addition, Lot 001, Block 001. PID#
155-081-001010.
The relocation and expansion will add 11 new full-time jobs to the City of Monticello
immediately at an average wage per hour of $19.90 without benefits (non-owners) and
will add 2 new full-time jobs to the State of Minnesota and City of Monticello at an
average wage per hour of$10-12 without benefits within the next two years.
Uses of Funds
Real Estate Property
$550,000
TOTAL USES OF FUNDS
$550,000
1
5 ~ ..\
.
.
.
EDA Agenda - 2/23/99
Sources of Funds
Franklin National Bank
Equity
GMEF
$305,000
$145,000
$100,000
TOTAL SOURCES OF FUNDS
$550,000
GREATER MONTICELLO ENTERPRISE FUND GUIDELINES
PUBLIC PURPOSE CRITERIA: Must comply with four or more ofthe criteria listed
below, criteria #1 being mandatory.
1.
Creates new jobs:
Eleven new jobs to the City of Monticello at an average
wage per hour of$19.90 without benefits (non-owners) and
project the addition of two full-time jobs at an average wage
per hour of$10-$12 without benefits within two years.
2.
Increases the community tax base: The acquisition of the real estate property
does not increase the tax base.
3.
Factors:
To assist a new industrial business to expand their operations.
Other factors for consideration but not limited to: Nature of
business (industrial but not manufacturing), present availability of
service and product (none), potential adverse environmental effects
(none), and compatibility to the comprehensive plan and zoning
policy (yes).
4. Used as a secondary source to supplement conventional financing:
The GMEF will be the secondary source of funding to the lender, Frankilin
National Bank.
5. Used as gap financing: Used as gap financing (see Letter from Lender) and
as an incentive to encourage economic development.
6. Used to assist other funds: In addition to the lender, the equity amount exceeds
the GMEF guidelines. The CMIF does not apply as
the company is relocating from outside the 14-
county CMIF region.
2
5~ ,';).
.
.
:,.
EDA Agenda - 2/23/99
GREATER MONTICELLO ENTERPRISE FUND POLICIES
I. BUSINESS ELIGffiILITY:
Industrial business:
Yes.
Located within city limits:
Yes, Zoned 1-1.
Credit worthy existing business:
For determination by Franklin National
Bank. (See enclosed letter)
$10,000 loan per each job created. $10,666 J{ 5 $59,006.
$5,000 per every $20,000 increase in personal property used for business
purposes, whichever is higher. $10,000 X 13 jobs = $130,000.
Recommendation: $100,000.
II. FINANCING METHOD:
Companion Direct Loan:
All such loans may be subordinated to the primary
1ender(s) if requested by the primary 1ender(s). The
GMEF is leveraged and the lower interest rate of the
GMEF lowers the effective interest rate on the entire
project.
Recommendation: The GMEF take a second position behind Franklin
National Bank on the real estate property.
III. USES OF PROCEEDS:
Real property acquisition.
IV. TERMS AND CONDITIONS:
Loan Size:
Maximum not to exceed 50% of the remaining GMEF balance.
Annual GMEF Appropriation Balance, February 23, 1999, is
$200,000. Request: $100,000. Recommendation: $100,000.
Remaining 1999 GMEF Appropriation Balance: $100,000.
3
6~,3
. EDA Agenda - 2/23/99
Leveraging: Minimum 60% private/public non-G11EF. Maximum 30% GNlliF.
Minimum 10% equity of GMEF loan.
Franklin National Bank
Equity
GMEF
TOTAL
$305,000(56%)
$145,000(26%) $10,000 required
$100,000(18%)
$550,000(100%)
Loan Term: Real estate property maxmium of 5-year maturity amortized up to
30 years. Balloon payment at 5 years.
Recommendation; 20-year amortization with balloon payment in five years.
Interest Rate: Fixed rate not less than 2% below Minneapolis prime rate. Prime
rate per National Bank (First Bank) of Minneapolis on date of ED A
loan approval. Prime rate February 19, 1999 - 7.75 %.
Recommendation; % fixed rate.
Loan Fee:
Minimum fee of $200 but not to exceed 1.5% of the total loan
project. Paid by applicant to the EDA within five working days
after City Council approval of GMEF loan. Nonrefundable. Loan
fee may be incorporated into project cost. EDA retains the right to
reduce or waive loan fee or portion ofloan fee.
.
Recommendation: At least, the minimum fee of $200.
Prepayment Policy: No penalty for prepayment.
Deferral of Payments: 1. Approval of the EDA membership by majority vote.
2. Extend the balloon if unable to refinance, verification
letter from two lending institutions subject to Board
approval.
Interest limitation on guaranteed loans:
Not applicable.
Assumability ofloan: None.
.
4
~~A
'.
.
.
EDA Agenda - 2/23/99
Business equity requirements:
Subject to type ofloan; Board of Directors
will determine case by case, analysis under
nonnallending guidelines.
Collateral:
Machinery and equipment liens (except equipment exempt from
bankruptcy) and personal and/or corporate guarantees (requires
unlimited personal guarantees) as per the GMEF attorney.
N on-perfonnance:
An approved GMEF loan shall be null and void if funds are
not drawn upon or disbursed within 180 days from date of
EDA approval.
February 23,1999 EDA approval ~ loan becomes null and void August 23,
1999.
Non-perfonnance extension: Not applicable.
Legal Fee:
Responsibility of the GMEF applicant.
B.
Recommendation:
Recommendation is to review this infonnation prior to the EDA meeting for
discussion and potential questions. Joe Groebner and perhaps, Randy Bednar,
Franklin National Bank will be present at the EDA meeting. EDA members were
invited to tour the facility on Friday, February 19. Consideration to approve or
disapprove GMEF Loan No. 015 is the next agenda item.
c.
Supporting Data:
Preliminary GMEF application, letter of intent and credit analysis from lender,
copy of purchase agreement.
5
~,5
JRN.20.1999 4:20PM GROEBNER & ASSOCIRTE
GREATER MONTICELLO ENTERPRISE
250 EAST BROADWAY
MO~"TlCELLO, MINNESOTA
PRELTMINARY APPLICATION FOR LOAN
NO. 345
P.2/5
.
APPLICANT: JoseDh M. G;~~~P..'"
FIRM OR TRADE N.~ME: 11~~ i~e D1.stribu don Pr90p.<r.dps u.C':
BUSINESS ADDRESS: 9530 Fa_--- A.ve. Nr: .
CIT"iISTATE~ Monticello. MN ZIP CODE: 553fi2.
,TELEPB:ONE: (BOS.) (612) 295-5355 (IlOME)~
E'MPLoYER I.D.#
CORPORATION .A.-FARTNERSHIF
MANAG'EMltNT.
TITLE OWNERSHIP %
General Mana er ai7.
DATE ESTABLISHED: !Il2U3/98
_SOLE PROpRIETOR
NAi.'\1E
Joseph M. G~oebner
~
PROJECT LOCATION:
9530 Fallon Ave. ~, Monticello, MN 55362
~mw LOCATION' __EXISTING BUSINESS
TOTAL PROJECT qOST ESTlMATE: S 550 J 000 . O~
\
L}U~ S
EXISTING Btm.DING }?O, 000.00
CONS1'!tUCnON .
MAcHINERY CAPITAL_
woRK1NO CAPITAL
OTI!ER -
. TOTAL USES: S5c;O,OOO.00
PROPOSED BEGINNING DATE: 2/1/99
ESTIMATED COl'tll'LETIOl'l' DATE; c~ose au '~U~ld1'llg j/l/99
REOUEST~
AMOUNT OF LOAN S 1(JJOOOOOCOi~
MA 11JRITY & 'I'BRMS
REQUESTED
APPLICANT'S EQUITY
LOAN PURPOSE
.
PROPOSED USES;
I
PROJECTED AV:ERAGE WAGE PER HOUR: $19/9Q 1l0t1"0tmer.
.
F\P
DATE SIGNED:
v
...-i
--. --- ~----"'-~
IFEB-18-99 15,56 FROM,FRANKLIN-PLYMOUTH
.
.
11
ID:6125509951
.
FRANKLIN NATIONAL BANK
February 18, 1999
Ollie Koropchak
Monticello City Hall
250 East Broadway
P.O. Box 1147
Monticello, Minnesota 55362-9245
RE: Groebner & Associates Agreement (Mainline Distribution Properties, LLC)
Dear Ollie Koropchak:
Pending receipt of acceptable final year-end financials from the company and
approval from our loan committee our bank is interested in helping to finance the
commercial property for Groebner & Associates. With your help we would be
interested under the following terms and conditions:
.
Amount:
$305,000.00
Up to 20 years amortization
Company has option to go with a variable rate starting at
prime to 8.5% fixed with an adjuster of Prime + ~% at
four years.
Loan would have a call feature at seven years.
First secured position in property.
No prepaYment penalties would apply.
1 % to be paid upon acceptance of terms.
Bank would require an acceptable appraisal along with an
environmental report clean of problems. We would also
require full insurance naming us as loss payee.
Your loan proceeds coupled with ours will help this company out immensely.
Their sales are growing strongly and surpassed $9MM this past year. Even
though they had the most profitable year ever at $185,000 (preliminary), their
growing need for cash, inventory, etc. has also created the company's highest
Term:
Rate:
Balloon:
Collateral:
Prepayment:
Fee:
Other:
.
13605 27th Avenue No. . Plymouth. Minnesota 55441 · (612) 550-0500
PAGE
1/2
~, -
;,..:'1
j
..
.....
FEB-18-S9 15,56 FROM,FRANKLIN-PLYMOUTH
10.6125509951
.
.
.
Ollie Koropchak
February 18, 1999
Page 2
borrowing levels. As a small bank we are stretched to our limits with this fine
company and are appreciative of your efforts to work with them. and us. With
your lower interest financing plus regularbank financing the company will obtain
a good blended rate that will benefit their long term. prosperity and your
community's as welL We look forward to working with you on this project.
x~tL~
Randall A. Bednar
Vice President
PAGE
2/2
~
./
.
APPROV AL OF
GREATER MONTICELLO ENTERPRISE FUNDS
BY
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
IN AND FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
Preliminary Loan Application ApprovaL
2-23-99
Loan terms negotiated and agreed upon between
the developer, the lending institution, and the
EDA Executive Director.
LENDER. DEVELOPER. EDA
Formal Loan Application and Financial Statement
analyzed by the lending institution, BDS, Inc. or City
staff.
LENDER
Building and Site Plan Preliminary and/or Final Review.
NOT APPLICABLE
Building Permit approval or construction commitment.
NOT APPLICABLE
Loan documents reviewed and/or prepared by the
City Attorney.
AUTHORIZED KENNEDY & GRAVEN
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORlTY APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL:
&ANNUMBER: GMEF No. 015 LOAN APPROVED: YES
BORROWER: MAINLINE DISTRIBUTION PROPERTIES. LLC., a Minnesota Limited liability company.
ADDRESS: 9530 FALLON AVE, MONTICELLO, MN 55362 DISAPPROVED:
LOAN AMOUNT: ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS AND NO CENTS ($100,000) REAL PROPERTY ACQUISITION
RATE: 5.75% FIXED DATE: FEBRUARY 23, 1999
TE~S UP TO 20 YEARS AMORTIZATION WITH BALLOON PAID IN FIVE YEARS.
FEE $200 PAID WIT~IVE WORKING DAYS OF COUNCIL APPROVAL MARCH 8. 1999.
**OTHER (SECOND PAGE)
A motion was made by EDA Commissioner RA'RR ~r.HtJTRN1'RK to (approve -~)
Greater Monticello Enterprise Funds in the amount of ONE-HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS AND NO CENTS
($100,000) dollars and cents to developer
MAINLIN~ DISTRIBUTION PRQPERTIES. LLC dba GROEBNER & ASSOCIATES, INC.
this 23 day of FEBRUARY _, 1999 .
Seconded by EDA Commissioner BILL DEMEULES
YEAS: BARB SCHWIENTEK
BILL DEMEULES
RON HOGLUND
DARRIN LAHR
CLINT HERBST
~EF dIsbursed
NAYS: NONE
ABSENT: ROGER CARLSON
KEN MAUS
by Check No.
EDA Treasurer
CITY COUNCIL MAY REVERSE AN EDA LOAN DECISION \VITHIN TWENTY -ONE DAYS OF EOA ~ a
APPRO v AL. TO CITY COUNCIL, _ . TO COUNCIL MARCH 8, 1999. ~ ~... I
GMEF Approval
Page 2
.CCEPTANCE OF TERMS
I (We) hereby accept the terms stated above as approved by the Economic Development Authority in and for the
City of Monticello.
DATED:
** JOB CREATION: 11 NEW JOBS TO CITY OF MONTICELLO IMMEDIATELY AT AN AVERAGE WAGE
PER HOUR OF $19.90 EXCLUSIVE OF BENEFITS (NON-OWNERS)
2 ADDITIONAL NEW JOBS TO STATE OF MINNESOTA AND CITY OF MONTICELLO
AT AN AVERAGE WAGE PER HOUR OF $10-$12 EXCLUSIVE OF BENEFITS AND
CREATED WITHIN TWO YEARS.
REAL PROPERTY ACQUISITION LOAN IN SECOND POSITION BEHIND LENDER, FRANKLIN NATIONAL BANK.
GMEF LEGAL FEES RESPONSIBILITY OF APPLICANT.
.
COLLATERAL: PERSONAL/CORPORATE GUARANTEES (REQUIRES UNLIMITED PERSONAL GUARANTEES) AS
PER THE GMEF ATTORNEY.
APPROVAL SUBJECT TO LENDER APPROVAL AND SUBMITTAL OF REQUESTED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
LOAN BECOMES NULL AND VOID AUGUST 23, 1999 IF FUNDS HAVE NOT BEEN DISBURSED.
GMEF DOLLARS DISBURSED FROM SCREG (CLOSE-OUT)AND UDAG FUND.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 1, BLOCK 1, MONTICELLO COMMERCE CENTER THIRD ADDITION,
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA.
.
6~~\~
.
.
.
SF.
Council Agenda - 3/8/99
Consideration of Resolution designating individuals authorized to si~n checks.
(R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As part ofthe annual appointments, the City Council has designated Marquette Bank as
one of the official depositors for city funds. In the past, they have allowed the city stafI
and Mayor to simply sign a signature account form which indicates which individuals are
allowed to sign checks, but they are requesting a more formal resolution for their files
that indicates who is authorized to sign on behalf of the city.
The attached resolution is basically a housekeeping matter for the City Council and
designates the Mayor, Bookkeeper, Finance Assistant or myself as authorized individuals
to sign on behalf of the city.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Adopt the resolution indicating individuals authorized to sign on behalf of the
city.
c.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This is simply a housekeeping matter that is being requested by the bank for their files
and is recommended for adoption.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of resolution.
-10-
RESOLUTION 99-
.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
BANKING RESOLUTION
Depositor:
CITY OF MONTICELLO
PO BOX 1147
MONTICELLO, MN 55362
Financial
Institution:
MARQUETTE BANK
200 WEST 6TH STREET
MONTICELLO, MN 55362
BE IT RESOL YED, that the Financial Institution named above at anyone or more of its oflices
or branches, be and it hereby is designated as a Financial Institution of and depository for the
funds of this Municipal Corporation, which may be withdrawn on checks, drafts, advices of
debit, notes, or other orders for the payment of monies bearing the following appropriate number
of signatures: Anyone (1) of the following named oflicers or employees of this Corporation
("Agents"), whose actual signatures are shown below:
x
Roger Belsaas, Mayor
x
Catherine Shuman, Finance Assistant
.
x
Sue Thibodeaux, Bookkeeper
x
Richard Wolfsteller, City Administrator
and that the Financial Institution shall be and is authorized to honor and pay the same whether or
not they are payable to bearer or to the individual order of any Agent or Agents signing the same.
BE IT FURTHER RESOL YED, that the Financial Institution is hereby directed to accept and
pay without further inquiry any item drawn against any of the Corporation's accounts with the
Financial Institution bearing the signature or signatures of Agents, as authorized above or
otherwise, even though drawn or endorsed to the order of any Agent signing or tendered by such
Agent for cashing or in payment of the individual obligation of such Agent or for deposit to the
Agent's personal account, and the Financial Institution shall not be required or be under any
obligation to inquire as to thc circumstances of the issue or use of any item signed in accordance
with the resolutions containcd herein, or the application or disposition of such item or the
proceeds of the item.
.
BE IT FURTHER RESOL YED, that anyone of such Agents is authorized to endorse all
checks, drafts, notes, and other itcms payable to or owned by this Corporation for deposit with
the Financial Institution, or for collection or discount by the Financial Institution; and to accept ~ ,
dralls and nther items payable at the Financial Institution. ~ r '
.
'.
.
Council Agenda - 3/8/99
5G. Consideration of Quotes for teleohone and computer cablinl!. network electronics
and fiber optic cablinl!. security and closed circuit television. and pal!ing system for
thc Monticello Community Center. (FP)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The low voltage electronics systems for the Monticello Community Center listed below
were not included in the base building contract awarded to the General Contractor:
1. Voice/Telephone & Data/Computer Nctwork Cabling
2. Electronics & Fiber Optics Cabling
3. Security & Closed Circuit Television Systems
4. Paging Systems
5. Video Systems
Working with Tom Ollig ofTDS Telecom, the City has received quotes for the first four
listed elements of the low voltage systems. Eight contractors submitted quotes as defined
by the attached spread chart.
With the exception of the electronics and fiber optics package, TDS Telecom has
provided the lowest quotes. Cities Communications provided the lowest quote on the
Electronics and Fiber Optics package however, they withdrew that quote if awarded
indepcndently. TDS Telecom has agreed to lower their quote for that portion of the
project to $10,000 and would therefore have the lowest quote for every portion of the
project. As each portion ofthe low voltage systems will be contracted and awarded
separately based upon lowest quote, the public bidding process is unnecessary.
If TDS Telecom is awarded all four quoted elements ofthe low voltage systems, the total
amount of the contracts will be $ 65,331.00. While this amount is 30% higher than the
$50,000 amount budgeted for low voltage electronics, the budgeted amount was a best
guess by staff and the community center small group. It is intended that monies from the
project contingency be used to fund the difference.
Staff is continuing to plan for video system development. The Cable Commission will be
paying for all or a great portion of the video system for the Community Center. They
have agreed to pay for all of that portion of the video system that serves to broadcast
cable programming to the public. The City may incur minor costs beyond those paid by
the Cable Commission in order to bring cable television to City Hall offices or other
locations in the Community Center where broadcast programming will be unlikely.
-11-
Council Agenda - 3/8/99
.
B.
AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS:
A. Motion to accept quotes for the low voltage systems for the Community Center
and direct staff to enter into contracts in the amounts specified with TDS Telecom
for installation of the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Voice/Telephone & Data/Computer Network Cabling
Electronics & Fiber Optics Cabling
Security & Closed Circuit Television Systems
Paging Systems
$19,066.00
$10,000.00
$19,020.00
$17,245.00
B. Motion to not enter into contracts for low voltage systems at this time [and other
direction to staff as directed by City CouncilJ.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that thc City Council move to accept quotes and direct staff to award
contracts according to Altcrnative A above.
.
D.
SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A -
Exhibit B -
List of Contractors and Quotes
Copies of lcttcrs providing quotes from contractors
.
-12-
.
0 0 0 ~ 0 0)
0 0 lO 0 ~
I'- N I'- I'- "....
I'- lO I'- "t I'-
i '<t 0 "t '<t "t_
lO N I.() I.() 0
N N N N N
If) If) W If) EI}
~ 0 0 I 0
u 0 0 0
U CO 0 0
lO 0 0
N CO CO
".... I'- I'-
01 01 01
If) EI} W
0
0
0
CO
N
L()
. to
<0 0 0 ! 0
'<t 0 f"-.; 0
01 lO ".... Lri
0 lO N I'-
".... ".... 01 "....
<0 0 0 01
If) ".... "....
en If) EI} If)
W
~ QI C/)
e iii W
:J I-
0
en i I'- 0 M I 0 =>
:E M 0 01 0 a
.01 0 lO N 5
w N lO 0) I'-
I'- a) lO N.
~ ".... 0) <0 ".... 0
en M ".... N N
>- If) fFt If) w --l
.-l
en --l
en <(
z li-
e '" 0
~ '" i:: --l
i:: ,:: '"
<t: 0 '" ~
''':; ... i:: i::
<.'l .:: 0
() <.'l ,~ ''':;
u ...
- 0:: .c i:: ::l <.'l 0
Z 0 ::s "0 u
::l E 'c I-
:J l- E rfJ E ::s "0
. U e e QI 0 e i:: '.6'
:2: :c u -
~ 0 ::l ~
0 U QI e
:2: u <.'l ~ 0 ~
I- '"' U r-- 0 rfJ ;>. ..:.::
e z '" QI (,) U X QI <.'l
.~ .a rfJ i:: N
0 .<: QI ~ ~ rfJ :E 0 ::s ~
() ~ - ~
u u r-- z ~ 0::
Mar 01 SS 03:3Sp
Citie5 communic~tions
612-5S3-99~~
,
.
Cr1iie6 Communiaatlon6, Inc.
Telephone Systems Soles and Installation · Voice Man · Voice/Dota/Network Cabling
March 1, 1999
Mr. Fnmk Mosko
Data Optics
4710 Magnolia Lane
Plymouth, MN 55442
lle: City of Monticello; Commonity Ceoter
Dear Fnmk:
The fonowing price is for the Low Voltage phase of the Monticello COV""I1n1ty Center. The
price inc1ucles Phase 1#1- Voice md Data Cabling and also Phase ##2 - Fiber Optics and
ElectronWs. Phases #3, 4 and 5 are not incladed in tbisprlce quote.
. PrWe as pet' llFP dated 2/9199 distributed by Frank Mosko of Data Optics.
Materials
Tax
Tolal Labor
$20,305.00
1,319.83
l~OO.OO
$37,824.83
Job Total for Phase 1 and PhaseZ =
There is III optional priee for Phase 1#5 attached.. Please review and let me bow if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
~ f2'r"-c~
Lew Jurgens
Owner
enclosure
kw
.
...
www.citiescomm.com
2525 Nevodo Avenue North, Suite 306. Golden Valley, MN 55427. l6f2} 546-5227. FAX (612} 59J.9929
t'. ..
~~1--
M~r 01 99 03:39p
Cities Communication5
S 12 -593 - 9929
p.t:.
1
.
Cdiie6 Communloation6; lno.
Telephone Sy&tel1l5 Soles and In&tanation · Voice Mail.. VoicefData/NelWork Cabling
Otyof MoDicello C8IIUIl1DIity Ceater
0p1l0RaI PrldDg
for
Phase ##5 .
Interior Paging SyateID
This phase of the project would be on a sub-contraCt basis with Cities ColDllJUDiutions. Inc.
working with DMX Sound PnKhactSGIlthe initial wiring and speaker pJacem-t. DMX Sound
Produds would then be primary ~on1Kt for tlHs pJwe in fbture lIfJP1icatioAs.
This price does not mdude cameras and CCTV at this time.
e
Materials and Labor
Hft Rental
Tax
Total
$18,689.00
1.600.00
758.50
S20,047.S0
eflp
www.citiescomm.com
2525 Nevoda Avenue North, Suite- 306. Golden- Valley; MN 55427. (6-12) 540.5227 . FAX (612) 593.9929
~'6'
.
FROM ;WEBER ELECTRIC COMPRNY TO ;D~ta O~tics
1999.03-01
14146 #826 P.02/04
(luSBSR CDlIIlIIUnlCRTIDnS J
517 SHOAEVIEW PARK FlOAD
SHOREVlEW, MINNeSOTA 55126
(6'2) _'333 ~ FAX (61.) 4!lO<1ll70
March It 1999
Data Optics
4710 Magnolia Lane
Plymouth, Minnesota 55442
Attn: Mr. Frank Mosko
Re: Monticello Comm.lD1ity Center
Dear Sir:
At your request Weber Communications would like to submit the following proposal for Phase I, voice
and data cabling; Phase U, fiber optics and equipment; Phase m, security sY$tem and CCTV system; and
Phase V~ interior paging system. A brief outline closcrlbing the scope of work is included herein. This
proposal is 'Valid for a period of 30 days.
SCOPE OF WORK:
Phue 1- Voice and Data Cabling:
· Place a Hitachi Hi Net Categoxy 5 cable to (100) nemurk locations
· Place it general Categozy 3 cable to (105) voice locations
· Tenninate all network locations with a' Hubbell Category S jack
· Tmminate all voice locatioDS with a Hubbell CategoJ;)' 3 jack
· Install (I) Mid..Atlantic floor cabinet (19" x 8~? with wire mailagement
· Install (1) PFT wall DUmagemcnt cabinet (24" x 24~') with wire management
· Provide and install (1) Hubbell24-pon and (2) 48..port patch panels
· Provide 100 pairs, 24-guage plenum voice cable from MDF closet to IDF closet
· Tmninate 100 pair cable on 110 punch down blocks
· Install (2) (4" x 8'') fire retardant plywood backboards
· Provide D-rings as needed
· Test and doCUInlmt all network locations for Category 5 integrity
AmOUDt Proposed - Phase I:
$I9~850.00
CIa
MI!MBIliR
~~
FROM IWEBER ELECTRIC COMPANY TO IData OptiCs
1999.03-211
14146 ne26 P.03/04
3/1/99
. Page 2
.
.
Phase IT - Fiber Qptics and Eq11ipment:
· Provide six-strand muIti.mode fiber from MDF closet to the IDF closet
· Tenninate all fiber ends with ST 3M Hot Melt conneotions
. Install (2) fu11y.loaded rack mounted fiber cabinets (one in MDF closet, one in IDF closet)
. Provide and insta.ll (4) 24-port 3Com dual speed hubs
. Provide and install (1) tz.port 3Com dual hub
· Provide fiber patch cord as needed
· Test and docwnen.t all fiber paJrs
Amount Proposed - Phase D:
510,155.00
Phs.qe m - Security System:
· Install (1) PC4020 16 to 128 ,zone contJ:olpanel
. Install (3) LCD 4500 keypads
· 1nstal1 (18) addressable glass break detcctonl
· Install (4) add:ressahlemotion detectors
· Insta.1l(21) addressable contact modulC$
· Install (36) recessed switches
. Install (1) 12 volt siren
· InstalI4-pair 22-guage vyjre'u"n.eedcd
Phase m - CCTV Systmn:
· Install (16) cameras with enclosures
. Install (8) 24 volt 20 am.p transformers
. Install (8) 24 volt SO amp transformers
. Install true 177'1 black/white monitor
· Install (1) multi-plex black and white, (16) catnerA6
· Install (1) time lapse recorder
. Install coaxial ,cable as required
· All el~trloal needed must be ptOvided by an electrician
Amount Proposed - Phase m:
Phase V - Interic,r Paillt2 Sy9tern,:
· Install (27) horns
. Install (57) ceiling mount speakers
. Provide (11) zones of paging
· Provide (9) zones of music
a Install oable as needed
. Provide DMX music service at $130,00 per month for six zones (ineludes all equipment or
$55.00 per month plus $2.100.00 for equipment)
521,258.00
Amount Proposed - Phue V:
522,052.00
~~
FROM 1 WEBER ELECTR I C COMPRNY TO 1 D.t. Opt i c.
1999.03-01
14147 #826 P.04/04
3/1/99
. Page 3
.
.
Warranty;
Weber Communications provides a One year Wattanty on new :materials and labor from the com.pletion
date of the insta11a.tion. Weber Communications is a licensed, bonded and insured cabling company.
The technicians and installers are members of the mEW Local 11 0/292 and all are Category 5 certified.
Our Minnesota contractom license is #CA01919.
Please review the conten't$ of this proposal and if there are no fbrther questions regarding this proposal.
sign the Authorization to Proceed below and fax the signed proposal back to Weber Communications at
(651) 490-0670. CDtJtram 1/fU./ft he ./fiped hftfore pmpD.'lal r.ommlmc~.
Please feel free to contact us with any questions or OOnunents you may have concerning this proposal.
Thank you for considering Weber Communications for this project.
Regards,
~~
Ron Eastboume
COll'Ununications Division Manager
Weber Communications
RE:mer
AUTHORIZATION TO PROCRED
Name
Date
~h'\'
MAR-02-9911:08 AM RESULTS TECHNOLOGV GRP.
612 974 0862
......t:JI...
"'"
.
RT6 ClIIJIe Solutlons
.
Data Optics
Frank Mosko
4710 Magnolia Lane
Plymouth, MN 55442
R TO Cable Solutions will provide, install,. terminate, and test the
following for Phase .I and ll:
. Approximately 100 voice locations
o 568B jack ivory in color
o one hole of two hole single gang faceplate shared with data
location ivory in color
. Approximately 100 data locations
Q S68B jack ivory in color
C) one hole of two hole single gang faceplate shared with voice
location i-vory in color
MDF
. floor mounted lockable enclosure
. 24 pan 3Com 100 base hubs (3)
. 48 port Category S patch panel ,68B
. . 24 port Category 5 patch panel S68R
. 3.5 inch horizontal rack wire management
. 10' category S patch cords
. 7' category 5 patch cords
. SC to SC duplex patch cord Multimodc
. 24 port rack mount fiber cabinet
. 100 pair 110 blocks with C-4 clips (stations)
. 100 pair 110 blocks with C-5 clips (feed-It)
. 110 wire troughs with legs
IDF
. Wall mountable lockable enclosures
. 24 pOrt 3Com 100 base hub (1)
. 24 port Category S patchpen.eJ $68B
. 12 port wall mount fiber cabinet
. 10' category 5 patoh cordill
. T category' patch cords
. SC to SC duPlex patch cord Multimode
. 100 pair 110 blocks with C-4 clips (station)
. 100 pair 110 block with C-S clips (feed)
l800 UJ. Old Sh.,kopee "oad . 110 wire troughs with legs
BlaomlnOlon. HII 55431
. P.612,at.08DJ
L 612 885.0816
WlIlUJ fp.5ul1slechgrp_ com
S\1'~
MAR-02-99 11:09 AM RESULTS TECHHOLOGYGRP. 61:'<:':1"~ ""~"''''''
~
,.
RT6 ClJtJ'~ Solutions
.
Phase I:
Phase II:
Phase Ill:
Installed by RTG Cable Solutions and
Project Managed by RTG Cable Solutions
Investment Price:
$26,595.23
Installed by R TO Cable Solutions and
Project Managed by RTG Cable Solutions
Investment Price:
$10,221.70
Installed by Honeywell and Project
Managed by RTG Cable Solutions.
Investment Price:
$27,800.00
Phase IV: To be awarded under different contract.
Phase V:
.
Installed by DMX Sound and Project
managed by RTG Cable Solutions.
Investment Price: $25,447.50~
~
~
~~
-"
Total Project Investment Price:
.,.nn .n.r _<!! -;III! ~
~~:::J7'~"?':~-;'-=---~". ~~:~~
.
lOOD W. Old Shako pee Road
Bloomington- HH 55431
11 612 88S 0803
f. 6l28BtDBI6
IllUIUI resultSlec:hqrp. com
~
"...-
~11~
MAR-01-99 03:~7 PM RESULTS TECHNOLOGY GRP.
612 974 0882
1-"."':1.
RT6 ClJble Solutlon!!J
Data Optics
Frank Mosko
4710 Magnolia Lane
Plymouth, MN 55442
---"""
RTG Cable Solutions will provide, install, terminate, and test the
following for Phase I and II:
. Approximately 100 voice locations
o S688 jack ivory in color
o one hole aftwo hole single gang faceplate shure<! with data
location ivory in color
. Approximately 100 data locations
o 5688 jack ivory in color
o one hole of two hole single gang faceplate shared with voice
location ivory in color
MDF
. Floor mounted lockable enclosure
. 24 port 3Com 100 base hUM (3)
. 48 port Category ~. patch panel 568B
. 24 port Category 5 patch punel 5688
. 3.5 inch horizontal rack wire management
. 10' category 5 patch cords
. 7' category S pitch cords
. SC to SC duplex patch cord Multimode
. 24 port rack mount fiber cabinet
. 100 pair 110 blocks with C4 clips (stations)
. 100 pair no blocks with e-' clips (feeds)
. \10 wire troughs with lags
. home runs for TV locations wi connectOrs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
31UU W. Old Shakopee Road .
BIOOmlnll'ton. "H 55431 .
r--. P: 612.m.OB03
f: 612.885.0816
Ulww. TesultstechgTP. com
IDF
Wan mountable lockable enclosures
24 port 3Com 100 base hub (I)
24 pan Category S patch panel 568B
12 port wall mount fiber cabinet
10' category S PItch cords
" c.tesmy 5 patch cords
SC to SC duplex patch cord Multimodc
100 pair 110 blocks with C-4 clip. (station)
100 pair 110 btockwith C-S clips (feed)
1.10 wire troughs with legs
6l1"~
.
.
.
.
316 Pille Street
PO Box 298
Monticello, MN 553620298
TelcpllOlIC 6122952914
FAX 6122955911
_TELECO~_____
03/01/99
Mr. Fred Patch
City of Monticello
Monticello, MN 55362
Dear Fred;
The following is TOS TELECOM's bid for the Paging System in the new Community
Center.
Quantity
I
60
60
24
24
2
6
6
6
Material:
Control for 9 zones
8" ceiling speaker
Speaker bridge w/B.B.
Vandal proof enclosures
I way flex horns
Power Supply
Mounting Assembly
Screw terminal block
cat3 plenum wire
Part Number:
VI I09RTHF
V I 020e
V9916M
V9805
VI080GY
V P6124
VMIOI
VMI50
reels
TOTAL PAGING ESTlMATER MATERIAL AND INSTALLATION $17,245.00
Note: Above pricing includes sales tax @ 6.5%
Note: Above pricing does NOT include satellite system and fi~Te additional receivers.
Please add at your cost to the totalllaging estimate.
Should you have any questions please contact me at any time. Thank you for the
opportunity to bid on this project.
sz.ncerclY ..~-'J. .... //
~ ~./y~
/pt-~~
Tom Ollig, Manager
TDS TELECOM, Monticello
~ \1'\ \
,'j/(;nrl/\,(;r!l't.'!
(' () !lox ?!Jii
MIJIII/u://n, MN ',.', IIi,' If'lm
I, ,I,: 'I ",' II":
IiI 111/," 'I,h 1,1,1,;
. ~E:LEC_OM_
/II itllJu WilfUl
TelelJl10lle COIIIIJallY
. ..~_._--~_.."'_--~"'_._---,,~---------,---.~.,
03/01/99
Mr. Fred Patch
City of Monticello
Monticello, MN 55362
Dear Fred;
The following is TDS TELECOM's bid on the Electronics and Fiber Optics for the
Monticello Community Center.
Quantity
Material
Part Number
.
4
2
300
12
2
2
I
24 port dual speed hub
Interconnect cables
() strand multi mode fiber
UV cure st COlUlectors
Rack mounted fiber optic panel
St fiber patch cords 3'
Urother label tape
3Cl6611
3C 16695
Siecor 6
st connectors
R230-0AB
St jumpers
Labels
TOTAL ELECTRONICS, FIBER OPTICS AND INSTALLATION
$9,949.00
Should you have any questions please contact me at any time. Thank you for the
opportunity to bid on this project.
Sincere~,
~. '/ff./Y ~)
;f/t~~~f
Tom Ollig, '~a~
TOS TELECOM, Monticello
.
~ l5.;\?-
3/6 Pine Sfreel
P,O, Box 298
Monticello, MN 55362-0298
TelepllOoe 6/2-2952971
FAX 61?2955914
. lEI TELECOM
.
.
03/01199
Mr. Fred Patch
City of Monticello
Monticello, MN 55362
Dear Fred;
The following is TOS TELr::COM's bid for the Security System for the new Community
Center.
Quantity
1
I
I
1
35
Material Part Number
DS7080 I 8 Zone Panel 3007-9005
DS7433 8 Zone Expander Board 3007-9805
Baltery 12v 7 AI-] Lead/Acid 3009-9847
DS7447 Alpha Numeric Kcypad 3007-9502
DET/SEe Mag Contact-Flang 10762760-9012
TOTAL SECUIUTY SYSTEM MATERIAL AND INSTALLATION
$2,055.00
Should you have any questions please call on mc at any time. Thank you for the
opportunit.y t.o bId on this projcct.
~h9aL~i'
Tom Ollig, Manager
TOS TELECOM, Monticello
.6' l113
.
.
.
_~ELE::COM___ _ ____
03/01/99
Mr. Frcd Patch
City of Monticello
Monticello, MN 55362
Dear Fred;
316 Pille Street
PO Box 298
Mor7ficello, MN 553620298
lclepllOne 61?2952974
FAX. 6/2-2955911
The following is TDS TELECOM's bid on the closed circuit television system (CCTV)
for the ncw Monticello Community Center. Notc this bid docs NO'r include any
cquipmcnt or labor for the council chambers.
Quantity
14
7
7
Material
Phillips LT0330/20 1/3" CAM B/W
CCVE/LENS 1/3 FORMAT 4MM
LTC3364/20 LENS
Philips TC2073 Corner MT Plast
Philips LTC9305100 Max Housing
Philips TC9200 MTG GEN Purpose
Philips TC93450HD Ceil Wall Co
Philips LTC2652/60 16-MD
Philips P A 7020C 20" Color Mntr.
16 Camcra PWR Slip LTC 5416/60
Philips LTC3924/60 24HD VCR
TCI355 VCR Tape (10)
,.
"
5
5
4
I
I
I
I
I
TOTAL CCTV MATERIAL AND INSTALLATION
Part Number
3101-9114
TC9904
OPCCVE
TC2073
3109-9353
TC9200
TC9345HD-I XT
3108-9016
3 102-9019
OPCCVE
3117-9013
OPCCVE
$16,965.00
Note: The abovc bid docs NOT includc any vidco or CCTV cquipmcnt for thc
council dmmbcl"s.
Should you have any questions please contact me at any timc. Thank you for the
opportunity to bid on this project.
!.Y1p;;;a:!!-(
Tom Oliig, Managcr
TDS TELECOM, Monticello
6~~~
Mar-Ol-99 05:0BP NIS communications~ Inc.
.
920-0530
r . "...
.
~ , '" .. \..'
I ~
,~ ... ..1 j
C(Xfil1iile\laafJ(ms--~
.... - -~ -~ - -.............-.
_ ..... ~ r ......~ ____ _ ....
FAX SHEET
NIS Communications, Inc.
3113 Lynn Avenue South
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
To Frank Mosko Date 3/1/99
Company Data Optics Fax # 383-0625
Sender John Jindra
Sender's FAX # 612.920.0530 I Direct 1612.920.8400 ,
Phone # ext.201
Number of Pages 2 I
(including cover sheet)
Thb ii.:t>>,lIl1Uliicnli,tU i:'l il'h.":I1tk.'t1 nuly fur the L1"'C t~fthC' illdivitll.lld ur t::utlly to \,,'h.ich il is lM.tdms~cd Rmi may cuntilill inl~\tll1iilion Ih:lllil.l\rivitc,f.!ctl
m...1 c.ulif1d~lIliill.
Iryuu n."CW\~ Ihb cUI1Ullunici,rim1 ill emuI'. ~tc~1!iOC lIuliry ,h~ ~crKlcl' immca.liatr:ly by tclc:ptUH~ ~n lh\: IHurlb.:.- ~tlitL.u IllH'...~,
MESSAGE:
. The following is a proposal for:
Monticello Community Center
Phases: #1 and #2.
.
6~
Mar-01-99 05:0BP NIS Communications, Inc.
920-0530
P.02
J
.
. ~ ~ .. \..'
. I ~
~ \ .. ..1..
-~~~
corn----,--- -. -- .~- -. --.-
. - --S --..-
,." . -- . ~ .. ". - '-',,,'- .11
City of Monticello
03/01/99
Revision #2:
PROPOSAL #991 030~Jj01
SCOPE OF WORK
Provide and install voice and data cabling (phase #1) and fiber optics and electronics (phase #2) at the
Monticello Community Center. Substantial completion by September 1. 1999.
NIS REQUIRES THE CUSTOMER TO READ nlESE TERMS BEFORE WORK CAN COMMENCE
NIS Communications will perform the Scope of WOrk indicated above for the dollar figure indicated below.
· NIS Communications requires this contract to be signed end dated with the original copy returned to NIS before work begins. SCHOOLS MUST
PROVIDE A VALID PURCHASE ORDER BEFORE WORK WIl.L BEGIN.
· NIS Communications will pelform the initial site survey free of charge. ADDITIONAl. SITE SURVEYs/CONSUl. TING WILL BE BILLABLE.
· The customer will furnish a copy of all applicable project specifications and blue prints required to complete the project before work begins.
.. Work beyond the scope on the original specs provided for this project will require a Change Order Form. The customer must sign thiS form before
any work begins.
Any special project requirements requested by the customer must be in writing.
· If mandatory time lines are not clearly established before a project is proposed, there may be need to charge more on the project.
· The work site must be ready for NIS crews on the scheduled and agreed date. Additional trips to the work site due to lack of preparation will be
billable time.
. .. Patch cords may be shipped separately to ensure receipt by the customer.
The customer contact mus~ sign off on the project upon completion of this project. If the customer contact Is not available, NIS will fax a
statement indicating the customer has not signed off on the project. NIS reserves the right to invoice the customer two (2) days following this
notice .
TOTAL INVESTMENT (Prices include tax)...............................$33.447
Phase #1 · $21,272
Phase #2 = $12.175
This proposal/price is valid for thirty (30) days.
NIS reserves the right to alter this proposal andlor price in any way necessary if not accepted within the thirty (30) day period.
ACCEPTED BY City of Monticello
By
Title
Date
.
b~-\~
03'01/99 :dON 1.2: -1$ fAX 012 944 5:)ii D~\: sorND PRODUCTS
!ill 002/006
h"
.
DIGITAL MUSI~ EHREn,
OMX - SOUND "'RODU(T~ 114j,!S VA.LLEY VIEW ROAD, EDEN PRAIRIF. MtJ 5'3114.)617 . 6~:2'94L,'2930 FAX: 61::1"944"5ll77
Mr. Frank Mosko
Data Optics
4710 :Magnolia Lane
Plymouth, MN 55442
Hello hank,
Attach~d is our proposal for the lntemaJ Voice Paging system at Monticello Community Conter.
As we discussed, our sys\em i.') a 70 volt, amplifier and speaker system as opposc:d to an
amplified speaker system ID; speoified.
{.;);'Stem Dew.:r'iplion.. POf!;nflSVS{em
.
ThiS system will supply even sound coverage to all key areas shown on the print provided with
RFP. Telephone interface is a zoni;l controller that functions with all type!> of phone page port
includmg Centrex systems aDd DTMF.
The zone control will enable independent paging to all specific zones specified, and all call. Thi~
interface also enabl~ groups of :zones to be independently paged, up to 35 customized groups.
We will provide separale amplifiers for eacb zone" in a floor or wall mounted equipment cabinet.
Volume for each zone is adjustable at the head end amplifier location, and also on all of the flush
mounted ceiling sJ>!~ak:,:~r5, via a volume control knob.
Pricing is as f(JHows;
Equipment Cost
Installation Cost
Lift Rental
Tax:
Total, installed
$11669.00
$ 7020.00
$ 600.00
i 758.50
$20047.50
Engineering plans and drawings will be provided per the specificatiuIls upon receipt of order.
.
jM I:1l.etcoms (drlvQ.thru) - sound systems " suund ma5kine . music & mesSill'eS on hold
-6l!1~
03/01/99 MO;\ 1::: -lS FAX 012 944 5077 DM..'\: SOl1~D PRODUCTS
14! 003/006
A.
.
DIG IlA l M U $ I' n ~ U $ ),
DMX - SOUND I'ItODlKTS - u4B; VALLEY VIEW ROAD, EDEN PRAIRIF, MN 55344'3617 . l)12"9iJ1j':!930 FAX, 612-944'5077
..)'vsre'1~D!Hicrip!{9.11 DA1X Music System
We will supply Digital Music Express (D~) Direct Satellite Music programs in nine zones.
We will include six DBS receivers for independent delivery of six: simultaneous music programs.
DMX features 97 continuous music channels progranuned to meet business applications such as
the Monticello Community Center, We are specialists in helping customers create the image that
fits their business requirements at any time of the day or night. Our system features up to six
automatic program changes per day, per receiver for hands free control of the music programs
Pricing is as follows:
DMX Dir~ct Satellite System, J.I Receiver and Dish~$55.00/mo, 60 month servil,,;e agree1l1ent
Each additional receiver
$15.00/mo or $75.00/mo for five additional
Total - $ ] 30.00/mo six receivers
(includes all equipment. installation, and full service and maintenance)
.
Optional purchase of equipment
$55.00/mo. plus $2100.00 equjpm~nt
purchase for six receivers, jncludc~
installation
Thank YOti for the opportunity to work with you on this project. Please cont<ict Gary Sundin,
DMX Sound Products, (612)944-2930 if we can be of assistance.
Sincerely.
Gary Sundin
Account Executive
OMX Sou.nd Products
.
3M InIO!H:Oml; (drivp.thru) - sound sy~lerll!' " sound nli;Skini . musk & ml!!l!iag"" on hoLd
~~~t
03/01/99 MO~ 12"'/'8 FAX au: 9H 5077 DI'L1: SOUND PRODUCTS
[iJ 004,,006
l>MX p"or.jlAMMINI'; liNE-UP
1Ji..l ....u.....".,i.~.U."~,,,l.....' .........k ... ,..~.o.J'''';'''...J.~ M...........l..
, ~%,~~~;-q'I'lCj1i;m~; .;:,'~~:re,:'/2~~;!1"w
':llnl:\~II"f"1i d:"" 'it,"'" ',CI:I-~r:1 ';,; "':~:II, 1111
~, "1" ". ' "'1' ~' I '~r ...' ::l'IC,,, '-'" ""\""
.~ ,,[J I 'I . I r.,' U~.' ~."'" :..1-.. JIll
", :1:, ",~i:, :1, ,1[fr,:lIJ{!I,'M:, ~!r:,I,i',~-::,~,I:?,I,I!.~~,' ~,C!:"'lll,, '
I'I"^'I"I"~}" "l'ilnL.p!""o ml",I,
I' ~ ," 1l' I. ,!I..u"t'...... ,c" ~.". ,,....,.~I,....I.~""l"i:.J I [I 1~1'
, ",,,..j,,.,, ~UJll1ILc~'-'-'Ill.I,''''"''~''''''''-'' '
I ~'l.
I C~l ~~ Ir , ,.tII<t~~b '"'t
i': ,~ II'~ Lie A,:}" ,;:''-d:. ,.' . I
I DlGII.l NI~~.I,C rl~~I~~"
L I1'r:'; ,""1t!~.'t.''twr''''''I''ll\f'.TI~~!'':l:I'I:''I''I"11 "I"~lrl'llli'If""
.
~55ic;al c~~.!!try Latin
II Chamber !\1l1SIC II Bluegrass 1m Brllzilii!ln M.lslc
m Classica' Guiwr iii Hot Country II Cumola
II Ute cl~ssical III Modern Country 1\1 Latin Contemporary
II Opera ED Traditional Country ED LatIn Dance
a Symptlorlic II Latin Jazz
Oldleso II Mariachi
In$trument~l II '70s Hit~ II Regional Mexican
II BeautJfullnstrurnentals II '80s Hits II Rock en Espanol
II Conternporar y Instrumental~ II Big Band/Swing II Salsa
II New Age II Euro Oldies II Tejar:o
II pianu III Golden Oldies
II Tranquility II Rock 'n' Roll Oldies Dance
II Upbeat OldIes .. Dance
POP I Adult c;:~nte~ II L21ti n DMce
II Adult Conte:-nporory International II Retro pance
II Classic: Hits Blend II AMCi!l11 Rhythms II Trends
11 Coffeeho~lSe r<ock II CarIbbean Music
\
Em FOlk Rock II Chinese Music Urban.
. II H it Swee~ Em Contemporary Italian II ClaSSIC R&B
II Hot Trecks II EUfO Hits II Rap
II Hottest Hits II FrBnch Hits II Urban Adult ContelTlp(Jrary
II Lovp SOIl!?:5 II Greek II Urban Beat
II New Adult Corltemporary II Hebrew Hits
II Power Hits II Irish Music Specialty
ED Soft Hits ED Japanese Music; II Beach Party
II Quebec Hits II Blues
Rock II Quebec Pop/Rock II C?jun
II Alhum Rock II Quebec Soft Hits II Children's
ED Alternative II T;lOditional Italian II Environmenti'll Sounds
a Classic Rock II U,K. Hits II Folk Music
iii Hard Rock II World Beat II Great Standards
IJ Modern Rock II Hawaiian
II Rock 'n' Blues Jazz II Polka
II Acid Jazz II Reggae
Reljgiou5 . Classic Jazz II Show Tunes
Em Christian Inspirational II Dixieland II Holidays & Happenings
II Contemporary Christien II Jazz Vocal Blends
a Gospel m Latin Jazz
. a Ute J au
A 6~.\'
~ICI1AL _UHt rnlltiL
-- ~- -~ ,.- ~.,-~. - ~.,_. -.-
03101/99 MON 12:48
FAX 012 944 5(177 DM.."\': SOUND PRODUCTS
i4J 00::) /006
Gary Sundin
DMX Sound Products
11485 Valle) View Road
Eden Prairie, MN ~5344
612/944-2930 P 612/944-5077 F
[') M :w: ! f) p.:1.
.
Direct Btoadc:a!rt ~;rtellite
MUlIlc: to Set the TOIlQ: DIrect to You
With DMX by Direct Bro<ldc"lOt Satellite ([)tiS), you
build an atr'r1osph~re for success with the world's
rnost suphisticated, easy.tD.uo;:e mil!;!!') system.
DMX/DB~ C:;llls on ad'l<lMed digital technaloglE?s
to bnng you tod<ly'~ sllper;or mu:;lc o;;Jurce, with
tottll c.~nVBnlence and rr,/inalit:/m;'llt control. DMX's
diverse prcgrammTna and ours, uigi'lil quality mean
your customers wor,'lju5t ~ee your bUS'lless imege;
they'll hem it and feel It, too.
Busin(!o:;s BulIll&rs. DMX/DBS sr;l~ t:lecO'ltl with I,Ip
w 1.20 (;hanneIS of t:lJlTll1lerciaf-free ll1uslc with no
Interruptions and no 0) cm:,-jer, One original /lrti,~t
song after anuther, in tJozens of fQrmm, Wendsetting.
Contemporary. CI;;:I:Ss;c. Ji:lZzy. CrlOI. Ho: hits or
nosta:gic.
.
Crystar Claar. QLlality s~'LJnd :5 an essentj1'i1 pa~t of
everyone'S dtllly !If~. Peopie IlOli\':e tllQ difference
- tlSlJecidily if it's 1l11:S!iing. DMX is the onl,' music
servioe tc deiiyer high-fidelity OD-quIJlity st"rQO
sound via end-to-.~nd O':)loy AC-3 encoding. a SOLlnd
mpression you'll h",ar. DMX/D8S i$ brO:;Jdoast
dlgl,?I'y at the highe$t qual!ty I ev!! I - 20 khz-
in fuli dyr:<lrnic rsnge playback, so it's alwayS
crystal clear.
SImple InstallatlOIl. OtllWs COI1I1TllOsr:il:lI'.i;lrilde d'g'tal
eatellite reoeiver <lnd compile! r'~oftQP antennd otte,
exception,,1 re:j~bility ilnd "re b,lill to lai:ll. [;:lo;!Iy
lnatf,lJleod by a tr(llrll;.d DMX service expel t, the
antenf1d me;:lSure5 only 90 cm-Je in-and
roatiJreE' 8 non-penenatif1g roof mOLlrlt. It's 1>0 secure,
the antenna .....i11 operate in 60 rnph wine! gUSt:" lwd
withstand UiJ to 125 rnph WInd IOQ;:j<.;,
S(luna Ss,vlos, Playback of DMX bro~dc~st pr:JgrOlms
takes placlJ at the Worldwide Orlglnot1o.... Cel'1t~r in
Denver, a s!:ate-of.the-a:t filClilty with the lat05,
dlgltill technQlogy. Highly trCiined DMX engi'1oers
~nd techn;ci,,1l5 staff our origlnotic() Oilr.tel' 24-
hours a day tel ensure unlr\t~tr(mteti tramimission
at our music programs_
:1);11'B. '~'~l,:;::,'7'
:i:hi,..'.,. ~l(/.I..
.. ,', , .' ~ ..... " , .
.... - ~I.-".I' ~..-).,','.', ,'-
J : ' . ;" ~ 1':.. )o:":.i'I]':'~' -
.' ',!.-.~ ;r:~:/~:.';,
Eelss of Use. With DMXjDBS, thlilrlil are '10 tilp98
to chllnge, And no need to bring CDs f~om home
Or spend ~'l3lllable time ohanging them. Just Pi,!l;;h
a buttor to turn It on and let 1M music play. With
the OM.X DJ" RBnwte, you never have to wonder
what.S 011, This OPtiona! DMX/DBS fliatl,lTf;! Identifies
th.. song title sltist and album name. 'Ine DMX D)
Remote also IGt& yo!" program yt:lllr r~ceiver snd
chang9 ml,.$IC selections and volume. And this DJ II F F I
never interrupts Ute music.
.
YouJr~ in Control. The DMX/DBS systerr provlaes
YOI,i with total control, e,1$uring the right atmosphere
for your businoss- Automaticaily $AliOlCt cllal1nelS you
want to hl;lar or block out those uns~itBble for YOl,r
business. You choose which music Is plO1yec ::Ie
YOllr locations on-site or from our worldwIde ('J~lglr.ation
center for complete corporate control. US€' "dayparting-
to automatically program ditferent Il1USIC for tin1GS
Of d(lY or "z:onir'l,r to hloler different music in rliff~rp.nt
areas. And call on DMX/[,BS for your en'hold mursic
as well.
; l1'~\)
.
.
.
03'01/99 MON 12:49
FAX 612 344 5077 DM-\: SOUND PRODUCTS
14I 00G/006
~
aM~/OI;lS
'Wr: w;mtr'd the higr.il~t quality !:4lrvlce to ;;QntrOI the mClsic in
"With $0 meny locatIons, Subway has <I tremOrlClcusly dlVe(Se
our :;.tOf<'lS for lil I;oMlstent ambiance, With DMX!OBS, our
customer base. DMX/DBS give!; ,IS thl; 1111l(lblllty to progl'llm our
,'u~toli'l;lr~ and el'lployees acrO.;5 th.. nation enjoy 014<;;1(, cr1s:p,
music to acoommodate reglomll tastlfls and rQ9por1d to tnI'
commaroi1ll.free lTlu$iC. And 0 ple{lSllrn ahopplng envirQr'lmQr'lt,"
unique preferences of our cu~tClmllrli;,'
AP~ ~IL"O~~
So."or ViCIiI f'rw.,dlilr'lt C( Afjvf!rfllllnB arn':. M8r1<etH1i/
CompcJSA
RltH.l.Afj PlU~Hf"
vice President ,r M/JI!kctl'lg
S~~WIlV
T'H~ IJNK ;;!IIIJIT..L Al.l'(HO R'....:'''!R
,.~'" Or.'tX/C'.' ANTENNA
A"J,Q ,e:.r-OIlll:M...Ne..
,..AR. pA.,.U.
C H 'A.'N ELM A:!l T f! R :1, D M NON.. fI Ii T R" T' f4 C
ROOf MOUN'T S"I'STEM CJr.S-'EilVl.1.iP}
fiIQn,.p&nn-liUlni rO\1r n,ount INPRMj: F;brl~~d '!:b'!f!'ir
5~.62. X 52.82"
"lll'",na (DlOn): F1l1O~la... 4D'1. 43.JG'
flwr pa~; .;/ij' roem PIG "'"~mm""dIld
&l.II~.\" 3" X 1.' ~ G' oono"'to bloo"",
25 lb.. ~'o,
_""go ""'Ig~' .r '.'01111" dlO~, i....l"dl^G. balla,tD. 10, froo
.t.n~ln~ apPlloatlon: 2761be. 16 """Mt. ~ 200 10.. +
cjl,n ij~.cm~ly " 78 Ib~,)
Com.",.oi""' Qolby !If:,~
.,",.I"'\Ill4~: >\4. 1 k~r
f,^,!u.n"l' ROOp""'.: 2Q.0 Hi"P 20 Q ~;:+/-:.uaE
RF I"ou, t~sa 1<: 14bO MHl, I'C<lnneClQt!
U r.b;"i;,nced ReA AUCSiC Ou~ut!j t~terw L/n,
IitM!lo-n,onoj
O')In,,)n'll':' Ai!na!:l~ ~9G 06-
Hilcmonlt: D!~tl)r111Jtf, IC,1"
D8t8/1,;pnlfPIOu,pu' pg"
~1iV',,1 st"orlflh Out (0 10 5 VOC AGC '011",.)
OutP(Jt i....e'l'tll: 0 ~ \I m"t.1 {r.-lW1(i:'t'\),~1
1;.1I'f1'ICA1IUN II
RJI' f"t.ju.vRn""'.C.~
UI. 1409, C:H;z;!.2 NQ. 1-M-1l0, !'to ~.Jt
l:5B/CIISi B
AUdiO n".invl[l: ~,1 dB C~/N. for lQ.~ 8ER
loe;leonr. '0,,'.10 <<., I"~ mj"". 6)
MIECHAJ(!l:lL.
Avt=ILI~ wl;:ijh~ if! h1t'r wind i:mil.,H, (ror e....i:lm~~: Stutra
Fl.,I~.l: 478 Ibs. (15 b.lI..ts iI> 400 10,. + m"~
..."mbIY" 7illb'.J
"toIQI P'al1c'i C=nmC,,"'i..ICn!
Dir!'\e~.lcn.: 41,3 ~m wl<:lQ . B.5 om hieh
(1';,25' , ~.~O"l
Wllllht: ~.3 kC (7.25 Ibll
P~'Bll
~O'<'I'; 100.130 VAC, eo Hz
:;i)n~\JlT1pti()n: '215 w~tta Ili~ll;..,t
~oe.Il...,
Gary Sundin
DMX Sound Products
1 ]485 VaHey View Road
Eden Prairie, I\1N 55344
6J2/944-2930 P 612/944-5077 F
'JI DM~ Inc, l!l95
DMI\B314
'I"PA\ IIdEIE u,.un.
~fts~\
-.,
.,
A.____
.
'.
.
.. "W'" ..... ~ Hon8YWel'--' . . " .
Honeywell hK;,
7171 Ohm~Ln
Edina MN S~39
612951wlooo
March 1, 1999
Prank Mosko
City of Monticello project
Dur Prlllk;
Thul1c. you Cor slvins Honeywel1u oppom.mity to help secure the new Monticello
ColJUllUllity CeIlter. Per your roque.. below i. infonnation on inltallina a 6CCUI'ity, card
accell and camera .ystem. The installation willlnc1udo wiro. labor, equipment
proarammiq and customer training,
Aft. reviewing the layout of the facility, I recol'Dme&1d providins ooax cablin& for the
camera sYltem, Fiber optic. i. ulually reoonunended when wire runs are over 2000 feet.
If'you have any questions, please page me at 901.6860, Thanb I8lin for conliderlng
Honeywell.
lGJl '~wllAs.,1rr1IM
.., elK ~"'II 1ft I'M.""'......
E'd
Wd22:E0 66. l0 ~l::lW
~({iJ
,
.
~ttt:.." COIItrol: Prmdmity Ctu1l Aces.
Honeywell will provide and in.tall:
(1) IQ400 (4~door oapability)
(2~ Proximity Card Reader.
(2 Door Strikes
(2 Power Su ply/badc:~up batteries
(1 Linc-Net fJr Windows 9S Software Package
(100) Proximity oards
Customer TrainiU; .
Custom<< to proVIde personal computer to meet Honeywell speciticatioDl.
INVEs'I'MENT SUMMARY:
Acc_ Corrb'ol."".m:
One Timc'Installation Pee:
$9,805.00
.
..~uriIP:
HOneyw'ell will provide and install:
(1) 5900FA Control Communicator (Provides capability for fire and security monitorins)
(2) 540C Keypads
(4) Sinsle Door Contacts
(11) Double Door Contacts
(1). Point Expansion Module (provides for the capability of security point identification)
(l~) Point Terminals (Give. each security point its own identification).
INVESTMENT SUMMARY:
S~ Syltem."
One Time InsI:ai1&tion Fee:
$40,900.00
~: Bl4ck IIlId Wldt,
IIGD~ wJ.l ,rovlde add i..tID:
14) Burle 1/3 'Inch Black and White Cameras with lens
3~ Dude Outdoor Camera Mounts
Burle Outdoor Camera Houling.
3 Burle Sunlhielda
3 Burle Indoor Camera Mounts
11) Burle Indoor Camera MountS
(I) Dude 16-Camera Multiplexer (Can record up to 16 cameras at one time.
(1) Burle 20 inch BIB.Qk and Whiw Monitor
(1) Burle Time LapseVideo Cuaette Recorder (Can record up to 720 houri in a row)
(14) Transformers
Installation for the above systems include labor, wire) equipment. programmins and
customer training. Fiber optic is not included in this proposal,
.
:INVESTMENT SUMMARY:
Cmnera .,.taI."
One Time Installation FH:
522,900
~f.t,13
2"d
WdZ2 :Ee 66. to ~w
-- -
03/01/99
14:40
.
m u z a-k
7550 MeridianCir. N.
Suit. 150
MapI. Grove,
MN 55369
612 1,24.5533 Tel
612 .20&.5242 l'W(
. ~.m...~It,,<cCIITI
.
MUZAK - MPLS ~ 3830625
NU. (.x:l ,,~""
MONTICELLO COMMUNITY
CENTER
ne follow.. proposal" b.ted on tholalonn.doD provided by the
electrieal bbtepriDt SpeeifleatioD. The prmposal luaues oaly OD the
speakers.d hol'Da IIhowa OD the priaft if chIRps are made in tile
design of dIia s1'" Q1II" bid will need to -be .djutell. The loDowiDl
equip....e wW.eed to be provided for thit I)'It'lD.
61
61
27
27
9
4000'
V~lmc
SST-l
lOlOGY
V..f508
V..2000
4-CoIHI
Speakers
Sp,.ker hpporil
Bornl
BUill
ZoDCeuDtroller
Wire
De total.eoatfor tbia-system iadudiaC iDltanatloD i. S12884.4O+tu
AD addltioualcharge of $250.60 may be Deeded for a Mu_ provided
.aD~Uft.
6l1'a.'\
03/01/99
.
muzak
14:40
MUZAK - MPLS ~ 3830625
MONTICELLO COMMUNITY CENTER
MUSIC PROPOSAL
Tho following propoaal is hued on9 separate ZODelof music. They will be
independent of each other allowing for 6 different prolfams of music to be
played individually in each %0110. I havo listed some ptosralP.S wbich would be
7"0 Mel'idioll Cir. N. appropriate for your community center.
SlIlt. 150
Mopl. GroWl.
MN 55369
612 '2'.5533T91
6114'4."42 Fall
. ..._.muzak.conI
.
Environmental
Hot PM
Expressions
50's &; 60's Hits
Urban Adult
Foreground.Music One
Eurostyle
AU That Jazz
70's Hits
Hitline
Moodscapos
Chtlllieal
Country Music One
The monthly fee for tbis-service will be $95.00. lbisinc1udes the music fee for 9
soparIle ZODCS, receiver and dish. The agreement lcugth is 60 MOnths. Amplifiers
need to be provided by thesouad. CODlf~. There will also be a onc-time clwgc
of $875.00. This c:ovcrstb.epurcbase of 9 selector switches and complete music
installation.
Each of the abovcprogmms havoan .wrage of 2000 titles. Our Audio Alchitects
change these programs daily. The result of these efforts is fresh, non-repotitivc
music on a dailybl8is. A3 requested, we have proposed 6 programs of music. We
alBobavc a 60 program option as well. Let me know if you would like a proposal
on that option.
Authorized Sipture
3/1/99
NO.736 lI'l.'J3
6f.6 ,'J.S
a3/01/99
~
@)
m u za k
.
.
14:40
I ..... '"
MUZRK - MPLS ~ 3830625
IItAN;)MITTAL
DiKe:
---
:d..'-~~
Company
~~:~
Attention:
--
Fu. N1.Imber:
11_.__._
~~ t?,k. ~
-zs:.=~ \~__
Total Pages: ~
~
Regarding: .
,^Ai- ..
---J".....t\lll L.
~.............._.
From:
'"'ItIlI~_............................_
-mlT1
a.J.~ ~__
-----""""'-_.- -.:JIll.
_I l
_r"'lrll1r'llllll --iIoIIiIoIooIo~."""""".__".~""",~u_,,~___...i.iIIl~_...._._.~_
,.__ 11111111 III" __11_01_.........._._............__ ._..__....._.........III.~___..._...
~-*_ I I L t::... ...-~_-..........._................__~_.._._...............
..~....-_-~-_._"*'".._~...,,-_.-iIIIIoIIot....
III.___-....IIIIJII
-_.-..............._....................._---......~-,I'
IlIIlIllJ~_..~_~ IJIJI
.__........._._._.._~.__._~'I"I"I"I-
_...N......._._.._.-............~_._--_...~,_~"""-.._-........_._,_._.....n.........1t4II
NO. 736
[;101
Muzak
7550 ~eridlan Cr. N.
SUite 1'0
~t. c;rove. LttN. 55369
61 Z 424.5533 Tel
61 Z 424.5242 It~
www.munk.com
I
I
/~,,~
b
.
.
.
Council Agenda - 3/8/99
5H. Consideration ofwaivin2: statutory liabilitv limits for City insurance renewals.
(R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
We are currently in the process of renewing our annual liability insurance coverage that
will again provide for an additional $1,000,000 in excess liability coverage over the
required $750,000 minimum. By State Statute, the City is not liable for any tort liability
claim in excess of $750,000 damages; however, because the City has purchased an
excess liability coverage policy in the past, the City has the option of waiving our rights
under Statute 466, which would allow someone to seek damages from the City in excess
ofthe $750,000 limit up to $1.75 million provided by our excess liability coverage.
Although we have typically purchased the excess $1,000,000 coverage, we have done so
to ensure that in a major catastrophe where the City was liable, sufficient funds would be
available to pay any and all claims. Even though we are not responsible for any tort
liability claim of more than $750,000, the City Council has to formally decide whether or
not we want to waive our limits established by State Statute. Since a formal Council
action is necessary before the application can be renewed, the Council should formally
indicate that it does not want to waive its monetary limits established by Statute. This
will allow us to retain our rights under the $750,000 limit, but we would always have
excess liability coverage available if it was ever needed.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Council should formally indicate that the City of Monticello does not waive the
monetary limits on tort liability established by Minnesota Statute 466.04.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of liability insurance application form.
-13-
LMCIT LIABILITY COVERAGE - W AlVER FORM
. Cities obtaining liability coverage from the League of MiIll1esota Cities Insurance Trust must decide
whether or not to waive the statutory tort liability limits to the extent of the coverage purchased. The
, decision to'waive or'not to waive the statutory limits has the following effects:..... ',' ..-..
. If the city does not waive the statutory tort limits, an individual claimant would be able to recover no
more than $300,000 on any claim to which the statutory tort limits apply. TIle total which all claimants
would be able to recover for a single occurrence to which the statutory tort limits apply would be limited
to $75.0,000. These statutory tort limits would apply regardless of whether or not the city purchases the
optional excess liability coverage.
. If the city waives the statutory tort limits and does not purchase excess liability coverage, a single
claimant could potentially recover up to $750,000 on a single occurrence. The total which all claimants
would be able to recover for a single occurrence to which the statutory tort limits apply would also be
limited to $750,000, regardless of the number of claimants.
. If the city waives the statutory tort limits and purchases excess liability coverage, a single claimant
could potentially recover an amount up to the limit of the coverage purchased. The total which aU
claimants would be able to recover for a single occurrence to which the statutory tort limits apply.would
also be.limited to the amount of coverage purchased, regardless of the nwnber of claimants.
Claims to which the statutory municipal tort limits do not apply are not affected by this decision.
.
This decision must be made by the city council. Cities purchasing coverage must complete and return
this form to LMCIT before the effective date of the coverage. For further infonllation, contact LMCIT.
You may also wish to discuss these issues with your city attorney.
The City of Mont ice 110 accepts liability coverage limits of $
Mirmesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT).
from the League of
Check one:
_ The city DOES NOT WAIVE the monetary limits on municipal tort liability established
by Mirmesota Statutes 466.04.
_ The city W AlVES the monetary limits on tort liability established by Minnesota Statutes
466.04, to the extent of the limits of the liability coverage obtained from LMCIT.
Date of city council meeting
Signature
Position
. Return this completedfonll to LMCIT, 145 University Ave. W., St. Paul, MN. 55103-2044
Page I Of:.61\ ... ,
--_.. -
.....".
.
.
.
51.
Council Agenda ~ 3/8/99
Consideration of establishing: relocation benefits for bulk tank facilities displaced bv
Community Center.
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the meeting on February 8, 1999, the City Council directed staffto continue to work
with the Bulk Tank operators toward development of a loan package with low or no
interest. It appeared that the general consensus of the Council was to make our best effort
to work within the law to provide the City Council with options for providing the
minimal supplemental assistance (via a loan) necessary to enable the relocation of the
bulk tanks. To enable the staff to have a better handle on what might be acceptable to the
Council as a whole for additional assistance for these relocations, Mayor Belsaas and
Council Member Thielen met with staff to review possible methods of assistance,
including a supplemental loan, interest subsidy assistance, or additional funds for site
acquisition or site improvements related to their relocation.
After numerous discussions with Steve Bubel, HRA attorney, and Dan Wilson, relocation
specialist, the staff and Council members involved in the discussions recommend that the
City consider providing additional relocation benefits in site improvements at a new
location by providing funding for the installation of concrete diking and liners totaling
$17,000 each.
1. Provide a 4 year no interest loan ($50,000) as part of an estimated cost of
$180,000 (per operation) expense to relocate.
The loan should be secured by a shared first position with a bank that would be
providing a companion loan. Repayment of the principal would be required in
January 2004. According to the best experts, statutes enable cities to make this
type of loan. The cost to the city under this option is $10,000. The benefit to the
relocation project is $18,000. The problem with this option is that the city does
not "get out" ofthe deal. It is generally preferred to have the bank provide all of
the funding and administration of redevelopment related loans. It also may be
difficult to find a bank that will share first position on the collateral. The reason
the City should have a shared collateral position is because our loan amount
would likely be almost as much as the bank loan amount. As a modification of
this alternative, the city could take a second position on the loan, but then the city
could face the problem of recovering the principal in the event of default.
-14-
.
.
Council Agenda - 3/8/99
the write down benefit if the bank provides the loan. According to the best
experts, there is some question as to whether or not such a program is legally
permissible without establishment of a special local enabling program. On the
plus side, the alternative places the responsibility of obtaining the entire loan
amount in the hands of the operators. The bank is responsible for doing what
banks do - complete the analysis of the financial viability, loan administration and
take the risk of default.
3.
Provide a redevelopment grant in an amount approximately equal to build the
protective diking system ($17,000). In contrast to what staff has told Council in
the past, based on new input from Attorney Steve Bubel, it is possible to provide
funds in addition to the minimum relocation benefit due to the fact that the project
is within the City's TIF project area and could be considered part of a
redevelopment project. Bubel has informed staff that purchase ofland and site
improvements associated with redevelopment are eligible expenditures for
projects within the City's project area. The TIF project area Central District
encompasses a large portion of the city and was established years ago. Under
alternative I, the funds would be provided only ifthe project proceeds. As with
alternative 2, the benefit is that the City provides the supplemental funding and
then is out of the deal. The down side may be that politically, a loan may be more
favorable. On the other hand, a no interest loan is a form of a grant, therefore,
since it is legally permissible in a TIF project area, why not just provide the
supplemental funding and be done. Last of all, since the property being
"redeveloped" is in the TI F district established by BRA, the BRA should
technically approve the additional assistance being provided, although the
agreement between city and HRA can note that they money is coming from the
city.
Staff and Council representatives have met several times and discussed various options to
resolve this relocation benefit issue. In order to allow the dealers to get on with their
financing requirements and to commence relocation as soon as possible, final action
needs to be taken by the Council to avoid any further delays in the community center
construction process. A final relocation amount needs to be settled upon and a firm date
for relocation needs to be determined.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
.
1.
Motion to provide relocation benefits to JM Oil in the amount of $34,263 (fixtures
+ $5,000 legal settlement + estimated relocation cost of $25,000 for a total of
$59,263), and to Riverside Oil in the amount of $40,959 (fixtures + $5,000 legal
settlement + estimated cost of $25,000 for a total of $60,595). Tn addition, the
motion would include providing additional supplemental assistance by providing
a redevelopment grant in an amount equal to the cost of constructing the
protective diking system at a cost not to exceed $17,000. This additional
assistance would be contingent upon the following:
-15-
Council Agenda - 3/8/99
.
1.
Both facilities are relocated.
2. "I"he bulk oil dealers enter into a signed agreement accepting the
relocation benefits offered 30 days prior to their relocation date.
3. Relocation be completed by June 18, 1999.
4. If relocation docs not occur, the funding program would consist of
the City paying relocation benefits minus the cost of demolition
only.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATlON:
After reviewing all ofthe options for providing supplemental assistance, we have come
full circle and are now recommending providing up to $17,000 on top of the minimum
funds necessary by law. This additional funding is permissible due to the fact that the
project is in the City's TlF project area, and the City is allowed to fund site improvements
as part of a redevelopment project.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
.
None.
.
-16-
.
.
f
Council Agenda - 3/8/99
2. Provide an interest write down of approximately $17,000 (present value). Under
this option the city provides the bank with cash to help fund payment of the
interest. This is the functional equivalent of a no interest loan of $50,000 for 4
years. Under this alternative, the bank provides the entire loan and is responsible
for examining the financial worthiness of the project. The bulk tank operators get
the write down benefit if the bank provides the loan. According to the best
experts, there is some question as to whether or not such a program is legally
permissible without establishment of a special local enabling program. On the
plus side, the alternative places the responsibility of obtaining the entire loan
amount in the hands ofthe operators. The bank is responsible for doing what
banks do - complete the analysis of the financial viability, loan administration and
take the risk of default.
3.
Provide a redevelopment grant in an amount approximately equal to build the
protective diking system ($17,000). In contrast to what statThas told Council in
the past, based on new input from Attorney Steve Bubel, it is possible to provide
funds in addition to the minimum relocation benefit due to the fact that the project
is within the City's TIF project area and could be considered part of a
redevelopment project. Bubel has informed staff that purchase of land and site
improvements associated with redevelopment are eligible expenditures for
projects within the City's project area. The TIF project area Central District
encompasses a large portion ofthe city and was established years ago. Under
alternative 1, the funds would be provided only if the project proceeds. As with
alternative 2, the benefit is that the City provides the supplemental funding and
then is out ofthe deal. The down side may be that politically, a loan may be more
favorable. On the other hand, a no interest loan is a form of a grant, therefore,
since it is legally permissible in a TIF project area, why not just provide the
supplemental funding and be done. Last of all, since the property being
"redeveloped" is in the TIF district established by HRA, the HRA should
technically approve the additional assistance being provided, although the
agreement between city and HRA can note that they money is corning from the
city.
-15-
.
.
.
Council Agenda - 3/8/99
7.
Review results of community survey and consideration of orderine: completion of
recreation components of community center. includine: aquatics. child play area.
wheel park. and climbin~ wall.
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the Council meeting on January 19, 1999, the Council adopted a resolution supporting
continuation of the community center but placed recreational components of the facility
on hold pending completion of a community survey. As of the preparation of this memo,
the survey is complete. A summary ofthe data is attached. At the point that this memo is
written, I have only a simple tabulation.
The survey data shows a majority supporting the recreation components of the
community center.
Aquatics
Of the total sample (includes renters), 67% oppose removal, 29%
support removal. Of residential property owners, 70% oppose
removal, 29% support removal.
Wheel Park
Ofthe total sample, 65% oppose removal, 31 % support removal.
Ofresidential property owners, 64% oppose removal, 32% support
removal.
Climbing Wall
Of the total sample, 58% oppose removal, 35% support removal.
Of residential property owners, 62% oppose removal, 35% support
removal
Play Area
Ofthe total sample, 70% oppose removal, 24% support removal.
Of residential property owners, 72% oppose removal, 25% support
removal
In addition to the city sponsored survey, the\ Chamber of Commerce took the initiative to
poll its members on their views ofthe recreation components of the project. A summary
of this data is attached.
Attached is a summary of the project budget to date including revenue from the grant and
adjustments made to to savings brought about by value engineering. Also included are
the added costs associated with increases in relocation costs and the claimed added cost
of $154,000 due to the delay in the aquatics. In summary, the balance in the contingency
with full $154,000 used is at $178,000 if the recreation components are included in the
project.
" \ ~~ \ ~~
1 J~
~~~ %~
-17-
Council Agenda - 3/8/99
.
B.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to reinstate recreation components as determined by Council.
2. Motion to deny reinstatement of recreation components.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
It appears that public support for the recreation components of the project exists and it is
evident that the net cost to operate the facility with the recreation component is equal to
or less than the cost to operate the facility without the revenue generating features.
Therefore, it is recommended that the City Council order reinstatement of the features
discussed in the survey.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Project cost spread sheet
Summary of survey results.
Chamber of Commerce Survey
.
.
-18-
, ::w~tij:t
$106,000
$68,600
$23,000
'$30,900
$70,100
$29,600
,.~~-~ n. $H1.500
-'$83,000"- ,- --,
$8,000
-sti;'too
$69,qtJO
COMMUI\IITY CENTER BID BUDGET ANALYSIS
COUNCIL ACTION - BASE PROJECT AND ALTERNATES - November 2, 1998
. Updated 1/4199 to include grant funds
Updated 314199 to include updated contingencies
ified optio., 2 - adds moveable partition
Donlar Contractors
Component
BID AMOUNTS
Subtraet a1ts Add AJts
Subt'aet AJts
Add AJts
Base Bid
~8,032,000
. '.':-:;:; .
. "~::.~.,..:.
:.......;.. .
$50-,000
$68,600
'-'$23,000
ourn 'n__
n.. ,- $7 ,100
, $29,600
oU'f---
Alternate A 1 - errazzo-
Alternate A2 ~ PoOi'Cera'mic'fiie
A1ternaieA3 : O~rabl4~'Paiiitiori ._n
~Iteiiiate A4~' Sheet Floorin!l.!!1..Q~,
Alternate A5 - Wheel Park
A~!~nl1!e..~~_.:_~.!)Cjng
Alterna~ A7 - G~l1r~~t?!!l-,!!,Shelving
Alternate A8 - Millwork
Alternate SP1 Pool Finish
~~~~!e.~~~.~!l!~~ps and LemDrps
p'>~ernate SP3 Waler Play Struct~~~,,_
Alternate SP4 RainA.emM p~
Alternate SP5 Lily-Pad Wiilk---
Aiiernaie SP6 Water Slide
Aitemiife-SPf~_a.~!~.
M1 Electronic Controls
Ern !!!fi~r.!l~Q~lIery
Subtotal
~._.
IN
,..---$6;706
IN
$6,Zll9
iff"
IN
iN-'
$30,000
-~87.IOOO -----
$50,500'u,-
$.18,200
$18;200
-'6;300
"'$340.500 $371;100
.136,700 '-'259,5QQ
$7,995,300
.., ' .... $8,254-~~ . " '
.:-:if:f:~f::... .. ..:. -: . " :<<.. ...... ..+:..mw:: ..
BASE BID INCfLUDING SUBTRACTIONS
BASE PLUS ADDITIONS AND SUBS-
~;":,JWflliW~_tw.Wr.1!:~MltM_f,,, :'
, Contlg,mcy
Engineering
and engineering. fees.
Site Acquisitlo~ and Relocation
Soils Correctio/l
Spur Removal
FFE Interior design
FFE ($325,ooq.climbing walVplay area)
Climbing Wall
Child Play Area ('f't'ffi need- fIImIIng- via- (It'ant)
Rerouting utilities
Landscaping
Fees and Insurance
Inspections and Printing
Builders Risk Insurance
Audio Visual ~uipment
Sub total
$150,000
($200,
$S6O,384
$410,000
$15,000
$2,500-
$.17 .ooa
$183,000
$75,000
$0
$265,440
$30,000
$13',500
$30,000.
$5,000
$50,000
<iRAN'O'TOTAL
Grant Funds
$387,000
Original Contingency pJua grant
$531,OOQ
Conting~ncy adjustments
Value Engineering deficit
Child Play Arqa
AVequipment
Aquatics hold expense (negotiable)
Fand relocation
'te develqpment subsidy (if approved)
'l'aal
$95,000
$50,000
$10,000
$154,000
$14,000
$34,000
$357,000
$180,000 .....-
Remaining CUlltlllyeh<W
,\,\
Hello, I'm of Decision Resources, Ltd., a survey
research firm located in Minneapolis. We've been retained by the
City of Monticello to speak with a random sample of residents
about issues facing the city. The sUrv'ey is being taken because
your city representatives and staff are interested in your opin-
ions and suggestions. ! want to assure you that all individual
responses will be held strictly confidential; only summaries of
the entire sample will be reported. (DO NOT PAUSE)
3. What do you like most about living DON'T KNOW/REFUSED... ..4%
in Monticello? LOCATION...... ....... .30%
SCHOOLS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7%
SMALL TOWN FEEL...... .44%
QUIET. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 %
SAFE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 %
PEOPLE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 %
SHO?PING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1%
SCATTERED............ ..3%
DON'T ~OW/RiFUSED... .15%
CRIME. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 %
HIGH TAXES........... .11%
COMMUNITY CENTER..... .27%
GROWTH. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22%
LACK OF ENTERTAINMENT. .4%
SCHOOLS.. ..... ..... ....6%
LACK OF INDUSTRY. ..... .3%
GOVERNMENT........ .... .2%
TRAFFIC........... .....2%
HOUS !NG. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 %
DRUGS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 %
SCATTERED............. .3%
6129296166 DECISION RESOURSES
.
DECISION RESOURCES, LTD.
3128 Dean court
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416
1.
HoW long have you lived in the
city of Monticello?
2.
How would you rate the quality of
life in Monticello .- excellent,
good, only fair, or poor?
.
4.
In general, what do you think is
the most serious issue facing the
com.munity today?
883 P02
MAR 05 '99 11:01
CITY OF MONTICELLO
COMMUNITY CENTER STUDY
FINAL VERSION
TWO YEARS OR LESS.... .10%
2.1 TO 5.0 yEARS..... .26%
S.l TO 10.0 YEARS.. ...20%
10.1 TO 20.0 YEARS... .21%
OVER TWEN'I'Y YEARS. . . . . 23%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED... ..1%
EXCELLENT... ........ ..30%
GOOD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64%
ONLY FAIR....... ..... ..6%
POOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 %
DONIT ~OW/REFUSED... ..0%
The city of Monticello has begun construction of a neW community
center.
.
1
1;-;)
6129296166 DECISION RESOURSES
.
5. Prior to this survey, were you
aware of this Community Center
project?
IF nYES," ASK: (N-370)
883 PI2I3
MAR 1215 '99 11:1211
YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92%
NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 %
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. ....0%
6. What have you heard about this project?
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED, 8%; RAISE TAXES, 5%; CURRENTLY
BEING BUILT, 7%; CONTROVERSIAL, 27%; FEATURES OF
FACILITY, 9%; ALREADY PLANNED, 5%; CITIZENS DIDN'T
GET TO VOTE, Bt; ON HOLD, 5%; HEARD POSITIVE, 4%;
HEARD NEGATIVE, 2%; READ SOMETlIING IN GENERAL, 5%;
FINANCING ISSUES, 5%; KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT PROJECT,
6%; SCATTERED, 4%.
7.
From what you have heard and
seen, do you favor or oppose
the Community Center project?
(WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do you
feel strongly that way?
STRONGLY FAVOR.. .... ..30%
FAVOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35%
OPPOSE............. ...12%
STRONGLY OPPOSE.... ...14%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED... ..9%
IF "OPPOSE" OR "STRONGLY OPPOSE, " ASK: (N=98)
8. Why do you feel that
way?
.
NO NEED............. ..24%
COSTS TOO MUCH...... ..24%
TAXES ALREADY HIGH.. ..14%
DIDN'T GET TO VOTE.. ..15%
NO COMMUNITY INPUT.. ..13%
TOO MANY FRILLS... .....2%
LOCATION.............. .3%
SCATTERED............ ..5%
As you may know, the City is currently building a Community
Center. The building will contain a large community room, meet-
ing rooms, a senior center, a teen center, a gymnasium with a
walking/running track, an aerobics and exercise areaJ city Hall
offices and National Guard offices. Four other facilities were
planned for inclusion: an aquatic facility, a skate park for
skate boarders and roller bladers, a climbing wall, and a child-
renls indoor play area. These four facilities would have charged
user fees to defray their operating expenses. Daily passes for
the center would cost about $2.00 for a child, $2.50 for an adult
and $10.00 for a family. The property tax increase for the
entire project, including the four facilities just discussed, was
$2.73 per month or $32.76 per year on a $100,000 home; on a
$150,000 home the increase was $4.71 per month or $56.52 per
year.
The City is considering removing the aquatic facility, the skate
park, the climbing wall, and the children's play area to reduce
the property tax increase. Sinoe the Community Center project
has already been levied on property taxpayers, eaoh faoility
removed would reduce property taxes payable in 1999. But, since
these facilities draw paying visitors to the center and generate
.
2
(,(3
6129296166 DECISION RESOURSES
883 P04
MRR 05 '99 11:02
.
revenue for the city, any loss of operating income may be passed
through to taxpayers; so a property tax decrease in the short run
may be negated by increases to cover center operating coats. As
I re-li8t each facility, I will indicate the amount of that tax
decrease for a $100,000 houe. For each facility, please tell me
if you would strongly favor, 80mewhet fa.vor, 8omewhe.t oppose, or
strongly oppose its removal.
STF SMF SMO STO DKR
9. An aquatic facility, with a water
slide, jacuzzis, a zero-depth pool
containing children's water play
equipment and locker rOoms. The
removal of this facility would
decrease your property taxes by
$3 .leper year. 21%
8% 16% 51%
4%
10. A supervised skate park for roller-
bladers and skateboarders. Its re-
moval would decrease your property
taxes by 75 cents per year. 22% 9% 18% 47% 6%
11. A climbing wall. Its removal
would decrease your property taxes
by S6 cents per year. 25% 10% 18% 40% 7%
. 12. A children'S indoor play area. Its
removal would decrease your pro-
perty taxes by 37 cents per year. 18% 6% 17% 53% 6%
Now, just a few more questions for demographic purposes....
13.
what is your age. please? Stop me
when I read the interval which
contains it.
18-24. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6%
25-34. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25%
35-44................ .24%
45-54. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19%
55-64. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12%
65 AND OVER.......... .16%
Could you tell me how many people in each of the following age
groups live in your household....
14. First, persons over 651
NONE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 %
ONE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 %
TWO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 %
IF SENIORS WERE PRESENT, ASK: (N-6S)
15. Do you or members of your
household use the current
Senior Center?
YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 8 %
NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.. ...6%
.
3
1'\'"
.
.
.
17.
18.
19.
20.
6129296166 DECISION RESOURSES
How likely would you be to
use the senior Center located
in the new Community Center
facility -- very likely,
somewhat likely, not too
likely or not at all likely?
Other adults, including yourself?
16.
School-aged children and
pre-schoolers?
Do you rent or own your present
residence?
Gender (BY OBSERVATION)
4
883 PI2I5
MAR 1215 '99 11:02
VERY LIKELY... ...... ..15%
SOMEWHAT LIKELy.... ...39%
NOT TOO LIKELY.. ..... .26%
NOT AT ALL LIKELY.. ...14%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.... .6%
NONE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 %
ONE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 !j;
TWO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61%
THREE OR MORE........ ..5%
NONE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 %
ONE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 %
TWO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 9 %
THREE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8%
FOUR OR MORE....... ....5%
OWN. . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . 73 %
RENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.. ...0%
MALE. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .48%
FEMALE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2 !If
~~~
Quick Fax Survey - Monticello Area Chamber of Commerce
TO: Chamber Business owners or managers:
Please take a moment to respond tv this survey. Your input is important We will be sharing tI,e information received
with you and with the Monticello aty (bundl. It is important that our local omdals know tile business mmmunily's
~Sitfon on the issues. We enrourage you take advantage of this opfXJltunity to let your opinion be known.
....'ease return by 2/26/99 to 205 Pine Street PO Box 192 ~ fax number 295-2705 or e-mail responses to
nHlc.G..~Q!lJ::Qm'!':om. Thank you. Sponsored by the Government Affairs Committee of Chamber
Current Position:
The City of Monticello is proceeding with the construction of a Community Center which will house
City offices and Council chambers, a Senior Citizen center, meeting rooms, Army/National Guard
offices and a gymnasium with a walkfjog track. A building shell is also being constructed that
could hold amenities like, an aquatic center with locker room space, climbing wall, fitness center, a
teen center, child care and indoor play structure, concessions and a wheel park. These amenities,
which could be in this shell, are on hold pending the results of a community survey.
· Annual tax increase to BUILD Community Center:
To a $100, 000 business.
W/out amenities ..........$58.20
(1.80/0 Overall tax increase)
To a $300,000 business.
W/out amenities ..........$211.98
(1.80/0 Overall tax Increase)
With amenities........$68.35
(2.10/0 Overall tax increase)
With amenities........$248.98
(2.10/0 Overall tax Increase)
· Anticipated annual net OPERATING COST (by year 3):
W/out amenities ..........$267,436 With amenities........$140,596
_ (1.50/0 Overall Tax Increase) (0.80/0 Overall Tax Increase)
~nal1dal infomlatfon provided by Ankeny Kell Architects and Oty Staff, verified by Rick Wolfsteller, aiy Administratvr
1) Do you tl1ink a Community Center will be a benefit to tl1e COMMUNITY?
Yes, Wit/7 amenities
Yes, without amenities
No benefit
No opinion
2) Do you think a Community Center will directly or indirectly benefit your BUSINESS?
Yes, witl1 amenities
Yes, witl10ut amenities
No benefit
No opinion
3) Do you tl7ink it is a good investment to add the amenities now during the construction pl1ase?
Yes
No
No opinion
.usiness Name
Contact
~~
Government Affairs Committee
Commnnity Center Survey Results
. Number of Surveys sent out.................................129
Number of Surveys returned ............................... 60
Return Percentage ...............................:................ 46%
Question 1:
Do you think a Community Center will be a benefit to the COMMUNITY?
Yes, with amenities ............................................... 50.................. 83%
Yes, without amenities ......................................... 6..................10%
No Benefit...... ......... ....... ............................ ...... ...... 6 .................. 10%
No Opinion ............................................................ 1................... 2%
Question 2:
Do you think a Community Center will directly or indirectly benefit your BUSINESS?
Yes, with amenities ............................................... 41 .................. 68%
Yes, without amenities ......................................... 2.................. 3%
No Benefit.......... ............ .......... .......... ................. ...14 .................. 23%
No Opinion ............................................................ 4 .................. ~,..6
Question 3:
Do you think it is a good investment to add the amenities now during the construction
phase?
Yes ............ ....... ................. ...................................... 50 .................. 83 %
No. ......... ............. ................. ....... ....... ............ ......... 7 ..................12%
. No Opinion .......;.................................................... 1................... 2%
Additional Comments:
. The basic structure of more city staff room and meeting space is needed. Senior Citizen
Center, if needed, is a nice thought and meeting rooms for guard and City is good.
However the track, gym and other amenities are not needed and are served by the private
sector very well in this City as well as others very close. Thanks
. Only if existing privately offered and available services are not duplicated and endangers
existing private for profit enterprises.
. On questions #1- But not to the extent ($10,000,000) that the project costs. Plus on-
going operating costs; on question 2 - Could substantially hurt.us (LFC) if it becomes
competitive; on question 3 - cost to wait would be too significant.
. Don't mind the idea of a teen center but the other amenities will take away the local health
club's business. 'The operating costs would depend on bow many memberships are
bought.
. I agree with a community center. I disagree with how it is being financed. A
disproportionate amount of costs (taxes) is placed on the businesses. The residents need
jobs, goods and services as much as recreation opportunities. Don't chase business to
other communities by over taxation.
. As became very obvious in the last election, where the people who forced the community
center down the throat's of this community got voted out of office, that the center is not
wanted by the majority of the community. This is supposed to be a democracy. If there is
a way to halt this center, without losing large amounts of the taxpayers money, I think it
.
t\..~
needs to be investigated. My personal preference would be to see, instead of the
amenities, a police department should be added. Having the Sheriffs department
occasionally driving through Monticello is not doing anything to stop crime. A dedicated
Monticello police department would do much to make us safer. I know it is not as
glamorous as a community center, but I feel it is a much better investment. An interesting
side note, is that on the evening before the ground breaking ceremony, a Monticello
business just down the block was broken into by professionals. A passing patrol car would
have done more to prevent this than any climbing wall ever will.
· To bad they didn't care at the start.
· I would like to see the community center cash flow.
· On question 3 - why not do them now, you're going to do them anyway
· On question 2 - The community center will attract higher income families as well as
businesses.
· On question 3 - Let's walk before we run - get it up and running, assess the traffic flow
and parking, assess the impact on the fire hall traffic, then in 24 to 36 months, decide if
the amenities are good or not good for that location.
· The bigger the better!
· On question 3 - The mistake has already been made.
.
Respondents:
Within the Monticello City Limits....................... 48
Outside Monticello City Limits............................ 6
Private resident (Chamber member) .................. 1
Unknown .... ....... ................ ...... .......... ......... .... ....... 5
. Survey breakdown Within City and Outside City limits:
1) Within Outside
Yes, with amenities........................38 5
Yes, without amenities .................. 5 1
No Benefit....................................... 6 0
No Opinion ..................................... 1 0
2) Within
Yes, with amenities ........................ 33
Yes, without amenities .................. 2
No Benefit....................................... 13
No Opinion ..................................... 2
3) Within
Yes ................ .................... ............... 39
No. ................. ............ ...... ........ ........ 6
No Opinion ..................................... 1
.
Outside
4
o
1
1
i.;
Outside
5
1
o
1"~
.
.
.
8.
Consideration of a request for a zoning district amendment from AD to R-4 to allow
the expansion of Kjellbergs West Mobile Home Park. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the Planning Commission meeting on March 2nd, a public hearing was conducted and
the Planning Commission made a recommendation to deny the rezoning request based on
the finding identified in the planners report. Please review the Planning Commission
report for details and alternatives.
B. AL TERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Motion to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation to deny based on
findings identified by the Planning Commission.
2. Motion to approve the rezoning request.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends alternative one. Although the Comprehensive Plan is relatively clear,
the Council may wish to instruct staffto call for a public hearing on the Comprehensive
Plan further clarifying the intended land use type (mid-density townhome) and density in
the area.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Planning Commission Agenda Item.
Related meeting minutes.
-19-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda ~03/02/99
5.
Continued Public Hearin1! - Consideration of a reQuest for a Zonine: District
amendment from A-O to R-4 to allow the expansion of Kjellbere:'s Mobile Home Park.
Applicant: Kiellber1!'s Ine.. (NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission tabled action in February on an application from Kjellberg's Inc.
to proceed with a rezoning of its property for an expansion of the Mobile Home Park. Staff
had expressed a number of concerns relating to design and traffic, as well as an overarching
issue with the density as proposed in the Land Use Plml, both as adopted by the City for this
area, and being considered by the Monticello Orderly Annexation Area Board.
The land use issue will need to be addressed first, with the design and other issues addressed
subject to the outcome of the land use. As noted in our previous report, the mid-density
pattern identified in the planning documents infers an attached housing pattern, such as twin
homes and townhouses in the neighborhood of 4-8 units per acre. The proposed
development is less than three units per acre, and is more typical of a single family
residential plat. The Planning Commission and City Council will need to consider a change
to the proposed land use in this area to identify the lower density and accommodate the
mobile home park as designed.
Design and other issues are thc second set of concerns. Staff had identified a number of
design changes which were intended to improve traffic and accommodate public services to
the area. At least onc, and preferably two, additional access points were recommended in
order to better distribute traffic. The applicant has submitted an alternative plan which
illustrates this option. With regard to public safety, the applicant is requesting that only one
of the new access points be constructed. This request is based in the belief that park
management can better control visitors and traffic by limiting the number of access locations.
Park and recreation area is a second issue. The R -4 District ordinance requires a ten percent
set-aside for recreation space. The applicant has indicated that they would be willing to
acquire additional land adjacent to the park for public use to accommodate this need. One
of the related issues on this point is the City's interest in acquisition and development of a
larger recreation facility along the School Boulevard extension to the west of this area. The
City recreation area is likely to encompass 30 to 50 acres, well in excess of the requirement
for the mobile home park. The R-4 District does not have an allowance for cash donation
in lieu of land dedication, as is typical with platted development. This point will need to be
discussed further with the applicant and the City, including the Park Commission.
A related issue which was raised by membcrs of the public involved a pathway connection
between the mobile home park and other neighboring residential areas. The neighborhood
comments indicated that they would I ike to close this connection, and there was some disputc
as to who was using this pathway. Staffs general approach is that more pathway
~\
Planning Commission Agenda -03/02/99
.
connections, like streets, are generally better. Cutting off this pathway would leave the
Dunes and Prairie Acres without a pedestrian connection to the north. This issue will require
additional study as a part of the development planning.
The location of School Boulevard in this area is also an issue. The City had tentatively
reserved a corridor which would cut ofT the northeasterly corner of this project for the
extension of School Boulevard. The applicant is requesting a change to that plan which
would route School Boulevard in a straighter alignment along the northern line of the
property adjacent to the proposed mobile home park. The City Engineer is evaluating this
option, including soils and topography of the area.
Finally, there was public comment regarding a concern over a perception of police calls to
the mobile home park, and a concern over public safety. The applicant has submitted
information from the Sheriffs office regarding police calls to the Park, utilizing a
comparison to the number of calls to the City as a whole. The applicant's contention is that
this information shows that the ratio of such calls to the Mobile Horne Park, based on
population, is lower than the ratio of police calls to the City in general. A copy of this
information, submitted by the applicant, is attached to this report.
.
In summary, the applicants believe that they have addressed each ofthe issues raised by staff
to date, given the level of detail at this stage of planning. If the Planning Commission
believes that the density issue is best resolved by this land use, forwarding the proposal to
the MOAA Board for consideration of annexation would be appropriate. This should be
accompanied by a proposed change to the Land Use Plan redesignating this area as low
density residential. A more detailed review of the site plan for the Mobile Horne Park would
be reviewed upon annexation.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve the concept plan and recommend approval of the rezoning to
Mobile Horne Park, R-4, subject to final site plan review by the City upon
annexation.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the rezoning based on a finding that other land uses
would be more appropriate for the area.
3. Motion to table action on the proposal, subject to additional information.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
.
Staff believes that if the City is considering approval of the mobile home park expansion,
that the layout which has been proposed is generally superior to most mobile home park
ao'J-
.
Planning Commission Agenda -03/02/99
designs, given the density and other issues. As noted in this and the previous report, there
remain some design issues which staff will need additional time to consider. The land use
plan calling for a higher residential density could be met with a mobile home park as well,
but increased density, and the resulting crowding of units, is onc of the common o~jections
to mobile home park design. If the City is going to hold to the original land use plan and call
for a medium to high density residential pattern, stafT would recommend that an attached
housing design, such as twin homes and townhouses, be considered. In this case, a
recommendation for R-2 zoning, rather than R~4, would be made.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A - Revised Site Plan
Exhibit B - Record of Sheriff Calls
.
.
003
..~A~f1
\1'.1'
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 3/2/99
5.
Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Zoning District amendment
from A-O to R-4 to allow the expansion of Kiellberg's West Mobile Home Park.
Steve Grittman gave the staff report reviewing with the Planning Commission the site
plan for the expansion of the park that was submitted by the applicant in response to
comments made at the February Planning Commission meeting. Steve Grittman noted
that an R-4 designation does not require a preliminary plat but does require a site review.
The Planning Commission needs to review the site plan so that it can be passed on to the
MOAA Board for their review prior to annexation. Steve Grittman listed a number of
items that Planning Commission should be aware of. The primary one being a land use
issue. The Comprehensive Plan calls for this area to be medium to high density housing
(4-8 units per acre). The plan submitted by the applicant for the mobile home park is
more typical of a single family development (3 units per acre) and therefore would be
considered low density.
If the Planning Commission felt that the lot density was acceptable the following design
issues should be reviewed.
1. Access: The staff wanted two additional access points one of which would connect to School
Boulevard. The applicant is asking that only one access point be constructed.
2. Park Dedication: The R-4 district requires a 10% park dedication and does not allow for
cash in lieu of land. The original site plan did not meet this requirement but the applicant
indicated his willingness to work with the City on this point.
3. Pathway Connection: There is a pathway connection from the residential area to the south
into the mobile home park. The staff felt that additional pedestrian access would be
beneficial.
4. Location of School Boulevard: School Boulevard is proposed to extend to T.H. #25 and the
proposed alignment would loop through the comer of the plat. There has also been discussion
of aligning School Boulevard to run north of the plat. Chair Frie asked if the City Engineer
had soil and topography information on the two alignment options.
5. Public Safety Comments: The applicant submitted a summary of police calls that were made
to the mobile home park and how they compared to the number of calls in the City overall.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing on the zoning amendment. Kirk Kjellberg spoke
briefly regarding their request and submitted pictures of the types of housing in the
mobile home park. Jeff O'Neill asked what the typical density is for a mobile home park.
Normally the density would be 5-6 units per acre but in the proposed expansion the
density would be 3 units per acre. Bill Holland 3407 88th Street NE stated that the
pathway referred to by the Planning Commission was not a public pathway but was
located on private property. Mike Quinn, 3485 88th Street NE noted that there are 200+
q,A
Planning Commission Minutes - 3/2/99
.
homes in the west park, 100+ homes in the east park and a proposal to add approximately
134 additional homes. He was concerned about the traffic generated by this
development. Tom Wolfgram, 3424 88th Street raised a question about the proposed
access to the south.
.
Chair Frie then closed the public hearing. Robbie Smith questioned what part of the park
currently is in the City. I-Ie was informed that Kjellberg's West has been annexed but the
expansion area has not been annexed. Robbie Smith also asked the amount of the park
land on the south portion of the parcel. Steve Grittman indicated that there was about one
acre of land but the applicant had indicated that he was willing to aequire additional park
land. Robbie Smith asked about the price of the homes in the existing park. Kirk
Kjellberg responded that they ranged in priee from $9,000-$45,000. With the lower
density in the expansion area they would expeet to see homes with a price range of
$50,000-$75,000. Rod Dragsten asked if the developer would be picking up the cost for
improvements. Steve Grittman indicated that would be the case and pointed out that the
mobile home park had their own internal collection system for the sewer. Roy Popilek
stated that the City's Comprehensive Plan called for mid-density housing and he did not
feel comfortable with this proposal because it did not comply with the Comprehensive
Plan. Richard Carlson asked how the existing streets in the west park would tie in with
the streets proposed in the expansion area. Kirk Kjellberg indicated that there were no
plans to improve the existing streets as they were designed to handle the flow from the
expansion area. Chair Frie asked ifthe Park Commission has had a chance to review the
proposed park land area. Jeff O'Neill indicated the Park Commission has not reviewed
the site plan.
.
Chair Frie stated that the Comprehensive Plan gives the Planning Commission direction
and provides a guideline. He firmly believes in the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan
and concurred with Roy Popilek that this proposal does not complement the
Comprehensive Plan. Chair Frie felt that an R-2 land use was more appropriate for this
area. Chair Frie also commented on the condition and design of the streets in the existing
park which he felt were inadequate. Chair Frie expressed his concern about the impact
the park would have on the value of the adjacent single family homes and what amount of
tax dollars the park generated. Kent Kjellberg responded that they had designed the
expansion with the belief that less homes and less people would make it more desirable.
He noted that they met with the highway department regarding the access and the
highway department did not express concerns about the access. There was general
discussion on the street design and traffic issues. Kent Kjellberg pointed out that the
streets in the park were 40 feet wide when the ordinance only required a width of 24 feet.
In response to the eomment about tax revenue generated by the park, Mr. Kjellberg noted
that the park maintained all their own streets including the snow removal, and took care
of the costs for garbage pickup and street lighting as well. In addition $400,000 has been
committed towards the eost of the sewer.
C\)~
Planning Commission Minutcs - 3/2/99
.
Chris Scribner, 3456 88th Street NE statcd his bcliefthat the buffer did not provide
adequate screening for the adjacent residential areas. There were additional resident
comments about the traffic generated by the proposed expansion and whether any
expansion should be allowcd prior to School Boulevard access being constructed.
CHAIR FRIE MOVED TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE REZONING REQUEST
FOR KJELLBERG'S MOBILE HOME PARK BASED ON THE FINDING THAT
OTHER LAND USES WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE FOR THE AREA AND
WOULD MORE CLOSELY CONFORM WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. ROY
POPILEK SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously.
.
.
t\5~
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda -02/02/99
6.
Public Hearine - Consideration of a request for a zonine district amendment from A-O.
Aericultural-Ooen Space to R-4. Mobile Home Park. to allow the expansion of the
Kiellben! West Mobile Home Park. Aoolicant: Kiellberg's Inc. (NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Kjellberg's Inc. has requested an annexation of about 60 acres of property west of the current
Kjellberg West Mobile Horne Park, and a rezoning ofthat land to R-4. The rezoning would
accommodate an expansion of the park to provide an additional 136 mobile home sites. The
current Kjellberg West Park accommodates approximately 170 to 180 mobile home sites.
The existing park was recently approved for annexation and utility service by the MOAA and
the City of Monticello.
Land Use
To the south of the proposed site is the "Dunes" rural subdivision of approximately 130 one
acre single family lots. To the east is vacant land, part of which is owned by the City of
Monticello, known as the "Remmele" site. To the north and west is other vacant land, all
of which is within the limits of the MOAA and part of the City's "Southwest Area Study"
section of the Comprehensive Plan.
This City's Comprehensive Plan calls for much of this land to be guided for mid-density
residential, with its primary access from the extension of School Boulevard which would cut
through the north portion of the parcel in question. The City's interpretation of mid-density
has typically been townhouse-style attached units in small building clusters, at densities of
4-8 units per acre. The City's R-2 District is the most applicable zoning district designation
for this land use.
The Comprehensive Plan also calls for attention to housing market in Monticello which
emphasizes the need for a full range of housing opportunities. The Plan states that the
community has traditionally been fully supplied in the lower price categories, and that the
City's housing emphasis should be on supplying mid-range and higher end housing. At
approximately 2.3 units per acre, the proposed project appears to be in conflict with the
City's planning for this section of the MOAA.
Project Design
If the City is interested in proceeding with an R-4 designation, there is a specific set of
requirements for mobile home park development in Monticello. This review is required to
pass the project on to the MOAA. The agreement between the City and Township which
established the current MOAA requires that the City conduct its review of a proposed
project, whether a plat or a site plan review, prior to MOAA Board consideration. There are
a few requirements of the site plan review section which can not be evaluated at this time.
doJ\
.
Planning Commission Agenda -02/02/99
These include drainage and landscaping which arc not shown on the submitted concept plan.
The streets and sites appear to meet or exceed the minimum requirements for the R-4
District. However, there are some issues which are not in compliance with the City's
planning objectives or the R-4 District requirements.
Southwest Area Plan
The Southwest Area Plan illustrates a major collector street, the westerly extension of School
Boulevard, extending through the north portion of the parcel in question. The proposed site
plan does not accommodate this roadway. The School Boulevard extension is an important
part of the City's transportation system planning by creating an efficient east-west
connection between the school campus area, the future community park area to the west of
the Kjellberg property, and residential development in both portions of the City. Any land
use proposed on this site should be designed to accommodate this roadway. It should be
noted that an alternative alignment of this road could be constructed to the north of the
expanSIOn area.
Access
.
The project as designed would require the new development area to gain access through the
existing mobile home park, culminating in a single access point on Highway 25 for more
than 300 residential units. To maintain traffic counts typical of a residential neighborhood,
the minimum access to a collector (or higher function) street should be at least one access
per 100 units. If plans for a mobile home park go forward, access must be increased to
collector streets serving the development.
Parkland
The R-4 District requires that at least ten percent of the developed land be set aside for
recreational use. The plans which have been submitted illustrate a total set aside of about
5 acres. However, most of that area (more than 3.5 acres) is pond area which would not
qualify as recreational area according to the City's ordinance, or according to the City's
normal application of its parkland dedication standards in platted projects. The requirements
for recreation area will require additional attention before the City can approve any plans for
a mobile home park.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Decision 1: Consideration of Rezoning to R-4, Mobile Home Park District
1.
Motion to recommend approval of the rezoning, based upon findings that the land
use would be consistent with the existing mobile home park, and that traffic from the
development would not negatively impact existing development, subject to
.
40~
Planning Commission Agenda -02/02/99
.
completion of the annexation of the property into the City of Monticello.
2.
Motion to recommend denial of the rezoning, based on findings that the City's
Comprehensi ve Plan recommends a more intense residential land use, and does not
support the addition of significant levels of lower valued housing, given the current
housing mix in the community.
3.
Motion to table action on the rezoning, subject to the submission of additional
information.
Decision 2: Consideration of Annexation to the City of Monticello
1. Motion to recommend approval of the annexation, based upon a finding that the site
plan meets the intent of the R-4 District, and that the land use and contiguity
requirements of the MOAA agreement are met.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the annexation, based upon a finding that the site
plan does not meet the intent of the R-4 District, that the plan does not accommodate
transportation needs in the area, and that the land use is inconsistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan for the area.
.
3.
Motion to table action on the annexation, subject to the submission of additional
information.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff does not recommend approval of the rezoning or annexation at this time. As noted in
this report, the land use plans prepared for this area recommend a different style and density
of residential land use, and point out the transportation problems associated with the
development as planned. Without consistency in the land use, the area should not be
annexed due to the standards of the MOAA agreement, which are intended to ensure that
land will be developed in a specific land use pattern, and that full development will occur
within three years for any parcel annexed. Approving annexation without firm and
consistent land use plans would raise concerns about the ability to accommodate future
annexation and growth needs of the City.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A - Area Location
Exhibit B - Site Plan
Exhibit C - Site Area & Alternative Road Alignment
.
~4\
-
.-
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 2/2/99
~
Public hearing - Consideration of a request for a zoning district amendment from A-O
(Agricultural-Open Space) to R-4 (Mobile lIome Park) to allow the expansion of the
Kiellberg West Mobile Horne Park - Applicant: Kiellberg's Inc.
Steve Grittman presented the staff report noting that Kjellberg's West Mobile Horne Park
has been annexed into the City. The property proposed for rezoning lies in the southwest
portion of the orderly annexation area adjacent to the mobile home park. The parcel is
approximately 60 acres and is proposed to provide an additional 136 mobile home sites.
In the City's Land Use Plan this area is designated for mid-density residential (4-8 units
per acre). The proposed density for the mobile home park expansion is 2.3 units per acre.
The appropriate zoning for a mobile home park would be a R-4 District. Under the
MOAA guidelines, the City must review this before it goes on to the MOAA Board.
Steve Grittman also dealt with the issues of street layout and park dedication. It was felt
by the staff that adding 136 homes to a single access point would be problematic. It was
also noted that 10% of the developed area is to be set aside for park land. The land
shown as park in the proposal included ponding area and this would not meet park
dedication requirements. The staff recommendation was not to approve the rezoning at
this time. The question the Planning Commission needs to resolve is what is the
appropriate use for this land.
Acting Chair Richard Carlson opened the public hearing. Kirk Kjellberg, representing the
applicant, explained their request. He stated since the inception of the mobile home park
this area was meant to be included as part ofthe park. The project was designed with
lower density in order to aesthetically match the surrounding communities. However,
from a design standpoint they are not inflexible. In addressing the street concerns, Mr.
Kjellberg stated the streets in the park are wider than typical streets in mobile home parks
and therefore should be able to handle the traffic. He did check with MnDot and they
stated that the traffic warrants required for installation of a signal are not met in this area.
Mr. Kjellberg stated that they did not oppose an access to School Boulevard. He also
indicated that they were willing to work out the requirements for the park land. Kirk
Kjellberg stated he was requesting a meeting with residents of the Dunes development
and he was requesting the Planning Commission to table action on this matter because of
the MOAA and annexation issues. Mr. Kjellberg also referred to a legal question
regarding previous zoning action on the Kjellberg property.
Rod Dragsten asked about the lot sizes in the proposed expansion. Kirk Kjellberg stated
that the border lots would be 12,000 sq. ft. and the others would be less than that. Roy
Popilek expressed his concern about adding the additional units and only providing about
one acre of usable park space. Mr. Kjellberg responded that the existing facility has a
fairly large play area and stated they were not opposed to increasing the park area.
Mike Quinn, a resident of the Dunes, asked whether the R-4 zoning would allow for lot
size changes at some point in the future and he also asked about what type of housing
I\Ab
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 2/2/99
In Planning Commission discussion the question was raised whether the lcgal issue on
the land would have any bearing on what the City did. Steve Grittman stated that the
City's position is that any approval given under county zoning authority would not affect
the City's zoning decision. It was noted that both the MOAA plan and the City's plan
considered this area as mid-density residential. Rod Dragsten felt that a lot of questions
had been raised that need to be addressed and that by tabling this item until the next
meeting it would allow time for some of these questions to be answered. These issues
should be addressed: 1) Traffic issues; 2) Compatibility with adjacent land uses; and
3) Park land. Roy Popilek stated that if the proposal does not mcet the City's
Comprehensive Plan and the MOAA's plan should the Planning Commission be
reviewing it further. Fred Patch asked if the plan was changed significantly, could the
Planning Commission reopen the public hearing. Steve Grittman stated that the Planning
Commission could take additional comments if they desired but if they wanted to reopen
the public hearing that would have to be noticed. The public hearing could be continued
to another meeting.
.
ROD DRAGSTEN MOVED AND RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION
TO TABLE THIS ITEM AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL THE
MARCH 2,1999 MEETING WITH THE APPROPRIATE NOTICE BEING GIVEN
AND SUBJECT TO SUBMISSION OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. Motion
carried with Roy Popilek voting in opposition.
.
40,,1-
.
.
.
Council Agenda - 3/8/99
9.
Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit pun and preliminary plat.
Applicant: Gold Nu!!get Development, Inc. (JO)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
City Council is asked to consider granting preliminary plat approval of the Pine Meadows
subdivision. The Planning Commission reviewed the plat on three separate occasions and
forwarded a recommendation to approve subject to a number of conditions and subject to
establishment of strict covenants governing the quality and home developed. Please
review the complete history of Planning Commission information.
The Planning Commission agreed that the preliminary plat is consistent with the concept
PUD that was approved by the full City Council some months ago. It is also consistent
with the Environmental Assessment Worksheet that was also accepted previously.
B.
AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS:
1.
Motion to approve preliminary plat as recommended by the Planning
Commission. Motion based on the finding that the proposed plat is consistent
with comprehensive plan for the city. (See Exhibit Z).
As you know, the land use designation for this property is in question at the
MOAA level. If the MOAA establishes the area for industrial use, then the
property can not be annexed to the city under the plat/land use as proposed.
Therefore the approval of the plan becomes moot if the MOAA says the property
should be preserved for industrial uses. In order for the land to be actually used
for industrial uses, the City will need to change its comprehensive plan.
2.
Motion to deny approval of the preliminary plat.
This alternative should be selected if the City Council believes that the plat is
unacceptable or if Council would like to see the land converted to industrial uses.
3. Motion to table preliminary plat approval pending determination of land use.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
If the City Council believes that the comprehensive plan remains valid for this area. Plan
validity supported by the fact that it was reviewed and accepted by the township and
MOAA as part of the comprehensive plan development process and it was approved by
unanimous vote of the Council in 1996. If circumstances leading to previous concept
PUD approval and EA W acceptance have not changed, and if Council is satisfied with
the plat design and development controls, then the preliminary plat should be approved
-20
Council Agenda - 3/8/99
.
per Planning Commission recommendation. If however, it is viewed that this plat
proposal is not consistent with the comprehensive plan in some way, or if Council
believes that conditions have changed to the extent that residential platting of the property
is no longer in the best interest of the city, then the plat should be denied. It is
recommended that the denial should include a motion to call for a public hearing on an
amendment to the comprehensive plan supporting the preferred land use if not residential.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
1. Planning Commission meeting minutes and agendas:
January 5, 1999
February 2, 1999
February 8, 1999
March 2, 1999
2.
Planning Commission supplements:
.
Exhibit A - Site Location
Exhibit B - Concept Plan Drawing
Exhibit C - Proposed Plat Drawing
Exhibit D - Proposed 1 st Addition
Exhibit E - Phase I Preliminary Plat
Exhibit F - Phase I Grading Plan
Exhibit G - Phase I Utility Plan
Exhibit H - Phase I Landscape Plan
Exhibit [ - Entrance Monument Detail
Exhibit J - Perimeter Landscape Plan (typical)
Exhibit K - MOAA Anticipated Future Land Use (1977)
Exhibit Z - Preliminary Plat and PUD Conditions
3.
Comments from City Engineer
4.
Restrictive covenants
.
-21-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 1/05/99
6.
Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use
Permit for a Development Stage pun approval within the Monticello Orderly
Annexation Area. Applicant: Gold Nuge;et Development. Inc. (NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Gold Nugget Development is presenting its proposed Preliminary Plat and Development
Stage Planned Unit Development for a 220 acre residential subdivision to be known as "Pine
Meadows". The preliminary plat, if approved by the City, would be forwarded to the
Monticello Orderly Annexation Board for its findings as to consistency with land use plans
and contiguity with existing City boundaries.
Land Use
The site is located on the southern boundary of the City's Orderly Annexation area between
85th Street NE and Kjellberg East Mobile Horne Park, and between Highway 25 and County
Road 117. Single Family Residential has been the guided future land use for this site in
several previous planning documents, including the 1977 MOAA Land Use Guide Plan and
the 1986 City of Monticello Comprehensive Plan. The MOAA document mentioned the
possibility of preserving a parcel at the intersection of Highway 25 and County 106 (85th
Street NE) for commercial use. The City's current Plan calls for a continuation of low
density residential, typically defined as fewer than four units per acre.
The proposed development consists of a projected 545 units, 307 of which would be single
family. This results in a gross residential density of2.53 dwelling units per acre, and a net
developed residential density (exclusive of right-of-way, pond, and park areas) of3.78 units
per acre, based on a reservation offive acres for commercial land in the southwest corner of
the proj ect.
As a part of the MOAA Board's planning for future land use, there has been discussion of
converting the Gold Nugget site to an industrial land use designation. The rationale for this
change has been based on two primary concerns. First, there is concern that the generally
flat topography of the site would likely lead to entry-level homes, a market category which
has comprised a relatively large portion of Monticello's residential construction in recent
years. Second, the site was viewed as potential replacement area for industrial land which
has been tentatively programmed in the area of the Chelsea Road extension, north of County
Road 39 between Silver Springs golf course and the Interstate.
Planning staffhas not encouraged the redesignation of this site's land use for several reasons.
With regard to industrial development, creating additional competitive industrial sites outside
of the extended Chelsea Road corridor would almost certainly slow down the development
pace to the west which is critical in working toward a new interchange with 1-94 at Orchard
Road. Moreover, traffic in the Trunk Highway 25 corridor will make the Gold Nugget site
C~,
\,
PlalU1ing Commission Agenda - 1/05/99
.
an unattractive location for industrial, and industrial traffic will degrade the TH 25 corridor
for commercial uses. There do not appear to be viable industrial traffic routes to the east,
given the location of the school campus and recent reports from Mn/DOT that the half
interchange at County Highway 118 may not be approved. Even if the MOAA and the City
decide to change the land use pattern in the northwest area from industrial to residential, staff
would not recommend that the Gold Nugget property replace it.
Apart horn the land use and traffic implications, City Engineering staff has suggested that
there would be significant costs involved to retrofit portions of the City's utility system to
allow the Gold Nugget site to develop as industrial. Given the long-standing plans which
guided this area to residential, portions of the sanitary sewer system have been sized to
accommodate a residential sewer flow - about half of what would be required for industrial
development. Industrial development also creates three times the amount of stormwater
now. While these costs are recovered from the development, downstream ponding has been
designed with this site as a residential area.
.
As a residential area, the topography of the site is a concern as it relates to the potential
residential market. Staff has been actively working with the developer in an effort to
improve the development pattern and the site amenities to ensure a development which is
something more than a "starter home" environment. The City's Comprehensivc Plan calls
for a stronger effort to diversify the community's housing stock by encouraging higher-end
residential development. A PUD design approach gives the City the ability to accomplish
this objective.
Plat/PUD Design
A number of changes have been made to the project design since the City's review of the
PUD Concept Plan. Due to a greater than anticipated ponding need, the full development
now shows 545 units, 30 fewer than originally plmmed. Almost all of this loss has corne
from the count of single family homes. Single family homes comprise about 64% of the
proposed development, with the remainder being townhomes. The original project showed
about 66% of the units as single family.
Lots and Blocks
.
All of the single family lots in the proposed development meet the minimum 12,000 square
foot area requirement, with the vast majority exceeding the minimum by a significant
amount. In the first phase which consists of 83 lots, the median lot size is approximately
13,550 square feet, and the mean (average) lot size is 14,450 square feet. Nine ofthe lots are
the minimum 12,000 square feet in area, and 60 of the 83 lots exceed 13,000 square feet.
Increased lot size is one of the ways to encourage larger mld more valuable home
construction. For the entire single family portion ofthe plat, this pattern appears to bear out,
with a median lot size of about 13,600 mld a mean lot size of 14,900. Approximately 30%
<:\1 ;)
Planning Commission Agenda - 1/05/99
.
of the lots in the plat exceed 15,000 square feet.
With regard to lot width, again the vast majority exceed the 80 foot minimum, with 85 feet
or more being a common width dimension. Of the 83 lots in Phase 1, 23 exceed 90 feet in
width. There are a few lots which are close, but appear to fall below the required 80 foot
width dimension. These should be expanded to meet the minimum. Given the additional
width of most of the other parcels, a small adjustment should be feasible without altering the
lot count. The lots in question in the first phase are:
Lots 2, 6, and 14, Block 1
Lots 5 and 25, Block 3
Lot sizes for future phases of the plat will be more thoroughly checked as they are proposed
to ensure compliance with the City's minimum R-l standards.
Street Layout
.
The street pattern has changed slightly from the concept plan as well. The change has
resulted in two additional cul-de-sacs and a less "organic" design in a few areas. With regard
to the first phase, the primary change has been the reduction in lots due to the need to
construct a large pond (Outlot A) in the north portion of the project. The pond is shown with
a curving edge, and is flanked by a pathway with connects the main park area with the public
facilities to the northeast, including the School campus and Pioneer (Klein Farms) Park.
The loop street in Phase I is more rectilinear than originally drawn, but an additional street
connection does not appear to be justified. The primary issue will be maintenance access to
the smaller pond area (Outlot C) which is otherwise surrounded by lots. The large pond in
Outlot ^ has more than 200 feet of frontage along both Red Pine Way, the main connector
street in the plat, and County Road 117 on the east. This exposure will provide both
visibility into the pond area and access for maintenance when necessary.
Street layout in the townhouse area has been improved by eliminating one of the public street
cul-de-sacs and replacing it with a looped private street. The public street connection to 85th
Street NE will be flanked on both sides by "detached townhomes". This unit type provides
detached single family homes in an association similar to more typical townhouse projects,
but without attached units. The units are sited on private base lots, but surrounded by
association-owned cornman area. Additional design detail will be necessary for the
townhouse portions of the project which include common area, including building details.
The plan set includes typical landscaping plans which will require review as a part of the
building plans. Therefore, staff will recommend holding Development Stage PUD approval
on these portions until such time as the developer is ready to address them in more detail.
.
Street changes to the western portion of the single family area are the most dramatic, and
q6
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 1/05/99
raise the most significant issues. Rcd Pine Way, the main internal street, is now paralleled
by Ponderosa Trail. Thcse two streets create a block length of more than 3,000 feet without
an intersecting cross street. A pathway connection (moved north from the original concept
plan location) is the only interruption to this pattern. A less parallel pattern would help to
vary both street views and rear yard "sameness" in this portion of the project. The concept
plan's street layout provided for a more interesting pattern.
The concept plan also included a connection to Trunk Highway 25 which has been
eliminated in thc preliminary plat drawing. The loss of the access to Highway 25 will result
in a grcater concentration of tratlic utilizing more of the internal street system. This issue
is compounded by the single street serving the lots in the northwest portion of the project.
More than 90 lots front on Jack Pine Trail, Court, Lane, or Circle. Staff would recommend
at least one additional connection to Red Pine Way from Jack Pine Trail, and inclusion of
the access to Highway 25 if Mn/DOT will permit it.
.
There has been some discussion at staf!' involving a frontage road connection from the
northwest corner of the project along the east side of Highway 25 to the north. The
developer shows a pathway connection in this location. There are both advantages and
disadvantages to the frontage road concept, and staff is divided on this item. Advantages
would include more convenient access to School Boulevard and the signalized intersection.
Disadvantages would include the expense of construction and maintenance, and the
possibility of increased non-local traffic in a residential area.
With regard to street dimensions, Red Pine Way should be constructed at a 36 foot width,
and sidewalk is shown on the plan. As designed, Jack Pine Trail would also require a 36 foot
width, given the amountoftraffic it will carry with only two outlets. Design changes should
add connections to reduce the tratlic on this segment, and allow a 32 foot wide street surface.
This same comment is applicable to Ponderosa Trail. The cul-de-sacs and the loop street in
Phase I, White Pine Lane, may be constructed at 30 foot widths. Sugar Pine Trail, Norway
Avenue, and Norway Lane should be constructed at 32 foot widths.
A particular issue noted by staff is the proposal for landscaped islands in the right-of-way
at the entrances to Red Pine Way. The aesthetic value of these entrances to the development
is understood, however, they raise a series of pol icy issues with regard to street maintenance,
island maintenance, liability, and visibility. The development plans show landscaping and
a monument sign to be located outside of the right-of-way, at the rear corners of the
adjoining lot. The island treatment is not identified on the plan submission. Staff will have
additional recommendations for standards relating to these types of islands at the Planning
Commission's meeting.
.
CI.L\
i
.~--,-,.,- ~."
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 1/05/99
Park Dimensions
The plat scheme includes three primary park nodes connected by pathway. Portions of the
pathway cut through the blocks in 100 foot wide (or more) rights-of-way in a linear park
design. The largest node is Outlot D, a 9.1 acre parcel with frontage on Red Pine Way to the
north, Sugar Pine Trail to the east, and a 100 foot wide pathway connection to Ponderosa
Trail to the west. The design also includes a pathway connection from the park into the
townhouse neighborhood to the south. Outlot D has adequate area for an informal play field
and a small children's sliding hill which is included in the grading plan.
The other two park nodes (Outlots F and G) also include adequate area for an informal play
field, and consist of 3.8 and 4.4 acres respectively, including their linear pathway
connections.
With regard to Phase I development, slightly more than seven acres of parkland is scheduled
for dedication. This includes about 4.2 acres of pathway around the large pond in Outlot A,
and about 2.84 acres of the Outlot D park area.
Pedestrian Connections
.
The development plan shows a sidewalk all along the north side of the main roadway, Red
Pine Way. This sidewalk should provide connections to other pathway destinations. Staff
would recommend the extension of pathway from the sidewalk terminus north along County
Road 117 to the northwest corner ofthe plat, and west along 85th Street NE to Highway 25.
It would also be beneficial to provide an off-street connection parallel to Highway 25. The
original concept plan created a pedestrian corridor which could have included a portion of
the Red Pine Way sidewalk. This would not appear to be convenient under the revised plan.
In lieu of an interior connection, a pathway which follows the east line of Highway 25 for
the length ofthe project would be appropriate. Other pathway connections within the project
appear to be adequate to provide good pedestrian access both internally and to external
destinations.
Townhouse Neighborhoods
As noted previously, Development Stage PUD approval for the townhouse neighborhoods
should be held until additional detailed plans are available, including building plans. The
changes made to the townhouse areas from the concept plan, however, are positive in regard
to internal circulation. The design now includes a looped private street serving both clusters
of townhouses which will make service and emergency vehicle access safer and more
convenient.
.
~h
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 1/05/99
Phasing
The project is designed to be developed in phases, with the first phase consisting 01'83 single
family lots, all but two of the single family lots in the northeast portion of the plat. This
phase will include two access points to County Road 117, thc large pond on Outlot A, and
parkland in Outlots D and B. For phasing, the larger issue will bc future development, and
thc nced to increase access to the project as it proceeds over time. The developer should
prepare a phasing plan which illustrates the completion of the internal street system to 85th
Street NE in the earliest phase possible. Staff would be concerned about a plan which
cxtcnds too far beyond 100 units without a third access to the development.
Landscaping
The developer has submitted a landscape plan which illustrates a significant level of
perimeter landscape treatment along Trunk Highway 25, 85th Street NE, County Road 117,
and the common boundary with the Kjellberg Mobile Home Park. Included in the proposed
landscaping are a variety of shrubs and pine trees, berming at the perimeter, and the required
street trees throughout the development. There would appear to be an opportunity to
strengthen the landscape border along the north boundary, particularly where deep lots allow
a more diverse planting schedule.
.
The Phase I landscape plan should also illustrate the treatment of the ponds in Outlots A and
C. Staffhas recommended that a plan be developed which includes a variety of native plant
materials, both shrubs and perennial grasses which will complement the wet environment
and minimize the need for maintenance as water levels in the pond fluctuate.
General Comments
One of the issues which has been raised in relation to residential use of this site is the interest
in avoiding the "sameness" which can devalue a neighborhood over the long term. An
option which may be considered is to limit a builder's ability to construct the same house
plan on consecutive parcels. This type of regulation would be permissible under the PUD,
but requires additional staff management to ensure compliance. Defining what constitutes
the "same" house plan is the primary issue. Differences may be as minimal as alternative
siding, roofing and/or trim colors, to varied facade treatments, garage location, and window
placement, to completely different floor plans. If the Planning Commission is interested in
this type of management, staff will be prepared to discuss the impacts and options of this
approach.
.
g'\'
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 1/05/99
B.
AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS:
Decision 1: Preliminary Plat
I. Motion to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat for Pine Meadows, based on
a finding that the project is consistent with the existing and future land use plan, is
contiguous to the City of Monticello, and complies with thc requirements for
annexation as outlined in the Monticello Orderly Annexation Area agreement. This
motion should be contingent on the conditions listed in Exhibit Z.
2. Motion to recommend denial ofthe Preliminary Plat for Pine Meadows, based on a
finding that the revised land use plan for the MOAA is still under consideration.
3. Motion to table action on the Preliminary Plat, subject to the submission of additional
information.
Decision 2. Development Stage pun
1.
Motion to recommend approval ofthe Development Stage PUD, based on a finding
that the proposed land use is consistent with the anticipated low dcnsity residential
pattern and that the PUD, including unit mix, park development and perimeter
landscaping, create a project which will be superior in design to that which would
otherwise be required by the City's Zoning Ordinance.
.
2. Motion to recommend approval of the Development Stage PUD for Phase I, but
withhold Development Stage approval for the remainder of the project, based on a
finding that additional detail is necessary prior to complete the DevcIopment Stage
PUD for future phases, and subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit Z.
3. Motion to recommend denial of the Development Stage PUD, based on a finding that
the design does not rise to the level necessary to meet the purpose of pun in the
Monticello Zoning Ordinance.
4. Motion to table action on the PUD, subject to the submission of additional
information.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
.
Staff recommends approval ofthe Preliminary Plat as outlined in Decision I, Alternative I,
and approval ofthe PUD for Phase I, as outlined in Decision 2, Alternative 2. Staff believes
that the land use is both appropriate for the site, is consistent with the current land use guide
plan for the OAA, and is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. As noted in the
discussion, it has been suggested that the subject property be considered for an industrial
qJ1
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 1/05/99
land use designation. However, this suggestion is neither the plan of the MOAA nor the
City. Most importantly, it is infeasible to provide for industrial development on this site
without significant cost, much of which would be duplicative of previously installed
infrastructure. The sewer, storm water, and traffic impacts of industrial land use here would
negatively affect many other City systems, including existing residential and school areas,
planned commercial development in the Highway 25 corridor, as well as set up a negative
environment for achieving the development of a future interchange at 1-94 and Orchard
Road.
With regard to the plat and PUD design, staff believes that there are a number of changes
which will facilitate an attractive, valuable development. While this site is not likely to see
the development 01'$200,000 homes, design components can be instituted which ensure that
the neighborhood need not be a starter home environment. Those suggestions are listed on
the attached Exhibit Z.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
.
Exhibit A - Site Location
Exhibit B ~ Concept Plan Drawing
Exhibit C - Proposed Plat Drawing
Exhibit D - Proposed 1 sl Addition
Exhibit E - Phase I Preliminary Plat
Exhibit F - Phase I Grading Plan
Exhibit G - Phase I Utility Plan
Exhibit H - Phase I Landscape Plan
Exhibit I - Entrance Monument Detail
Exhibit J - Perimeter Landscape Plan (typical)
Exhibit K - MOAA Anticipated Future Land Use (1977)
Exhibit Z - Preliminary Plat and PUD Conditions
.
$\,
~),
-'
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 1/05/99
PRELIMINARY PLAT and PUD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. Rezoning of Phase I to R-I, Single Family Residential upon approval of annexation
and submission of Final Plat.
2. Division of blocks within the Preliminary Plat to meet the maximum 1,320 block
length and required pedestrian access through blocks of more than 800 feet.
3. Verification that all lots meet or exceed the minimum standards of12,000 square feet
in area and 80 feet in width.
4. Street connections are added to the northwest and southwest portions of the plat to
provide greater traffic dispersal.
5. Submission of a revised plat showing a change to the long parallel street pattern ll1
the southwest portion of the plat.
6. Additional access is provided to Trunk Highway 25, if approved by Mn/DOT.
7.
Consideration is given to the provision of a frontage road connection to the north
from the northwest corner of the plat.
8.
The street pattern is altered to comply with the standards for street width construction
as mentioned in this report.
9.
Access is provided to Outlot C.
10.
Approval of the landscaped islands in Red Pine Way by staff.
11.
Park areas arc graded and seeded as shown in the Grading Plan.
12.
Sidewalks and Pathways arc constructed in coordination with the developmentofthe
plat.
13.
Pathway is added to the Preliminary Plat along County Road 117 between Red Pine
Way and the northeast corncr of the plat.
14.
Pathway is added to the Preliminary Plat along 85th Street NE bctwecn Rcd Pine
Way and the southwcst corner of the plat.
Exhibit Z - PUD/Preliminary Plat Conditions of Approval
gA
Planning Commission Agenda ~ 1/05/99
.
15.
Pathway is added to create a parallel pathway connection along Trunk Highway 25,
either in the TH 25 right-of~way, or within the plat close to TH 25.
16. Submission of a preliminary phasing plan.
17. Additional landscaping is provided along the northern boundary to strengthen and
diversify the buffer.
18. A landscape plan is provided for Outlots A and C (the ponding areas) to provide a
low maintenance natural wetland environment.
19. City Engineer approval of the Grading and Utility Plans.
20. Consideration of architectural control measures with the objective of limiting
monotony in the building layout.
21. Submission of additional details for the townhouse portions of the project, including
building plans and, where appropriate, intensified landscaping.
.
Exhibit Z - PUD/Preliminary Plat Conditions of Approval - Continued
.
C1 ~b
.
.
.
.
.
.
Minuks
Planning Commission Minutes - 1/5/99
6. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use
Permit for a Development Stage PUD approval within the Monticello Orderlv
Annexation Area. Applicant: Gold Nugget Development. Inc.
Steve Grittman presented the staff report on the proposed 220 acre development lying
between T.H. 25 and County Road 117. It was noted that the property is contiguous to
the City and lies in the area covered in the orderly annexation agreement. It is an area of
contention in that the City believes it use should be low density residential while the
MOAA Board believes the property should be designated for industrial use. There were a
number of changes from what was shown in the concept plan. It was noted that the
ponding area is greater than what was shown in the concept plan. The increase in
ponding area reduced the number of lots by 30. An EA W (Environmental Assessment
Worksheet) was done and it was determined that no EIS (Environmental Impact
Statement) would be required. It was pointed out that there is a five acre parcel in the
development that is proposed for commercial use.
Steve Grittman addressed the concern about the street layout especially the length of the
streets. The connection to T.11 25 from the plat which was shown in the concept plan has
been eliminated from the preliminary plat. The City would prefer to see the connection
remain in the plat providing it is approved by MnDot. Steve Grittman noted that the
Public Works Director and City Engineer expressed concerns about the street design.
There are 22 acres of park designated which meets the 10% land dedication requirement.
The 22 acres does not include any of the ponding area and it was the recommendation of
the Public Works Director that internal ponds be privately owned.
Chair Frie questioned whether Planning Commission consideration of this plat was
premature. The MOAA Board is in a stalemate on their land use plan and since this is an
area of contention, perhaps the Planning Commission should table action on the plat until
direction is given by the MOAA Board. It was suggested that by approving the
preliminary plat it may force the MOAA Board to make a decision.
Rod Dragsten asked about Item #9 on Exhibit Z which dealt with access to Outlot C.
This access would be for maintenance purposes and would not be an access intended for
public use. Chair Frie noted that in a number of ponding areas the lots lines meet at thc
pond and in those instances who is responsible for the maintenance of the ponding area.
Roy Popilek asked about the impact the commercial property would have on the
-4-
q ,\\
It { .
~ <<">.~ ,'~
'..... ' :Jt.r. . ''''.' .. t ) .It.... ". \ .
~ -", -,,; , ~ .., .;~ "." ~
.1:., .... '. . ',1 q i
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 1/5/99
.
infrastructure. Steve Grittman indicated that the commercial flows from the five acre
parcel would not significantly impact the sewer/water system.
Robbie Smith wondered what would happen to the property if it received Planning
Commission and City Council approval but was turned down by the MOAA Board. Jeff
O'Neill responded that the land would remain in limbo. There was a lengthy discussion
on whether the matter should come before the Planning Commission since the MOAA
has not resolved the issue of a land use plan for the orderly annexation area. Would
approving the preliminary plat for residential use make the MOAA Board more rigid in
their position that the property should be designated for industrial use. Mayor Belsaas
stated that Planning Commission approval of the preliminary plat may give the developer
false hope. Steve Grittman argued that the Planning Commission needs to carry out the
planning end of the work and not worry about whether other entities give approval. The
Planning Commission should address any concerns about the preliminary plat and not
anticipate or allow what happens later by another authority to guide their planning. Chair
Frie stated the Planning Commission had three options: 1) approve the preliminary plat;
2) deny the preliminary plat or 3) table the preliminary plat and he felt that there was
legitimate reason for tabling the plat. He emphasized that the Planning Commission has
not done their planning based on expectations of what the council would or would not
approve.
.
Chair Frie then opened the public hearing. Horst Graser from Gold Nugget spoke
regarding the land use issue. While he is aware that the MOAA may not approve the
project they are proceeding based on the assumption that this project meets the City's
land use plan. Chair Frie indicated that it is the position of the MOAA Board that until
there is an approved land use plan they will not approve any annexation. Richard Carlson
suggested that perhaps there should have been a moratorium until such time as a land use
plan was in place. There was lengthy discussion on the position of the MOAA Board
and whether any action taken by the Planning Commission would impede progress on a
land use plan. While staff suggested that the Planning Commission should follow the
same procedures that they followed on all other properties in the orderly annexation area,
the Planning Commission noted that this was the only property that had come before the
Planning Commission where there was a question on what the use should be.
Horst Graser gave a presentation on the proposed development. He covered what
attempts they would make to attract upscale housing. He stated that there will be
covenants for the development and the covenants will set forth requirements for roof
pitch, elevation, color and materials. He also noted that white vinyl posts will be placed
at the rear of the lots abutting the park so that there is a clear delineation between park
land and the lot. Horst Graser stated that the major change to the concept plan was a
result of the ponding requirements. Since they are restricted to 2.5 cefs of flow they had
.
-5-
q .(J-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 1/5/99
.
to increase the ponding area which resulted in a loss of approximately 30 lots. Of the 545
units there are 196 townhomes and 42 detached townhomes which is the same as the
shown in the concept plan.
.
In reviewing the conditions for preliminary plat approval, Mr. Graser commented on Item
#4 which required street connections to the northwest and southwest portions of the plat.
The developer was not adverse to the additional connections as long as it did not
compromise the integrity of the plat. On the proposed access to T.H. 25 (Item #6) Mr.
Graser stated the access was removed from the preliminary plat because MnDot did not
recommend an additional access. As to Item #7, consideration of a frontage road
connection, Mr. Graser stated that feasibility and cost need to be considered and he
wanted further direction from the City staff on this item. He was most concerned about
the additional trail/pathway requirements outlined in Items #13, #14 and #15. These
items would add approximately 4,000 feet of trail and since this would be outside the
perimeter of the development it should not be made a condition of his plat approval. He
felt that this was more a regional trail and that the connections should be the
responsibility of the state, county or city but not the developer. As it is the developer
would be spending approximately $20,000 for construction of trails/pathways within the
development. Steve Grittman responded that he did not consider the additional pathway
requirements as being a regional system rather it would allow the ready access for the
residents in the northeast and northwest portions of the proposed development.
Chair Frie closed the public hearing. The Planning Commission questioned the
developer on various aspects of the development including lot size, information on the
type of housing that would be going into the development and what amenities the
developer would be providing that would bring in upper scale housing. Richard Carlson
stated that the holding ponds do not have an aesthetic value unless they retain water on a
permanent basis. Horst Graser indicated that the holding ponds would probably be dry a
portion of the time but that those lots abutting the ponds and park areas would command
a higher price because many buyers desire space and separation from adjacent properties.
Richard Carlson asked whether the entire 220 acres was proposed for a PUD or only the
townhomes. Mr. Graser responded that the PUD was for the entire 220 acres. The
proposed entry monuments were also brought up with questions about the design ofthe
monuments and who is responsible for maintenance. Steve Grittman stated that the staff
had discussed this item and would set up a policy dealing with design and maintenance
concerns but that has not yet been done. The Park Board has reviewed the proposed park
area for this development. The developer stated that he did not want to see anything
other than passive play areas for the park land since he felt that it would take away from
the upscale housing.
.
-6-
q-\3
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 1/5/99
.
CHAIR FRIE MOVED AND ROY POPILEK SECONDED THE MOTION TO
CONTINUE THE PUBLIC i-IEARING ON THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PUD
UNTIL THE FEBRUARY MEETING BASED ON THE OUT COME OF THE JOINT
MEETING WITH THE MOAA BOARD TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE INPUT AND
DIRECTION TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ON 'fHIS ITEM.
Motion carried unanimously.
.
.
-7-
C-{ 4 ~
.
.
.
.7.
.
.
Planning Commission ~genda - 02/02/99
Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Preliminary Plat and
Conditional Use Permit for a Development Stage PUD approval within the
Monticello Orderly Annexation Area. Applicant: Gold Nueget Development, Inc.
(Jeff O'Neill)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the previous meeting of the Planning Commission, the Commission acted to table
action on the Pine Meadows preliminary plat pending input from the MOAA at the
meeting on the 27th of January. Based on the discussion at this meeting, it appears that
the MOAA is leaning toward designation of the Pine Meadows area as industrial.
However, a final decision was not made pending additional discussion at the City and
Township level.
Please note that a special meeting of the City Council has been tentatively scheduled by
Mayor Belsaas for 5:30 Monday February 8 1999 for the purpose of discussing the
proposed MOAA plan. It is suggested that the Planning Commission attend this
important meeting.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1.
Motion to continue the public hearing to a later date pending input from the
MOAA.
Unfortunately, the next Planning Commission meeting (March) will be held one
day after the next regularly scheduled MOAA meeting which means that the
earliest that a Plmming Commission decision can be made using MOAA input
will occur in April. Action in April would occur within the 120 day limit
prescribed by the subdivision ordinance.
If the Planning Commission desires to obtain input from the MOAA prior to
making its decision on the plat, then the public hearing should be continued. As
noted above, it is important that the Planning Commission attend the Council
workshop which will provide the opportunity to provide input to your
representatives.
2. Motion to approve the preliminary plat based on findings noted in the previous
agenda item on this topic.
If the Planning Commission wishes to forward the matter to the City Council
based on the finding that the development is consistent with the comprehensive
plan for the city, then this alternative should be selected.
-5-
,/
(.
q-~
.' ,. ",d"~,...",.~~,JJI
.
.
.
t
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 02102/99
Motion to deny approval of the preliminary plat
3.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends alternative 1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A. Information from City Council Packet - 1/25/99.
.
.
-6-
g ,\~
.
.
.
.
.
.
M.nub
Planning Commission Minutes - 2/2/99
7.
Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Preliminary Plat and
Conditional Use Permit for a Development Stage PUD approval within the Monticello
Orderly Annexation Area. Applicant: Gold Nugget Development. Inc.
Jeff O'Neill presented the staff report explaining that the Planning Commission had
previously tabled the matter pending input from the MOAA Board. The question that is
unresolved is what should the designation of this area be. The MOAA Board felt it
should be industrial and the City in their comprehensive plan designated it as residential.
This was discussed at the joint meeting of the City Council and MOAA Board held on
January 27, 1999. The Township and the City will address the issue at the meeting of
their individual boards and then bring it back to the MOAA Board so at this time there is
no formal input from the MOAA Board. Jeff O'Neill reminded the Planning
Commission of the special meeting with the City Council scheduled for February 8, 1999
at 5:30 p.m. The staffs recommendation was to continue the public hearing until a later
date pending input from the MOAA Board.
Acting Chair Richard Carlson opened the public hearing which was a continued from the
January meeting. Peter Niergard questioned the constant rapid growth that the City was
pursuing. Acting Chair Carlson asked how the residents felt the growth could be stopped.
If the property meets the guidelines set forth in the City's ordinance the City could not
prevent that property from developing. While the City cannot stop growth it can attempt
to control it. Dave Payzant at 8634 Davern A venue stated that he had just recently
purchased his home and he was dismayed that the information about proposed
developments was not disclosed to him. Bill Holland, 3407 80th Street, felt that the
County Road 106/T.H. 25 intersection posed a safety hazard and adding more residential
development in the area would only aggravate the traffic situation.
Horst Graser from Gold Nugget Development gave a presentation on his proposed
development and answered questions from the residents. Horst Graser also talked about
his concerns about the property being designated as industrial. These concerns included
the traffic, much of it truck traffic, that would be routed through residential streets and
haying streets and utilities that were not designed for industrial use. A resident asked
whether a signal installation is included in the improvement plans for T.H. #25. Steve
Grittman indicated that it was not at this time but when the warrants were met, signals
would be installed. In response to the residents comments about the rapid growth, Steve
-5-
9 .\~
t 1'1 f 1,,1
',. "".. 1J ~t J .I~ \
"lt~!t ~.."."",.\:I' . oil
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 2/2/99
.
Grittman stated that although the residents may prefer not to see any development in this
area, the City and Township had come to an agreement that this area would become part
of the City's long term growth area. The question is not whether it will be developed but
whether it will develop as residential or industrial.
lefT O'Neill asked about factors that were causing the shift in the designation of industrial
land. Steve Grittman stated that residents in area where there were designations for
industrial land were lobbying the MOAA Board to go with residential and put the
industrial land designation in other areas. The MOAA Board has chosen this site in lieu
of others for the industrial land use designation. Acting Chair Carlson asked if the
freeway exposure wasn't more desirable for industrial development than for residential
development and Steve Grittman concurred with that.
The Planning Commission discussed tabling this item until the March meeting and
whether that would create any problem for the City with the 60 day requirement. It was
pointed out that the MOAA Board would not be considering this item until their March
meeting which falls after the March Planning Commission meeting. It was suggested that
the Planning Commission address this at the February 8, 1999 meeting.
.
ROD DRAGSTEN MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO
FEBRUARY 8,1999 AT 7:00 P.M. ROY POPILEK SECONDED THE MOTION.
Motion carried unanimously.
.
-6-
9
..
1i
.
.
.
.
.
.
4.
Special Planning Commission Agenda - 02/08/99
Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Preliminary Plat and
Conditional Use Permit for a Development Sta!!e PUD approval within!! the
Monticello Orderly Annexation Area. Applicant: Gold NUf!!!et Development. Inc.
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As you know at the regular meeting of the Planning Commission, this item was again
continued to a Special Meeting on Monday, February 8, 1999, at 7:00 p.m. The Planning
Commission is asked to consider the information discussed at the special meeting at 5:30
p.m. on February 8, 1999, and determinc whcther or not to proceed with a
rccommendation to the City Council on the preliminary plat of the Pine Meadows
Subdivision.
In the event that the Planning Commission prefers to obtain a recommendation from the
MOAA Board prior to its decision making then the Planning Commission should
continue this item to the April meeting. Continuation is necessary to the April meeting
as the MOAA Board meets to discuss the MOAA Plan one day after the March Planning
Commission Meeting.
The Planning Commission also has the option to movc forward and make a
recommendation with regards to the preliminary plat utilizing the existing
Comprehensive Plan as their guide. Under this alternative, the Planning Commission
takes a proactive approach in dealing with this plat and essentially would be
communicating its view that the prescnt Comprehensive Plan is appropriate and that it is
therefore proper at this time to forward this recommendation to approve the preliminary
plat to the City Council.
In conjunction with discussion of this project, the Planning Commission may wish to
consider taking the initiative to request that the City Council call for a Public Hearing; or
the Planning Commission could unilaterally call for a Public Hearing on proposed
changes to the MOAA Plan. Information obtained in the Public Hearing could prove
useful to the City in determining whether or not it wishes to change the Comprehensive
Plan to match the MOAA Plan. It seems prudent to make every effort too keep the two
plans consistent. Reviewing the Comprehensive Plan prior to MOAA approval might
help to provide the City representatives to the MOAA some valuable prospective as
representatives of the City. If the Planning Commission were to call for a Public Hearing
on potential amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, it may be wise to have the hearing
coincide or pre-date MOAA's consideration of the Land Use Plan. The earliest that such
a Public Hearing could be held would be at the March meeting of the Planning
Commission. This is one day prior to consideration of this topic by the MOAA Board.
9 19
~l"'''' ......., ~,;, "i: ,).;~~:"...',w.'t,l:,.:y.j,,',,~.',,;olf_
.
.
.
.
Special Planning Commission Agenda - 02/08/99
13.
AL1"ERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1 . Motion to approve the preliminary plat based on findings noted in the previous
agenda item on this topic.
2. Motion to deny approval of preliminary plat.
3. Motion to table pending input from the MOAA.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that this item be tabled if the Planning Commission prefers to have
MOAAinput prior to preliminary plat approval. Sta[[recommends that the preliminary
plat be approved if the Planning Commission believes that the current designation of this
area for residential use is proper and therefore there is no need to change plan, etc.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
See previous agenda items on this topic.
.
.
CJ ,)1)
.
.
.
.
.
.
M, "..ie~
oa/llOJCf
4.
Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Preliminary Plat and
Conditional Use permit for a Development Stage PUD approval within the Monticello
Orderly Annexation Area. Applicant: Gold Nugget Development. Inc.
Jeff O'Neill summarized what had taken place to date on this development. Action on
the development had been tabled pending input from the MOAA Board. Since there has
been no agreement between the City and the MOAA Board on the land use designation
for this property, the Planning Commission could table this matter until such time as
information was received from the MOAA Board or the Planning Commission could
make a recommendation to forward to the City Council.
Robbie Smith stated that he was leaning towards going with the residential designation
for this property and felt that the Planning Commission should take a stand on this. Rod
Dragsten felt that residential was the best use of the land but he felt there were other
things to ensure the quality of housing and amenities to enhance the development that
could be incorporated into the covenants or development agreement and the Planning
Commission should look at these items. There was discussion on what details supporting
the claim that this was upscale housing could be addressed in the restrictive covenants.
Shawn Weinand felt this could be accomplished as long as there weren't too many
restrictions placed on the developer. However, he cautioned the City not to expect
$175,000-$250,000 homes in this development but stated that the homes would be a step
up from what was in the area. The Planning commission discusscd the need for upscale
-1-
q "d-l
~ ',1
;,1) ....'.. to! H"f t i.~i \
...."'.',J. ., ..', \l J .
i:!\
pc ~ .'~~l
. " $
.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 2/8/99
housing and how it could be achieved.
The Planning Commission discussed the ponding areas in the proposed development
including the capacity of the holding pond and what could be done to enhance its
appearance. Horst Graser suggested plantings or prairie grasses in the ponding area but
stated that it may take 2~3 years for the plantings to become established. The developer
in his efforts to make this development a desirable place to live had made considerable
financial commitment to the trail system as well as other amenities for the development.
Rod Dragsten felt that some of the problem was a result of the property being such a flat
piece of land. He felt that some contouring of the land would create a better lot that
would command a higher price. A higher priced lot would more likely have a higher
priced house on it. In discussing the development the Planning Commission felt the
need for assurances that this development would be a step up from what is existing.
.
Dave Klein asked what the major concern of the Planning Commission was. Was it to
encourage construction of higher priced homes in order to increase the tax base. He noted
that changes in the energy code would add $5,000.00 to the cost of home so he felt it was
inevitable that higher priced homes would be coming in. Dave Klein indicated that in a
market study that he had done he found that housing in the price range of $11 0,000 to
$125,000 was what was in demand. Dave Klein stated he was in support of the Gold
Nugget Development and keeping the 220 acres as residential use. He stated that it
would be harder to attract upscale housing if the development is adjacent to the freeway.
The staff noted that there was time before the next meeting to have the developer come
up with the items that he was proposing to utilize in this development in order to entice
upscale housing. When asked if he would be comfortable waiting until the next regular
meeting, Horst Graser responded that he would like to have the Planning Commission
make a decision on the development at this meeting and make review of the covenants a
condition of the approval that could be met later. Rod Dragsten stated he had
reservations about forwarding something on to the council for their consideration that was
not complete. He felt if more time was taken to work out the details on the development,
the City Council would be more receptive to the Planning Commission's
recommendation.
.
Horst Glaser indicated the restrictive covenants submitted would be based on 500+
lots. If the property use is changed in whole or part, such as designating a portion of the
land for industrial use it would impact the restrictive covenants. He also felt that the
residential portion of the development should not have to pick up the drainage from any
portion of the property that was designated for industrial use. Richard Carlson stated that
there is pressure to demonstrate that this will be a step up from developments that the
City has had in the past and there is pressure to supply the industrial designation to some
-2-
C\ .).d-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 2/8/99
.
other land. In order for this 220 acre parcel to remain residential there is the need to find
some other land area for industrial use. Fred Patch indicated that in 1997 approximately
128 homes were built and in 1998 a total of207 home were built. The current inventory
of available platted lots (approximately 220) could be depleted in 18 months if the current
building trends continue. The industrial land inventory is adequate to supply the City for
40 years.
Horst Graser stated that there was some redesign work on the development and he would
like to defer this until he has a definitive answer as to whether the City wants the land as
residential or industrial. He will, however, deal with the other issues raised at this
meeting, such as the restrictive covenants.
ROY POPILEK MOVED AND ROBBIE SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION TO
RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE 220 ACRE PARCEL KNOWN
AS THE GOLD NUGGET DEVELOPMENT SHOULD REMAIN DESIGNATED AS
RESIDENTIAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AND THE AREA REFERRED TO AS CHADWICK/BOHANON IS BETTER
SUITED FOR LIGHT INDUSTRIAL BECAUSE OF ITS LOCATION RELATIVE TO
THE FREEWAY.
.
In further discussion on this item, Richard Carlson stated that on Gold Nugget
Development the Planning Commission was following what was set forth in the City's
Comprehensive Plan which is the basis for its finding that the property should remain
residential in use. Rod Dragsten questioned whether the motion should just cover the
residential as the other areas were still open to discussion.
ROY POPILEK AMENDED HIS MOTION TO STATE THAT ALTERNATIVE
AREAS CLOSER TO THE FREEWAY WOULD BE BETTER SUITED TO LIGHT
INDUSTRIAL USE RATHER THAN RESIDENTIAL. ROBBIE SMITH SECONDED
THE AMENDED MOTION. Motion carried unanimously.
ROBBIE SMITH MOVED AND ROY POPILK SECONDED THE MOTION TO
APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PINE MEADOWS BASED ON A
FINDING THAT THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING AND
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN, IS CONTIGUOUS TO THE CITY OF MONTICELLO,
AND COMPLIES WITH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR ANNEXATION AS
OUTLINED IN THE MONTICELLO ORDERLY ANNEXATION AREA
AGREEMENT AND WITH THE CONTINGENCY THAT THE PLANNING
COMMISSION WILL BE REVIEWING THE COVENANTS AND BUILDING
RESTRICTION INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY THE DEVELOPER AT THE
MARCH 2,1999 MEETING.
.
-3-
9 ,$
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 2/8/99
.
Upon further discussion, Rod Dragsten stated he believed that the Planning Commission
should have all the information before them before they acted on the plat. Roy Popilek
rescinded his second to the motion made by Robbie Smith. The motion died for a lack of
second.
ROD DRAGSTEN MOVED TO TABLE ACTION UNTIL THE NEXT REGULAR
MEETING ON THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE GOLD NUGGET
DEVELOPMENT PENDING SUBMffTAL OF INFORMATION BY THE
APPLICANT RELATING TO COVENANTS AND BUILDING RESTRICTIONS.
RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED 1TIE MOTION. Motion carried with Robbie
Smith voting in opposition.
.
.
-4-
q ..~~
.
.
.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda -03/02/99
-
6.
Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit
pun and Preliminary Plat. Applicant: Gold Nugget Development. (NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Gold Nugget Development has been awaiting a resolution of the land use planning issues in
the MOAA affecting their property along Trunk Highway 25 and 85th Street NE. The
applicant has indicated that they would be willing to comply with the recommendations of
staff with regard to design, and is developing a series of development controls which will
regulate housing design and site improvements throughout the project. However, the
applicant has been reluctant to redesign the project, pending a resolution of the land use
issue. Staff has met with the applicant regarding the development controls, including the
developer's proposed covenants. It is expected that a list of the proposals will be available
to the City prior to the Planning Commission's meeting.
The Planning Commission should consider whether it is ready to take up the plat again, or
continue action until the land use issue is resolved. If the Commission chooses to wait, the
"degree" of resolution should be identified. The Planning Commission and City Council arc
scheduled to again meet on land use at 5:30 p.m. next week. This could result in a
recommended land use pattern from the City. However, the Orderly Annexation Board
would not meet until April on the land use issues, and a final plan document is not likely to
be in place until Mayor June.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat and PUD, subject to
conditions listed in the staff report for the January 5, 1999 Planning Commission
agenda.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the Plat and PUD, based on a finding that the land
use issues are yet to be resolved, and the Plat is premature.
3. Motion to table action on the Plat and PUD, subject to additional discussion on the
land use plan.
4. Motion to table action on the Plat and PUD, with a recommendation on land use
forwarded to the City Council.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends either Alternative 1 or Alternative 4. The land use issues in this area are
the subject of ongoing discussions, however, the Planning Commission has a good
opportunity to provide input through its action on this project. If a residential pattern is
,;t
~
1
.,~,'~." .,..,.":,.....'.,......111
.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda ~03/02/99
considered to be appropriate, the Planning Commission may etlect the land use planning
discussions with a motion regarding either the plat, or the land use, or both, even though the
final annexation and land use decisions may not be made until later meetings.
As a reminder, on March 8, at 5:30 p.m., the City Council will be reviewing the proposed
MOAA Land Use Plan jointly with the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission
may wish to discuss the MOAA Plan and consider formulating a recommendation for
discussion at the upcoming joint meeting.
At a recent meeting of the IDC a recommendation was formulated that mirrored thoughts
expressed by the Planning Commission. Please take the IDC thoughts into account as you
discuss this item. Attached is a copy of the IDe minutes along with a graphic showing the
differences between the proposed MOAA Plan and recommended IDC plan.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A - List of Development Controls - Pine Meadows.
Exhibit B - IDC Land Use Map Proposals
Exhibit C - Pertinent IDC Meeting Minutes
.
.
q 'J-~
.
.
.
.
.
.
AAi ntlb
Planning Commission Minutes-3/2/99
DRAFT
6.
Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit PUD
and Preliminary Plat - Gold Nugget Development Inc.
Steve Grittman gave the staff report summarizing the issues that had been discussed in
previous Planning Commission meetings on this item. The Planning Commission had
tabled this item pending resolution of whether the property should be designated as
residential or industrial. A joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission is
scheduled for March 8, 1999 to further discuss the question. The Planning Commission
discussed the position the IDC took that part of the Gold Nugget land should be
designated as commercial/industrial and whether the Mayor took a position on this at the
IDC meeting. The IDC felt that land south of Chelsea Road should be residential and
north of Chelsea Road should be for light industrial.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Mike Quinn felt it was ridiculous to put industrial
land that far off the freeway and felt the area should be residential. Horst Graser spoke
to the Planning Commission about some ofthe issues that were raised at the last meeting
and were addressed in his memo of February 17, 1999. One of the items that was
discussed was the storm water management ponds. Mr. Graser stated that he envisioned
the wetland area as something that would be an amenity to the development. He noted
that the elevation of the pond had been changed and it was proposed to include plantings
of native grasses in the area. Jeff O'Neill questioned what assurances the developer could
give to make sure the storm water ponding improvements were implemented. Mr. Graser
indicated they would have a landscape firm do the plantings and maintain them for at
-4-
C\ 'd-~
,.1~JJtt ! 'i~^
<I"'....,,.;.
T~ASla
.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes-3/2/99
leastthree years. A more detailed landscape plan will be submitted at a later date. Horst
Graser noted that there will be entry features that will include plantings as well as signage
identifying the development. Maintenance of the entry monuments was discussed. It is
the intent of Gold Nugget to maintain the plantings for at least 10 years but after that it
was not certain who would be responsible for the entry monuments. Chair Fric closed the
public hearing.
.
Rod Dragsten stated that in Horst Graser's memo on development controls they propose a
range of house values. He indicated that he would prefer to see a square footage
minimum used rather than just a value. Horst Graser said his firm stayed away from
square footage minimums but stated that the homes would exceed the minimum
requirements set forth in the City's ordinance. Roy Popilek asked about the Architectural
Control Committee and how it would work. Mr. Graser responded that the Committee
would be made up of representatives from the firm who would review the applicant's
information and determine whether it met the guidelines. There was some discussion on
outside storage and Mr. Graser stated the restrictive covenants did not address the issue of
recreational vehicles. Chair Frie asked the staff if the design standards set forth in the
February 17th memo complied with city ordinances. It was noted that the Architectural
Control Committee would provide the private effort for enforcement of the restrictive
covenants. The was some additional discussion on when the land use issues with the
MOAA would be resolved and whether the Planning Commission would make a
recommendation at some point in the interim or wait until the land use plan was adopted.
ROD DRAGSTEN MOVED AND ROY POPILEK SECONDED THE MOTION TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PUD SUBJECT
TO THE CONDITIONS IN THE STAFF REPORT OF JANUARY 5, 1999 AS
FOLLOWS AND THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS AS OUTLINED IN THE
FEBRUARY 7,1999 MEMO WITH SQUARE FOOTAGE MINIMUMS TO BE USED
IN LIEU OF HOME VALUES:
.
I. Rezoning of Phase I to R-l, Single Family Residential upon approval of annexation and submission of
final plat.
2. Division of blocks within the Preliminary Plat to meet the maximum 1,320 block length and required
pedestrian access through blocks of more than 800 feet.
3. Verification that all lots meet or exceed the minimum standards of 12,000 square feet in area and 80 feet
in width.
4. Street connections are added to the northwest and southwest portions ofthe plat to provide greater
traffic dispersal.
5. Submission of a revised plat showing a change to the long parallel street pattern in the southwest portion
of the plat.
6. Additional access is provided to Trunk Highway 25 if approved by MnDot.
7. Consideration is given to the provision of a frontage road connection to the north from the northwest
corner of the plat.
-5-
C1, 'd.-~
.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes-3/2/99
8. The street pattern is altered to comply with the standards for street width construction as mentioned in
th is report
9. Access is provided to Outlot C.
10. Approval of the landscaped island in Red Pine Way by staff
II. Park areas are graded and seeded as shown in the Grading Plan.
12. Sidewalks and pathways are constructed in coordination with the development of the plat.
13. Pathway is added to the Preliminary Plat along County Road 117 between Red Pine Way and the
northeast corner of the plat.
14. Pathway is added to the Preliminary Plat along 85th Street NE between Red Pine way and the southwest
comer of the plat.
15. Pathway is added to create a parallel pathway connection along Trunk Highway 25, either in the TH 25
right-of-way or within the plat close to TH 25.
16. Submission of a preliminary phasing plan.
17. Additional landscaping is provided along the northern boundary to strengthen and diversify the buffer.
18. A landscape plan is provided for Outlots A and C to provide a low maintenance natural wetland
environment.
19. City Engineer approval of grading and utility plans.
20. Consideration of architectural control measures with the objective of limiting monotony in the building
layout.
21. Submission of additional details for the townhouse portions of the project including building plans and,
where appropriate, intensified landscaping.
.
There was some additional discussion on the merits of using square footage minimums or
home value range. Horst Graser stated that the developer was not in agreement with
items #14 and #15 as they did not feel they could be responsible for development of
pathways outside their property. Steve Grittman addressed this stating that the least the
City could look at was having the pathways extended to the end of the property. There
was discussion on future connections to the trails.
ROD DRAGSTEN AMENDED HIS MOTION TO STATE THE ISSUE OF HOME
VALUE RANGE/SQUARE FOOTAGE MINIMUM WOULD BE ADDRESSED BY
THE STAFF AND GOLD NUGGET; THAT ITEMS #14 AND #15 WOULD BE
WORKED OUT BETWEEN THE STAFF AND THE DEVELOPER AND THAT A
DETAILED LANDSCAPE PLAN WILL BE SUBMITTED BY THE DEVELOPER.
ROY POPILEK SECONDED THE AMENDED MOTION. Motion carried
unanimously.
.
-6-
~ 'dq
I,~
I~
.l"
!
.-
--
--I-- -"1
-. / .
\
~
,
I .0.
I _ _ -:::;::-_
~ # ....
. -~---' \
{'
-I, --
- .-
i
I '
I
V
~.
I
I
I
~l of. 1.--.- -/_.__
1,- '--r--j
.. ""'d .r
--h
l!:"~;--~l' .
Ii '_ _....
-.
. Location~
Exhibit A - Site C\ ;3
--r-=-- I I
L.!~\__
/ ~,
I
I ~ ..i::Jf
-'--. .
'Ii-.,.
I
I
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
...J... .
.
.
~
.
t~
'" '
- ... v
~{ . .~
Q ~ "''' ~ 0 I.,'t::\
:; ~ =: !: .... ~ ~ ;t:
...
!tl;J
..,~~-t:. ,'to .
.2 f".~~~'f Po
..- ,i .) ~ ~ ~
J "l... rQ~Q ~...
It { . .. : -
i ~ '-.::"
~ ....: A~ j
I . .
~ .
"
. -. ... . ~
--
. '/
, .lf~ ' ., t. :
. .', n~ ' ~
Exhibit B - Concept Pla:'~raWing~ J .~J I
.
....
Cl ;,,).
'0
110
'i~
II~
11-:':>
!! <::?
Il~
'I cP
I,
II d'
;10-
.
.
L11
OVOll
AJ.Nnoo
. I
_...... __I .._.....: f
.I.5V3WLijON
)t1H,J,\y
NOSNOn,n
v
.. -'1 :
I .
l i
O C-F:J
L --
~ ;
, ,
, '
I t
I I
, I
\ I
I ~
r?
~..
.::j"d>
.-?
~
C:?
P
t?~
-::/
~
0"
'II ~
III
I '
. lIt-
I I l:
l II!<
'"
o.
a
r:
~
qa'J--
~~t:
l4i ~ ~
\\.l-. 1--
t E
i ~
Exhibit C · Proposed Plat Drawing
) M....
.
.
.
(".,
I
,
I
: /
1/,
V /
11 ,
',/
"
,
,
'I
,
I
I
f; :
,
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
~t:; :
~= i
,
,
I
.'"
F~
t
IG"nHlt<<)N l/"iN3fo.'(
_NO"",
IIi
::l~
- -,
)Q';;.'IIr.IQN
-'''1"'[1
""'...
~..
l/"
~~
-i
~
!Ii
~
I-
::J
~
j!;
l(l
:j~
!~
"."
b" ."."
."
~ ~<i~-".,
''''IIf ..~
..I,~~j~--...
",..", ............."-...
.\'",;;;;''-.,
''-.,.'-.,
JJ ~;?-'''''.
"'-...,......
.'-.,.'-.,.,: ,.."", "''';>...
~ .......................
~
~
o
3
::IE
w
z
0:
~
[
....
l:!l
'"
:>
Z
~
'"
6
!
~
1=
a
o
...
...
~
~
D
3
::IE
g~
~li:
z I
0 j
~ I
-
Cl I
Cl II
~ II
+-l rl
UJ 11
I"""'l
Cl !JI
~ ,"
~ Iii
- 'II
::c: II'
! l
:><
t:iJ
~
~~1I.!i':i :0 t,'; .... ,- I ,..~~
.::..:t H 5~.
~ooq"''' I ~~ ~ I ..~tt
IIII'II~ ~:! I ..::>.
,.,:..:",~ :I:' \ z.i
iil\1l "'... ~~l!!
. ... f'
-.. !!I
'I ~ I ~ I 0 ~ ~in
I! I. _-""? ~. ;. i~ ,,~;lZ
[I!~ I ----, . - .Icld~
11 . I ,0
, I"" I II , ffff
It'..... ~ u.::!! o. J";,...."'"
I~!~~ ~ i~
.::i;;..~.: ~ I/!:o-
..~ta& ClYi ""
r "" i~
;~.iQ tS ;::15
~ i~ ..lj;
Q;1::2 at
..
g
..
~
;:
...
::>.
u
%
ii:
.
Je.
.~ I ......
!~.1 (J. 11 ..:. : ::... .ioN
~:)~:/ --':::~~:t::{~:::
avaH
~
('-I
j~
.lJ.Nf/OJ) l.SVaBJ.UON
-, . ~-=-.:-~~~
.
k
."
'_::":":i'\~ ./.:....:V
.. .. ,,'1,1 , , .
.:~:-=fl ~ :..! :',
;~~~.~~:;;t~' -~.. ~ ..-
.<:. :."~:;:~~~~ .~. . #
.~ , ~., ~:~: l:a' ~ a
.(:~i ~I
). . .;.~.,ll! I"
. \...}"''CoI~ i
__"," :' l .,' -'-"'-
<...--. / r~
~ ...."'11 .".. !
(,II' ..."'~ :..
-. --;:~. : ;
:.")\>> ::1
<;..-- f"
,""') i '...:
~.-
...
<(""..)... I
\p .~. I
,,"'.. 1\.'
I"'_......c.:
..;;>.'fl
~... {....
.....").{
~""'*I'
....-: ~
':-' ~
l I
.-:.1 't
(,.... _..... I.
(" > J
-"'...........
.
f:J
~
t lie
_~asNON~1 _ _
oJ
1:
~!
;:r~.'
,~"
~.i
~Ii
;i{
sf:.:
..i~
9 ~
0-', )r<(l:
3nN3JI. Y
--/-':..
:- -...iJ..-- ~*'::.;.,"~"~. .-
1.-
i~i
~l
l.
4
rl
.'
.;~,
,
I
: ~
3
...
..
~
z
,.
a
l>:
Cl.
: :0
I
I
1___
\.
,
,
y
......
j
..-......_-...
i '-'-.
~~
ItlP
..... .....:.-.
~.... ............
.... ...-
;-,,"'.-
~
\,
I
~~
, .
II
,...
"
.'"
..
\
\
"
. \
.... '''\
'\
I
\
. \ I..., ............
...-
,J"" - -.
" ,
,//' ',\ 1
J
-.....
'\
J
u
"
IJ
"
;l
.~
H
.~
I,
t~
to.
iii
t'!'
,11
...
......-
l
./ ~
/
. !
" :k
\" ,
;.: .1
, , ;;
.. \
.. , )
.. ;1
'- ~
'. ~
'.. ,
,
.
'"
li
!:
.i
n
..
ii
-'J
-"'-..
..~~.. -....... ....- ....,
.....- _.
.......~
. '-'...
"
.......--
"
.,..."...... --
\
,
. .
;,~) "
.. g ;,~ ~ ~
':. i; ~~.. r:('. l!';-
~ ~.., '..~ad f.,
~ \It t::"rf i
r-...__H.1. .
. I
i~
.~I
j:'"
;~-~
'..
\
\, ~,,"."-'-
'-......i'
I~XIIIIJI'r I~
Phase I Preliminarv PI.Sl~
q ~.
-I
;~1 j
.H i
1itn
. ~ 1. ~
~ -
11' i'
f:i :..
..~ i ..
"..t. t~
;~f I:
WH
..... ...
.i\i '
i~d
t: n
; ~ ~.'
~ ~ c
., ~ f
r. ~ ~ t
~ "; :: ~
'; '.j' r ~
!t.l f. 'j: ~
., . .
h >~
: ~ i ~
. . ~
H i~
:.\' ,.
=. .
,: .1.~! ,"~~
" _. ;!< II' ,.
:1 ~ 1 ~i
" '4' I! '"
! i -. "t :~ .~
-I-':m:~"
I 13l~'
i .'~\"
'i'~
i 9{~~:
. , ,
. ,:\~
\'
,
,,= .'
I. 1-
t ,'.'
'!. :<:
~li .~
i& "
!"
..
'f.~hl\!l
. "'/1-1
I' hI
" I i I.
. . II
I., /I~J~
I' I · .l;;!
i .~! ii~~li
. II J~'I
, " l.(U~~I;!:
ill \.l'J"""'"'"
fj--r "',
Ij:ln!l,
l-1all!
'\,1
, ~:
:~ "it
; il _ I,
,!t ,1--1
.~--- H;
.m Ill'"
I. " t " I I
- Ii Il'!ri
I. u "\'"
~ I , ;-r .
~; 'Il-lfl. ~l!M!
Q~ t',.(t;;".)'11i
, . U 1.lU,"".'.
~~ -II
Ir-:.:",
licl \h,
.;.1....l I'll"
, ~ Ii .
'..l ~r
;'
"-
'" "
.,.....+
" '-'.
, '
, ,
',.... '
I
! I .
I. . ~ l i - il':': II,
'I' ' I !. Ill'~' I'
I,; . I i j' 'j . I!;I' IIU'
1j I. t I i,l : I, * I: lill;
i i! i;-l Ie. j~ H. tl ~!: ~ U m c; ttll!
~.. . It!"!,. III L I
.! ,\,-ll! 1/ 'lB'''' "":.'"1 I
I. ~f' !~~ 3 "11;:
~ '\:qj;;/ . ~ ~ l
"'Ii A/;4?" li..J ili '
... .u _ __ '.. _,..... _
~-....! .' . -":Ii#o. - -= ">---:
..... ::z:
"
6]5
. ~
· t
5
~ r
ip
t .. ~
- .
.i n
.~. j ~
I' I
. , I
.
5
.
'"
i
'%
0
~
g
-c
..
...
~
0
~
~
~
~ ~ t
i e ~
~ I ~
~. t.
! ~ ,
~ .. f.
I t ,.
.. . :
\'<
'<(
~
~ ;
~
~
...
~
~
..
5
>-
'"
.i
:J
"it:
i'
,
,
. ~
~l
j
t~
\,.~
J
i 1
it
;l
'z
1I
~j
,-
('
I ~ z
1;1
l:~
~I.l.
~,r
r1j
~h
~.
~ ,
~ .~
~~:
~:"'t'
~l
11ft;
:~t~~
. -
4_..
I~XIIIIJI'r l~ - Phase I Gradina Platy
~ -:-,,'
1\ ~'
;:"" ~
_ :C~ ...~~_.-..............,--
.
~,.
. ~.f ,.
.~~~ ~~..~
.~~; .~~~l
!!I
~ 't~
'~'-"~;:I: 1,
~ ", I'. ,.
I, 01; ~i.l.
,",....- - IP
I....., ....
'j II ~ I'll
I. "j I,.(n
'- ~I:[j!
"II ';!ili'
,"!t- !l :r"l
il!~~
ilJ.-,
I.,ri I,
I i';~ .11 .-;
....J.j".,,:..J iIh,-.
. -.:. ~l ".
~..1
;,
" .
~ ;~
:..,'.
~~l'D
~\ ,~t I
l-:"n I, I....
I' &- ".
j!.'l'- -, " i 1
:hll ;J
I' ,~ l :[:
t H: 'I; ~l'~~
I . .2!~
I ", I t~~l"
'i~ -~
~I~}'" ~. ~
. -" I
; ~;4
19/iH:
:'\'1101
~:; t
;;:1 I ~
'" . I
)~i - (
Ft i: ~
,;; ~ t
!~~ ~ i
i9i l..
hi! . 1
i~!~ ; t
l'~~ i f
g ~il~ ~ ~
={h
1
'--, n.". '_I'
~~~
.-.,
~i~
!;~
....:I.Z-
:~~
. :
.:
. "
~
f .1 ,
1'lI .. .
~ ~ ~
=." .; .
~ ; ~ .~
ann
I 11 .-
f i i .'"
~ . .'
" ,
. 'r::
<Ii '"
!
,
f
Ii
.. / !'.!!",
-
~.
!
i
\_n
..."J
, .
:..~:..~:~,'.
,.....J I II'
1/ ii: i
Iil1
,\>,,' Il\!
~! I\i\
-~1 lj;i
"\...-""", Ii: I
0; 'If
, I ~
~'--l: !\\i,
\.,/' ',i] i I
<:> ii:
/\ iii'
V' II'
~ li~
~ '
?>
.;;:::>
C>
.p
H
.
"
"~.
~
~'
':l
· c.:
~ ~,
.
..,
~
i
5
0;
2i
..
...
;
)~XIIIIJlrr (, - Phase I Utilit\l Pla~-.,_
~ ~~
..
"
~
lj
?i
!
li
~
..
~
~
...
:z:
~r;:
;'
c:
::;
'"
;:>
-lI
~
PI
:--
'"
<
.l!:
~~
::!.I.I
),'"
~~
\. "\
"'''.
:1
.
, ,
I .
11
H
.'
n
,.
"
II
iil
ii~
r;!
Il'
I.'
. -, ~
!)~
;Ill
.. ,
l"i!:
-r
:t~
"oIii ...-
-~
.
"l
;
~o
vP
</
o
c:?
(/
(/
o
c?
??
.c:?
c::>
.0
cP
1111 ~:.I !-.
i.l' ~~it '. ;!
fr ~ i!\.!!!1 'i:'l
Ill' ':II I I I I
! \,,\~ U.
1
::l
r---:;;'-" 1 111;,,;:"-1
~i I [I -I ~l' ,
~~ ! ,( ~1l'J I
f . I I . ..1;1
iill, ,.' ~1I~~'~' I \:-,' +." !
I, "~~ -';>: \ '\ .'
.. ::--.~~~" ~
~ p-------rt2~
~)t"", "
, '~~-"'. .J .".
i Po. ",~,
1._.
1-"
IS :z:
]
If
~!
t,
_t
I !
i
L
----- ~
~BH iHB Hi .~;= ,-. ."Iot ::1:
:2:: ~= ~ ... '22 J
.""'lIU ....1 Ii Ii T..;
::=:'1:' rr~ ri i He 2
iii.i. ;un ~~; Un :ui ~!! ~~~ ~
tm~~ ;m~ ::2:
I
.ii1 .~ \
.:~. 'i
I'!; Ie
~~~; l~
. ~~I !i
~ ',1 ,.
. ~~jf it
· -j... r'
; idl ;i 1
i Mt 3l
! lU.l .I
r-'"-''' --'1
~ I ; I .
, ,. i ,f ~ ! ~ ~
J .., Ii;: , ; ;.:. J
! J I, ',a '~I cdr it I;
rill} I, ,Ill' i: f! I
" ,'I" ~ II II. Ii "II,
I ~ '1,( 'Il~ .. [ It I- ':'
!:Pllill,. I,; n . II J! II; :J i
~ :,:!II!I"1 ~ '; i.it !li:I,; }', I
.. 11' ',1 I 'f II!
I ~ Illfl!H: II! j}!!:HJlihI1il!j i I
I 5 lr:tll"lljllllw;:'::liillt!I,I:~! " I
I II rll,lll"'l' 'II 1"
ll!::I_~':I. 1~*"1~ !I~.:_.,w: I
I ' ~ ,
I I i j~'
.~l2~:~~
~i~ I~i !n
1.1i"iti
f It i~~l !;~ I
i ,~~.i tq r
! It! Ii; ~ir !
i
'f i
,
~
~.
=l
;,
~~
~.
; ~
,. ~ l'
a, ~ ~ ~
.... . ~ iU ' f ,U . a j ~
5 l':ih~i,aH~j:i~-I!
c l~'l.~ I 'I i j:t F'"
~ ...!:.H ;~=.Z' i,i'a!llf
~ i~~~~(' ~~m~ ~fj.'! ~iil~
,.. *h~~IU:tJh~ II"
3 lliiou ~L!. ~;;; ~mi
Ill.' ~ ij'Q;I~
L___......0. 0
:!. '. I
.,
---
,!'I'~
~
P
..l.
r,,:
!
,
~
//....: /(//:
':." ..-; /:/// ~
-.'": "T-.'~'''' .',-
+
-', .#~.,'
.:.~
^
....
'"
()
ii
'"
<(
~
;
o
c
....
",
:.
'i
Q;
i
~
8 1
I;.
~~i
i!l~:
~~.
t;~c
iif
9 :
~
'"
..
-'
u.
~
'-'
'"
c
~
....;
:>
~
::!
~~
~""
i j :
! , J
i
~~
i i
1 ~
\ I
Jr
H
"
.~
..
.,
il
"
l'
itl
.,
rl>
,i!
Of!
~il
!h
IJ I
,'Ib.;
tit f
~ ~
:'~!
..... ....
I~XIIIIJI1' II
_ Phase I Landsca-'A D1an
~ ~')~
ENTRANCE VALLI SIGN AND PLANTING DETAIL
NO SCALE
.
.- - - -:- .
I
tl//%
,;// h \ ~
'!*'l/u,r:.
, ....t
" --:I
--,
t . - y":-.-.~ ~
~~\\liJ' 1\" l'
. ~" /0(" _.
/."" "]
,.,.. .
!~ \ 1'(/,.:1 /t"l\ ~jfi~::'
\~\\II/ . ~ ."oJ.,-'
\~" . ~ ~.f....
. --2"/ //1\\' "":i"~c..-"
- / I . i"" ",
;// ~. ...... / I
.
BOUlOER WALL.
MUGHO PINE (2)
PROJECT SIGN
'-"-..
'-.
::7'" .,..-----
I~I.!I..~
~....:;;.. , -
)
".. .
I
WHITE PINE (5)
I (VARIOUS HElG TS)
I
I
i i
j
I ,
I . 1:-. .
.~,.'
III. ..
I
.;.
:'
I
!
i
:~.
"
............
ENTRANCE VALLI SIGN AND PLANTING DETAIL
NO SCALE
.........
:I
. , .It
.
I~XIUBIT 1- Entrance Monument~et.~~
!
.
SD:iONQNIIT
I t/O",.,.a "
k<<A"'u i""a-
i
!~
i
;..!
:I:l'
;111
'"',
Pc:~ ",",'
I
'~I
;;:i
.
-'-
--
".
...
'-
.
'-
'-
.........
'...
.--- ---,
4lUl'1111: 11<:.... ,. PUT
FOUNDATION PLANS (sc:gle: 1"-20')
I
I
\
,
----..
FOUNDATION PLANTING SCHEDUL~
~11M7f'~l:.i&. MaMn.
I:l%1:n11lOaT
tSb~
.'
,"
~
,..
,.
..
'"
~::"r:: ~::;"-;~~~_I"
Ct-f~.~_.,/'I~wa,ot-.'II1IfIII"
~=~;.a;'II;:l~4r-~~ ......
~.....y,_, ""11II1' ~r......" ........
""'''".,.......,.._.I/c.,....t~
.... ............ l)'1_~aI--.....~ .,.-
~tJ......,. '-":....;- C,..""'" '- ~ IIonIlIJ
~"I(II ,APf"/-1Iif'I"M ~~ ~.
J ... .;a_
t::::
.l...jIollt
j ,," "..
,~ II"~
J .. ,liIt
,),U/Ojl....
::111II'....1
. ... ...
__.t__.._
PLANT SCHEDUle
o
~.T""COl. lWClt
II\I[II$TOIIT TIlaS _'Il"-01lS>
~ III-".......S ~ 'U6'.......s SUalU'
"~~L~....cJ!t.......- lICar."
~tCJIII";{I:I.,I'~ILIi.""'1S
.tIC.~":'aICI'.~--.c;II~
..1II'....,QjCu;,,;SMI:.IJ!:,...,...
"""1""" .... DM..~..... ......
S1K10r0t .....:w:;
... ....
..;'-1'1I.1
,:,....
'':I." IA.
:.J'''''
U-"'I
,,-
ill:' 1MPoo~
,,:w."
.'".iIII
....1;011_
o
_of... lllEES _TTTY-5011>
"",,~'.iI(r:-fiIII&." L".....
P..~c:"_Wll"'...I"<<P....- ..'-=-'h.1
(I'~.....lt..:, ~II'G ~ U~. hi
TIiCC..I...-:..it4....K'~'. \ftI...
f~.tI.C.U ......../IDUII.c.M ~"I M,IIIII~1 .."t' ....
~'iioCl."
6';1 ,11III';.1:'.
...t~"'..
"0: ~I'l_
a~~"'~
d
I'Q.....,. ~J ..............~
1i(......c..,..:.,I.I~
....,L,II~..""".C'ft,"^11MtI
II'",U( ....,..ut;. \.IWIIUt:
..........
... ....
.r ....,
....w-..
~1.~
.I'S-JN"
~ .., ........' ....1'tIIUL-S COJMTln-.'J~)
~11'4 aMI.,.........wi r.c-.uGI-. ~
~ _.taIII...,.:p~..
~s-alI.~'-.dt...".....
,.,..... ..I"",.~....YI~ 1C.1I1.....l,N
..... ... II'
,........: ..
,.. ..... .r
I" Ie II
~r ~.'
.. n"
U'r::
..G' g~
~
,....,.s~m...',I'I~J
.....~_ ~""...I ...'''''........ t.~
....I.;;iI;l:I_.~~.....Cfi
I"..t~_ LII"':iI'~~ i ~"""-=
:t '" "'I
, ""'" 11I;I'
~ c.a. -crf
'III' ..Ie.
011,1 d.
-I.,'
..1;t,,,,
lPIC"C ~':--"SI~~"'1US
u... "'._I:II....C,IIIIIII,.~ -'CIldSOl
.~.. ~._(c.-" 1.~~"'" UMI'I*
t!;llt" 11II,
.~~I
.-....
~.1iI..
U' c~
;.':l.' 1.1_.
II;;;': ...",~.. \,II~i('. I ....Oifttl ir "" liaT
W'.::' '.'" ,,~,,:.lItw... ...c.""1IIII -III> .. I ~....,
Iii'::..:-.c.;: ..:.~"~'A."""" ~~.... "'II(1Io,....-.a" iI! "" 'V'
......:....~""'~,1UiIooIII .~1iG\'
1:' :I':
1':1.'1'
...
..':.~
I
I
I
I
,'J
~
f
KM;:tl ...... " I.... ","-I
I~ ..N.:.I~ ......::t... 1'1III i:lI:""-.iI"IIj. "'*v.t:i tIlL"'.
1_ ..'VIr 'tit.! .,..c.~ f11 ~. --.L" IIMI a,J ilJ..ltr..I:'''
)~XIIIIJI'r .J
. Perimeter Landscape Plan (tVDical,~
c\,
.
~
-':1'1
~
I
~ "
I
-,
,,' ... .;
..
., J ~""I' ~
.i I
;.
~.
'> ; .
- j
.E iij:
C\I ,_.
,
r -- .
+. .-.-1.....
,
--~. -.
/
,/-l
"/
:. ::r;;. ~
.' I
'. ~
. .
'i "
- ~z
"~ w i
' L: ". "
:J i I
g~L5 l-
'T- l, ~:.~ ' ::J UJ I,
/ u. ..J c: ~ u..(I) e~
OW~:z C:J ..,:1 III ~
>~ 0 WQ ~~ ffi i.
I- - ='i ~~~
t:zE~ ~z '" Il'"
Uo ~ 0:<( ; ~ i~
\'101 :!~~ -~ ! ~ i
,- ~
III < ~ :: ~5"
... i 3
,f, .- ~ ~~ -.- ~
c:n
~ =
I
,"
./'
I~XIIIIII'I' I{
- MOAA Anticipated Future Land Use (19~71 )'1)
-
.
.
.
./
Planning Commission Agenda - 1/05/99
PRELIMINARY PLAT and PUD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. Rezoning of Phase I to R-1, Single Family Residential upon approval of annexation
and submission of Final Plat.
2. Division of blocks within the Preliminary Plat to meet the maximum 1,320 block
length and required pedestrian access through blocks of more than 800 feet.
3. Verification that all lots meet or exceed the minimum standards of 12,000 square feet
in area and 80 feet in width.
4. Street connections are added to the northwest and southwest portions of the plat to
provide greater traffic dispersal.
5. Submission of a revised plat showing a change to the long parallel street pattern in
the southwest portion of the plat.
6. Additional access is provided to Trunk Highway 25, if approved by MnlDOT.
7.
Consideration is given to the provision of a frontage road connection to the north
from the northwest corner of the plat.
8.
The street pattern is altered to comply with the standards for street width construction
as mentioned in this report.
9.
Access is provided to Outlot C.
10.
Approval of the landscaped islands in Red Pine Way by staff.
11.
Park areas are graded and seeded as shown in the Grading Plan.
12.
Sidewalks and Pathways are constructed in coordination with the development of the
plat.
13.
Pathway is added to the Preliminary Plat along County Road 117 between Red Pine
Way and the northeast comer of the plat.
14.
Pathway is added to the Preliminary Plat along 85th Street NE between Red Pine
Way and the southwest corner of the plat.
Exhibit Z - PUDlPreliminary Plat Conditions of Approval
. "
9 ...,
9 ~. \,
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 1/05/99
15.
Pathway is added to create a parallel pathway connection along Trunk Highway 25,
either in the TH 25 right-of-way, or within the plat close to TH 25.
16. Submission of a preliminary phasing plan.
17. Additional landscaping is provided along the northern boundary to strengthen and
di versify the buffer.
18. A landscape plan is provided for Outlots A and C (the ponding areas) to provide a
low maintenance natural wetland environment.
19. City Engineer approval of the Grading and Utility Plans.
20. Consideration of architectural control measures with the objective of limiting
monotony in the building layout.
21. Submission of additional details for the townhouse portions of the proj ect, including
building plans and, where appropriate, intensified landscaping.
.
Exhibit Z - PUDlPreliminary Plat Conditions of Approval - Continued
.
.~
\; t, J.,..;-
.,~,
.
MAR-02-1999 17:25
A
WSS
~
& Associates, [nc.
WSB & ASSOCIATES INC.
350 Westwood Lake Office
8441 Wayzata Boulevard
Minneapolis, MN 55426
612.541-4800
FAX 541.1700
6125411700 P.04/04
BA Miccc1neadc, PJ::.
Brei: A. Weiss. P.E.
Pew R. Willtrlbring. P.E.
Domld w: Scema, P.L
R,gna!d. 8. Bn-y, P.E.
.
Memorandum
To:
Leon P. Opatt.
Pioneer Engineering
pmWi/lenb~~
March 2, 1999
From:
Date:
Re:
Review of Storm Water ManIIlementjor the Pine Meadows Subdivision
WSB Project No. 1010.73
Receipt is acknowledged for a set of plans for the Pine Meadows development, located north of 8511>
Street Northeast and east of State Tn111k Highway (STH) 25 in the City of Monticello. This is the Gold
Nugget Development site for which an EA W was previously prepared.
The Stonn Water Management considerations have been reviewed with the following comments made:
1.
Plans indicate that adequate storage is provided for runoff generated from this site in a 100.
year return frequency, 10.day snowmelt event which may be critical for this watershed. The
peak. discharge rate from this area must be limited to a maximum of2.5 cfs. The hydrologic
computations provided estimate peak discharge rate from the area will be limited to a peak
discharge rate of2.65 CFS for a 100 year snowmelt. The peak elevation associated with this
event would generate a peak elevation in Pond 1 of9S3.1. This peak discharge rate is less than
the 2.5 cfs which was allocated for this area as part of the Comprehensive Management Plan
for the TH 25 system.
.
The plans also show a small portion of the site draining to the south Wlder 8Sth Avenue
Northeast. This area includes approximately two-thirds of the area labeled as an exception to
the PUD, which was located in the Northwest quadrant of the intersection of Edmonson
Avenue Northeast and 85lh Street Northeast. A preliminary review of the computations
indicate that some increase in discharge rate through this culvert under 85th A venue may occur
as a result of the development. The plans should be modified to make certain the peak
discharge rate is not increased as a result of the development activity in this area.
2. 16.3 acre.feet of deadwater storage will be required on the site to provide for adequate
treatment for storm water runoff. Computations should be provided demonstrating this meets
the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program standards for treatment prior to discharge from the site.
3. The above analysis does not include a specific analysis of storm sewer catch basin spacing or
design capacities for the storm sewer system in the street. It is anticipated the municipal group
will undertake this as part of their review.
.
If you need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact
Minneapolis · St.
I"jrtutrlu:l1R'e Ettgi7ll!tfI'$
Cloud
Planners
<=1 A3
cp/nm
"\WP'WT'N\1tn n T'I'n1n.,.aq....l_..' r1IfIT
TOTRL P.04
J
.
.
.
MAR-02-1999 17:24
A
wsa
.-.-..
& Associates. Inc.
WSB & ASSOCIATES INC.
6125411700 P.01/04
B.A. MiacJatcaclt, P.E.
Bcd: A. Wd&. PoE.
Peu:r R. Wdlenbrmg. RE.
Donald w: Sterna. RE.
Ronald B. Bray. RE.
350 Westwood Lake Office
8441 Way'ZJJ.tJJ. Boulevard
Minneapolis, MN 55426
612..541 ~800
FAX 541-1700
March 2, 1999
Post..tt- Fax Note
Tb
7671 Dale
From
o
Mr. Leon P. Opatz
Pioneer Engineering
625 Highway 10 N.E.
Blaine MN 55434
CoJOept
Phone .
Fill.
Co.
!!Io........... ,
Re: Preliminary Plat, Utility and Grading Plan & Development Stage Plan Review Comments
Pine Meadows 1 Sl Addition
WSB Project No. 1010.73
Dear Mr. Opatz:
0'
I apologize for the lateness of this letter, however, we have waited on sending anything until the
MOAA situation was rectified. As we discussed. this does not'~compass all of our comments and
in fact, is just a cursory review. If the project is approved by the MOAA, we will provide more
detailed comments. We have received the preliminary plat for the above-referenced project dated
December 14, 1998 and would offer the following preliminary comments:
1. General
A. All comments are specific to the preliminazy plat but in general, they will apply to
the remainder of the overall development Please keep this in mind when designing
the remainder of the phases.
B. Please provide appropriate design calculations and a drainage area map for the pond
and storm sewer sizing.
C. Please provide appropriate earthwork calculations. along with a cut fill drawing if
available so that we can con:firm that appropriate earthwork is proposed for the site.
D. Place the City of Monticello underneath the project name in the project box on all
pages.
E.
With regard to the development stage PUD plan, Jack Pine Trail between Lot 28.
Block 13 to Lot 27. Block 1 S has excessive horizontal curves. This section of road
should be reevaluated to minimi7,c the meandering roads and eliminate nuisance
curves.
MinneApolis · St. C/fJuJ
Injrtutrtlal41Y &,.",s PUmun
EQUAL OPPOIUVNITY ~PLOYER
9 ,.\{ tf
f:\wPWIN\I010 7lIll3lU99o-lp"-.pd
.
.
.
MRR-02-1999 17:24
WSB & RSSOCIRTES INC.
6125411700 P.02/04
Mr. Leon P. Opatz
Pioneer Engineering
Blaine MN
March 2, 1999
Page 2
2. Preliminary Plat
A. The minimum radius for cul-de-sacs is SO feet from the center of the cul-dc-sac to the
face-of-curb. Please adjust the preHminary drawings to reflect this requirement.
B. We are not in favor of the excessive curvature in the street design of Jack Pine Lane.
c. We would be in favor of a street colUlection to the north to allow for a through street
between School Boulevard and 8Sm Street.
3. Prf'liminary Utility Plan
A. The preliminaIy utility plan should show hydrant locations.
B.
The City of Monticello has a comprehensive watermain plan that will require a 12-
inch DIP watermain line to be extended from the existing 12-mch DIP watennain
located at the northeast comer of the plat. The proposed 12-inch watermain shall run
along Red Pine Way and terminate on the west side of Trunk Highway (TH) 2S (see
redline plans for proposed layout and alternates). Stubs to the east, south and north.
should be provided for future connections.
c. The sanitary sewer shall be a 12-inch PVC sanitary sewer main to be extended from
the existing 12-inch PVC sanitary sewer located at the northeast comer of the plat
The proposed 12-inch sanitary sewer main shall run along Red Pine Way and
transition from a 12-inch PVC sanitary sewer main to an eight-inch sanitaIy sewer
main at the intersection of Red Pine Way and Sugar Pine Trail.
D. The City of Monticello requires storm sewer manholes in lieu of catch basin
manholes. Please adjust the prel1minary plans to reflect this requirement and make
the appropriate adjustments to the proposed storm sewer system.
E. The City of Monticello requires all utilities that are in the roadway to be confined
within the "limits of the curb line. All attempts should be made to keep utilities in the
road and out from under the curb. No utilities will be allowed to run behind the curb.
4. Preliminary Grading Plan
A.
The maximum slope allowed by the City of Monticello is 4: 1. Please adjust the
grading plans and the typical street sectioIlS to reflect this criteria.
/
q'~~
P,\WI'\lI1loI\IOIO.7JIOJ0299.lpo.wpd
.
.
.
MAR-02-1999 17:24
WSB & ASSOCIATES INC.
6125411700 P.03/04
Mr. Leon P. Opatz
Pioneer Engineering
Blaine MN
March 2, 1999
Page 3
B. Place a note on the grading and utility plan stating the location and elevation of two
known benclunarks used.
C. The silt fence typical section needs to be changed from a maximum stake spacing of
cightRfoot to a maximum stake spacing of four-foot.
D. The City will be developing minimum island standards for median construction. The
median size as shown is not acceptable.
E. Include an overland flow direction arrow along with the emergency overflow location
note.
F. The City will evaluate the ponding later to determine if lining will be required. The
sizing analysis will also be forthcoming.
G.
Minimum pavement sections for standard streets is 3 W' bituminous with 6" Class
five, which increases to 4" bitwninous for collector streets.
Please give me a call at 5414800 if you have any questions or comments regarding this letter.
Sincerely,
S?,;;~'~~
Bret A. Weiss, P .E.
City Engineer
c: Rick Wolfsteller, City ofMontice1lo
John Simola, City of Monticello
GM/nm
q ..~~
F:IWPWIN\!Olo.13Ill302w.lpo ...pd
e
MEMORANDUM
'* Re$+nc.tive..
Ct:He nQ.r\ +s '*
TO:
Jeff O'Neil
FROM:
Horst Graser
RE:
Development Controls. Pine Meadows
DATE:
February 17, 1999
On February 2, 1999, the Planning Conunission held a special meeting to continue the preliminary
plat hearing for Pine Meadows. A number of items were discussed. However, of principle
concern to the Commission were the types of development controls to be imposed on single
family homes within the project. The following is a list of proposed controls that Gold Nugget
Development, Inc. will incorporate into a document for official controls and restrictions:
A. Architectural Control~
Any structure erected on a single family lot must be approved by an Architectural Control
Committee established by Gold Nugget Development.
eB.
House Design Standards:
1. All single family homes must have a 3 car garage.
2. Garage fronts must have one half brick. Front elevations of the main structure
must have one quarter brick.
3. All rambler home styles must have a minimum of 6/12 roof pitch.
4. All home styles except ramblers must have a minimum ofa 5/12 roof pitch on the
main portion of the structure and 7/12 roof pitches on all front facing gables.
5. Exterior colors and finish materials must be approved by the Architectural Review
Committee.
6. The Architectural Control Committee shall make every effort to eliminate
monotony by controlling the facade of homes. The facade of every home within
300 feet shall not be so similar to or different from other homes.
C. Home Values:
The range of single family homes in Pine Meadows will be 5120.000-$190.000.
D.
Bousin~ Starts:
e
Gold Nugget Development. Inc. will limit the number of single family housing starts to 75
for the calendar year in which the first phase of the development is approved for
occupancy.
q
<-~'l
EXHIBIT A LIST OF DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS
.
.e
.
Gold Nugget Development. Inc. wi11limit the number of single family housing
starts to 50 for each calendar year thereafter.
2.
In any given calendar year, the difference between actual home starts and the
maximum number allowed shall be carried forward to the next calendar year.
E. Mailboxes:
All mailboxes shall be uniform in pesign. clustered and installed by the developer.
F. ~
In addition to the two front yard boulevard trees required by the City of Monticello. a
six-foot pine or spruce tree shall be planted anywhere in the yard.
G. Landscaping:
All lots must be sodded and/or landscaped from the curb to the rear comers of the house.
H,
Accessory Structures:
All accessory structures including all fencing shall be prohibited unless approved by the
Architectural Control Conuninee.
1.
Park Deliniation:
Every lot which abuts land dedicated for park purposes shall bave the rear property
corners marked with either a 4x4 cedar post or 4x4 vinyl post.
1. Stann Water Management Ponds:
Gold Nugget Development, Inc. will enhance the ability to maintain a water column in the
deeper areas of stonn water management ponds. The objective will be to prevent rapid
stann water infiltration by first spreading silty sands and then six inches oftop soil over
the deep pans ofthe ponds.
To enhance the aesthetic quality of the storm water management ponds, Gold Nugget
Development. Inc. will introduce plant material to include native grasses. shrubs. and trees
at various elevations and areas of the ponds. A landscape plan will be prepared to provide
greater detail.
EXHIBIT A-LIST OF DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS
g
,;t
Counci I Agenda - 3/8/99
.
lOA. Consideration of concept layout approval of Countv State Aid Hiehwav No. 75
improvements from Hennepin Street to County State Aid Highwav No. 18 and
approval to proceed with right-of-way acquisition for the extension of Hart
Boulevard. (WSB)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
A CSAH 75 Task Force Team was set up in June of 1998 to evaluate proposed
improvements to CSAH 75 in an effort to address the comprehensive plan and MCP
directives. -rhis committee is comprised of persons from Mn/DOT-State Aid, Wright
County, the City of Monticello, Monticello-Big Lake Hospital, the Monticello School
District, Monticello Community Partners, corridor business representatives and
consultants. The Task Force 'ream was established to get the input from various entities
at the planning stages of the project and develop a preferred alternative to present to the
public for comments and refinement.
.
Goals, issues, concerns, traffic volumes, typical sections, landscaping, costs and
schedules were some of the key items discussed at the meetings. The Task Force Team
met on a monthly basis for a total of five (5) meetings, with the last one held on
February 9, 1999. A meeting was also held with the Monticello-Big Lake Hospital in an
effort to coordinate schedules between the CSAH 75 improvements and the proposed
improvements to their facility.
Two (2) Public Information Meetings were held on August 17, 1998, and February 25,
1999. News Releases appeared in the Monticello Times for each meeting. Flyers were
mailed to corridor residents (TH 25 to 1-94) explaining the proposed future improvements
as well as the current proposed improvements. The flyer for the second meeting included
the proposed plan to close access to CSAH 75 at every other street west of Washington
Street. Neither meeting was well-attended.
Alternatives discussed at the meetings included the No Build Alternative, Build
Alternative 1, and Build Alternative 2.
The No Build Alternative was determined not feasible because of the high existing and
projected traffic volumes on CSAH 75.
.
Build Alternative I included utilizing the existing curb and gutter from Trunk
Highway 25 to Washington Street and re-constructing this section as a two lane (one lane
in each direction), instead of the four lane (two lanes in each direction) urban section.
The section would include a raised concrete median to provide for protected left turn
lanes and landscaping in the median. Ten (10) foot paved shoulders would remain to
allow on-street parking on both sides of the roadway. This alternative was eliminated
because of the concern of the traffic volumes outgrowing the design. Projected traffic
volumes are not anticipated to increase considerably from TH 25 to 7th Street due to the
-22-
Council Agenda - 3/8/99
.
proposed related transportation projects including the 7th Street extension, Fallon A venue
overpass, and the CSAH 18 partial/full interchange access. However, without these
improvements, traffic volumes could attain 22,000 vehicles per day.
Build Alternative 2 includes utilizing the existing curb and gutter from Trunk
Highway 25 to Washington Street and re-constructing this section as a four lane (two
lanes in each direction) as it exists today; however, on-street parking would be eliminated
from Palm Street east to allow construction of a raised concrete median to allow for
protected left turn lanes. Access to every other street west of Washington Street would be
closed to allow for a left turn lane length of 150 feet and allow space for landscaping
opportunities. This same section would be carried to the CSAH 18 intersection.
The layout that is attached includes the Build Alternative 2 typical section and is dated
February 26, 1999. This is the layout preferred by the CSAH 75 Task Force Team. This
layout includes the proposed construction for 1999 (Hennepin Street to CSAH 18); the
Task Force Team studied the CSAH 75 corridor from TH 25 to 1-94. Approximately 0.5
acres is required from two (2) parcels to accommodate the extension of Hart Boulevard.
See the attached Preliminary R/W Acquisition for Hart Boulevard Extension, which
illustrates the right-of-way acquisition.
.
Construction of CSAH 75 in 1999 is proposed from Hennepin Street to CSAH 18.
Improvements to the east and west will be considered for the future, with the planning
already in place for extending to the west.
A CSAH 75 Feasibility Report is being prepared to address potential assessments and
additional added city infrastructure. The Council will review the feasibility report at the
March 22, 1999, meeting and can decide at that time how to proceed with these items.
B. AL TERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative would be to approve the CSAH 75 concept layout as drafted
and authorize Wilson Development to proceed with the right-of-way acquisition
process for the extension of Hart Boulevard.
2. The second alternative would be to approve the CSAH 75 concept layout and
authorize Wilson Development to proceed with the right-of-way acquisition
process for the extension of Hart Boulevard contingent upon an amendment made
by the City Council.
3.
The third alternative would be to not approve the CSAH 75 concept layout or the
authorization for Wilson Development to proceed with the right-of-way
acquisition process for the extension of Hart Boulevard.
.
-23-
Council Agenda - 3/8/99
.
C.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION;
It is the recommendation of the City Administrator, Public Works Director, and City
Engineer that the City Council approve the layout as outlined in alternative #2. We feel that
the project should move forward with the following modifications: pedestrian underpass?
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Resolution
Copy of the COWlty State Aid Highway No. 75 Concept Layout
Copy of the Preliminary R/W Acquisition for Hart Boulevard Extension
.
.
-24-
.
.
.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 99-
A RESOLUTION REQUESTING MUNICIPAL APPROVAL
OF THE COUNTY STATE AID HIG HW A Y NO. 75
CONCEPT LAYOUT NO.1 AND APPROVAL TO
PROCEED WITH RIGHT-O~"-WAY ACQUISITION
FOR TI-Il~ EXTENSION OF HART BOULEVARD
CITY PRO.IECT #98-17C
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Monticello has reviewed the concept layout for the
County State Aid Highway No. 75 improvements from Hennepin Street to CSAH 18, dated
February 26, 1999.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City of Montieello approves thc County State Aid
Highway No. 75 concept layout, dated February 26, 1999.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City of Monticello approves the request to proceed with
right-of-way acquisition for the extension of Hart Boulevard.
ADOPTED this 8th day of March, 1999.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Administrator
~~\
.
.
.
Council Agenda - 3/8/99
lOB. Consideration to order WSB & Associates, Inc. to proceed with construction olans
and specifications for the proposed County State Aid Highwav No. 75 improvements
from Hennepin Street to County State Aid Highwav No. 18. (WSB)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
WSB & Associates, Inc. has been working with the City of Monticello on the
aforementioned Task Force Team developing a preliminary conceptual layout for
improvements to CSAH 75. Public Information Meetings have been advertised and held
with little adversity.
Wright County has improvements to CSAH 75 including a four-lane expansion from
Washington Street to Interstate 94 in their 5-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and
scheduled for 1999. If construction plans are not started soon, approval could not be
received from Mn/DOT State Aid in time for 1999 construction. Delay of this project
would cause delay and expense to the Monticello-Big Lake Hospital and the City of
Monticello due to their proposed new signalized intersection access.
As was discussed in the previous item, assessments and added items will not be designed
or assessed prior to the March 22 meeting.
B.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
l. The first alternative would be to order WSB & Associates, Inc. to proceed with
construction plans for CSAH 75 improvements from Hennepin Street to
CSAH 18.
2. The second alternative would be to not order construction plans or specifications
and push CSAH 75 improvements to a later year.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the City Administrator, Public Works Director, and City
Engineer that the City Council authorize WSB & ASSOCIates Inc. to proceed with
construction plans and specifications for the proposed CSAH 75 improvements from
Hennepin Street to CSAH 18 as outlined in the layout dated February 26, 1999.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Resolution
Copy of the County State Aid Highway No. 75 Concept Layout - See IIA
-25-
.
.
.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 99-
A RESOLUTION ORDERING WSB & ASSOCIATES, INC.
TO PROCEED WITH CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE COUNTY STATI!: AID
HIGHW A Y NO. 75 IMPROVEMENTS AS ILLUSTRATED
IN THE CONCEPT LAYOUT DATED FEBRUARY 26,1999
CITY PROJECT #98-17C
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Monticello approved the County State Aid Highway
No. 75 concept layout, through Resolution 99-_ and proceed with construction plans and
specifications for the proposed improvements as illustrated in the concept layout, dated
February 26, 1999.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City of Monticello orders WSB & Associates, Inc.
to proceed with construction plans and specifications for the County State Aid Highway No. 75
improvements as illustrated in the concept layout, dated February 26, 1999.
ADOPTED this 8th day of March 8, 1999.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Administrator
\~\
.
11.
.
.
Council Agenda - 3/8/99
Consideration of a resolution approvinl! Construction Plans and Soecifications
alone with Authorization of Bids for the Trunk Hiehwav 25 improvement
(S.P. 8605-40). c.P. 96-04C. (WSB)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The City Council selected a prefcrred alternative for relocating the Chelsea Road
intersection on Trunk Highway (TH) 25 in January, 1997, and authorized the City
Engineer to begin preparation of Plans and Specifications for the improvement. The
resolution entering into Joint Powers Agreement with Mn/DOT, which provided for
payment to the City of Monticello for design and construction observation fees, was
approved in June, 1997. Plans and Specifications were ordered by the Council on
December 14, 1998, following the completion of the Public Hearing on the feasibility of
TH 25 for the 429 Assessment Process.
The TH 25 improvement has included numerous discussions with property and business
owners, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnlDOT), City Council and
various public information meetings. There is strong public support for the construction
ofTH 25 to occur during the Summer of 1999.
The TH 25 improvement includes reconstruction of TH 25 from the southerly intersecting
ramp ofI-94 along TFI 25 to south of the Kjellberg Mobile Horne Park entrance for a
distance of approximately 1.6 miles. The improvement includes reconstruction to a four
(4) lane facility which channelized left turn lanes; the modification of Oakwood Drive
from TH 25 to Chelsea Road; the construction of a new street intersection known as
Chelsea Road; the revision of the access of Sandberg Road, Dundess Road and the
construction of the west leg of School Boulevard. The improvement also includes the
construction of a pedestrian pathway on the east side of TH 25, along with numerous
sidewalks and an extensive storm sewer system, which is in conformance with
Monticello's overall comprehensive system plan.
An issue remaining for resolution is the concern of the closing of the median in front of
the westerly access to Super America and McDonalds on Oakwood Drive. McDonalds
and Super America have requested that the median be left open to provide left turn access
into Super America's westerly access and McDonalds access to accommodate their
customers. An access currently exists easterly on Oakwood Drive for Super America,
which provides left turn access. An casement also exists across Super America property,
which provides access to McDonalds. Previously, the extension of Ccdar Street northerly
of Oakwood Drive was proposed in order to address traffic concerns brought forth by
Super America; however, there was substantial concern about the cost of this Alternative
to both the City, McDonalds and Super America.
-26-
.
Council Agenda - 3/8/99
A compromise has been reached between Super America, McDonalds and City staff with
a proposal known as Option C. This Option accommodates the opening of the median
with a left turn lane provision on Oakwood Drive. It is understood that this median
access may be short-term and can be closed by the City of Monticello based upon three
(3) criteria which includes accident problems, high traffic volume and operational
problems with TH 25 intersection. These conditions are outlined in the letter included as
supporting data. City staff is recommending that Option C be included in the TH 25 plan,
providing that a letter of understanding can be reached between Super America,
McDonalds and the City of Monticello which includes an agreement on the three (3)
criteria for closing of the median access, along with agreeing to the assessment for the
costs incurred for right-of-way acquisition and street construction for the Cedar Street
extension.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. To approve TH 25 improvement construction Plans and Specifications and
Authorization of Bids for construction in the Summer of 1999.
2. To approve the TH 25 improvement construction Plans and Specifications, and to
withhold approval of the authorization of bid.
.
3.
To not approve the TH 25 improvement construction Plans and Specifications and
authorization for bids.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
1 7
It is the recommendation of the City Administrator,' Public Works Director' and City
Engineer that the City Council approve the construction Plans and Specifications and
Authorization of Bids as outlined in Alternative # 1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Resolution
Option A, Band C layouts, including pros & cons.
Letter to Mr. Larry Martin, Attorney At Law.
.
-27-
.
.
.
Council Agenda - 3/8/99
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 99-XX
A RESOLUTION APPROVING CONSTRUCTION PLANS
AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZATION OF BIDS OF
STATE TRUNK HIGHWAY 25 (S.P.8605-40)
FROM SOUTH RAMP OF INTERST ATE 94 TO
SOUTH OF KJELLBERG MOBILE HOME PARK
CITY PROJECT #96-04C
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Monticello has received the Plans dated February 9,
1999, and Specifications dated February 27, 1999, for the Trunk Highway 25 improvements.
WHEREAS, the City Council formally approved the layout for the State Trunk Highway
improvement on December 14, 1998.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VED, the City of Monticello approves the State Trunk Highway
25 Construction Plans and Specifications.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City of Monticello approves the Authorization of Bids for the
Trunk Highway improvement known as S.P. 8605-40 and c.P. 96-04C.
ADOPTED this 8th day of March, 1999.
\\ ~\
.
.
.
Council Agenda - 3/8/99
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 99-XX
A RESOLUTION API>ROVING CONSTRUCTION PLANS
AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZATION OF BIDS OF
STATE TRUNK HIGHWAY 25 (S.P.8605-40)
.FROM SOUTH RAMP OF INTERSTATE 94 TO
SOUTH OF KJELLBERG MOBILE HOME PARK
CITY PROJECT #96-04C
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Monticello has received the Plans dated Fcbruary 9,
1999, and Specifications datcd February 27, 1999, for the Trunk llighway 25 improvemcnts.
WHEREAS, the City Council formally approved the layout for the State Trunk Highway
improvement on Decembcr 14, 1998.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VED, the City of Monticello approves the State Trunk Highway
25 Construction Plans and Specifications.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City of Monticello approves the Authorization of Bids for the
Trunk Highway improvement known as S.P. 8605-40 and C.P. 96-04C.
ADOPTED this 8th day of March, 1999.
d-
,\/
.
.
.
A
WSB
350 Westwood Lake Office
8441 Wayzata Boulevard
Minneapolis, MN 55426
B.A. Mittelsteadt, r.E.
Bret A. Weiss, P.E.
Peter R. Willenhring, I'.E.
Donald W. Sterna, P.E.
Ronald 5. Bray, l'.E.
612-541-4800
FAX 541-1700
& Associates, Inc.
March 4, 1999
Mr. Larry Martin
Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd.
Attorneys at Law
1500 Norwest Financial Center
7900 Xerxes A venue South
Bloomington, MN 55431
Re: Oakwood Drive: Trunk Ilighway (TH) 25 to Cedar Street
City of Monticello
WSB Project No.1 033.00
Dear Mr. Martin:
Thank you for meeting with us to discuss the design of Oakwood Drive from Trunk Highway (UI)
25 to Cedar Street. At our meeting we discussed the following three (3) design options for
Oakwood Drive.
Option A:
Existing design with no median opening on Oakwood for the combined
McDonalds/Super America driveway.
Option B:
Existing design with a temporary median opening on Oakwood at the combined
McDonalds/Super America driveway including no provision for a left turn lane.
Option C:
Widen Oakwood Drive with side-by-side left turn lanes to accommodate left turning
traffic and provide a median opening at the combined McDonalds/Super America
driveway on Oakwood Drive.
It was the consensus of the group, following a discussion of pros and cons of each option, to pursue
Option C contingent on City of Monticello approval and Mn/DOT concurrence.
It was also agreed that the median opening at the combined McDonalds/Super America driveway on
Oakwood Drive would be closed in the future by the City of Monticello if certain criteria were met.
The proposed criteria would be the following:
I. Three (3) or more accidents per year on Oakwood Drive between TH 25 and the easterly
Super America driveway, not including TH 25, would occur in a one (1) year period; or
2.
The queue-lengths (left turn stacking) from the combined McDonalds/Super America access
median opening would be excess of six (6) vehicles (150 feet), thereby stacking into TH 25.
If more than three (3) City documented cases of this occur on either a weekday or weekend,
this criteria for closing the access would be met; or
lnfrastructure Engineers Planners
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
,r3
l\022299-hn wpd
.
.
.
Mr. Larry Martin
Bloomington, MN
February 22, 1999
Page 2
3. The Peak I-lour volume on Oakwood Drive is more than 1,000 vehicles, both east bound and
west bound, on any day of the week, Monday through Sunday, as counted by the City of
Monticello or its representatives.
The City of Monticello will agree to revise the Oakwood Drive design as long as McDonalds and
Super America agree to the following conditions:
I. McDonalds and Super America agree to the assessments related to the costs of right-of~way
acquisition and street construction for the design and construction of the Cedar Street
extension northerly of Oakwood Drive; and
2. Right-of-way or easements required for the widening of Oakwood Drive to accommodate
the median opening and left turn lane be provided at no cost to the City. (It is anticipated that
a Temporary Construction Easement and Sidewalk Easement may be required to
accommodate the widening; and
3. Super America and McDonalds agree to the three (3) criteria set forth earlier in this letter,
for the potential closing of the combined McDonalds/Super America access median opening;
and
4.
Super America and McDonalds agree that the City is not responsible for anyon-site
revisions required as a result of the Oakwood Drive construction.
The TH 25 improvement now includes the construction of the Cedar Street extension, as shown in
Option C, during the Summer of 1999. If McDonalds and Super America agree with the above
conditions and criteria, a formal letter of agreement will be drafted for signature by both parties.
If you have any questions, or require any additional information on the Oakwood Drive or TH 25
construction, please do not hesitate to give me a call at (612) 541-4800.
Sincerely,
WS/f::;tAI~
~W' B. Bray, P.E. 7
Vice President
c: Greg LePage, McDonalds Corporation
Samuel Van Tassel, Marathon Ashland Petroleum LLC
John Simola, City of Monticello
Rick Wolfsteller, City of Monticello
Bret Weiss, WSB & Associates, Inc.
Enclosure( s)
cp
rY~
FIWPW1NI I 03 3. OOI022199-1m wpd
.
.
.
"DRAFT"
March 3,1999
McDonalds / Super America Access
I.
Option A - Existing Design
Pros
· Prevents left-turn out conflict from
Tom Thumb
· Left-turn in from Oakwood to
McDonalds prohibited along with
stacking conflict
· Cedar Street extension provides
alternate long-term access
Cons
· Full access to McDonalds is via Cedar
Street extension or easement across
Super America
· Stacking at drive through
II. Option B - Open Median Temporary- Cedar Street Extension?
Pros Cons
· Short-term solution with painted
median
· City will close if accident or backup
problem
· Cedar Street may not be built
· Close in future if accident
III. Option C - Side-by-side Lefts with Median Opening
Pros
· Short-term solution with painted
median
· Provide additional stacking for both
left turns in future
.
Provides additional time for
McDonalds to accommodate median
closure
Cons
· City will close if accident, high
volume, or backup problem
· Cedar Street extension will be built
· Added cost over Option A and B
· May require additional ROW
· Allows left-turn conflict into Tom
Thumb
I'"
\ \"'~
F:
,d
~
'-
":l
~
Q
.r
":l
'-
~
~
~
M
o
~
o
~
o
'-"
U'::l
d
Q)
S
(l)
>-
o
M
~
S
I--l
~
.
~
.
~
J-I-~-C--- ~ ~p UI
~ I _~
-.. Ulo. m
"'""
<"l ~J I
I \ ~ ~~lli I
1-'1 \
/ I \ is
, ~
"
2l
of
)
-4-
I
I
l: ~,,:
-=
~
s=
c
'-
........
&
I ,.J
\
\)
-,
,
\
I
I .- ~ I
'_____,
L- - - - _ _______/~\~ee\
-,------/ ce~------/
"\
: ,
.D
I 8~
d I 'I:
.~
Il.\ ~s
~ -; ~
.....
~
r/J
~t
,__~--,:i,--
'r%~::---
1 /<7t
00/;1, ,,! f///
9 I /
~';/
:\1
\y t
'1
,,'1
\
__,~",\l 'If,
"t""."','., :.,,";i '.
'" "..i \\ \
\
cd
~
o
U'::l
Q)
S
~
F\
o
~
~
Q)
U
. ,.....-4
d
o
:E
~
o
.0
· ,.....-4
U
\'
\; ',,!
"tV'
6
'-
"'\:$
~
-
&
I
~
~
o
'-
~
&
~
~
M
o
~
o
o
~
o
"-"
rJ'J.
"S
(J)
E
Q)
>
o
M
~
S
~
N
.
~
.
~
00 ~II H!
-~ ~ I n
-\ -.. III .
\ """ al I
"'l
\ ~ ~~lli I
EO
\ tl
Q
\
\
\
- --
r/
)"
I I
.-l.-."t -
I
I
"
'I
i
-+-
I
I __ --=-
L.:_-=-___
'[
i .
, '
, ~':
, .
,.';, -." \".-
I': ".__,~,._"
..'~.-
j'...
~
\
\
\
\
~
~\~\ .
: --~~
I _____ I
I ~ __/ "-
L--- ~ ~ ____---------<S~e~
--------ce~-.-..
:::~~~!~~:~~i.':~> I I
~--~-;~c----/
II I'
~':'=<ir""
,,0\ 4:-::-----
n I,;
i"':: j.' /
- <'l ,
Q I /
bIJ 1//
~~r;/;/
~. '. /.. 'y/
\i
/
(}
"
.
,
"
i
''r __.
I /
)
~
gJ
~e
~
/
/
cd
~
o
rJ'J.
Q)
.~
~
F\
o
~
~
(J)
U
· 1"""""l
d
o
~
~
o
o
· 1"""""l
U
trJ
~
~
~
c
~
~
'-
V"j
u
~
c
'-
~
&
~
tl
~
o
~
o
~
o
'-'"
tZ)
=
(J)
8
(J)
;>-
o
~
~
S
~
.
~
.
~
~ ~II II!
! I .~
-.. Iii I
~
tl ~~llj !
..c:.
E
\ ~
\ C)
\
\
, ,
, \
\ \
, \
\
\ \
k
, \
\ -
/1
f ---"- -:.-. -,
-- 1-'- \
v \
'-..1....__ .._.._
,
I
f,
I'
,
-4-
I
I I
,
I __u__
L-:::..___
,
,.-j - I
r ,
.',
,
'1>1'
, '" ',.
'n_.~~.'"
..JI
I
\ .... - I
I ~ /
L- /c~;'",:'
_...y.....:,J..___.. '\,
'7..' \\ ",:,._,1 ,
)\ '-
.... 1-'\,.1 \
(
II
1:::,11
I ~
o:j ~~
Q "I (II
'C ~~
~ -\.!
,11 E-<
....
8..
;::l
[/)
1\\
.:.{
"~~//
'i II \
1,\
.....-.- ...'.
.--_..~::"--:;,,,_..
4-
.'1 /1\/-
"] 1/
"It ~t/
~/
I '
. .I
cd
~
o
00
(J)
E
.~
~
r\
o
~
~
(J)
u
.~
=
o
~
~
o
o
.~
u
, \-',-~
Council Agenda - 3/8/99
.
11 A. Discussion of Super America Median Access.
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Discussion will be held at the Council meeting.
.
.
-28-
.
.
.
12.
Council Agenda -03/08/99
Consideration of a request for a simple subdivision in the industrial park to allow the
relocation of a lot line. Applicant: Greg Ebert. (NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At its March 2 meeting, the Planning Commission considered the proposed relocation of a
lot line on property owned by the Martie Farm Store along Dundas Road. The original
proposal created a new lot line which jogged around a non-conforming encroachment at
several points, and rcquired a variance to the side yard setback area. Thc applicants
realigned the proposal, but kept in a number of jogs, submitting the revised proposal a few
days prior to thc Planning Commission's meeting.
It was staff s opinion that the revision illustrated that no variance was needed, and that it
would be possible to climinatemost of the bends in the new lot line as well. The applicants
requested that the multiple bends remain, as the resulting lot split would provide an area for
a "future" parking lot ifit became necessary. However, it appears that there would be plenty
of room on the remaining land to add parking, as well as additional building area if desired.
As a result, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the lot split, but with the
straight lot line. Its reasoning was based on two primary findings: 1) There would be
adequate land on the remaining parcel to accommodate additional development if necessary,
2) the straight lot line would be the only proposal which the City would likely consider ifthis
were a new plat, 3) the multiple jogs in the proposed lot line would lead to confusion in the
future, and probable property line disputes, and 4) the need for the resubdivision was an
encroachment by the current owner which should not be corrected by an improperly designed
subdivision.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve the subdivision as recommended by the Planning Commission,
based on the findings of the Planning Commission in its 3-2-99 meeting.
2. Motion to approve the subdivision as proposed by the applicant, based on a finding
that the existing conditions of the property, including the encroachment, justify an
irregular lot line.
3. Motion to deny the subdivision, based on a finding that the existing encroachment
limits the use of a resubdivided lot in any configuration.
4. Motion to table action on the subdivision, pending additional information.
-29-
.
Council Agenda -03/08/99
C.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends alternative 1. Although the applicant's proposal does not require a
variance, the irregular lot line can cause later survey problems, and lot line disputes which
are difficult to resolve, and otten require City resources. Moreover, and "irregularly shaped
lot of record" is often used as a rationale for variance approval. The City typically works to
avoid creating conditions which would later be used to justify a variance from its ordinance
standards. Finally, it is staffs opinion that while the subdivision recommended by the
Planning Commission may alter the applicant's intended future use, it by no means makes
it impossible, or even difficult. A small adjustment in building location, and a different plan
for future improvements can easily accommodate the plans which have been shown.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A - Applicant's Proposal
Exhibit B - Staff's Proposal
.
.
-30-
..~f.;'~ :
-..., .
'.tr::.. ~
'.... .
"'Ii.'
" ,
MRR-05-1999 08:58
NRC
612 595 9837
~J'~."ll
,~:-;:;'I ll.
'..;..~". ,1-
.~",IZJ ,
-. . f I
,",..1 . .
.::;..: ; . I
~{. r "
::"IIII"I:{t'
~K'
'I. ..,;r. t
<'!i.'J:..." . J if I
~'ff;;!: !
Ar~ ,~ It
~.r il
~\i.;:,: ' I - I
~" i
':~"(~'I::~I . I
~.. b'
. I ~ t
. illI! ..
" ~I A I
.". ~
.. :,;(, I
';I";~~:~; I: I
.. ~
," t'i~(1 ~ I
!.t. :;; !It
71~'::~'1 ~ :
, , :. l2
, 'if ~i ':' 'I i I
.;r:...".. ;
,':":~:;' J
~t I I
~ I
.' ''ft'"\11''
:t::f."~" 'f I
,~I.
~~~.;' I
;:j:Jf,' I
. ~~: 'J
~.
.~.. "
I"~ :,: I
., ....~~
\,.,," .
~.~t
.~,' '"
:0;.;.... ~
':I.~ :"
, .' ;
,; t~:~ .-
~a.J~~'f _ __ _... _ -_-. ........... .....,~
~;~ .~~ t U/IIC fU' 1~'tM ~/'''~",:- urAl'" C/lKIP~..
., .
. . 1 '.; t- Ut<<' "iP "'iiCU'.P,w. - - - - - ..- "'"" - - - -
:~~t- ~ s B~?21' 36~' 256. 00 1
;~~~"; n I.IV~ QI' ~j1r NJR'.lIIl4 napt,,,, .~,,,,,"'I 0 4'
~.' J
; , ,II
..tl ..I
",
:: I
~
~I
I<<
~~I ,I
Cl'\~ I Q
~el ~I
"" ~
i: 1 I'~
~
.::
~"'t .
':~"'.
"
fo..'.,
ilt"
\. ..'f.'
."
..."..,.. Willi""
i:!
-
"
. ....
, "'1
-
223. 08
"
C:>>
..-,;,.
--
....
01'
.t
....
'14
-
.~
is'
GIM~,~ --,
-aft I
....
I , .';
" <.~. ';
.. 'I
OA/(WOOD
"
c::> ~ 1:1
~<' ""',
~\':::i"'t
(0
.'
,
1
. .~,_..
. "'_" 'J
..' :J'.30. DO.~ :
's SR' iJ '4p~f tij: ~
. f . '.~" .... .
., (, . . ,.-;. '
, 1 ", ~<"::'
I' .: ~ : :'.~ .~ ":'>'~~
, "'iII,f:'":,,t:,~~
. 1 'II : ,.,r
, "",t ""1' In
IJ1rt .... _
. ..,: liD' r~
I -
1 ~
I
nmmnrmmlT\
I
cilSrtiG ~
'liI111.DI'IG 1
, , .
1
1
I
1
,I
t
I
I
I
I
,
r
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
, LOCK' I
1 I
,
t
.1
. 2. '5 ..~s
1
LUI'
J
0, ~"'.-'I
.:D- ..'
II 6~
~
I
I. ..~
.. .
I
r
I
I
I
r.J
I
. I
. I
I
. I
I
I
I
I
~
i::;
\t
j
~
, :~
,\
r:
[XI.LPTIOttJ
.1
TD YAn,nl')O lro.(",lilP'lAl. PAH'
P.02/03
vttl
~~
- 1
)to
~ :~:
~ ;;,;
.
r
~
..
I
~
I!f
i:
.....
.... ,
- I
Exhibit A · Applicant's prop~al
,~.._. .
MAR-05-1999 08:59
NAC
612 595 9837 P.03/03
, ..
, .'
~.~t.~1 ~
-."," .
"-:~~" oj
. 'i' I
-.11
~~~.:'.11
.;:., j.. I t:
'...r: :-
-, . f
'~~;;.' I
-~'';", I
~c': I
lJt;. ,
".~ ~ 5
-!i:~' " I'" I
. f:i1:'.:' ;(
~:t':i' ! I
~f' I
If:..-..I- I
': ~t~' II'
b I
, I ~ I
(~ I~
, ''-:~r I
~... ,
".',.r I
-IVtU :: I !
II . i ill!. t
- . ~. I
. : I ... J
I'. ~
I .~':' _ ... ,
E'I ..
~,;: I! I
t~' ,.. i I
'.\~;':': I "
:~:Ii" ~ I - :
/;t. _ . I
.' ~.:f.r J I
~~ .
~:""<' I
:~~:';,,: :
i;fJf:r I
. ~~i 'I
''1f '.
~'/I
~I~~:
~- - -it
...?~. ~.~ I
7,t"".J!""" ",
"I~,;: ~.~
\.:J :
.' .
1
I
I
.I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r
I
I
... I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J.LDCK I
I
I
I
"tI~... ~
~
. ...
GlIJIJS
--
-....-
223. OS
.....
a
1 "'1.:1 oj:
...
."
,;
Gh".~ '/
:.r ~. ,'1/4 I ' .' '"
It)
....
, '. ):
. <.)p- ':
-
OA/(WOOD
~
. " rill' ..
..... . 1.1 J. : ~ . .
"? t."",, .
c::> I.,.) li
~~~t
~~":',.
t"
.\
. .' ".
. . '/, ';'
'. ~.I.
: ~~. :~:,' .)/"
"
.1
,!l.
.J!"s
2. ..s A1
"'-
LUI'
J
_ __ ....-IIIl.. __ -_.. ~ ,......
.j b'P .-"
j
~
'..
...;, . . ~ LlIIC POt I!!i!!!'a. ~/P"'~_,,:- 111I&.1" ~..
. '~f ...1\I1......~";d";(crii,w. - - - - -.- '" - - --
.',.~r...' .. s 89121' 36- C 256. 00 3- I
",.!;" ft .,lftA\.dl tIT ,...r....ul8 QUPr'IJII Ifsrrt""Dtrt ./I.
I~~' o~.
,-"? ' J "
. .:;:.: . : . 1'1 I'
'M.:" ~, 8 ~ It.
i: I.
K!II .. J
ao.S I l
ln~1 !"I
'loIw z:
1:. I',
;i
'.
.-
I
i""~" .
.i!'r. ,.
tt;"~ '
. n
~. '.' I'
.' .
~ '"r-.
~ ~~I
V. :t l""
,. -.,
· Staffs ProP"'~al
~d"g..~ ~.03
I
I
r..J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
[XI_(PTIO"
.\
tg ga,V(100 1~(IL.li'lPJAl PAFto.
Exhibit B
.',
~,
..
(.
.
..
i
~
K
i
...
...
:.
..
.
.
.
Council Agenda - 3/8/99
13.
Consideration of accepting the Sanitary Sewer and Water System Trunk Fee
Analvsis.
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The City of Monticello has had a sanitary sewer and water system trunk fee acreage
charge in place since the late 1980's. The City did not start changing the fee until 1990
(Cardinal Hills) and 1994 (Southwest Area) for sanitary sewer and watermain,
respectively. The rates were set at $1250 per gross acre at that time, with the watermain
reduced to $625/gross acre at the time the water fee was first charged. The fees were
originally set based on an estimate of the trunk improvement cost and have not been
increased from that date.
This study examines the trunk improvements to accommodate the proposed growth over
the next 40 years and sets a rate for the trunk fee. The proposed fee is recommended to
be increased yearly to accommodate the proposed trunk improvements.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1.
A presentation will be made at the meeting with the suggestion that the
consideration of accepting the report be tabled until March 22 so that the IDC,
Chamber of Commerce and the development community can respond at that
meeting.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Sanitary Sewer and Water System Trunk Fee Analysis.
-31-
.
.
.
Council Agenda - 3/8/99
COUNCIL UPDATE
Attached you will find a memo to city staff requesting information for inclusion in the city
project prioritization process. Please take a look at thc worksheet and consider providing brief
summary of projects that you believe should be included in the prioritization process. Project
ideas that you provide will be incorporated into the initial listing that will be presented to the
Council at the special meeting scheduled for 5:30, March 22, 1999. Please get your project ideas
to me by Wednesday March 17, 1999.
,;
I
/
\ -
~
~
MEMO
MONTICELLO
TO:
Jeff O'Neill, Deputy City Administrator; Fred Patch, Chief Building Official; Ollie
Koropchak, Economic Development Director; Wanda Kraemer, Administrative Assistant;
Gregg Engle, Parks Superintendent; John Simola, Public Works Director; Karen Doty,
Deputy City Clerk; Cathy Shuman, MISlFinance Assistant
FROM:
Rick Wolfsteller, City Administrator
DATE:
March 1, 1999
RE:
Project prioritization - work load planning
It's that time again to inventory projects for staff and City Council prioritization. Please complete the
.attached worksheet and bring it to a staff meeting scheduled for 2 p.m., Wednesday, March 10. We plan
n spending two hours reviewing the list and preparing the agenda for the special Council meeting
scheduled for 5:30 p.m., March 22.
Attached for your review is the list of mandatory projects and new initiatives reviewed by the City Council
in the spring/summer of 1997.
.
\
Monticello City Hall, 250 E. Broadway, PO Box 1147, Monticello. MN 55362-9245' (612) 295..2711' Fax: (612) 295-4404
Office of Public Works, 909 Golf Course Rd., Monticello, MN 55362' (612) 295-3170' Fax; (612) 271-3272
.
.
.
PROJECT PRIORITIZATION WORKSHEET
Name:
Department:
Mandatory Project Inventory--These are projects or work areas that must be completed due to
statutory requirements or because they might be already in the pipeline.
1. Highlight your projects (see project leader column) on the attached 1997 mandatory
project listing that need to stay on the list.
2. Highlight your projects on the attached 1997 mandatory project listing that can come off
the list.
3. List projects or major work areas that your department must or will likely complete in the
next two years that need to be added to the 1997 mandatory list. Use additional sheets if
necessary.
New Mandatory Projects -1999
New Initiatives-- These are projects or work areas that are not mandated but projects that you
believe the City Council should consider for completion in the next two years. These may be
projects that support the vision statement or support accomplishment of the redevelopment plan.
I will edit the 1997 list, which is attached for your review. All I need is your ideas for new
projects.
'Y
KAREN\OFFICE\JEFF\PRIQRITY.wRK: 3J2199
City of Monticello
Mandatory Project Listing - June 23, 1997
Sort by Department
~.~\\..\~ 'il;~
... ~ .
~ v.,.\p ~ vJ ~ ( 0 \ f
{\Q... d,lt.,t .
()" VJ
ERSHIP Project
CATEGORY Proiect Description Leader
PWlParks Freeway Park - Meadow Oak, Outlot A, parking lot.
PWlParks Freeway Park. concession area.
AdminJMIS Computer Link from Motor Vehicle CS
AdminlMIS Computer Maintenance and PC replacement program and implementation. CS
AdminJFinance Tracking system for properties owing util. fees, hookup chgs, deferred asmts, a CS
AdminlFacilities Remodel/upgrade city hall garage - bIg insp vehicles. FP
AdminlFacilities Removal/replacement city hall air conditioner enclosure. FP
AdminlFacilities Gain compliance with ADA guidelines. FP I
v. Servo Project EfHl Finalize the preparation of building permit and site review process materials FP
AdminJFacilities Improve lighting at City Hall in Cooperation with NSP. FP
Dev. Servo Ord. Standardize address system. FP
Dev. Servo Ord. Telecommunication tower ordinance amendments. FP
AdminlF acilities Interior painting/upkeep at motor vehicle office. FP
Admin/Cust. Serv. Develop customer service feedback survey sheet. FP
Dev. Servo Ord. Revise on-site sewage treatment ordinance (assist Building Official). FP :...-
AdminlFacilities Rebuild rear garbage fence at liquor store. JH I
AdminlFacilities Install new fluorescent light system at liquor store. JH i
AdminlFacilities Repair, reconnect, or get new air conditioning system for liquor store. JH I
=&lFacilities TV monitor for liq uor store to make customers aware they are on film. JH
Improve follow-up on individual cases. JO -
ev. Servo
AdminlMIS System Development - Geographic Information Systems JO
AdminlMIS System Development - Computer Aided Design JO
Dev. Serv. Participate in regional planning initiatives. JO
AdminlMIS Computer System Application Development - Overall Planning JO
Admin1MlS Computer System Development - Building Inspection JO
AdminJMIS System Development - Internet Applications JO
AdminlMIS System Development - Network versus AS 4000. JO
AdminlMIS System Development - Parks Scheduling JO
Dey. Servo Project Ruff Auto Planned Unit Development - Complete the project. JO
Dev. SerY. Project Hwy 25/Chelsea Rd improvements and all associated land transactions. JO
Dev. Servo Project Finalize Monticello Business Center plat. JO
Dey. Servo Project Gould Bros. expansion. Process CUP. JO
Dev. Servo Project Dave Peterson Monticello Ford expansion - Process CUP. JO
Dev. Servo Project Relocate Commuter Parking Lot JO
V. Servo Project EIHl Dundas Road/Highway 25 realignment. JO
Dey. Servo Project Grimsmo/Peterson Funeral Home - Process CUP, variances & ordinance ame JO
AdminlFinance Resolve storm sewer trunk fee program - Follow. up. JO
AdminlMIS Computer training for staff. JO
Dey. Servo Project High School building environmental assessment and CUP process. JO
Dev. SerY. Project St. Henry's - determine min. for 7th St. . CUP and public imp. process. JO
.c;erv. Project High School building construction project. JO
/L.~ t"'-~
t
ft t.J
t
....-s 0 l
~tL~t
l
3
wk1997x.wk4: 03101/99
Page 1
City of Monticello
Mandatory Project Listing - June 23,1997
Sort by Department
LEADERSIDP Project
CATEGORY Project Description Leader
Dev. Sex-v. Project Resurrection Church. site review/annexation/rezoning process. JO
Dev. Sex-v. Pl'oject Hospital plat update and record. JO
PWlParks Develop and implement pond vegetation pilot study. JO
Admin. Consider merging EDAlHRA. JO
PWIPlll'ks ISTEA . Pathway Construction along CSAH 118 connecting School Blvd to CS JO
PWlParks Develop Prairie Creek Park. JO
PWlParks Develop summer pathway maintenance program to conform with MNIDOT std JO
PWIPlll'ks Bridge over storm sewer at Mississippi Shores pathway. JO
PWlParks Complete ISTEA project/pedestrian overpass at County Rd 118 - Project Fund JO
PWlParks ISTEA . Pathway Construction from Middle School to Meadow Oak. JO
)ev. Serv.lCust. Serv Develop consistent administrative policies & code applications. JO
)ev. Serv.lCust. Serv Enhance customer applications. forms. records. brochures & applications. JO
Dev. Sex-v. Project Kjellberg East sanitary sewer connection - complete the project. JO
Dev. Servo Pl'oject Art Hill - 40.acre residential development. JO
Dev. Servo Project Close out Briar Oakes Estate II improvement project JO
Dev. Servo Project Klein Farms III . Plat approval and public improvement process. JO
Dev. Servo Project Close out Klein Farms Estates. JO
Dev. Servo Project Close out Meadow Oak 4th improvement project. JO
_.erv. Px-oject Orrin Thompson. 80-acre residential project. JO
erv. Project John Leerssen . lO-acre residential project. JO
Dev. Sex-v. Project Replat Meadow Oak lots into Eastwood Knoll development. JO
Dev. Servo Pl'oject Close out River IvIill project. JO
Admin/Cust. Serv. Establish policy for use of City LOGO. Who can use and four color versus two JO
AdminlFacilities Add OfficelWork Space at the Senior Center. Needs research JO
AdminlFacilities Additonal parking at the Senior Center - Needs research JO
AdminlFacilities Additional bathroom facilities at the Senior Center - Needs research JO
AdminlFacilities Add Kitchen facilities at Senior Center - Needs research JO
Dev. Servo Px-oject Parking along CR 75 across from Pinewood School. JO
PWlFacilities Hillside Cemetery fencing project. search out additional funds or grants. JS
-~
AdminlFinance Draft new rate structure and ordinance for sanitary sewer user charge. JS
PW/Streets Specifications, bids, and purchase new air compressor for street dept. JS
PW/Streets Specifications. bids, & purchase new paint striper. JS
PW/Streets Purchase and install lube rack at PW shop. JS
AdminlFacilities Maintenance to library building exterior. lights, signage, resurface parking 10 JS
AdminlFacilities Interior maintenance - carpet, mouldings, paint, bathroom tile, shelving, wall~ JS
PW/Streets Draft comprehensive sign maintenance and replacement program. JS
PW/Streets Obtain NSP funding for conversion of traffic lights to LED. JS
PW/Streets Railroad crossing upgrade at West Co. Rd. 39 and Walnut. JS
PW/Streets Regrade and restore West Co. Rd. 39 ditch at PW facility. JS
.WlParkS Specifications, bids, & purchase small loader and trailer for parks dept. JS
. W/Str....ts Plan. develop plans & specs for parking lot overlays in downtown parking lots. JS
wk1997x.wk4: 03/01/99
"1~r(.-
,.- \.. ^
)0
~
t.\
Page 2
City of Monticello
Mandatory Project Listing - June 23, 1997
Sort by Department
LEADERSHIP Project
CATEGORY Proiect Description Leader
PW/Streets Inspection and repair of downtown lighting system. JS
PW/Streets Plan, specs, bids or quotes on pavement replacement on some 77-3 intersectiOl JS
PW/Streets Sealcoat program. 1998. JS
Admin Reorganize safety committee and continue programs and job hazard analysis. JS
PWlParks Contract for additional power at gazebo at request of Lions Club. JS
PWlParks Complete Bridge Park improvements as recommended by Parks Comm and M JS
PWlParks Use pathway maintenance funds to finance pathway/sidewalk snow removal e JS
PW!Facilities Specifications & obtain quotes for roof repair to Office of Public Works. JS
PW!Facilities Complete fencing, lighting, and screening at PW facility. JS
Admin!Facilities Build and relocate dog pound. JS
PW/Streets Develop scope and schedule for West River Street street & storm sewer impro JS
PWlUtilities Tree planting, building floor, and entry roads on biosolids site. JS
PWlUtilities Continue sanitary sewer inflow and infiltration efforts prior to April 1997. JS
PWlUtilities Wastewater treatment plant construction project. JS
PW IU tilities Develop contract with Elk River Landfill. JS
PWlUtilities Integrate 30-gallon garbage cart into newsletter & garbage pickup system. JS
PWltrees Develop dutch elm cutting guideline for timely completion using City & contra JS
PWlUtilities Complete water tower paintimr project. JS
[etilities Specifications, bids, and refurbish well #2. JS
. lRecords Combine basement administrative records into one system (all side-tab). lID
AdminlRecords Review all records from OSM (38 boxes)--copy those needed..file copies. lID
AdminlRecords Reorganize HRA and EDA records. lID
AdminlRecords Create economic development filing system. lID
AdminlRecords Inventory records at public works. lID
AdminlRecords Records destruction for 1997 (citv hall). lID
AdminlRecords Continue inventory of basement records. lID
Admin/Records Begin records destruction at public works. lID
AdminlRecords Research data privacy act--distribute info. to clerical support staff. lID
AdminlRecords Add specific record categories to retention schedule. lID
PW IU tilities Block repair to pump house #1. MT
PWlUtilities Leak detection testing of various water mains. MT
v. Servo Project EIHI Development of second phase of Mississippi Shores. OK
V. Servo Project EIHI Develop a system (worksheet) to calculate development fees for industrial pro~ OK
V. Servo Pnject EIHI Finalize Lake Tool. Prairie West and Fay-Mar projects. OK
PWlParks Playground equipment - addition of handicap accessible equipment. RM
PWlParks Playground equipment maintenance. RM
PWlParks Install cedar rail posts at various park lot corners (Oak Ridge, etc.). RM
PWlParks Clean up Battle Rapids Park. RM
AdminlPersonnel Update personnel policy to reflect current statutesllaws. RW
V. Servo Project EIHI Develop a cost acounting system for TIF Districts RW
. Project EItU Define level of staff support necessary to support Economic Development offic RW
wk1997x.wk4: 03/01/99
~ 0 \... ""
t
-
ll:. 0.( (/I
!
Mt:. t
o II ,i!.
b14~
~ . c-lZ
~
Page 3
City of Monticello
Mandatory Project Listing - June 23,1997
Sort by Department
LEADERsmp Project
CATEGORY Proiect DescriDtion Leader
v. Servo Project E/H] Develop a cost accounting system for GMEF Loans RW
PWlFacilities Develop specs for sexton for Riverside Cemetery and advertise and hire contl'll RW
AdminlFa.cilities Purchase internet work stations, chairs, overhead projector, picnic table, RW
Admin Develop local performance aid program to meet state requirements for LGA. RW
Admin/Gust. Servo Establish Policy for support of advisory groups. non appointed. MCP, IDC RW
Admin/Cust. Servo Establish policy for staff involvement in civic organizations (Lions, Jaycees, Cl RW
Admin/Cust. Servo Define proper level of Chamber support from City staff. RW
PWlParks Develop north/south and east/west snowmobile routes ( now implement). RW
AdminlBudget Budget review process. assemble budget data & give to Council. RW
PSlPolice Begin long term planning for local police department. RW
Admin/Records Create and implement records management plan. :>.00
.
.
wk1997x.wk4: 03/01/99
a. \L
~\(.I
\,
Page 4
City of Monticello
Project Priority Listing
.
Hi h Priority, C - Priorit , D - Mild Priorit
AdminlFinance Tax Rev. ~ A Research financial impact of transition from NSP to non-NSP tax base. 9.6 1.6 RW
PW/Streets MCP R A Determine design for CSAH 75 - steps to take to manage traffic. 9.0 1.6 JO
Admin/Personnel Staffing A Determine neccessary staff support - park administration and maintenance. 9.0 3.2 JO
AdminlFinance Dev. Rev. A Direct City staff to survey other communities - Development fees . Revise fee! 8.8 1.0 JO
Dev. Serv. Proj eet Inst. A National Gaurd Training Center development downtown or at high school. 8.8 1.0 JO
Dev. Servo Ord. Parka A Tree ordinance update and implementationlboulevard planting programllocatil 8.6 1.0 JO
Dev. Servo EDAlHRA Industrial A Establish a reserve fund for acquisition of industrial land. 8.5 4.0 OK
Dev. Serv. Ord. Parks A Snowmobile ordinance amendments. 8.5 1.0 RW
pev. Sen EDAlHRA ommlMC A Explore the potential purchase of BN ROW in core city area. Explore shared u 8.5 2.0 OK
Admin. Organ. a A Defme proper level of City Council & Commission support from City Staff. S.4 1.0 RW
pev. Servo EDAlHRA MCP 1 A Land acquisition as available to carry out downtown riverfront redevelopment. 8.4 1.2 OK
PW /Parka Program 2 A Establish summer recreation program and use system for city facilities. 8.3 2.8 JO
Admin/Gust. Servo Service 3 A Develop priorities for service delivery - Identify measures of service. S.3 1.5 RW
PW/Parka Path 4 A Pathway Construction alon!! river. Mississippi Dr. to Ellison Park. 8.2 1.8 JS
AdminlFinance Tax Rev. 5 A Prepare capital improvement plan (city wide) for 5 . 10 years. 8.0 2.2 RW
AdminlFinance Dev. Rev. 6 A Prepare survey on big permit related costs (hookup chgs, access/ave chgs, etc.) 8.0 1.4 JO
Dev. Servo EDAlHRA ommlMCI 7 A Establish commercial/retail revolving loan program. 8.0 2.6 OK
Dev. Servo Ord. Annex 8 A Amendments to Cityrrownship Urbanization Agreement & map. 8.0 1.8 JO
Dev. Servo Ord. Annex 9 A Submit comp plan to MOAA for fmal ratification. 8.0 1.0 JO
Dev. Servo EDAlHRA ouainglMC ;10 A Develop a loan program and guidelines encoura!!inli( remodelin!! of aging housiJi 7.8 3.4 OK
PW/Streets Maint. ~1 A Draft comprehensive sign maintenance and replacement program. 7.8 2.2 JS
Dev. Servo EDAlHRP Induatrial 22 A Develop and encourage business retention and expansion. 7.7 2.6 OK
PW/Parka Path 23 A Investigate re-opening pathway for winter use. 7.6 2.8 JO
.W/Parka Park 4 B Pave rink at 4th street park to allow roller hocky. 7.6 2.4 JO
in/Personnel ~neral 5 B Evaluate oerformance appraisal system. 7.6 2.2 RW
De\'. Servo EDAlHRA Admin. 6 B Develop TIF application guidelines. 7.6 2.6 OK
PW/Streets Service 7 B Draft new snowplowing/snow removal policy. 7.5 1.5 JS
PW /Parka Maint. 8 B Establish comprehensive park maintenance program. 7.4 2.8 JO
Dev. Serv. Project Rea. 9 B Kjellberg West san. sewer connection made. 7.4 4.0 JO
Dev. Servo Ord. MGP 30 B Act on future MCP initiatives. 7.4 2.0 JO
Dev. S..rv. Project Inst. :11 B Resolve post office access problems. 7.4 2.8 RW
PW/Parks Park 32 B Develop roller blade/skate board park facility. 7.3 2.8 JO
Dev. Servo Ord. MCP ~ B Ordinance amendment - sign age in concert with MCP. 7.2 2.0 FP
PWlParks Park ~ B Develop and implement an "adopt a park" program. 7.2 4.2 JO
Admin/Gust. Servo Organ. ~5 B Defme proper level of MCP support from City staff. 7.2 1.5 RW
Admin. Organ. ~6 B Continuing education plan-- Council. commissions, & staff. 7.2 1.8 RW J
Dev. Servo Ord. MCP ~7 B Ordinance amendment. 2:eneral architectural stds & for downtown redevelopD 7.2 2.0 FP
Dev. Servo EDAlHRA Mep ~8 B Act on future MCP initiatives - Redevelopment activity 7.1 2.6 OK
D..v Servo Ord. Comm. ~9 B Commercial zoning districts. proper mix of uses identified? 7.0 2.2 JO
Dev. Servo EDAlHRA ousinglMC ~O B TIF project - assist development of upscale high density river district housing. 7.0 4.8 OK
PW/Streets Mamt. ~1 B Joint venture with Buffalo & Elk River for bituminous cold planer attachment. 6.8' 2.6 JS
Dev. Servo EDAlHRP ub relatioo ~2 B Dev. proactive mrktg network - elected officials, realtors, builders, indust land 6.8 2.5 OK
Dev. Servo EDAlHRP ommlMCI ~ C Explore other redevelopment activities such as Cohens, mall and hotel. 6.6 3.0 OK
Dev. Servo Ord. Indust. 14 C Adjust business campus. change name - reduce 30% requirement. 6.6 2.0 JO
Dev. Serv. Admm. 5 C Prepare Annual Planning Report. 6.6 2.6 JO
-
Dav. Servo EDAlHRA ouslng/Me 6 C Develop a program and guidelines for a volunteer acquisition program - blightl 6.6 3.6 OK
.
'1
wk1997x.wk4: 03/01/99
Page 1
City of Monticello
Project Priority Listing
.
Dev, Serv_ Ord, Comm, 7 C PZM district/downtown designation. possible amendments along River St. 6,6 1.8 JO
PW/Streets Maim, l-8 C Develop comprehensive maint. pro!!'ram & priorities for streetscape landscapir 6_6 2,6 JS
PWlParks Maint, 9 C Rebuild Meadow Oak pathways. 6.6 3.2 JS
PWlParks Park 0 C Upgrade 4th street park warming house - eliminate electric hcat - add window 6_6 2.8 JS
AdminiFacilitias Admin. 51 C City Hall planning. Evaluate options including purchase of Marquette Bank 6.4 3.2 RW
Pev. Serv, EDAlHRA ommlMCF ~2 C Explore potential relocation of JM oil, Riverside Oil, and Ferrellgas. 6.4 3.0 OK
Dav. Servo Ord. Idng Insp_ 153 C Ordinance amendment - building codes & related ordinances. 6.4 2.0 FP
AdminIRacords Filing P4 C Reduce amt of record storage needed--microfiche process. 6.4 2,6 KD
PWlParks Park 155 C Freeway Park - Outlot A Meadow Oak basketball. 6.4 2.8 JS
Dav. Servo Ord. Housing ~ C Ordinance amendment - hOUSing. 6.3 2.0 JO
AdminlPersonnet Staffing 157 C Determine additional clerical staff support needed. 6.2 2.6 RW
PWlParks Park )8 C River Mill Park development. 6.2 3.2 JO
PWlParks Path 59 C Montissippi ParklNSPIDNR Pathway - Park and Prairie development. 6.2 3,0 JO
Dev. Sarv. Ord. HOUSing 0 C Develop and implement rental housing code and licensing program. 6.2 2.8 JO
Dev. Servo Ord_ Housing 1 C Dev. of low density housing standards> 12.000 sq ft/lot? & street section stds. 6_2 2.8 JO
Dev. Sarv. Admin. 52 C Improve zoning code enforcement - perhaps hire intern. 6,0 3.5 FP
MminlPe\'$onnal Staffing 3 C Determine necessary taff support - planning & building dept. 6,0 2.6 JO
Admin_ Organ_ 4 C Clarify and develop efficient purchasing policy. S_O 1.4 RW
Dav. Servo Ord. Admin. 5 C Zoning Code recodification consideration. 6.0 3.0 JO
PWlParks Park 6 C Determine location of CitylLions Club park development. 6_0 4.2 JO
Dev, Serv_ Ord. Subd_ 7 C Subdivision design standards. examine for possible amendments. 6_0 3,0 JO
PWlParks Park 68 C Develop water tower site into park. 5.8 4.9 JO
Dev. Servo Admin_ 159 C Review & revise site development enforcement (as-built land survey required). 5_8 3.8 FP
.rv.lcust. Serv b. retstio 0 D Enhance commercial/industrial bIg permit info design standards/process. 5_8 3.0 FP
arv. EDAlHRA HOUSing 1 D Develop a marketing prog-ram which markets Monticello's housing prog-rams, 5.8 3.4 OK
Admin/Cw.t, Servo Organ. 2 D Defme proper level of IDC support from City staff. 5.8 2.5 RW
AdminlMIS Pub. ReI. 3 D Assemble data for internet applications. 5.8 2.8 JO
Dev, Serv_ Ord. Indust_ 4 D Establish Architectural design standards (Facing material regulations) 5.8 1.5 FP
PWlUtilities tonn Wate 5 D Install high water signs in storage ponds. 6_6 3.6 JS
PWlParks Maint. 6 D Adjust mowing practices - introduce native grasses where appropriate. 5_S 3.5 JO
AdminlFacilities Libl"aIy 77 D Increase library programming budget. 5.6 3.0 RW
Pev. Sarv, EDAlHRA ousinglMC 8 D TIF project - mid density river district owner occupied senior housing (Home! 5.6 4.3 OK
Admin/Cust_ Servo Service 9 D Participate in City/community services expo. 5.4 1.8 RW
Dev. Serv, Ord. Housing 0 D Analyze multi-family - possible zoning ordinance amendments to map. 5.4 3,0 FP
Dev. Serv. Ord. Indust, 1 D Screening fence standards. improve defmition of min. standards for comer vi 5.4 1.8 FP
PWlUtilities olid Wast. 132 D Revise recycling prog-ram with Superior Services. 5.3 2.5 JS
PSIFi.re Fire 63 D Develop Fire Pre. Plan Program for commercial, industrial buildin2's. 5.2 3.4 ~_OO
Dev, Serv_ Ord. Indust. 134 D Outside storage - Regs. limiting outside storage as a % of principal use. 5.2 2.2 FP
PWlUtilities Water ~5 D Complete fencing of 800.000 gallon above-ground water tank. 5_0 3.6 JS
Admin/Cust. Serv_ Orgsn. ~6 D Establish policy for staff involvement in professional organizations. (MRPA, rvr 5_0 2_5 RW
AdminlFacilities Library 7 D Expand Library 4.8 4_6 RW
PSlPolice Potice 8 D Consider Code Enforcement Officer/Community Service Officer Position. 4.8 4.7 JO
MminlFacilities Liquor Str, 9 D Liquor Store improvement - exterior awninl!'s/front wall enlarl!'el9X26 addition 4.6 3.4 RW
Admin/Cust. Servo Service 30 D In-house service seminar (Monticello area realtors). 4_0 3.0 JO
Admin/Cust, Servo Servic@ 1 D In-house service building contractors open house. 4.0 3.8 FP
.
~
wk 1997x. wk4: 03/01/99
Page 2
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
G3/04/1999 07:21:08
Schedule of Bills
CITY OF MONTICELLO
GL050S-V06.00 COVERPAGE
GL540R
.
Report Selection:
RUN GROUP... 0302
COMMENT... 3/02 CKS
OATA-JE-IO
OA TA COMMENT
-------------- ------------------------
0-03021999-777 3/02 CKS
Run Instructions:
JobQ Banner Copies Form Printer Hold Space LPI Lines CPI
J 01 Y S 6 066 10
.
.
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM CITY OF MONTICELLO
03/04/1999 07:21:09 Schedule of Bills GL540R-V06.00 PAGE 3
VENOOR NAME .
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ACCOUNT NAME FUND & ACCOUNT CLAIM INVOICE POll F/P 10 LINE
G & K SERVICES
SHOP TOHELS 74.35 MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 101.43127.2199 777 00023
SEHER 95.85 UNIFORM RENTAL 602.49490.4170 777 00024
WATER 91.89 UNIFORM RENTAL 601.49440.4170 777 00025
PH ADM 40.86 UNIFORM RENTAL 101.43110.4170 777 00026
PW INSP 143.22 UNIFORM RENTAL 101.43115.4170 777 00027
STREETS 168.66 UNIFORM RENTAL 101.43120.4170 777 00028
PARKS 398.03 UNIFORM RENTAL 225.45201.4170 777 00029
1,255.55 .VENDOR TOTAL
GATEWAY 2000
CH 2,552.81 COMPUTER EQUIPMENT 101.41920.5702 36139069 777 00038
CITY HALL 14,430.75 COMPUTER EQUIPMENT 101.41920.5702 36265091 777 00037
16,983.56 .VENDOR TOTAL
GLUNZ/RAYMOND J
(4)GRAVE OPENINGS 1.330.00 PROF SRV - EXCAVATION 651.49010.3115 777 00039
GME CONSULTANTS, INC.
COMM CENTER 4,999.10 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 461.49201.3030 1899 777 00040
GOULD BROS. CHEV-OLOS. C 77.2
TOW 50.00 REPAIR & MTC - OTHER 101.43120.4099 158525
GRAINGER/W.W.
HATER 125.49 UTILITY SYSTEM MTCE SUPP 601.49440.2270 4956383147 777 00185
GRIGGS, COOPER & COMPANY
0.75 MISC TAXABLE 609.49750.2540 15297 DUE 777 00129
51. 00 FREIGHT 609.49750.3330 20825 777 00127
6,995.98 LI OUOR 609.49750.2510 20825 777 00128
7,047.73 .VENDOR TOTAL
GROSSLEIN BEVERAGE INC.
2,193.00 BEER 609.49750.2520 164110 777 00112
HDR ENGINEERING, INC.
WHTP 44,735.57 PROF SRV - 'ENGINEERING F 436.49201.3030 777 00041
HERMES/GERALO T
LI BRARY 227.50 PROF SRV - CUSTODIAL 211.45501.3110 MARCH 15 777 00192
HOGLUND TRANSPORTATION
BUS CONTRACT 5,000.39 PROF SVR - HEARTLAND BUS 610.49801.3060 83830 771 00198
INNOVATIVE ELECTRONIC SO
WATER 111.91 REPAIR & MTC - MACH & EO 601.49440.4044 3767 777 '2
PARKS 634.22 REPAIR & MTC - MACH & EQ 225.45201.4044 3808 777 3
746.13 .VENDOR TOTAL
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM CITY OF MONTICELLO
03/04/1999 07:21:09 Schedule of Bills GL540R-V06.00 PAGE 4
.DOR NAME
OESCRIPTION AMOUNT ACCOUNT NAME FUND & ACCOUNT CLAIM INVOICE POll F/P 10 LINE
JOHNSON BROS WHOLESALE L
25.64 FREIGHT 609.49750.3330 947378 777 00118
2,257.83 LIOUOR 609.49750.2510 947378 777 00119
26.35 FREIGHT 509.49750.3330 947379 777 00116
1.316.25 WINE 609.49750.2530 947379 777 00117
3,626.07 *VENDOR TOTAL
KEN ANDERSON TRUCKING
28 ANIMALS 159.00 MISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 101.42701.3199 5. 50 777 00202
KEN'S 66 SERVICE
BLDG INSP 172.45 REPAIR & MTC - VEHICLES 101.42401.4050 306420 777 00044
KOROPCHAK/OLIVE
TRAVEL EXPENSE 32.53 TRAVEL EXPENSE 101.46501.3310 777 00045
KUECHLE UNDERGROUNO INC
RESURRECTION CHURCH 2,095.56 PROF SRV - CONSTRUCTION 459.49201.3025 112 777 00046
LARSON'S ACE HARDWARE
PW REMODELING 7.10 BUILDINGS 265.49201. 5201 777 00206
PW INSP 2.53 MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 101.43115.2199 777 00207
eATER 38.81 MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 601.49440.2199 777 00208
BLDG INSP 27. 64 REPAIR & MTC - VEHICLES 101.42401.4050 777 00209
LIOUOR STORE 22.70 MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 609.49754.2199 777 00210
PARKS 218.89 SMALL TOOLS & EOUIPMENT 225.45201.2410 777 00211
PARKS 169.09 MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 225.45201.2199 777 00212
SHOP 15.72 MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 101.43127.2199 777 00213
PARKS 47.71 BUILDING REPAIR SUPPLIES 225.45201.2230 777 00214
WWTP 43.63 MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 602.49480.2199 777 00215
Ll BRARY 10.61 CLEANING SUPPLIES 211.45501.2110 777 00216
AN SHELTER 24.76 MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 101.42701.2199 777 00217
629.19 .VENDOR TOTAL
LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INS
99 FORD 3/4T 197.00 VEHICLE INSURANCE 225.45201.3630 71714 777 00154
BOILER & MACHINERY 1.241.00 MISC GENERAL INSURANCE 602.49480.3699 71714 777 00155
PROP LOCATION 1142 566.00 PROPERTY INSURANCE 101.49240.3620 71714 777 00156
ADO 1M 163.00 GENERAL LIABILITY INSURA 101.49240.3610 71714 777 00157
99 FOR F350 PU 80.00 VEHICLE INSURANCE 225.45201.3630 71714 777 00158
2,247.00 .VENDOR TOTAL
M.B.P.
FIRE 79.03 MOTOR FUELS 101.42201.2120 28431, 28514 777 00200
STREETS 2,254.76 MOTOR FUELS 101.43120.2120 28555, 34035 777 00201
2,333.79 *VENDOR TOTAL
~RCO BUSINESS PRODUCTS,
CH 412.16 DUPLICATING & COpy SUPPL 101.41301.2020 01786718 777 00220
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM CITY OF MONTICELLO
03/04/1999 07:21:09 Schedule of Bills GL540R-V06.00 PAGE 5
VENDOR NAME .
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ACCOUNT NAME FUND & ACCOUNT CLAIM INVOICE POll F/P 10 LINE
MARCO BUSINESS PRODUCTS,
CH 138.45 DUPLICATING & COPY SUPPL 101.41301.2020 01794887 777 00221
550.61 .VENDOR TOTAL
MARDOT PROPERTIES, LLC
HWY25-LAND PURCHASE 15,591.00 LAND 450.49201.5101 777 00082
MEDTOX LABORATORIES
DRUG TESTING 92.00 MISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 101.43120.3199 019979141 777 00222
MINNEGASCO
CH 218.79 GAS 101.41940.3830 777 00047
DEP REG 57.18 GAS 101.41990.3830 777 00048
AN SHELTER 88.79 GAS 101.42701.3830 777 00049
PARKS 193.33 GAS 225.45201.3830 777 00050
WATER 7.67 GAS 6.01.49440.3830 777 00051
FIRE STATION 713.59 GAS 101.42201.3830 777 00052
SHOP/GARAGE/MAl NT 2,932.73 GAS 101.43127.3830 777 00053
LI BRARY 219.85 GAS 211.45501.3830 777 00054
LIUOOR STORE 137.13 GAS 609.49754.3830 777 00055
WWTP 64.18 GAS 602.49480.3830 777 00056
4,633.24 .VENoOR TOTAL .
MN BUILDING OFFICIAL
BI-MONTHLY MEETING 15.00 CONFERENCE & SCHOOLS 101.42401.3320 GARY 777 00057
MN COpy SYSTEMS INC
COPIER MAINT - 1/24/99 31. 95 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS 101.42201.3190 75221 777 00058
MN RECREATION & PARK ASS
1999 MEMBERSHIP 220.00 DUES, MEMBERSHIP & SUBSC 225.45201.4330 135 777 00061
MONTICELLO CHAMBER OF CO
CHAMBER LUNCH 10.00 CONFERENCE & SCHOOLS 101.41301.3320 OLLIE & JEFF 777 00059
YRLY MEMBERSHIP DUES 385.00 DUES, MEMBERSHIP & SUBSC 101.41301.4330 1999 777 00060
395.00 .VENDOR TOTAL
MONTICELLO VACUUM CENTER
LIBRARY-VACUUM CLNER 276.85 OTHER EQUIPMENT 211.45501.5801 22176 777 00195
CH 19.31 MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 101.41301.2199 22217 777 00194
LIBRARY 110.63 CLEANING SUPPLIES 211.45501. 21 10 22228 777 00196
LI BRARY 19.12 REPAIR & MTC - MACH & EO 211.45501.4044 22229 777 00197
425.91 .VENDOR TOTAL
NEW URBAN NEWS
PLANNING 59.00 DUES, MEMBERSHIP & SUBSC 101.41910.4330 777 00062
NORTHERN STATES POWER CO 77163
WATER 3,012.85 ELECTRIC 601.49440.3810
SEWER 277.82 ELECTRIC 602.49490.3810 777 00064
STREET LIGHTS 11.494.30 ELECTRIC 101.43160.3810 777 00065
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM CITY OF MONTICELLO
03/04/1999 07:21:09 Schedule of Bills GL540R-V06.00 PAGE 8
eNDOR NAME AMOUNT ACCOUNT NAME FUND & ACCOUNT CLAIM INVOICE POll F/P ID LINE
DESCRIPTION
THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMP
10.10 BEER 609.49750.2520 155153 777 00106
6.642.15 *VENDOR TOTAL
U SLINK
CH 47.07 TELEPHONE 101.41301.3210 777 00146
FIRE HALL 1.16 TELEPHONE 101.42201.3210 777 00147
AN SHELTER 9.66 TELEPHONE 101.42701.3210 777 00148
PW 29.62 TELEPHONE 101.43110.3210 777 00149
SLOG INSP 33.93 TELEPHONE 101.42401.3210 777 00150
DEP REG 0.29 TELEPHONE 101.41990.3210 777 00151
LIOUOR 25.03 TELEPHONE 609.49754.3210 777 00152
WES SITE 149.40 PROF SVC - WEBSITE/EMAIL 101.41920.3092 777 00153
296.16 *VENDOR TOTAL
UL TRA-LUBE. INC
SNOW REMOVAL 100.00 MISCPROFESSIONAL SERVIC 450.49201.3199 777 00093
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
JEFF 125.00 CONFERENCE & SCHOOLS 101.41301.3320 714652 777 00184
US BANK
.96B 125.00 FISCAL AGENTS' FEES 385.47001.6201 777 00089
96C 125.00 FISCAL AGENTS' FEES 360.47001.6201 777 00090
96A 125.00 FISCAL AGENTS' FEES 330.47001.6201 777 00091
375.00 *VENDOR TOTAL
US FILTER-WATERPRO
WATER-RESALE 3.823.31 METERS & VALVES FOR RESA 601.49440.2271 5057334 777 00092
US WEST DIRECTORY ADVERT
LIOUOR STORE 33.40 ADVERTISING 609.49754.3499 177 00145
JAN 33.40 ADVERTISING 609.49754.3499 004952809000 717 00183
66.80 *VENDOR TOTAL
VIKING COCA COLA
POP 105.40 MISC TAXABLE 609.49750.2540 2200195 177 00121
POP 15.44 MISC OTHER EXPENSE 101.41940.4399 2200361 717 00120
120.84 *VENDOR TOTAL
WAGGONER ENTERPRISES. IN
JOHN STRUCK 176.51 REPAIR & MTC - VEHICLES 101.43110.4050 014015 177 00218
TOM B TRUCK 28.42 REPAIR & MTC - VEHICLES 101.43110.4050 014016 717 00219
204.93 *VENDOR TOTAL
WATER LABORATORIES, INC
TESTS 40.00CR MISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 601.49440.3199 1I98K-28 PO (2) 777 00104
. TESTS 10.00 MISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 601.49440.3199 99A-276 177 00099
TESTS 20.00 MISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 601.49440.3199 998-001 177 00100
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
03/04/1999 07~21:09
.NDOR NAME
DESCRIPTION
REPORT TOTALS:
.
.
AMOUNT
405.199.68
ACCOUNT NAME
RECORDS PRINTED - 000234
Schedule of Bills
FUND & ACCOUNT
CITY OF MONTICELLO
GL540R-V06.00 PAGE 10
CLAIM INVOICE POU F/P 10 LINE
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM CITY OF MONTICELLO
03/04/1999 07:21:15 Schedule of Bills GL060S-V06.00 RECAPPAGE
GL540R .
FUND RECAP:
FUND DESCRIPTION DISBURSEMENTS
----------------------------
101 GENERAL FUND 126.314.21
211 LIBRARY FUND 1.714.44
225 PARK FUND 5.718.91
240 CAPITAL PROJECT REVOLVING FD 2.323.62
262 SANITARY SEWER ACCESS FUND 4.537.53
265 WATER ACCESS FUND 403.21
323 1989-1.-2.-3 G.O. BOND FUND 268.00
325 1990C G.O. BOND FD (E.SANDB) 266.00
326 1991A- 1.-2.-3 G.O. BOND FD 191.00
327 1992A CHILLS/SCHOOL BLV BD 191. 00
330 1996A G.O. IMPR 80ND 125.00
354 1988 WATER SYSTEM BOND FUND 472.00
360 1996C SEWER INTER REFUND 80 125.00
377 TIF 1985 (VEIT) BOND FUND 266.00
380 TIF 1989 (ELDERLY) BOND FUND 266.00
382 TIF 19900 (REM/TAP) BOND FD 266.00
385 TIF 1996B G.O. REFUNDIND 80 125.00
436 93-14C WWTP EXPANSION PRJ - 94.186.07
450 96-04C HWY25/MNDOT IMPR 29.778.00
452 97-03P KLEIN FARMS 3RD 167.50 CR .
453 97-07C HIGH SCHOOL TR ST SEW 899.34
454 97-01C CARD HILLS VI 271. 50
459 98-01C RES CHURCH SS & WM 2.285.31
461 98-03C COMMUNITY CENTER 5.203.10
462 98-12C 7TH STREET EXTENSION 18.763.29
601 WATER FUND 7.350.99
602 SEWER FUND 67.255.22
609 MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND 29.471.05
610 TRANSPORTATION FUND 5.000.39
651 RIVERSIDE CEMETERY 1.330.00
TOTAL ALL FUNDS 405.199.68
BANK RECAP:
BANK NAME
DISBURSEMENTS
GENL GENERAL CHECKING
LIQR LIQUOR CHECKING
375.728.63
29.471.05
TOTAL ALL BANKS
405.199.68
.
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
03/04/1999 07:21:15
eND RECAP:
FUND DESCRIPTION
.
.
Schedule of Bills
DISBURSEMENTS
THE PRECEDING LIST OF BILLS PAYABLE WAS REVIEWED AND APPROVED FOR PAYMENT.
DATE .. .. . .. .. .. .
APPROVED BY
...................................
..................................
....................................
~ ~ .
CITY OF MONTICELLO
GL060S-VQ6.00 RECAPPAGE
GL540R
.
3RC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
02/2&/1999 13:23:1&
Schedule of Bills
CITY OF MONTICELLO
GL050S-VO&.00 COVERPAGE
GL540R
Report Selection:
RUN GROUP... 0022& COMMENT... 2/2& LIQ CKS
DATA-JE-ID
DATA COMMENT
-------------- ------------------------
0-022&1999-775 2/26 LIQ CKS
Run Instructions:
joba Banner Copies Form Printer Hold Space LPI Lines CPI
J 01 Y S 6 06& 10
.
~
,..
aRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM CITY OF MONTICELLO
02/26/1999 13 :23: 18 Schedule of Bills GL540R-V06.00 PAGE 1
.
VENDOR NAME
DESCRI PTION AMOUNT ACCOUNT NAME FUND & ACCOUNT CLAIM INVOICE POll F/P 10 LINE
BELLBOY CORPORATION
LIOUOR 2.242.20 LIQUOR 609.49750.2510 15947400 775 00002
TAX MISC 293.16 MISC TAXABLE 609.49750.2540 1691800 775 00006
Ll OUOR 41. 38CR LIQUOR 609.49750.2510 1706600 775 00001
GEN OP 49.50 MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 609.49754.2199 29243300 775 00003
NON TAX MISC 10.80 MISC NON TAXABLE 609.49750.2550 29243300 775 00004
TAX MISC 189.29 MISC TAXABLE 609.49750.2540 29243300 775 00005
2,743.57 'VENDOR TOTAL
BERNICK'S PEPSI COLA COM
BEER 142.00 BEER 609.49750.2520 52352 775 00090
TAX MISC 42.60 MISC TAXABLE 609.49750.2540 52353 775 00092
BEER 406.90 BEER 609.49750.2520 55481 775 00089
TAX MISC 45.65 MISC TAXABLE 609.49750.2540 55482 775 00091
637.15 'VENDOR TOTAL
DAHLHEIMER DISTRIBUTING'
BEER 459.20 BEER 509.49750.2520 39963 775 00034
BEER 1.580,95 BEER 609.49750.2520 40691 775 00032
TAX MISe 37.60 MIse TAXABLE 609.49750.2540 40692 775 00030
BEER 125.00 BEER 609.49750.2520 40740 775 00031
BEER 172.00 BEER 609.49750.2520 41033 7750.
BEER 1.379.30 BEER 609.49750.2520 41047 775 0
TAX Mise 13.30 MIse TAXABLE 609.49750.2540 41048 775 00029
BEER 529.35 BEER 609.49750.2520 41392 775 00036
BEER 3.722.30 BEER 609.49750.2520 41403 775 00037
TAX Mise 98.10 MISC iAXABLE 609.49750.2540 41404 775 00028
8,117.10 'VENOOR TOTAL
DAY DISTRIBUTING COMPANY
BEER 697.70 BEER 609.49750.2520 53509 775 00077
BEER 401.50 BEER 609.49750.2520 54033 775 00078
1.099.20 'VENDOR TOTAL
GRIGGS, COOPER & COMPANY
FREIGHT 13.50 FREIGHT 609.49750.3330 775 00008
FREIGHT 0.75 FREIGHT 609.49750.3330 775 00010
FREIGHT 8.25 FREIGHT 609.49750.3330 775 00012
FREIGHT 17.25 FREIGHT 609.49750.3330 775 00014
FREIGHT 4.50 FREIGHT 609.49750.3330 775 00016
FREIGHT 3.75 FREIGHT 609.49750,3330 775 00018
FREIGHT 0.75 FREIGHT 609.49750.3330 775 00020
FREIGHT 13.50 FREIGHT 609.49750.3330 775 00022
LI OUOR 64.39CR LIQUOR 609.49750.2510 103996 715 00025
TAX MISC 10.63CR MISC TAXABLE 609.49750.2540 104194 775 00024
LIOUOR 8.37CR LIQUOR 609.49750.2510 1044 9 5 775 00026
LI QUOR 1.548.35 LIQUOR 609.49750.2510 15295 775 00.
WINE 185.46 WINE 609.49750,2530 15296 775 Ot.
TAX MISC 26.50 MISC TAXABLE 609.49750.2540 15297 775 00011
8RC FINANCIAL SYSTEM CITY OF MONTICELLO
02/26/1999 13: 23: 18 Schedu1e of Bi11s GL540R-Y06.00 PAGE 3
YENDOR NAME .
OESCRI PTION AMOUNT ACCOUNT NAME FUND & ACCOUNT CLAIM INYOICE POll F/P 10 LINE.
PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS
FREIGHT 34.28 FREIGHT 609.49750.3330 468454 775 00068
WINE 1.490.07 WINE 609.49750.2530 468454 775 00069
FREIGHT 6.80 FREIGHT 609.49750.3330 470502 775 00066
LIQUOR 1.177 .43 LI OUOR 609.49750.2510 470502 775 00067
FREIGHT 16.43 FREIGHT 609.49750.3330 470503 775 00064
WINE 718.75 WINE 609.49750.2530 470503 775 00065
7,963.53 *YENDOR TOTAL
QUALITY WINE & SPIRITS C
LIOUOR 52.38CR LIQUOR 609.49750.2510 686593 775 00047
WINE 683.10 WINE 609.49750.2530 687979 775 00046
630.72 *YENDOR TOTAL
RON'S GOURMET ICE
TAX MISC 66.64 MISC TAXABLE 509.49750.2540 30419 775 00044
SENTRY SYSTEMS. INC.
BAL DUE 3.00 REPAIR & MTC - MACH & EO 609.49754.4044 184651 775 00007
ST. CLOUD RESTAURANT SUP.
TAX MISC 47.75 MISC TAXABLE 509.49750.2540 438600 775 Oa
TAX MISC 23.25CR MISC TAXABLE 609.49750.2540 44584R 775 0
24.50 *YENDOR TOTAL
THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMP
SEER 1,852.45 BEER 609.49750.2520 154147 775 00085
TAX MISC 50.50 MISC TAXABLE 609.49750.2540 154148 775 00088
BEER 2.298.30 BEER 609.49750.2520 154646 775 00086
TAX MISC 28.05 MISC TAXABLE 609.49750.2540 154647 775 00087
4,229.30 *YENDOR TOTAL
TOTAL REGISTER SYSTEMS,
SCANNER KIT 553.80 OTHER EQUIPMENT 609.49754.5801 7290 775 00027
YIKING COCA COLA
TAX MISC 119.10 MISC TAXABLE 609.49750.2540 2198479 775 00084
WATSON COMPANY. INC/THE
FREIGHT 0.35 FREIGHT 609.49750.3330 535786 775 00072
TAXABLE MISC 499.66 MISC TAXABLE 609.49750.2540 535786 715 00073
GEN OP 30.00 LIQUOR STORE SUPPLIES 609.49754.2140 535786 775 00074
530.01 *YENDOR TOTAL
WINE MERCHANTS. INC
WINE 411. 20 WINE 609.49750.2530 15707 775 00045
WRIGHT WAY SHOPPER .
LIQUOR STORE-AD 56.00 ADYERTISING 609.49754.3499 5298 775 00080
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
02/26/1999 13:23:18
.
VENDOR NAME
DESCRIPTION
REPORT TOTALS:
.
.
AMOUNT
42,043.34
ACCOUNT NAME
RECORDS PRINTED - 000092
Schedule of Bills
FUND & ACCOUNT
CLAIM INVOICE
CITY OF MONTICELLO
GL540R-V06.00 PAGE 4
PO#
F/P ID LINE
aRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
02/26/1999 13:23:20
FUND RECAP:
~UND DESCRIPTION
509 MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND
TOTAL ALL FUNDS
BANK RECAP:
BANK NAME
~IOR LIQUOR CHECKING
TOTAL ALL BANKS.
Schedule of Bills
DISBURSEMENTS
42.043.34
42.043.34
DISBURSEMENTS
42.043.34
42.043.34
THE PRECEDING LIST OF BILLS PAYABLE WAS REVIEWED AND APPROVED FOR PAYMENT.
DATE .... .. .. . .. .
APPROVED BY
CITY OF MONTICELLO
GL060S-V06.00 RECAPPAGE
GL540R .
.
.
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
~n3/01/1999 09:33:09
Schedule of Bills
CITY OF MONTICELLC
GLOSOS-V06.00 COVERPAGE
GL540f<
Reoort Selection:
RUN GROUP~.. M228D COMMENT... 2/28.MANUAL CKS
,DATA-JE-ID
DATA COMMENT
-------------- ------------------------
M-02281999-116 2/28/99 MANUAL CKS
,~un Instructions:
Joba Banner Copies Form Printer Hold Space LPI Lines CPI
J 01 Y S 6 066 1 C
.
.
eRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM CITY OF MONTICELLO
03/01/1999 09:33:11 Schedule of Bilis GL540R-V06.00 PAGE .
VENDOR NAME
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ACCOUNT NAME rUND & ACCOUNT CLAIM INVOICE POll F/P 10 LINE
ADOLFSON & PETERSON. INC
FILE CABINET 100.00 FURNITURE & FIXTURES 602.49480.5601 776 00016
BROCK WHITE COMPANY, LLC
CRACK SEALING SEMINAR 100.00 CONFERENCE & SCHOOLS 101.43120.3320 776 00020
CASH
. BURLINGTON ACQUISTION 198,000.00 LAND 461.49201.5101 776 00024
GEORGE RIVERA
REFUND ON DEPOSIT 83.00 OTHER MISC REVENUE iOl.36299 776 00021
GOVERNMENT TRAINING CENT
SEMINARS 99.00 GENERAL PUBLIC INFORMATI 101.41910.3520 776 00013
KAREN 195.00 CONFERENCE & SCHOOLS 101.41301.3320 776 00011.
294.00 *VENDOR TOTAL
GRIGGS. COOPER & COMPANY
:t:FY:O: 2.755.45CR LIQUOR 609.49750.2510 CREDIT 776 00025
*Fy:t: 3.066.39 LIOUOR 609.4S750.2510 187882 776 ooe27
",cy* 1,295.82 LIOUOR 509.49750.2510 775308 776 00026
1,606.76 *VENDOR TOTAL .
HAWKINS WATER TREATMENT
70 WATER 6,064.89CR CHEMICAL PRODUCTS 602.49490.2160 776 00004
WATER 6,064.89 CHEMICAL PRODUCTS 601.49440.2160 776 00005
0.00 *VENDOR TOTAL
MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT INC.
STREET SWEEPER CLINIC 80.00 CONFERENCE & SCHOOLS 101.43120.3320 776 00019
MN DEPART OF NATURAL RES
DEP REG 1,801.00 DNR PAYABLE ,01.20811 776 00015
DEP REG 797.00 DNR PAYABLE 101.20811 776 00022
DEP REG 624.00 DNR PAYABLE 101.20811 776 00028
3,222.00 *VENDOR TOTAL
MN GOV FINANCE OFICERS A
SUE 30.00 DUES. MEMBERSHIP & suesc 101.41520.4330 776 00010
MN RURAL WATER ASSOCIATI
MATT & RICH 150.00 CONFERENCE & SCHOOLS 601.49440.3320 776 00018
NORTHWEST MINNESOTA CHAP
31 MONTHLY MEETING 15.00 CONFERENCE & SCHOOLS 101.42401.3320 776 00008
GARY 20.00 DUES. MEMBERSHIP & SUBSC 101.42401.4330 776 00009
35.00 *VENDOR TOTAL .
PATCH/FRED
PHONE REIMB 50.57 TELEPHONE 101.42401.3210 776 00012
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
~3/01/1999 09:33:11
VENDOR NAME
DESCRIPTION
SCHLUENDER CONSTRUCTION
*FY* COMM CENTER VOID
SOLOMON SMITH BARNEY
INVESTMENT
TERESA LAMBERT
FINAL (1) DAY
VISU-SEWER CLEAN & SEAL,
TO SEWER
SEWER
WRIGHT COUNTY RECORDER
CK VOID
WRIGHT COUNTY TREAS/AUDI
CK VOID
CK VOID
.
.
Schedule of Bills
AMOUNT
FUND & ACCOUNT
ACCOUNT NAME
10,547.00CR MISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 461.49201.3199
60,000.00 I~VESTMENTS
955.10401
75.00 SALARIES, TEMPORARY - RE 101.43110.1040
1,700.00CR MISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 601.49440.3199
1,700.00 MISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 602.49490.3199
0.00 *VENDOR TOTAL
39.00CR MISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 101.41910.3199
6.65CR MISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 101.41910.3199
6.65CR MISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 101.41910.3199
13.30CR *VENDOR TOTAL
CITY OF MONTICELLO
GL540R-V06.00 PAGE 2
CLAIM INVOICE POU F/P 10 LINE
3337
776 00011
776 00023
776 00017
776 00006
776 00007
776 00003
776 00001
776 00002
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
33/01/1999 09:33:11
VENDOR NAME
DESCRIPTION
REPORT TOTALS:
AMOUNT
253.227. 03
ACCOUNT NAME
RECORDS PRINTED - 000028
Schedule of Bills
FUND & ACCOUNT
CITY OF MONTICELLO
GL540R-V06.00 PAGE ~
CLAIM INVOICE PO# F/P 10 LINE
.
.
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
.03/0:/1999 09:33:13
FUND RECAP:
Schedule of 8il1s
FUND DESCRIPTION
DISBURSEMENTS
~01 GENERAL FUND
~61 98-03C COMMUNITY CENTER
601 WATER FUND
602 SEWER FUND
509 MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND
955 INVESTMENT HOLDING FUND
3.917 .27
187.~53.00
~.51~.89
~.26~.89 CR
i.606.76
60.009.00
TOTAL ALL FUNDS
253.227.03
BANK RECAP:
BANK NAME
DISBURSEMENTS
GENL GENERAL CHECKING
~IQR LIQUOR CHECKING
TOTAL ALL BANKS
251.620.27
1.606.76
253.227.03
THE PRECEDING LIST OF BILLS PAYABLE WAS REVIEWED AND APPROVED FOR PAYMENT,
DATE ............
APPROVED BY
.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
GL060S-V06.00 RECAPPAGE
GL5~OR