City Council Agenda Packet 04-12-1999
.
.
.
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, April 12, 1999 - 7 p.m.
Mayor: Roger Belsaas
Council Members: Clint Herbst,~;i~;l- St~mpl' Roger Carlson, Bruce Thielen
A h,>~1'
1. Call to order.
2.
A.
Approval of minutes of the special meeting held March 22,1999.
Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held March 22, 1 999. C {jvJf( C/
Approval of minutes of the special meeting held April 6, 1999.{ H ~ ~ (;
B.
C.
3.
Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaint~ 1l..up'Ji. -Pd. .r~-l!- 0 (; 0'"'1 'I {( /tll1&~ /1JJ
(:r.cALl H c.ry 1t' AJ ~ p, nLAtM d
A. Status report on Danner Trucking site redevelopment.
4.
5.
Consent agenda.
A. Consideration of moving public hearing date for CSAH 75 project from April 12,
1999, to April 26, 1999.
B. Consideration of a resolution supporting repeal of the state sales tax for local
government purchases.
C. Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit within the CCD zoning
district to allow a shopping center. Applicant: Amcon Construction.
D. Consideration of a conditional use permit for outdoor storage in an 1-2 zone, and
consideration of a variance to reduce the 5-ft setback to the curb to one 1 f1.
Applicant: Ebert Construction.
E. Consideration of an amendment to the zoning code, City Ordinance Title 10,
Chapter 3, Section 2-2, Subsection [FK] and [FL], modifying the definitions of
floor area and livable noor area. Applicant: Zoning Administrator.
F.
Consideration of amendment to City Ordinance Title 10, Chapter 3, by adding
Section 3-6A, Grading; and amending Section 3-7, Land Reclamation, and
Section 3-8, Mining. Applicant: Zoning Administrator.
.
.
.
Agcnda
Monticcllo City Council
April 12, 1999
Pagc 2
G. Considcration of rezoning Lots 5-13, Block 2; lIillsidc Tcrracc from 1-1 to I-IA.
Applicant: City of Monticello.
H. Consideration of approving a temporary on-sale liquor license for Ducks
Unlimited Banquet and Riverfest. Applicant: Monticello Lions Club.
I. Consideration of rcsolution authorizing the renewal of a gambling license for the
American Legion Club.
1. Consideration of a resolution calling for a public hearing on the Chelsea Road
cxtension street and utility improvcments.
(.~t.,.
6. Consideration of items removcd from the consent agenda for discussion. fl c> C \~
7.
Consideration of request by MOAA Board to remove Exhibit C from City/Township
agrccment and replace it with pattcrn proposcd for that section under the compromise
plan.
8.
Consideration ofrcvicwing ordinance amendment establishing term length for Mayor.
9.
Consideration of closing park rcstrooms to the public evenings ffild weekends and
eliminating the position of Groundskeeper/Maintenance Worker.
10.
Consideration of presentation of award from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to
the City of Monticello and Professional Scrviccs Group for the past year's operations of
the Wastcwater Treatment Facility.
11.
Consideration of a proposal to purchase a portion of city property at Dundas Road and
Ccdar Street.
12.
Consideration of bills for the first half of April 1999.
13.
Adjournment. .
t:Q~ \\0<\ rt \) (lp(.u r.l\ 1...Jj
-
.
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, March 22,1999 - 5:30 p.m.
Members Present: Roger Belsaas, Clint Herbst, Brian Stumpf, Roger Carlson, Bruce Thielen
Members Absent: None
2. Review mandatory project listing and orioritization listing.
City Administrator Rick Wolfsteller reviewed the City's vision statement/governance
model and projects completed since June 1997. Deputy City Administrator Jeff O'Neill
noted that the project listing included items from 1997 as well as new items for 1999.
Mayor Roger Bclsaas suggested that Council review the staff initiatives and mandatory
project list and then meet again to discuss specifics. He also directed staff to review the
budget and note where expenses can be reduced, perhaps by phasing in some projects, as
he would not support a tax increase for the year 2000.
.
Council discussed the 5-year capital improvement plan, along with currently budgeted
projects. They suggested that staff list which projects have been started, what percent of
the project has been completed, how the project was financed, and whether grant funds
are available.
Short- and long-term road maintenance was also discussed. Public Works Director John
Simola estimated the cost for improvements to the core city to be $1 miUion and $ 1.5
million for the Hillcrest area, which would be funded through bonds and assessments. He
noted that in the past, the City assessed 50% of street improvements to benefitting
property owners. City Engineer Bret Weiss added that many cities assess no more than
25% due to legislation requiring that "benefit" be shown for street improvements. He
suggested that the City create a policy for assessments rather than assessing project by
project. In addition to assessing the projects, he noted that the City could apply for 100%
i1.mding for state aid road improvements and use any remaining funds for oversizing, etc.
Mayor Belsaas added that the public works department should have a city-wide street
layout showing projects to be completed.
Council also discussed the City's use of consultants for services such as legal,
engineering, planning, financing, wastewater treatment plant operations, etc., and whether
it would be more efficient to hire staff for some of these services.
.
THERE BEfNG NO FURTHER DfSCUSSION, A MOTrON WAS MADE BY BRUCE
THfELEN AND SECONDED BY BRfAN STUMPF TO ADJOURN THE SPECfAL
MEETING. Motion carried unanimously.
Karen Doty
Deputy City Clerk
oZ-A-
.
.
.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, March 22,1999 - 7 p.m.
Members Present: Roger Belsaas, ClintI-lerbst, Brian Stumpf, Roger Carlson, Bruce Thielen
Members Absent: None
2.
A.
Approval of minutes of the special meeting held March 8, 1999.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN STUMPF AND SECONDED BY ROGER
CARLSON TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING HELD
MARCH 8,1999, AS WRITTEN. Voting in favor: Roger Belsaas, Brian Stumpf,
Roger Carlson, Bruce Thielen. Abstaining: Clint Herbst. Motion carried.
B. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held March 8, 1999.
Councilmember Roger Carlson requested that the vote for item #12 be changed to
show his vote in favor rather than opposed to the motion.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN STUMPF AND SECONDED BY BRUCE
'rHIELEN TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD
MARCH 8,1999, AS AMENDED. Voting in favor: Roger Belsaas, Brian Stumpf,
Roger Carlson, Bruce Thielen. Abstaining: Clint Herbst. Motion carried.
3.
Consideration of adding items to the aQ:enda.
A. Update on sanitary sewer and water trunk fees.
City Engineer Brct Weiss reported that at the last meeting Council accepted a
report for sanitary sewer and water trunk fees and requested that the proposed fees
be discussed with local organizations. Discussion with the IDC was scheduled for
March 18; however, time ran short and will likely be rescheduled for the next IDC
meeting. A meeting has also been scheduled with builders and developers for
March 25 at 8 a.m. In addition, he noted that as part of this policy, vacant
properties that have not paid trunk fees would now be charged, minus any
previously-paid oversizing charges.
No Council action was required.
B.
Update on Coalition of Utility Cities.
City Administrator Rick Wolfsteller reported that the lobbyist for the Coalition of
Utility Cities suggested that cities send a letter to their citizens advising them of
the personal property tax legislation being proposed and the effect it would have
Page 1
~8
Council Minutes - 3/22/99
.
on their city. He noted that a bill has been introduced in the Senate by the utility
companies to phase out personal property tax over ten years and would require the
State to guarantee cities' debt.
It was the consensus of Council that the proposed letter be mailed to the citizens
of Monticello.
C. Councilmember Brian Stumpf asked whether Council would be interested in
reducing the Mayoral term back to two years. An ordinance amendment was
adopted in 1998 increasing the term to four years effective January 1, 2001. The
process to bring the item back to Council for consideration was discussed, and the
City Administrator noted that he would research the request and report back to the
City Council.
4. Citizens comments/petitions. requests. and complaints.
A.
Tom and Jean Matis requested that the City Council take action to correct the
blight problem at 110 Balboul Circle.
.
Chief Building Official Fred Patch noted that staff has been working on the
cleanup of this property since the summer of 1998; however, he suggested that the
City may be more successful in taking stronger legal action.
Council discussed creating a policy for public nuisance cleanup which would
include provisions for second and third offenses.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRUCE THIELEN AND SECONDED BY CLINT
HERBST TO AUTHORIZE THE CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL TO INlTIA TE
LEGAL ACTION TO CORRECT THE PUBLIC NUISANCE AT ] ] 0 BALBOUL
CIRCLE, AND ALSO DIRECTED THE CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL TO WORK
WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY TO CREATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE POLICY FOR
CITY COUNCIL REVIEW. Motion carried unanimously.
B. Economic Development Director Ollie Koropchak introduced two Rotary
exchange students, Piano from Thailand and Paul from Poland, who will remain
in the United States through the summer. The Mayor welcomed Piano and Paul
and presented each with a city mug and pin.
5. Consent agenda.
A.
Consideration of resolution authorizing the issuance of a gambling license-Ducks
Unlimited Banquet. Recommendation: Adopt a resolution authorizing the State
Gambling Control Board to issue a gambling license. SEE RESOLUTION 99-9.
.
Page 2
as
Council Minutes - 3/22/99
.
B.
Consideration of resolutions authorizing the issuance of gambling licenses for the
Silver Fox Motel and Days Inn Motel- Knights of Columbus.
Rccommcndation: Adopt the resolutions authorizing the Knights of Columbus to
apply for gambling licenses at the Silver Fox Motel and also at the Days Inn
Motel. SEE RESOLUTIONS 99-10 AND 99-11.
C. Consideration of resolution establishing various fees and charges.
Recommendation: Adopt the resolution establishing the following fees and
charges:
.
Fee Type Current Fee Schedule New Fee Schedule
Seasonal outdoor sales None established $150 per 60-day license
license
CCD zoning district None established $1,000 per parking stall
parking fund charge per
parking stall
Grading permit fee and None established $150 per permit + an
restoration bond-land escrow of $150 for City
reclamation & mining Engineer costs, if any
Plumbing permit fee Commercial: Commercial:
$40 + $2/fixture $50 + $5/fixture
Residential: Residential:
$20 + $2/fixture $30 + $5/fixture
Mechanical permit fee Commercial: Commercial:
$50 + $2/fixture $50 + $5/fixture
Residential: Residential:
$30 + $2/fixture $30 + $5/fixture
SEE RESOLUTION 99-12.
D. Consideration of approving installation of decorative awning at Deputy Registrar
Building. Recommendation: Authorize the purchase of the canopy awning
proposal from G.J. Awning and Canvas in the amount of$2,897.80.
E. Consideration of resolution authorizing the release of Community Center Bond
Proceeds. Recommendation: Adopt a resolution authorizing the release of the
community center bond proceeds. SEE RESOLUTION 99-13.
F.
Consideration of approving iob description for the position of Community Center
Director and authorize position opening. Recommendation: Approve the job
description for the position of Community Center Director and authorize
publication of the position opening; Direct the City Administrator to select, at his
discretion, Grade 12 or 13 of the salary scale for the position. Councilmember
Bruce Thielen and Mayor Roger Be1saas noted that they would like to be involved
in the interviews for this position.
.
Page 3
~
.
.
.
Council Minutes - 3/22/99
G.
Consideration of authorizing Walnut Street/Community Center Plaza Planning.
Recommendation: Authorizc the City Planner to work with WSB & Associates
to develop a Walnut Strect design theme and a specific plan for reconstruction of
Walnut Street and development of the community center parking plaza.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRUCE TIIIELEN AND SECONDED BY ROGER CARLSON
TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS RECOMMENDED. Motion carried
unanimously.
6. Consideration of items removed from the consent agenda for discussion.
None.
7. Public Hearing - Consideration of resolution advertising submittal of Outdoor Recreation
Grant Program Application for assistance in development of River Mill Park.
Mayor Belsaas opened the public hearing.
Deputy City Administrator .TefT O'Neill reported that the River Mill Park is a seven-acre
neighborhood park located on the east side of Monticello and is the gateway to the
community from the Iw94 offramp. A preliminary site plan was prepared, followed by a
meeting with the neighborhood residents to discuss components of the park, with
construction planned to begin in 1999. The proposed grant application would give the
City the opportunity to acquire up to 50% of the funds nccessary to develop the park.
Park Superintendent Gregg Engle added that the grant is through the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources - Local Grant Program, which requires a 50/50 match
and the park improvements to be completed in three years. The total cost of the park and
trail system is $235,800, with the City's share totaling $127,900. He also reviewed the
components of the park, noting that it will meet ADA standards.
The Deputy City Administrator also notcd that a pathway was planned for the upper
portion of the River Mill subdivision prior to the developers dedicating land to the east
from the park and the River Forest area along the freeway. A pathway along this area
would create a nice connection to the future road and pathway that will connect to Gillard
Avenue. lIe suggested that the cost to construct the pathway be identified and added to
the grant.
There being no public comment, the Mayor closed the public hearing.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRUCE THIELEN AND SECONDED BY ROGER CARLSON
TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING SUBMITTAL OF AN APPLICATION TO THE
OUTDOOR RECREATION GRANT PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZE STAFF TO INCLUDE
AN AMOUNT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE CONNECTING P A THW A Y. Motion carried
unanimously. SEE RESOLUTION 99-14.
Page 4
~
.
.
9.
.
Council Minutes - 3/22/99
8.
Consideration of resolution supporting a compromise land use plan proposal for submittal
to the MOAA.
Deputy City Administrator JefIO'Neill reported that to assist in clarification of the
discussion at the previous meeting, a resolution was prepared outlining points supporting
the compromise land use plan, which was supported by the Planning Commission and
approved by Council on a 4-0 vote. The reasons for the compromise were reviewed as
noted in the proposed resolution.
Councilmembcr Clint Herbst noted his concern that the topography of the Gold Nugget
property would not support higher-end housing, mId he questioned whether commercial
development should be moved so far away from the downtown area in light of the City's
downtown redevelopment efforts. He also requested that the paragraph stating that the
City would likely be required to pay over $100,000 be deleted from the proposed
resolution.
City Planner Steve Grittman noted his concern that the MOAA Board has taken such a
strong stance on development of the MOAA land use plan. He explained that the current
City/Township agreement was based on, and the Township agreed with, the City
developing a land use plan. It was also noted that consideration must be given to public
comments received from city residents at the Planning Commission level as well as
township residents' comments heard by the MOAA Board.
Council also discussed the parcel east of Monticello located between County Road 75 and
1-94, which was designated as "open space." It was suggested that the designation be
labeled as "agricultural."
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN STUMPF AND SECONDED BY
ROGER CARLSON TO MODIFY AND ADOPT THE RESOLUTION SUPPORTING A
COMPROMISE LAND USE PLAN PROPOSAL BY DELETING THE LAST PARAGRAPH
ON PAGE 1 REFERRING TO REPAYMENT TO GOLD NUGGET DEVELOPMENT FOR
OVERSIZING OF UTILITIES, AND TO CHANGE THE "OPEN SPACE" LANGUAGE TO
"AGRICULTURAL." Motion carried unanimously. SEE RESOLUTION 99-15.
Consideration of adopting resolution accepting feasibility studv and calling for a public
hearing on CSAH 75 improvement proiect.
City Engineer Brct Weiss reported that it is expected that a portion of the City's share of
the cost for CSAH 75 improvements will come from benefitting property owners through
the assessment process. Council was asked to call for a public hearing to be conducted
on April 12, 1999. He also noted that the lighting progrmn may still be revised. The
agreement between the City and the Hospital District regarding the construction and
maintenance of the stop lights, including terms governing development of the site under
the Planned Unit Development, will be presented to the Council for approval in
conjunction with the future public hearing and associated action to order the project.
Page 5
~
.
.
.
Council Minutes - 3/22/99
A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN STUMPF AND SECONDED BY CLINT HERBST TO
ADOPT A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE FEASIBILITY STUDY AND AUTHORIZE A
PUBLIC HEARING TO BE CONDUCTED ON APRIL 12, 1999, FOR CSAH 75
IMPROVEMENTS. Motion carried unanimously. SEE RESOLUTION 99-16.
10.
Consideration of bills for the last half of March 1999.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRUCE THIELEN AND SECONDED BY ROGER CARLSON
TO APPROVE THE BILLS FOR THE LAST HALF OF MARCH 1999 AS PRESENTED.
Motion carried unanimously.
] 1. Other matters.
A.
Body piercing/tattoo business.
City Planner Steve Grittman reported that staff has received a request for
information regarding whether a body piercing/tattoo business is allowed in the
Central Community District. He explained that in most cities, if the ordinance
does not specifically state that a use is permitted or prohibited, then it is
considered to be prohibited, which is one approach the City of Monticello could
take; however, activists have been vocal regarding first amendment protection,
and most cities have decided to allow but license this type of operation. He also
noted that Wright County is considering health department regulations for this
activity. It was the Planner's recommendation that if the Council is interested in
allowing body piercing/tattoo activity within the city, the City should begin
investigating in which districts the activity would be allowed subject to approval
by the Wright County Health Department. He suggested that the CCD or B-3
districts may be appropriate, or it could be considered as an accessory to other
services such as tanning and/or beauty salons.
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRUCE THIELEN AND
SECONDED BY BRIAN STUMPF TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING BY THE
PLANNING COMMISSION TO RESEARCH THE POSSIBILITY OF AN
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ALLOWING BODY PIERCING/TATTOO ACTIVITY.
Motion carried unanimously.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRUCE THIELEN AND SECONDED BY BRIAN STUMPF TO
ADJOURN THE MEETING. Motion carried unanimously.
Karen Doty
Deputy City Clerk
Page 6
~6
.
.
.
MIN UTES
SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, April 6, 1999 - 7:30 p.m.
City Hall Conference Room
Members Present: Clint Ilcrbst, Brian Stumpf, Roger Carlson, Bruce Thielen
Members Absent: Roger Belsaas
Acting Mayor Clint Herbst called the special meeting of the City Council to order.
2.
Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit within the 1-2 zoning district to
allow a subdivision and planned unit development for a lot without public street frontage
and conditional use permit to alter the surfacing and curbing materials. Applicant:
Riverside Oil.
Mr. Jeff Michaelis proposed to purchase approximately 6 acres of the Electro Industries
property at 2150 West River Street for the purpose of relocating Riverside Oil from its
current location at the community center building site. The project proposed a planned
unit development without public street frontage, utilizing the existing driveway of Electro
Industries for access via an easement. In addition, the applicant requested a waiver from
the curbing and paving requirements as allowed in the 1-2 zoning district.
The Planning Commission, at its regular meeting held immediately prior to the special
Council meeting, recommended approval of both conditional use permits.
Decision 1
A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN STUMPF AND SECONDED BY BRUCE THIELEN TO
APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO
ALLOW THE SUBDIVISION OF A LOT WITHOUT STREET FRONTAGE SUBJECT TO
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. THE PINE TREES, OR EQUIVALENT, MUST BE RETAINED FOR FUTURE
SCREENING AND BUFFERING.
2. ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING IS INSTALLED ALONG THE FREEWAY
FRONT AGE.
3. A FIRE HYDRANT MUST BE INSTALLED WITHIN 300 FT OF THE SITE
WITHIN 5 YEARS AT THE OWNER'S EXPENSE.
Motion carried unanimously.
Page 1
:l.C-;
.
.
.
Special Council Minutes - 4/6/99
Decision 2
A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRUCE THIELEN AND SECONDED BY ROGER CARLSON
TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE MODIFICATION OF
PAVING AND CURBING REQUIREMENTS IN THE 1-2 DISTRICT SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE CITY ENGINEER REGARDING
CIRCULATION AND DRAINAGE.
2. FUTURE EXPANSION ON THE SITE WILL REQUIRE A NEW CITY
REVIEW OF CURBING AND PAVING REQUIREMENTS.
Motion carried unanimously.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRUCE THIELEN AND SECONDED BY BRIAN STUMPF TO
ADJOURN THE MEETING. Motion carried unanimously.
Karen Doty
Deputy City Clerk
Page 2
~v
Council Agenda - 4/12/99
.
4A. Status report on Danner Trucking site redevelopment. (lO.)
City Attorney Dennis Dalen and Chief Building Official Fred Patch will be present at the
meeting to discuss the Danner Trucking site redevelopment.
.
.
. I.
'""
.
.
.
>.
I ~~:!~~I
James B. Fleming · Attorney at Law
6/1 Walnut Street. Suite 3 . P.O. Box 1569. Monticello. MN 55362
Ph. 295~a234. Fax 6/2/271 ~6192. Email: jfJeming@pcJink.com
Admitted to practice in Minnesota and Nebraska
March 26, 1999
Mayor Roger Belsaas
The Monticello City Council
Dennis Dalen, Esq.
Mr. Jeff O'Neill
Re: Bob Danner Truck Garage/Building Permit.
Dear Gentlemen: I
.
;
~1
I am writing each Of youas-apreliminary-steppriottomyapp~arance at the next
Monticello City COl./nciLmeetingonbehalf of my client; Bob Danner, who, as most of
you are aware, has b.~en/ attempting to reffuild.his truck service'g,~I~age located on
South Highway 25l?i'nce it was damaged in the summer storm qf 19~7. Obviously, Mr.
Danner has not inJtjatedf,~,econstruction of a replacement buildirig at this time and the
obvious reason for this is that he has not been able to obtain&~ bUilding,permit from the
City of Monticelro. The ques,tion that I intend to put to the City Council is\yv'hy has he
not been abl~to obtain a builqing permit? .I "
~, f \
:F\ , l \
After numerous meetings\~ith Assistant City Adyninistrator Jeff O'Neil~ Building
Inspecto~'Fred Patch, appearanc~s before the Planni~g Commission and the ~)ty
Council/'Mr. Danner was granted pe.rmission to recgr\struct his business on the'E;xisting
site onIJa"uary1Z;~'l998:(CbnsentA'genda, item F75.}c)h:thecbllditionthathe:enlarge
and improve the site through the acquisition of land to be obtained (1) when the city
vacated the u'":!used Marvin}~oad easement across his pr{)perty, (2) red~signed Cedar
Street to the Eastbf hispfoperty; and (3)thmugh the purchase 'of-a small piece of
property to the south of Mr. Danner'!:3,'prop~~r1Y;J)_e.J()~ging to Mel Wolters. Discussions
with Mr. Wolters' attorney, Brad-Larson, Esq., at thaftimeindicated that Mr. Wolters
.' -,
was willing to sell the required_piece.uponterms.thaLwereacceptable to my client.
Also, on January 12, 1998, the GityGbU,,-c:i1 Vbtedtb\laCatethe'unused road easement
across Mr. Danner's property (Council Agenda Item 7.) and arrangements were under
way to purchase the adjoining piece from Mr. Wolters.
Thereafter, the City Attorney actually started condemnation of Mr. Wolter's
property for the purposes of the extension of Dundas Road west to intersect Highway
25. Mr. Wolters objected on the basis that condemnation of his entire parcel was not
necessary for the road right of way sought by the City and the matter has hung in limbo
for my client ever since. Mr. Wolters is unwilling to attempt sale of the property while it
is the subject of condemnation litigation. The City through, Dennis Dalen, Assistant City
Attorney, has indicated that they would investigate a means of allowing Mr. Danner his
building permit on the strength of his promise to purchase the parcel he needs from
", ...
. either the City or Mr. Wolters, depending upon who prevails in the condemnation action,
and Fred Patch the Building Inspector has advised both Mr. Danner and myself that Mr.
Danner has provided him with all the documentation he needs to issue the permit, if Mr.
Danner can show that he has rights in the land necessary to expand his lot. The matter
has sat, undisturbed in this state for many months. Meanwhile, Mr. Danner has
endured his second winter doing necessary maintenance and repair on his trucks out in
the snow.
My client calls me seeking information. I call Mr. Dalen, or Mr. O'Neill who
promise to look into the matter. Later after my client has repeatedly called asking what
is going on, they do not return my calls and my client gradually becomes convinced that
I am an idiot.
, '.
.
", ~
The City Council has already COflside,red. the issue of Mr. Danner's business and
'has granted him permission to continue thepusiness as an interim use until he retires
or at least ceases business operations. Th~ City Council hasv.oJed to vacate the road
easement to his south,therebyreturningdow'nershipdofthetand underlying the
easemen.t to Mr. Dapper.' He ~asprovided.s~fficie'nr~la~ns'ancts1fcifIcations to Mr.
Patch to Induced M7"i:J:?,atch to Issue the bUIlding permit, If Mr. Dan\ter can resolve the
land acquisition 'ice wi~, the City. . '/ \
So the qyestion f)YOU gentlemen is why can't my cn.!nt get a !;qilding permit?
I intend to ask this question\at the next City Council Meeting and at eac~City Council
Meeting ther~~fter until I can 'get a satisfactory answer. 1)5 a matter of courtesy, I
wanted to ~Iert you to the matter so that you would not be caught unaware when I pose
the questi6n to the City council a\ its April meeting. l \
!'\" \
.f \/ \\
acer'~Y-.7J ~- ~,~. --,.~.._- ._--~ l, '" ...".... .'" ,.,-"" , ,."...,'J..
\ - .! ._~~.~-~_.....~.,'~-,-_.,~'^,.~~-~,=~--~-,-_._~..,~.,~~~-'~.
~ .,'
J mes B. Fleming ,
JBF/nds
...'"'' "-'"
Enclosures
,N',__._"'W....._~ ,~._~y-~--_.~~,~,..._...._~'y~~~--'~.~~=?.._---'y,.~~.,._.._-~,,~,.........~
_n ....~.^"~,_..,........~h~'_ __...,.A~_. _..~M~_.'_._ .'h. ....",._.....~^~..........~._-,~._...,...~,..~,.- .._.._.....~, "",..._-~_..).
.
.
3-029 - 99
LOUtse Hse;1...
//0 Milertsf;peI
Morrhullo( ,4//11/ 353&tL
G/U9 Engle-
Ti1rkj Superr"kr7deJ1f
;::! () /bJx /1'17
"'1ol1-!ia(!o/ /VJIV S~30Z-- CJ;2st.)
.
(}-[t(d ;lId &79Ce/
h/ha-l- wt"uld /-1 -Iz:ike. .-/0 gel- CL pedt's/rlCl/7
over/xlSS O/f! tI/1derfJOss tle/"tJs:5 ~JV "70 u~S I-
0/1 Pi;1CWOocl? 7fte 6ile -hur; / 4nC/ ~/Co/iL
~i-.'Jd!)111 ~/tlf/9r-tTZI/1?1 O/Ce SuCh WOl7c<?,-t'iJ
-Iztnl/'/tj /Uc/Ya-l7or? are.C?5/ 6u.f c;re ClmoJ I-
Ur7a~jJL.s.)/'b/p --10 --Aim/Ires /VO/L-!h of /-h,uy 7S-
{Jtv~ -10 ---IN lwtV'f ~\L- of1 ilwCf 75: -rite.
/1/fersecf7(Jh oj flwy 7.7" -I- 4lt(;a,U~ KcI /4.J/'Ut;r/{ 5""1-
o /Jat{-;c.;t(CvtA/ tttlf0/1-- ,-10 ~f tJCdOSS (7tJZt./c/ an
{;I?(t//L/Ja-.J:J I<(! t!OYtQ-Irz.uckc/ IU>"rI--Io ~
r2rt..e&1e a/nt~ CI. sh(JVL.I- pcdh l1?ode -to Cl ruat--b'j'
eulatkJac? 4 u.e 'Ui2d C( p-u7JY7'on) ~-
.
LtO
.
do [ut 90 a6cul C}/..-f-h/lfj -1hL c~ -In
00Yl/JidLl'( mc:Jz(~79 ~j -fcr./?i,I'c.lm~/Jiud-
--10 CUA- (!ory;r~Y? VurU au m~ .
pCvu.-n:h on ---the 'rVo/t-fh S>CU 1; I-Iwy 75-
-I--ntd- ~C( bt-at/Ju ~'- Lj 0U-'1 clui~L-
t<5ldc{ 7<-1 --10 'p/'nttuoor;! wah~ /'cu-i/l'r
-fo dc.aL vv 1-1'1-7 ---/1.-'l--L 1w:vZ4j ~o/ f c . 0v7 ~ 7 r
fl0-.u --&~ fvl.(. /c.-r7 d7AJ Wh aJ tv< ~tX 1-0
d/O-Iv ma.-kL CZ0 C:CY7 Cbf./Y2.O a:n c:/ /1.LI!' ??:;) /<r'/7ifUfVl.
~n~1
c;::?(~:1/ ~
dt95 - 5Y'tJ:L
.
.
Council Agenda - 4/12/99
.
SA. Consideration of movin~ public hearinl! date for CSAH 75 oroiect from April 12.
1999. to April 26. 1999. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the previous meeting of the City Council, Council adopted a resolution calling for a
public hearing on the project for April 12, 1999. The public hearing notice date for the
newspaper was missed for the April 12 meeting; therefore, the public hearing needs to be
rescheduled to April 26, 1999. Missing the public hearing date for April 12 did not create
a problem for the project. Please note also that moving the date provides a side benefit of
providing an opportunity for the task force to meet one more time prior to the public
hearing. As you may know, there was some concern expressed by both the IIospital
District and the School District regarding proposed assessments for a portion of the road
improvement. Some members of the task force explained that their recommendation
regarding the design of the project might have been different had they known that there
were assessments included. Having another task force meeting will allow the task force
to review the project in its entirety, including costs, and will provide an opportunity for
this group to look at the project again and make amendments to their recommendation if
they so desire.
.
R.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
I. Motion to move the public hearing date from April 12, 1999, to April 26, 1999.
2. Motion to deny moving the public hearing date from April 12 to April 26, 1999.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends alternative #1.
D. SUPPORrlNG DATA:
None.
.
2
Council Agenda - 4/12/99
.
58. Consideration of a resolution sUD{lortinu repeal of the state sales tax for local
government purchases. (R. W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The League of Minnesota Cities has been working for the past three years to build
legislative support for the repeal of the sales tax on local government purchases. This
year a record number of bills have been introduced to repeal the tax, and committees in
both the House and the Senate have held hearings on the topic.
The League is asking all cities to support the repeal of the sales tax on local government
purchases by adopting the attached resolution and by also contacting our Representative
and Senator. Hopefully with the large surplus balance that the State has available, the
need for continuing to tax local governments the sales tax will no longer be needed.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Adopt a resolution supporting the repeal of sales tax for local government
purchases.
.
c.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the resolution supporting the repeal be adopted and forwarded to
our State Representative, Mark Olson, and Senator Mark Ourada.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of resolution for adoption.
.
3
.
.
.
RESOLUTION 99-
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING REPEAL OF THE STATE SALES
T AX FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT PURCHASES
WHEREAS, the Legislature imposed the sales tax on local governments in 1992 when f~lcing a
significant state budget deficit; ffild
WHEREAS, the state government has collected hundreds of millions of dollars in sales tax since
1992 on local government purchases of items such as road maintenance equipment, wastewater
treatment facilities, and building materials; and
WHEREAS, the sales tax on local government purchases is passed on to residents in the form of
higher property taxes and fees; and
WHEREAS, the state's financial picture has improved drmnatically and the need for the sales tax
no longer exists; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota is one of only seven states which impose sales tax on local government
purchases; and
WHEREAS, imposing the sales tax on local government purchases is an inefficient way to raise
state revenues, especially where sales tax is paid for bonding projects with accompanying interest
costs;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Monticello City Council encourages its state
legislators to support the repeal of the sales tax on local governments.
Adopted this 12th day of April, 1999.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Administrator
56 -- ,
.
Council Agenda - 4/12/99
sc. Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit within the CCO Zonin!;
District to allow a shoppinl! center. Applicant: Amcon Construction. (NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Amcon Construction has applied for a Conditional Use Permit to develop a convenience
shopping center in the CCD District at the northwest corner of 7th and Locust. The
project would consist of a 10,292 square foot retail building with space for at least four
individual tenants. There is multiple family residential to the west, some residential to
the north, and other commercial uses surrounding the remainder of the property.
Shopping centers are conditional uses in the CCD, subject to the provisions of the City's
downtown revitalization plan. Retail uses are an appropriate use for the proposed site
under the downtown plan. As a commercial site in the CCD, which is one block away
from Walnut, the main downtown street, the site should be designed in such a way as to
be consistent with the downtown development pattern and be sensitive to adjoining
residential areas. The recommended site plan sets the building to the back of the
property, with parking in front toward Locust and to the side toward 7th Street. It also
includes development of a buffer yard between uses.
.
The DA T has recommended that the developer revise certain aspects of the building
facade and revise the circulation pattern as shown in Exhibit D. DA T has not indicated a
preference for a building moved to the front line of the parcel. It is their view that
priority should be given to keeping cars to the street side of development thereby
protecting residential to the West and North.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit for a shopping
center in the CCD as presented by the applicffilt, subject to a revision
recommended by the DA T and the Planning Commission as described in
Exhibit D. The developer supports the DA T design (Exhibit D).
The DAT and Planning Commission reviewed the project in terms of the
comprehensive plan and CCD district and f(mnd Exhibit D to be acceptable.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the Conditional Use permit for a shopping center
based on a finding that the building is inconsistent with the intent of the
Downtown Revitalization Plan.
3.
Motion to table action on the CUP subject to the submission of additional
information.
.
4
Council Agenda - 4/12/99
.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends alternative # 1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A - Site Location
Exhibit B - Applicant's Original Site Plan
Exhibit C - Building Elevations
Exhibit D - DA T Site Plan Alternative
Exhibit F - Comprehensive Plan Excerpts
.
.
5
.
.
.
83
No,
6C~'
TE LOCATION
EXHIBIT A-51 .. .
.
SITE DATA
-- ""allCllrsnon
~. '
, ~~ ~_ ''''.lI.,..
~ ......... , --1GUao
~:.................... ....................~ ' ==.: 1I1V1O!I'Oa3.
,0 ..................... ..........~~
. .........
I'"~ ! .~ .' '-
. I ..........~
I
n
I i
I .
II( .....
-.....
_1IlLOOlIl:
_,v.
I'.o'~
,,'. 1I.
" !I'OClS
" !I'OClS
lO!I'OClS
a~
-~(;~ ---
~ ~
PROPOSED RETAIL
aJlLDING
10,2<12 S.F.
.
I '
: I
I .
I'
I
i
:J
i I
~,..~ 3I!l'-eN~
1th STREET
.
@
SITE PLAN
to (I .,~ ~
EXHIBIT B ~ APPLICANT'S SITE PLAN
Ii;
IR
10::.
I/')
I
-..J
/
I
/
I
/
I
/
I
(
.......
~
.......
..............
Ih~ , - ~
11 -".
~. ! 1111:1'
rJ 3 t ',!,I
J"; 'I
1 111 I ~<f.l~<f.l<f.l<f.l~<f.l<(l-<<l !' !It:1
.
I I
I I i I
. ~ -1.!.
! I ~-~ ~
~~ ~
E
E
.
E
E
.
rn
::.
z ..:.
o'
~s.
OJ
...J
W
ti
~
~':2
0___.. ~
V.l093NNIn 'o~n
11'11.38 1.3381.8 1.8nOOl i I
4.l()d CNICTltI19 "'lIV l3l:I CElElOcKllld
I
I~ I
I Ils~"
! I !! ;;
Iluhl~1 Jli
~W~~Bh g~g
s~
<\0
~~
W
~
~
.. c::> \I
~l <( ~
..
"<;-
z 0-
O'
~s.
~
w
~
w
...-':2
EXHIBIT C .. BUILDING ELEVATIONS
"'':2
zer
S ~
<co
~$
w
~
"'':2
I
I
R8 I III II!:I
1111'1\
5c-
.
I
\
" i
~
~)
~~
I
I
/
/
/
.
'iJ
~
!::!/
r----____
I
/
/
I
/
-.
-----
------.
-
---
111'~.lli;l~
If I' g
.. It"
: ~ ,
I'"
. Ii I
. I
~ . .. fiG
a I a a "I!'
~c .,4
.
l:. z:;..... l:- I
~ ~ ~ m
2
~
~ ~ ~ : l
- ~ "
~g ~~ en ~~
q, i '\
!
'~ I
.' '.
,ILl:'!" .
.
II
u ~
;z
~
I ' I
~....
en
~
s
~~
~;
, >,.1
!
;
~
J J J I 5 I ' J
~ I ~ I I I I I
I I I I
i J J I
. I I ,
I
J .' J J I 5 i~ I
I ! I - I
. ! I I I I 1
~i~S'
.
EXHIBIT D - DAT SITE PLAN ALTERNATIVE (2 of 3)
,tE1i1D ~~;;AL=~ RETAIL m
· El MONTICELLO, MlNNMOTA rw
t1q .i 1~9>l)>ll>lJolJ>.lJop..lJ>.ll> 1:!J!ff i~'
"e. ., f
I" (, I t.r"ft
d:1i a !~.. l
"''11 II:
.
~)
~
~
~~
.
.
.
1'1 "'\ 'I
S ~
I , I
I
-- -4
I I
I
1
"
/
] Ii ~!I (' rl
I I I I
I ~ii~ I I
.,.
- -- -1-- - --- ~ I - +- --
I I I
I I I
1./ j 1/
~C""
EXHIBIT D - DATE SITE PLAN ALTERNATIVE (3 of 3)
! iZ; il rwD ~~~~AILs~E7 RETAIL rn
::t ~ MONTICELLO. .....NEoarA
1~lli .i P>~~[)o :!J!Jf ~
"D: f I .....111..,
II;" II U~~U
'0. ~
; The plan identifies several basic directions for the design of the uowntown and
: riverfront:
~.
~
~
..
"\' ,.,.~ --..-
--
~,
---01,
Boundaries
In this plan downtown is bounded by the Mississippi River on the
north and Interstate 94 on the south. It generally extends one block
west of Walnut Street and one block east of Pine Street. Areas just
beyond this boundary are considered transition zones, providing a
buffer at the edge of downtown and protecting the existing neighbor-
hoods.
tOMP ?LA,)
€KC€RP'(
Pedestrian Core
The plan suggests that the downtown is oriented around a pedestrian
core - a zone in which people can move freely to various destinations
without their cars. 13)' following this strategy we can achieve a goal of
"parking once and shopping twice," a critical clement of reducing traf-
flc in downtown and encouraging the activity of people on the street.
An average adult can walk about Olle~quarter mile in five minutes; if a
five-minute walk radius is ccntered over the downtown area, this
would be the pedestrian core.
! Transition Areas
Areas at the periphery of downtown are some of the most fragi Ie in the
area, especially areas oriented to single family L1ses. As the downtown
is revitalized, the potential for traffic encroaching into neighborhoods
increases, along with noise, lights and other activities that can degrade
a residential environment. The plan stresses the creation of transition
zones at the edges of downtown to yicld stability at the edge. Most
often, stability can be created by a less intense cOlllmercial or office
use (a use that generates relatively few visits on a typical day such as
an insurance agency or a dental office), or with a more intense residen-
tial use (a rowhollse or small apartment building). To achieve this kind
of use and the associated stability, somc existing homes Illay be elimi-
naled or the use of the hOllle changed.
,
-,
,
Downtown Gateways
It is important for a pcrson to know that they have entered downtown
Monticello; it recognizes that this area is the heart of the community
.J and a special place. Entering downtown via Pine Street alTers great
long term opportunities for marking downtown; the bridges at the river
and the interstate could be far more significant than they are today and
might provide an introduction to downtown in a Illore dramatic way.
-. Equally important is the entry to downtowlI frolll Broadway. The plan
suggests that the character of I3roadway changes at the point where
one enters downtown, providing another opportunity for a gateway to
downtown.
· Each gateway should be developed around a consistent theme. The
plan suggests a form that is reminiscent of the major forces that have
~t
So ~1,7
If
A New Bridge_; =o-~
Revlla/killg Montke//o'S DOIVrltoll'n and Rived/Dill ''''~
Pag/3:15
.,'
"
EXHIBIT F - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EXCERPTS
-- --~_..::.:..............
-.......::iIlIt,
~.
J;,
~
.}
i
_iJ
~
" ........
~
.~ ,-..~........'- ~
~N'W "ldg,:1:
5~e"":C "'M_"~
(\1 A'P KE:Y
The plan envisions cleven districts in downtown. each \vith varying targets for
use and character:
..
Riverfront
Specialty retail, eating est:Jblishments, lodging, entert:Jinment, l1lulti~
f:Jrnily residential, office; upper level residential or office; two or three
story buildings; river orientation; emphasis on public areas surround-
ing buildings (rather than parking lots)
;0
#
::.'i
Broadway: Downtown
Small and mid-sized retail. specialty retail, personal and business ser-
vices, eating establishments, lodging, entertainlllent and office; upper
level residential or of lice; two story buildings; orientation to Bro:Jdway
"
Broadway: East and West
Single family residential; strong emphasis on restoration of existing
older homes
-"
Walnut
Small and mid-sized retail, personal and business services, eating
establishments and office; upper level residential or office; two story
buildings encouraged; orientation to Walnut Street
Pine
Mid-sized retail and office; two story buildings encouraged; orienta-
tion to Pine Street
Seventh Street
Larger scale retail and service, auto-oriented retail and service, drive-
through restaurants, lodging; orientation to Seventh Street
.-.oj
Transitional ~
. Mix ,of smal~ office, p,ersonal and business services, multi-family resi- ,_i <-
dentlal and slllgle famIly homes
~
...i
~
"1
Neighborhood
Predominantly single family homes following existing neighborhood
patterns
-"
Industrial
Sunny Fresh opcr(ltions only; transition to Civic/Institutional, Walnut
or Transitional if Sunny Fresh ccases operation
...
I
Park and Open Space
Parks, cemeteries, outdoor public spaces and gathering spaces
,
,;
I
I
::..J
Civic/institutional
Municipal and county facilities (except maintenance operations), pub-
lic meeting spaces, community activity spaces, educational facilities,
churches, olltdoor gathering spaces
.
-'
"'
.~
,..,'
:ii
(!OH P
?L.JrN
exceKP,
T'
":!~"
'"'
~! '
-j
\.
"
"I
CJJHP 'PL /tAl EKCE~P r
~'
organized to create a sense of pieces fitting exactly together. The picture that
results in a built downtown is one that is beautiful and one that functions well
for the community.
Districts
Downtown Monticello will always be a mix of uses, ages and patterns, and the
plan recognizes a series of districts formed around basic uses and character.
Therefore, a building near the river will have a character different from a
building near the interstate. A uniform building character across the entire
downtown will never be achieved and would likely be undesirable for tenants
and the community. Within districts, however. buildings would have a strong
relationship to one another and a consistent relationship to the streets of the
district.
4i
-------
-;
I., Dt,qid
.""''''IIK)Nf
~ '1Il0"C"'.'f'~ :.cWIlfTOWN
~ ._O..DwAY, V.lr~NO
~WU~
a "Al.HU1'
.md''''
fltlYINTH ttftUT
(lZLl '1V.~'lfIOJf""
o NeIO"'IOIllMOeo
~"'D\J'"lllIAI,.
~
~ f1A~J( ..PlD CfI(M pACI
~
1Nt,
~ 't
~.
~~
-' A New Bridge
-----.:-~ Rmr"lllng Monllce/lo's Downtown and RIverfront
i'll
..
..
b"e-'
.
.
.
Council Agenda - 4/12/99
5D. Consideration of a conditional use oermit for outdoor storaee in an 1-2 zone and
consideration of a variance to reduce the 5-ft setback to the curb to 1 ft. Applicant:
Ebert Construction (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
City Council is asked to consider granting a conditional use permit allowing outside
storage. The storage area includes virtually the entire rear yard area. The design is very
similar to the NSP maintenance facility. No landscaping is shown on the plan. It is
suggested that the conditional use permit be approved with the condition that the
screening fence consist of a material that is truly opaque. The rear yard buffer between
the residential use to the south and the storage area should be planted at a density to meet
the buffer yard requirement.
With regard to the variance request, the Planning Commission has approved a variancc to
allow a parking lot curb to be locatcd inside the 5-fl setback linc adjacent to the Farm
Store lot line. The Planning Commission approved the variance because it will enable
landscaping to be installed between the drive and the building. Any appcal of the
Planning Commission dccision should be registered so the item can be placed on the next
agenda.
B.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve the conditional usc permit allowing outside storage subject to
the conditions noted in Exhibit Z. Motion based on the finding that the
conditional use permit is consistent with the charactcr and geography of the area,
will not result in depreciation of adjoining property, and is consistent with the
comprehensive plan.
2. Motion to deny approval of the conditional use permit based on thc finding that it
is not compatible with the area or consistent with the comprehensive plan.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends alternative #1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A - Site Plan
Exhibit Z - Recommended Conditions of Approval
6
.
in -(i miL
,'rt e/udetL I~
a cJ:.t f:
.
.
e- 51
. .
,S I
.
51) --' I
.
.
.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
OUTDOOR STORAGE IN 1-2 ZONE
EBERT CONSTRUCTION
1.
The area is fenced and screened from view of neighboring residential uses or, if abutting
a residential district, in compliance with buffer yard requirements.
2.
Storage is screened from view from the public right-of-way in compliance with
Chapter 3, Section 2 [G], of this ordinance.
3.
Storage area is grassed or surfaced to control dust.
4.
All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source shall not be visible from
the public right-of-way or from neighboring residences and shall be in compliance with
Chapter 3, Section 2 [H], of this ordinance.
5.
The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered ffild satisfactorily met.
6.
Development of an opaque screening fence around entire perimeter of storage area.
Material and equipment storage must not rise above the screening fence.
7.
Screening fence detail to be submitted for staff approval prior to construction.
8. No barbed wire or razor wire per city ordinance.
~t> "':>--'EXHIBIT Z
.
.
.
Council Agenda - 4/12/99
SE. Consideration of an amendment to the zonin!! code. City Ordinance Title 10.
Chapter 3. Section 2-2. Subsection IFKI and [FL1. modifvine the definitions of floor
area and livable floor area. Aoolicant: Zoning Administrator. (FP)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The City Zoning Code currently provides definitions of "Floor Area" and "Livable Floor
Area." Those definitions are used in part to determine minimum standards for the
required area of dwellings built in the city.
The current definitions are in conflict with each other in that the general definition of
floor area includes portions of the garage. breezeways, and porches into the required area
of a residence. The definition of livable floor area is used in the ordinance sections
establishing minimum floor areas for dwellings, and that detlnition specifically excludes
interior vehicular storage/garages and other nonliving areas.
This cont1ict between the general and specific definitions has caused confusion to both
builders and City staff. The proposed definitions intend to resolve the conflicting
definitions. A copy has been attached for your review and consideration.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the ordinance amendment at its
April 6 meeting.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
I. Motion to adopt the ordinance amendment to City Ordinance Title 10, Chapter 3,
Section 2-2, subsections [FK] and [FL], providing definitions of Floor Area and
Livable Floor Area.
2. Motion to deny adoption of the proposed ordinance amendment to City Ordinance
Title 10, Chapter 3, Section 2-2, subsections [FK 1 and [FL], providing definitions
of Floor Area and Livable Floor Area.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Planning Commission and City staff recommend alternative #1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A - Copy of proposed Zoning Code amendment relating to the definitions of
Floor Area. and Livable Floor Area.
7
.
.
.
ORDINANCE NO.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNI~SOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 3, SECTION 2-2, SUBSECr'lONS
[FKJ AND [FL] OF TI IE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE BY ESTAI3LISIIING A
DEFINITIONS FOR FLOOR AREA AND LIVABLE FLOOR AREA.
THE CITY OF MONTICELLO DOES ORDAIN:
Title 10, Chapted, Section 2-2, subsections [FKJ and [FL] are hereby amended to read as follows:
[FK] FLOOR AREA: The sum of the gross horizontal areas of the several floors of the
building or portion thereof devoted to a particular use, including accessory storage
areas located within selling or working space such as counters, racks, or closets, and
any basement floor area devoted to retailing activities, to the production of
processing goods, or to business or professional offices, However, the floor area
shall not include: basement floor area other than area devoted to retailing activities,
the production or processing of goods, or to business or professional oUices, Re
floor areft-t)fa-r-estdcnce shall be allowed to include thirty (30) percent anhe ar-ett-ttf
attached gareges, not to exceed 96 square feet, and fifty (50) percent of enclosed
brcc:r:eways or porchcs, not to exceed 96 square feet (48 sq. it. crcdit), but shall twt
include ba~ement area, unless the bascmcnt shall be determined to bc a story as
defifteft-herettr.
[FL] FLOOR AREA - LIVABLE: The total of all habitable floor areas of a building,
excluding equipment rooms, interior vehicular parking or loading, breezeways,
porches and and all floors bclow the first or ground floor, except when U3ed or
intcnded to be uscd for human habittltion or scrviee to the public. basement areas,
unless the basement areas shall be determined to be a story as defined herein.
This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and publication according to
law.
ADOPTED by the Monticello City Council this
day of
1999.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
By:
ATTEST:
Roger Bclsaas, Mayor
By:
Riek Wolfsteller, City Administrator
GE,I
AYES:
NAYS:
EXHIBIT A - PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
.
.
.
Council Agenda - 4/12/99
SF.
Consideration of amendment to City Ordinance Title 10. Chanter 3. bv adding
Section 3-6A Grading; and amending Section 3-7, Land Reclamation. and Section
3-8. Mining. Aoolicant: Zonin!!: Administrator. (FP)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The City Zoning Code currently provides that a conditional use permit is required for
land reclamation and mining operations. The City has been issuing permits for grading,
land reclamation, and mining without sufficient ordinances to support that regulation.
This amendment to the zoning code intends to provide the authority and basis for the
issuance of grading permits by sta.fl and retains requirements for conditional use permits
required for land reclamation and mining, but provides a consistent regulatory framework
for their consideration..
The current conditional use permit process for dealing with minor grading permits (less
than 400 cubic yards) is extraordinarily burdensome and would be better considered by
the City Engineer and Building OHicial. It is proposed that where grading is on-site and
not to involve in excess of 400 cubic yards of material (about 40 dump truck loads),
grading permits may be issued by staff without Planning Commission and City Council
consideration.
Conditional use permits will remain to be required for grading of in excess of 400 cubic
yards of material and for land reclamation and mining operations. After the issuance of a
conditional use permit, a grading permit for land reclamation or mining would be issued
by staff. A copy has been attached for your review and consideration.
Planning Commission recommended approval of the ordinance amendment at its April 6
meeting.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve the ordinance amendment to City Ordinance Title 10,
Chapter 3, by adding Section 3-6A Grading; and amending Section 3-7 Land
Reclamation, and Section 3-8 Mining.
2. Motion to deny the ordinance amendment to City Ordinance Title 10, Chapter 3,
by adding Section 3-6A Grading; and amending Section 3-7 Land Reclamation,
and Section 3-8 Mining.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Planning Commission and City staff recommend alternative #1.
D.
SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A - Copy of proposed Zoning Code amendment relating to Grading, Land
Reclamation and Mining.
8
.
.
.
ORDINANCE NO.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGIIT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 3-6A AND AMENDING SECTIONS 3-7 AND 3-8 OF
TJ-IE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 13Y ESTA13LISHING REGULATJONS FOR
LAND RECLAMATION AND MINING.
TI-IE CITY OF MONTICELLO DOES ORDAIN:
Title 10, Chapter 3,Section 3-6A is hereby added to read as follows:
3-6A:
GRADING: Under this ordinance. grading is the leveling. smoothing or moving of
soils on-site upon a single parcel of land or within an anproved subdivision being
develolJed subiect to the terms of an apIJroved development agreement between the
developer and the City. Grading shall not include the import or eXIJort of soils to or
fi'om such a parcel of land or apIJroved subdivision development. and shall not
include movement of soil exceeding four hundred (400) cubic yards (see land
reclamation and minim! bclow).
Grading shall be allowed only by the issuance of a grading IJermit by the City
Engineer and City Building Official in all districts. Prior to issuing a grading permit
the City Engineer and City Building Official mav require the subnlission ofa surety
by the alJplicant in an amount determined by the City Engineer to be equal to 100lYo
of the value of the cost of restoring land whereupon grading is to occurred. Upon
aplJlication for a grading IJel'lnit. a lJermit fee shall be paid to the City by the
applicant. The fee for a grading permit shall be as determined by City Council
resolution.
Title 10, Chapter 3, Sections 3-7 and 3-8 arc hereby amended to read as fiJllows;
3-7
LAND RECLAMA nON: Under this ordinance, land reclamation is the
reclaiming ofIand by the imlJortation. depositing or grading ofmttterial-s soils in
excess of 400 cubic yards so as to elevate the grade. Land reclamation shall be
allowed permitted only under the terms of a develomuent agreement for
subdivision or by the issuance of conditional use permit in all districts. /111)' lot
or parcel upon which four hundred (400) cubic yards or more of fill is to bc
depositcd sh:ttll---eomc under the controls of hmd reclamation. The permit shall
include as a condition~ thereol~
~F-'
EXHIBIT A - PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
.
.
.
1,. a finished grade plan which will not adversely affect the adjacent land,--:tttd
as conditions thereof
2. shall regulate the type of fill permitted,
~ ~ program for rodent control,
4. n plan for fire control and general maintenance of the site,
~ controls for vehicular ingress and egress, and for control of material
disbursed from wind or hauling of material to or from the site,
6. a calendar of specific dates when land reclamation operations will be
conducted. including specific beginning and ending dates. and7
7. the submission of a surety bv the applicant in an amount determined by the
Citv Engineer to be equal to 100% of the value of the cost of restoring
land whereupon land reclamation is to occurred and repairing the
degradation of roadways used to transport soils.
Subiect to the terms of an approved subdivision development agreement or
conditional use permit, a grading permit allowing land reclamation shall be issued
by the City Engineer and City Building Official. Upon application for a grading
permit for land reclamation. a fee for grading permit shall be paid to the City by
the applicant. Such fee shall be determined by Citv Council resolution.
'3-8:
MINING: Under this ordinance. mining is the +he extraction of sand, gravel, or
other material from the land in the amount of four hundred (400) cubic yards or
more and removal thereof from the site without processing.:. shall bc defined as
mining. Itl all districts, the conduct of mining Mining shall be allowed permittetl-
only under the terms of a development agreement for subdivision or by the ttptm
issuance of a conditional use permit in all districts. Such permit shall include as a
condition thereo(
L a plan for a finished grade which will not adversely affect the surrounding
land or the development of the site on which the mining is being
conducted, and route of trucks moving to and from the site.
2. shall regulate the type of material mined from the site.
3.
a program for rodent control.
4.
a plan for fire control and general maintenance of the site.
~p~
.
.
.
2:. controls for vehicular ingress and egress, and lor control of material
disbursed from wind or hauling of material to or from the site,
6. a calendar of specific dales when mining operations will be conducted,
including specific beginning and ending dates, and-:"
7. the submission of a surety by the al'mlicant in an amount determined by the
City Engineer to be equal to 100% of the value of the cost of restoring
land whereupon mining is to occurred and repairing the degradation of
roadways used to transport soils.
Subject to the terms of an aDproved subdivision development agreement or
conditional use permit. a grading Dennit allowing mining shall be issued by the
City Engineer and City 13uilding Official. Upon aDplication for a grading Dermit
for mining, a fee lor e.rading permit shall be paid to the Citv by the anplicant.
Such fee shall be determined by City Council resolution.
This Ordinance shall become elTective inllnediatcly upon its passage and publication according
to law.
1999.
ADOPTED by the Monticello City Council this
day of __
CITY OF MONTICELLO
By:
ATTEST:
Roger Belsaas, Mayor
13y:
Rick Wolfsteller, City Administrator
AYES:
NAYS:
SF'-'
.
.
.
Council Agenda - 4/12/99
5G. Consideration of rezoning Lots 5-13: Block 2: Hillside Terrace from 1-1 to I-IA.
(F.P.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
City Council is asked to consider rezoning the land north of the freeway between the new
post office facility and the Construction 5 residential area. The proposed rezoning would
change the designation from 1-1 (light industrial) to 1-1 A. The 1-1 A designation allows
similar uses to the 1-1 district. However, building facade requirements are stricter by
requiring facade to partially consist of some material other than steel. Also, limited
wholesale retail uses are also allowed.
This request comes from the Planning Commission and is due in part from the impending
development of an industrial development "incubator" that provides some leased space
for both industrial and wholesale retail commercial uses. Technically, without the I-IA
designation, the retail uses proposed would be non-conforming. The rezoning of the area
also applies to the FSI site but will not render the site non-conforming.
It would appear to make sense to move to the stricter facade requirements due to the
residential and commercial development already existing in the area. The I-I A
regulations will also enable wholesale retail use as contemplated by the proposed
development.
Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning at its April 6 meeting.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve the rezoning request from 1-1 to I-IA for the subject area based
on the finding that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the comprehensive
plan, compatible with the adjoining land uses, will not result in the depreciation of
adjoining land values, and there is a demonstrated need for the use.
2. Motion to deny approval of the rezoning request based on the finding that the
proposal is not consistent with the comprehensive plan, not compatible with the
adjoining land uses, will result in the depreciation of adjoining land values, and
there is no demonstrated need for the use.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission and City staff recommend alternative #1.
D.
SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A - Site map.
Exhibit B - Copy of ordinance amendment
9
/ /
/ -/'
I ~
I
!'D /
-A,
/
/ /
II
I 11/
:1 /
~NI ~
. I ~
Il~' ...
..
-
I
:~
.;
;
-i
:1:'
e N
i::
)>
en ~
~
II
X
:c
CO
-
-t
)>
I
(f)
-i
m
"'U
r
)>
Z
..
f THOMAS
CIRCLE
'11
)>,
~~
~
~
o
:n
<:
111
.:
.
7~ .Jc.t"
"'..i'" ~6
..
~
.
::
. ..
....""
V:~t.I.TF.O
~ ~
~j
~
f
)
(jj
, II
~ c:
~.
'If.,
'" "
--4
;;
~ ~
;;
...
i
, ,
~
en
m
......." .,
'/t.t~
to
)~. :JlJ'"
~
::0
""
-
e
./>.
>r"'(}
'0 0 0
~ g~.
o~ ~
~ l'll
::I ::I .,
.. ~
o ~ g.
q Vl ::I
U10
o , ....
.....-.,
3:~~
o t:::::l 0
::I __::I
~. g~'
!!or,"
-N;"
o ~. 0
N::I:S
o _.
2. 5f 3:
(J~ ~ 0-
>l-:l-
c.l'll~
2. ~ ?>
:= I")
~. ~
.,
~
..
o'
::I
-
I I
1/ / /
IT -;/-.,
1/ I, .
.'/ /
II '
"jl
I /
I /
/ f
I /
....
.,.
~
"u .
. ~',
:., ....~
". .".:.4..
'4 ..,..~ ~
...
i;J ,
_ "1/"" 'I
l::
"~
'I"
~ Jr
Jel S
N
~
~
..
u
!-'
(
..
$~
.
^
- ~
~
#
ln2:.t
l'd "1.
..!
.'
""""a.,)
~ .....
..
~
"
().I
II
'(
"
:
.
N
" l\
& ~
..
I
'-s',LI"$'
)"" ]
~
().I
..
"
.
(
~ 1"1
J:-
tn
.....
<
"
Il ':I
.... ...
":...
'<,.
"~
,'"
.,.. ..
UI
'II
.t.
.
.
.
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO.
City of Monticcllo
Wright County, Minncsota
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA, HEREBY
ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
The Official Zoning Map of the City of Monticello is hereby amended by rezoning the following
parcel(s) from I-I, Light Industrial District to I-I A, Light Industrial District.
Lots 5, 6,7,8,9,10,11,12, and 13, Block 2; Hillside Terrace
This ordinance shall become effective frol11 and after its passage and publication.
Adopted this 6th day of April, 1999.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Administrator
~G';"
EXHIBIT B - ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
.
Council Agenda ~ 4/12/99
SH. Consideration of approving a temporarv on-sale liQuor license for Ducks Unlimited
BanQuet and Riverfest. Applicant: Monticello Lions Club. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Monticello Lions Club will again be providing the concession services f(Jr the Ducks
Unlimited Banquet scheduled for May 10, 1999, at the Monticello Roller Rink and will
also be serving concessions at the Arts and Crafts Expo along with the Riverfest
Celebration scheduled for July 10 and 11, 1999, in Ellison Park. The permit would also
be used for the Riverfest dance to be held at the fire hall Saturday night, July 10. For the
last three years, the Council has issued a one-day temporary on-sale liquor license for
both events that allowed the Lions Club to sell strong beer and wine coolers at all three
events, and also approved a set-up license for the Ducks Unlimited Banquet. Prior to
1996, the Lions Club had only been issued a non-intoxicating beer license, but State
Statutes now allow cities to issue temporary one~day liquor licenses.
The Council also decided to keep the daily fee at $10, which was the same f(x a non-
intoxicating beer license. The set-up license for a one-day event has remained at $25.
.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
I.
Council could approve the issuance of a temporary on-sale liquor license to the
Monticello Lions Club for the Ducks Unlimited Banquet scheduled for May 10,
the Arts and Crafts Expo in Ellison Park on July 10, the Riverfest dance at the lire
hall on July 10, and the Riverfest Celebration on July 11. In addition, the
approval will allow a set~up license for the Ducks Unlimited Banquet.
This approval should be contingent upon the Lions Club providing proper proof
of liability insurance coverage and contingent upon payment of the required fee.
2. Deny the license request.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The City Administrator recommends approval of the license as outlined.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of application.
.
10
..;'.I\I,L':,'
,,'tt.'~~, '.'
fi!.,j "",", '-"" ,~ .
,:,.:~.". 'h',,~
'.~. d"
".- - ii"
~3[: ...,.-,: f
::~.: -..' -~~~~::;:,'
~oI:.i858*_ "
, :.':-:7\,.-.::>1
Minnesota Department of Public Safety
LIQUOR CONTROL DIVISION
444 Cedar St./Suite 100L
St. Paul, MN 55101-2156
(612)296-6439 TDD (612)282-6555
~
& II
~ ~
\, \ j
\;"'~!!!#/
APPLICA TION AND PERMIT
FOR AlDAY TEMPORARY CONSUMPTION & DISPLAY PERMIT
(City or county may not issue more than 10 permits in anyone year)
TYPE OR PRINT INFORMATION
NAME OF ORGANIIA T~ON
MeNrICeLt..O L.IO/\/S' (;l-.u.8
STREET ADDRESS
'?;,.O, .8 0 X ~"'"3
NAME OF PERSON MAKING APPLICATION
"0 6 F1 R. 13 f:/... S A AS
DA TE SET UPS WILL BE SOLD
.N7A 10 I q
ORGANIZA TION OFFICER'S NAME
/< V IN O&I-U^,
ORGANIZA TION OFFICER'S NAME
.JoH PeA~SON
ORGANIZA TION OFFICER'S NAME
Ro &. 6 R 13 r=. L S A A.s-
Location where pennit wi I be used. If an outdoor area,
DATE ORGANIZED TAX EXEMPT NUMBER
CJ c... T ' / 7 j-
CITY STATE
MON1) e. 6 Ll..O
BUSINESS PHONE
1'2.. -z<iS-..39l4-
TYPE OF ORGANJZA TION
CLUB 0 CHARITABLE 0 RELIGIOUS 0 OTHER NONPROFIT
ADDRESS .
~x 6' /6 LAkr!: M/l/, s-'5"3o 9
ADDRE~S
/lS'2 ~ CAMeRoN .AV~,Mc^,r/c~u.o M~ S:S-3'
ADDRESS
80)( /07' Jtl!o,vr/ CE LLO MAl. '5"'5;3 ~ "'L--
escribe
APPRO V AL
APPLICATION MUST BE APPROVED BY CITY OR COUNTY BEFORE SUBMITTING TO LIQUOR CONTROL
CITY/COUNTY
DATE APPROVED
CITY FEE AMOUNT
(Not to exceed $25)
PERMlT DATE
DATE FEE PAID
SIGNA TURE CITY CLERK OR COUNTY OFFICIAL
APPROVED LIQUOR CONTROL DIRECTOR
TE: Do not separate these two parts. send both parts to the address above and the original signed by this division
will be returned as the permit. Submit to the City or County at least 30 days before the event.
PS-09098(8/95)
~H-I
Minnesota Department of Public Safety
LIQUOR CONTROL DIVISION
444 Cedar St./Suite 1 DOL
St. Paul, MN 55101-2156
(612)296-6439 TOO (612)282-6555
e
APPLICA TION AND PERMIT
FOR A 1 TO 4 DAY TEMPORARY ON-SALE LIQUOR LICENSE
DATEORG~D TAX EXEMPT NUMBER
oc 19 S-
CITY STATE
,AIIo C ~LLO M /I'IN
BUSINESS PHONE
" "2.9 S ... 3<1'4-
TYPE OF ORGANIZATION
CLUB 0 CHARITABLE 0 RELIGIOUS 0 OTHER NONPROFIT
ADDRESS
-oX 8' 1316 LAK6 J/lAl- ....!:>-3o'i
ADDRESS /J
115"2q c....AMG.E'cs,vAv MONrlCtlLo MA/~J"3h
Will the applicant contract for intoxicating liquor services? If so, give the name and address of the Liquor license providing the service.
NO
VIES ~S-O/j./(JOIOOO
Will the applicant carry liquor liability insurance? If so, the carrier's name and amount of coverage.
(NOTE: Insurance is not mandatory) t't::7~fJoR,fJ7'E 4 '^,J.
APPROVAL
APPLICATION MUST BE APPROVED BY CITY OR COUNTY BEFORE SUBMITTING TO LIQUOR CONTROL
CITY/COUNTY
DATE APPROVED
CITY FEE AMOUNT
LICENSE DATES
DATE FEE PAID
SIGNATURE CITY CLERK OR COUNTY OFFICIAl,
APPROVED LIQUOR CONTROL DIRECTOR
OTE: Do not separate these two parts, send both parts to the address above and the original signed by this dil"ision
will be returned as the license. Submit to the City or County at least 30 days before the event.
PS-09079(8195)
~#-~
. , ~":"'~"":~ 'r",.~~.,:,~,: ":'::,i\\."~'~.
.
.
.
Council Agenda - 4/12/99
51. Consideration of resolution authorizine the renewal of a gamblin2 license for the
American Le2ion Club. (R. W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Thc American Legion Post No. 260 of Monticello will be applying to thc State Gambling
Control Board for renewal of their pull-tab license. The renewal would be for an
additional two-year term expiring July 31, 2001 .
It has been the past practice of the Council to request information from organizations
requesting renewal regarding the type and amount of contributions that are made from
gambling proceeds. Enclosed with the agenda is a summary for 1998 indicating various
contributions made by the l"egion Club totaling $32,559.
In order for the State Gambling Control Board to issue the renewal, the local unit of
government must pass a resolution approving the application. Without the approval, the
Legion Club would not be able to continue their gambling operation.
B. AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS:
1.
Adopt a resolution authorizing the State Gambling Control Board to renew the
gambling license requested by the American Legion Post No. 260.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the Administrator that the resolution be adopted. The City is
not aware of any problems associated with the pull-tab operation at the Legion Club in
the past.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of application; Copy of resolution.
11
West
STATB OF MINNBSOTA
GAMBLING CONTROL BOARD
PREMISES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION
IFOR BOARD OSE
IAMT PAID
I CHECK NO.
I DATE
ONLY I
I
I
I
~PPR PRINTED:
LICENSE NUMBER: B-00672-001
EFFECTIVE DATE: 08/01/97
EXPIRATION DATE: 07/31/99
NAME OF ORGANIZATION: American Legion Post 260 Monticello
GAMBLING PREMISES INFORMATION
NAME OF ESTABLISHMENT WHERE GAMBLING WILL BE CONDUCTED
Am Legion Post 260
304 Elm St
Monticello 55362
COUNTY Wright IS THE PREMISES LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS?: Y
LESSOR INFORMATION
DOES YOUR ORGANIZATION OWN THIS SITE?: Yes
IF NO, LIST THE LESSOR:
NAME OF PROPERTY OWNER (WHEN NOT LESSOR) :
o
AMOUNT PAID FOR RENT PER MONTH:
AMOUNT PAID PER OCCASION:
o
o
SQUARE FEET PER MONTH:
S E FEET PER OCCASION:
o
BINGO ACTIVITY
BINGO IS CONDUCTED ON THIS PREMISES: No IF YES, REFER TO INSTRUCTIONS FOR REQUIRED ATTACHMENT
."
STORAGE ADDRESS
304 Elm St
Monticelio MN 55362
BANK INFORMATION
1st National Bank
Box 239
Monticello MN 55362
GAMBLING BANK ACCOUNT NUMBER: OP1PO~~~~
0<1 otJOO.:z. FCj()
ON THE LINES PROVIDED BELOW LIST THE NAME, ADDRESS AND TITLE OF AT LEAST TWO PERSONS
AUTHORIZED TO SIGN CHECKS AND MAKE DEPOSITS AND WITHDRAWALS FOR THE GAMBLING ACCOUNT.
THE ORGANIZATION'S TREASURER MAY NOT HANDLE GAMBLING FUNDS.
.
(BE SORE TO COMPLETE THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS APPLICATION)
THIS FORM WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE IN ALTERNATIVE FORMAT (I.E.
~Gr~;,,~) rON REQUEST
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
GAMBLING PREMISES AUTHORIZATION
IIEBY GIVE CONSENT TO LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, THE GAMBLING CONTROL BOARD, OR AGENTS
o E BOARD, OR THE COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE OR PUBLIC SAFETY, OR AGENTS OF THE COMMISSIONERS,
TO NTER THE PREMISES TO ENFORCE THE LAW.
BANK RECORDS INFORMATION
THE GAMBLING CONTROL BOARD IS AUTHORIZED TO INSPECT THE BANK RECORDS OF THE GAMBLING ACCOUNT
WHENEVER NECESSARY TO FULFILL REQUIREMENTS OF CURRENT GAMBLING RULES AND STATUTES.
I DECLARE THAT:
I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION AND ALL INFORMATION SUBMITTED TO THE GAMBLING CONTROL BOARD;
ALL INFORMATION IS TRUE, ACCURATE AND COMPLETE;;
ALL OTHER REQUIRED INFORMATION HAS BEEN FULLY DISCLOSED;
I AM THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE ORGANIZATION;
I ASSUME FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE FAIR AND LAWFUL OPERATION OF ALL GAMBLING
ACTIVITIES TO BE CONDUCTED;
I WILL FAMILIARIZE MYSELF WITH THE LAWS OF MINNESOTA GOVERNING LAWFUL GAMBLING AND RULES
OF THE GAMBLING CONTROL BOARD AND AGREE, IF ISSUED A PREMISES PERMIT, TO ABIDE THOSE LAWS
AND RULES, INCLUDING AMENDMENTS TO THEM;
ANY CHANGES IN APPLICATION INFORMATION WILL BE SUBMITTED TO THE GAMBLING CONTROL BOARD AND
LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT WITHIN TEN DAYS OF THE CHANGE;
I UNDERSTAND THAT FAILURE TO PROVIDE REQUIRED INFORMATION OR PROVIDING FALSE OR MISLEADING
INFORMATION MAY RESULT IN THE DENIAL OR REVOCATION OF THE PREMISES PERMIT.
SIGNATURE OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
DATE
LO"'GOVERNMENT ACKNOWLEDGMENT
1.~E CITY. MUST SIGN THIS APPLICATION IF THE GAMBLING PREMISES IS LOCATED WITHIN CITY
LIMITS.
2. THE COUNTY.. AND TOWNSHIp.. MUST SIGN THIS APPLICATION IF THE GJMBLING PREMISES IS
LOCATED WITHIN A TOWNSHIP.
3. FOR TOWNSHIPS THAT ARE UNORGANIZED OR UNINCORPORATED, THE COUNTY.. IS REQUIRED TO ATTACH
A LETTER TO THIS APPLICATION INDICATING THE TOWNSHIPS STATUS.
4. THE LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT (CITY OR COUNTY) MUST PASS A RESOLUTION SPECIFICALLY
APPROVING OR DENYING THIS APPLICATION.
5. A COPY OF THE LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT'S RESOLUTION APPROVING THIS APPLICATION MUST BE
ATTACHED TO THIS APPLICATION.
6. IF THIS APPLICATION IS DENIED BY THE LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT, IT SHOULD NOT BE SUBMITTED
TO THE GAMBLING CONTROL BOARD.
TOWNSHIP:
BY SIGNATURE BELOW, THE TOWNSHIP ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE ORGANIZATION IS APPLYING FOR A
PREMISES PERMIT WITHIN TOWNSHIP LIMITS.
CITY. OR COUNTY..
TOWNSHIp..
~ OR COUNTY NAME
M ~ tVTfC CL.( 0
TOWNSHIP NAME
SIGNATURE OF PERSON RECEIVING APPLICATION
DATE RECEIVED
cj -1-7
TITLE
DATE RECEIVED
TO THE CHECKLIST FOR REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS .-. ~
MAIL TO: GAMBLING CONTROL BOARD S-J-.- ....
1711 W COUNTY RD B - SUITE 300 S .
ROSEVILLE, MN 55113
.
.
.
Monticello American Legion Post 260
Lawful Purpose Donations for the year ending December 3\, 1998
January
February
March
April
May
July
August
October
November
December
Scholarships
Military Recognition (area Vets)
Monticello Youth Baseball
Monticello School Patrol
Monticello Youth Baseball
Military Recognition (area Vets)
Monticello Food Shelf
Boy's State program
Monticello Graduation Party
Youth Baseball
Veterans Programs
Medical Eqpt for Sr. Citizens
Real Estate Taxes
Monticello Graduation Party
Monticello Baseball Association
$1000,00
$ 70.00
$ 400,00
$ 868,00
$ 47,00
$ 270.00
$ 300,00
$ 200,00
$ 250,00
$ 40,00
$ 250,00
$ 207,00
$7861,00
$3803,00
$2500,00
North Star Flags $ 495.00
(distributed to schools & business)
Monticello Baseball Association $1500.00
Real Estate Taxes
North Star Flags (POW/MIA)
Scholarships
Monticello Food Shelf
School Veterans Day Programs
Monticello Girls Fastpitch
Monticello Youth Hockey
Xmas Gills" Nursing Home
Fund for Hospitalized Vets
TOTAL
$7861,00
$ 22 1.00
$2400.00
$ 206,00
$ 640,00
$ 300,00
$ 300,00
$ 495.00
$ 75,00
$32,559,00
6~~3
.
.
.
RESOLUTION 99-
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE
OF A GAMBLING LICENSE
WHEREAS, the American Legion Post No. 260 of Monticello has submitted an application to
the City Council of Monticello for the renewal of a charitable gambling license to conduct
gambling at their club located in Monticello, Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, upon review of the organization's activities, the Council is not opposed to the
gambling license being renewed by the State Gambling Control Board.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL that the American Legion
Post No. 260's application for license renewal listed above is hereby approved, and the State
Gambling Control Board is authorized to process the application.
Adopted by the City Council this 12th day of April, 1999.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Administrator
~J,~ - Lf
.
.
.
Council Agenda - 4/12/99
SJ. Consideration of a resolution calling for a public hearing on the Chelsea Road
extension street and utility improvements. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
City Council is asked to consider calling for a public hearing on road and utility
improvements to Chelsea Road between Cedar Street and County Road 117. As you may
recall, some months ago Jerry Mathwig, owner of an 18-acre site south of the road
extension, petitioned t'()f the public improvements and provided a deposit for the
feasibility study. The feasibility study was conducted and accepted and a public hearing
scheduled. llowever, the project was tabled pending further discussion with landowners.
Recently, the Khauvs announced plans for development of a 52-unit Comfort Suites
motel which will be located on and gain access from the new Chelsea Road. This new
development has restarted the Chelsea Road extension project. It is expected that the
development wi Il go through the conditional use permit process and be ready for
construction to commence early this summer. The first lift of bituminous will need to be
installed by October, which will provide needed street access for the opening of the
motel, which is scheduled for January 2000.
The project will be funded via special assessments and City funds for oversizing.
B. AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to adopt resolution calling for a public hearing on April 26, 1999, for the
Chelsea Road extension project.
2. Motion to deny adoption of resolution calling for a public hearing on the Chelsea
Road extension project.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staffrecommends alternative #1. In the next few days, Bret Weiss will be updating the
feasibility study for presentation to the City Council in conjunction with the public
hearing.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Map from feasibility study showing Chelsea Road extension.
12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
I
I +-
i
I
Project Location
I
I T 1 2 I N R25W
~
2122
I ~
f ~
.. 360 WMtwood UQ 0IIIce
I WSB 8441 w.yulIt Boulewrd
liInn8llpoll.. MN 55428
812-641......
4~JiIo. FM 1I41.1700
I IliFfIASTRUC11JRE . ENGINEERS . PlANNERS
-
/
W,
;>
'"
RD, 103,Q
<8>,:
~ >- DR '"
---';;: ~~
:0 /
:3
Tf 2'1 N
t. COSSLESTONE CT R25W
2. CHEYENNE CT _141.13
23fi4
Location Map
Chelsea Road East
Monticello Minnesota
i
~-
o 50
1
100
R,
WS8 ProjIlc:t No, 1103.00
City Pmject No. 98-08C
Figure Number
1
-..-, -,,,,,~,~,-,,"",.~' "~'""" ",","""'"",,,", . ''''-,- .,...,..", . - "
. , , ~
Dale: June 9, 1998
,~ . ,.
o
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
]
I
I
I
I
\ (I \
i J;P~ \
~_~~ J
/@
18" STORM
SEWER
18" STORM
SEWER
,77
/'
27" STORM .--............ . . .... ~ ... ,"\
SEWER .. .......~r.~~ \ \
~ ~'\
PROPOSED ---.f 110' ~\
POND 15" STORM \ ~
SEWER ,;~ /
~ I'
~
\....-.:
~..~
~
o 75
\\
'--i\
\ ;~2}-
I, .
\
, ,
\ '
))
~.....---- ~--
'- '
\
\
I,
360 Westwood '--ke Ofllee
8441 w.p.ta Boul8v8l'd
Mlnll8llPllll8. MN 56426
Chelsea Road East - Grading, Streets,
Utilities, and Appurtenant Work
e1:H41-4800
"~m.. FAX 041-1100
INfRASTRUCTURE . ENGINEERS - PlANNERS
Monticello Minnesota
WS8 Project No. 1103.00
City Project No. !l8-l)lC
Figure Number
2
0Ile: June 9, 1998
,
,
i
I
I
L
~._~,_.~",_~,~_..',r...-~,.i P" :."J", "~"'''''''<,l.''''''''~~''''''~.~~~.'''~' '"?~,~. -,.
Council Agenda - 4/12/99
.
7. Consideration of request bv MOAA Board to remove Exhibit C from
City/Township aereement and reolace it with pattern proposed for that section
~nder the comoromise olano (R.W./J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
On April 7, 1999, the MOAA reviewed the compromise land use plan prcparcd by the
City Council and has responded with a request that the City consider eliminating the
Southwest Area (Exhibit C) from the Township/City agreement and replace it with the
land use pattern proposed under the City compromise plan. The balance of the MOAA
land usc plan pertaining to Gold Nugget and points east would then continue to be open-
ended under study by the MOAA. This proposal is not consistent with a decision made
earlier on this subject by the City Council. As you recall, at a previous joint meeting
bctween the City Council and the Township, it was agreed that Exhibit C would be
eligible for removal from the City/Township agreement only at such time that agreement
was achieved on the entire plan
.
During the most rccent discussion of the overall MOAA plan, it was indicated by Ted
Holker, Clint Herbst, and Pat Sawatzke that the Gold Nugget parcel should be set for
industrial. By the tone of the discussion, it did not appear that there is much possibility
of convincing the MOAA of the merits of the City's comprehensive plan for critical areas
east of Highway 25.
As you recall, and as indicated in the attached documentation, it was the intent of the
agreement between the City and Township to use the comprehensive plan as a guide in
establishing the MOAA plan. As you have seen by the proposed MOAA plan and as
witnessed by comments made at public meetings, there does not appear to be much
regard for following the City's comprehensive plan as contemplated under the intent of
the agreement. Ted Holker, Franklin Denn, Pat Sawatzke, and Clint Herbst say that the
intent of the agreement is "subjective" and, therefore, the letter of the agreement should
rule.
At the recent MOAA meeting, Franklin Denn noted that determining the intent is
subjective, whereas the letter of the agreement is clear. Pat Sawatzke noted that the
comprehensive plan was the starting point for MOAA planning and has been used for
input. Clint Herbst emphasized that the MOAA Board members should have the freedom
to express their own opinions. In reading the letter of the agreement, it does appear that
the MOAA is the planning authority for the area.
.
According to the letter of the City/Township agreement, with one vote of a City Council
member in favor of the Township and against the wishes of the majority of the Council,
Planning Commission, and IDC, it appears that the City may have to accept a land use
plan that is in opposition to the City's comprehensive plan, which could place large land
areas in limbo. Exhibit C, because it is identified specifically in the agreement, is the
only portion of the comprehensive plan that it is not up for grabs given the MOAA literal
13
Council Agenda - 4/12/99
.
interpretation of their planning authority. Council may not want to give up Exhibit C
knowing that the MOAA is taking the position that the City's comprehensive plan is but
information to be used in developing the overall plan.
The development of the current impasse gave rise to an idea floated by Tom Salkowski.
Salkowski suggested that the City and Township may want to consider re-establishment
of an urban service area boundary which would follow the City's plan but define a tighter
area for development. This concept has some merit because it provides the City with
zoning authority through the comprehensive plan while limiting the area for development
to a tighter ring around the city. This method for defining areas for annexation worked
fairly well until it was recently abandoned. One of the reasons for its failure was a
poorly-defined process for expanding the urban service area. Perhaps the concept of
development of an urban service boundary can be explored.
B.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1.
Motion to eliminate Exhibit C from the City/Township agreement and replace it
with the land use pattern for the area proposed by the City in the compromise
plan.
.
Under this alternative, the Township would presumably agree to the same. This
alternative is not consistent with a previous decision by the City Council at the
joint meeting to hold removal of Exhibit C until an overall plan is established.
2.
Motion to deny request to remove Exhibit C from the City/Township agreement
and replace it with the land use pattern proposed on the most recent compromise
plan.
This option gives the City some bargaining power with the MOAA for
maintaining portion of the City's comprehensive plan.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The City Administrator recommends that negotiations continue but to deny the request.
Exhibit C of the comprehensive plan is the only portion of the City's plan that is not
touchable because it was specifically identified in the agreement. Why should the City
give up this portion of its plan when other important aspects of the City's comprehensive
plan are not supported by the MOAA?
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
.
Excerpts from negotiations showing that the comprehensive plan should be the guiding
document; Copy of materials presented to MOAA Board at recent meeting.
14
~
. ...
.
.
.
Monticello Township
County Road 117
Monticello, Minnesota 55362
'ILl
COP}'
September 2, 1997
Monticello City Mayor and Council Members
Monticello City Hall
250 East Broadway
Monticello, Mn. 55362-9245
Re: Annexation Requests by Property Owners.
Gentlemen:
The Monticello Township Board has had the opportunity to review
the City's request to annex property through the proposed amendments
to the orderlY annexation agreement. After much consideration,
the Township Board has decided to decline this request in its
current form, but believes that most of the requested annexations
can be accomplished through a broader amendment of the existing
orderly annexation agreement between the City and Township. In
establishing this broader agreement, the Township would like
the agreement to address long-term growth issues in a manner
which would ensure that adequate land for residential
development is available to the City, while also ensuring
that future annexations will occur only within the orderly
annexation area. Such an agreement would allow the City to
adequately plan for the provision of services while at the
same time allowing the Township to better address the long-
term needs of its residents.
Accordingly, the Township proposes that the existing orderly
annexation agreement be modified to include the concepts
detailed below. If this framework is acceptable to the City,
we anticipate that a formal amendment to the orderly annexation
agreement would be prepared and approved by the Township and
the City. The concepts are as follows:
The Township proposes that the acreage listed below be annexed
to the City upon Minnesota Municipal Board approval of the revised
orderly annexation agreement:
Hoglund Property
Rolstad Property
Leerson Property
Methodist Church Property
Shermer Property
Township Cemetery
40 acres
40 acres
10 acres
6.35 acres
33.6 acres
1 acre
The acreage referred to
boundaries of the City.
approximately 130 acres
adequate supply of land
above would be acreage abutting the current
The Township is confident that the
described above would be more than an
for expansion for the City for the next
~\
.
several years. Adding this to the approximately~~vacant
residential acres currently within the City limits, the Town
believes that the City would immediately have in excess of an
eight year supply of land within the City under the terms of the
proposed orderly annexation agreement. By any standard, this
represents a more than adequate supply of land.
In addition, the Township would like to designate the land within
a majority of the orderly annexation by the process detailed
below (the land included in this area is within the dark lines
as shown on the attached Exhibit A). This land would be annexed
into the City in parcels up to 40 acres in size when the following
events occurred:
.
A. The property owner petitions both the City of Monticello
and the Township of Monticello for annexation.
B. The property must abut the City of Monticello such
that leapfrog development is avoided.
C. The property owner submits a development plan to the
City of Monticello and the Township of Monticello
showing the need for municipal water and sanitary
sewer for at least 80% of the property petitioned
for annexation.
D. The development plan would have to be of sufficient
detail to show it would meet the standards and
requirement~ of the City of Monticello's zoning
~nd planninq ordinance, land use plan, comorehensiye
plan~ utility plan, assessment procedures, and financing pIa.
The development plan must meet the approval of the
City and the Township prior to annexation.
E. Municipal water and sanitary sewer would have to be
installed and ready for use within (2) years from
the date of annexation.
F. No future petitions for annexation from the same
property owner or parcel of land would be permitted
until 80% of the previously annexed land from the
same property owner or parcel of land had been
developed with water and sewer service.
As you can see from the attached exhibit the new orderly annexation
agreement would cover approximately 1,800 acres of land. Assuming
that the City would be building 100 houses a year (a very high
development rate), and assuming 2.3 houses per acre in development
density, the amount of land which could be annexed to the City
under the conditions outlined above represents over a 40-year
supply of land for residential development.
.
The term of the proposed orderly annexation agreement would be
ten years from the effective date of the agreement or when less
than 300 undeveloped acres remain in the orderly annexation
area, whichever occurs first. Therefore, in the event the
City were to experience an enormous amount of long-term development
which threatened to exhaust the supply of available land within
the orderly annexation area prior to the expiration of the ten
year period, the City and the Township could re-negotiate the
terms of the agreement, or, if no agreement could be reached,
the agreement could be terminated by either party at that time.
~~
.
The Township will require that the agreement prohibit any
annexations during the term of the agreement which do not
meet the terms outlined above, unless both the City and
Township specifically approve the annexation of a particular
property which does not meet the terms of the agreement. Any
disputes regarding the interpretation of the agreement and
any situations where the Township does not approve a development
plan which the City approved related to land which would other-
wise meet the terms of this agreement would be sent to the
Municipal Board for a decision. Taxes collected by the City
on all annexed properties (including the 130 acres to be immediately
annexed) would be remitted to the Township for a period of three
years from the date of annexation. The land use/zoning and
planning provisions of the 1995 Urbanization Plan would
remain unchanged and would be incorporated in the orderly
annexation agreement.
The Township is interested in creating a framework for the
orderly, planned annexation of property necessary to sustain
the City's natural growth. However, in order to facilitate
efficient planning and allocation of government resources, this
agreement must provide long-term certainty to both the City and
the Township regarding the direction and scope of future annexations.
.
The concepts proposed in this letter provide a mechanism for the
City and Township to decide in what areas development will
OCcur. The issues of when to develop and who will develop within
these areas are issues to be left to private market. The
Township does not believe that private developers should dictate
to the City or Township where development will occur. The
Township believes that it is a fundamental duty of the local
government, including both the City and Township, to set reasoned,
stable parameters within which development may occur. This
is the underlying principle behind the legislative grant of
zoning authority to local governments, and the Township remains
committed to this principle.
The Township has made a reasonable offer to the City, and is
confident that the City will respond in a positive fashion.
However, if, as in the past, it becomes necessary for the Township
to present its case to the Municipal Board, the Township will
be more than willing to do so. We are confident that the Municipal
Board will find the process outlined above to be reasonable, and
the actual needs of the City to be less than that proposed by
the Township in this letter.
I look forward to the City Council's consideration of this offer.
ShoUld you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact
me. Thank you.
.
Sincerely,
'- OJ ~ / {. v j[Q~,-?::::'
~KTlfi~' nenn, dhairman
On Behalf of the Monticello Town Board
Copy: Paul A. Weingarden, Attorney
~#~
"I
..
N
-
u
...
g
...
..
o
o
...
u
o
..
:5
,...
f'
.1.
~ :.'
"'. IWW' ~
,.., lfllIM' .
'~,iI · ~ Il /~ :
~ t :...... N' t/:. 1"/ .,... .....
'~ ~lCI- ,. j. ~~ \~ t
)... MO!Il ~ 0
'l- ~ ~V '"
~.lIlll ".~ 1- ~ 8
". ,., rr - ~ ,.... r. l~ ~V '>d ~ to ~~ .,..,
~ II ... ~. .. b 7 r-~ ~ r A:1'C
.,. d ~... iT,... .. ~...
~ ~:-4' Ie ~': " ~T'~
~\ ~~~. MYM ,; - \'<....,.. / , :_
,.....-'JfI'l r:::o t~i"1^;d'Y'.J""''''/~); /... ~
~ \- j.,. ': ~ .~.c. ~ ~ ..r. .c-
". -. ,'t:,'-J: J"/ 11ll)JJI!t ~..".,..." l' ~ 'kJ1
// '.( (.0.'" .
~ A 4~.'" ::..( 2
/ - f'IJ:lT - t; ~ I.! <po
'-"", ~I T"'l: "'-!.. >fOSI~ 51 '.....' ~
. p;.; ~ ,u ~., a ... .. - .
'J 11''' ~ ___
~-. ~ ~ In
....... . ~ 'l't> - ~'N) N ~ ~
~J~I 0 ~ ~J.~. rl'Y ~~.
- ~O ~ !.lJ ~~' J'it "'"n'Ij ~
,--C! = ~I .. I N < [m ~'fj~""'-J:. ..., ':)0" 1mrJ
'* · ! I i :::- ~ ~ jI' ~~*- ( ~~ .' ~"..,."""" N 1,.. "'"-. ~
EI~ I ,~" '(f.j. OWJ>:;/ .... tl ~""""
! .. g =. J ~ .J/>o "J..::f""", "T'{.. ~ - _
t ~,~ ., a.':... - ~ 'I1s-:"" J -.....~ ~ ~
e:: li~ I,; II t~.I) ~~~~,....,~ . ~~ i ~y7 3
:I:.. ~ 'IV"" N N [\ U~~.
(I') 'fj .. :.I In oJ...:-' "" IlMtJPW ..::1-.
' , ~I ~ 0, ... """va C "'.............. ,... .s:J' Nft\V"O
Z .:. ~ I ~~ :4 \..\. \ I _: ~ ~~::=G~ ..:, ~v~ ~ "'"';'
~ /:/.. ) "",,~h \.. """ '- ...... D~ ~U
t- Y' ~~ ~-:=T-~~-I \ \:' t; 1:7~"~. J
Ih"'?)~~ ~". 'i1"'j ~"':1 .-.l..IMIoA.4>M:I :r ~ ~~~ t';1'!iJ1~':"~ ~~~
t:J ~,.... · ~:r' _ ..: tC '!\ '~i
..I .., ~ I I ~ ... ~ ' ~" ~ ~ N ; N b 8 ~ ~ r~ 4..
.J ~.,~ ~, ~~. .......:1.,
, . , ~ . 8 ./ rT .".,., /lC1f1""" ~ '.. A.. , ... ' "'."..., ,,"""'" i"::" _
g JO~\ .j ~r-;' .~' ~._, i ~ ~_ ......,
z: I ~I.I / (; ! ........- .,.~~ 2.. :!: I ~
~1.lli!;" i"; ...-- '~~S-:_,. \\
li:f ;;~i I~ ~...,..,.. ..,. .... -:"" ., : ",' ~~.... ...=- ~;;
~ r-. ;.'U~~ t:!- ,..,e;,. J,~ x~ !! "~, ~
't er~ ,.J'" ~~ ~~ ~,'\
OJ" "". .......y ~ · f'- ~- '.:'... z:pJI"<r.
~ ~v
.. tI1 I
-- ~-- '~ .;
.
~I"
~ J I 1,:-..
~ ~ i I~!
I I
!
, i ~!I ~! II,
I -=- I ~..c:"
I """", E~ ! , 'UD I
1 'I I!I i I
1- -
'"
~
~v *,TlYj
'"
C~ :..--
~~~
- '7''' ~. t:
~
t; ~y "N1]'1 :to ~
.. ,..
'- .. ~;:;
R .. ;.:
'"
~,
..
'-
.,: =
'" ;
..
ti
t;;
.,:
'"
~
~
..
,
November 12, 1997
MONTICELLO
Monticello Township Board of Supervisors
Franklin Denn, Chairman
8550 Edmonson Av NE
Monticello MN 55362
RE: Proposal for Orderly Annexation Agreement
Dear Chairman Denn and Town Board:
On behalf of the City Council of the City of Monticello, I offer the attached proposal to
amend the Orderly Annexation Area, and to resolve the current and future annexation
petitions in the OAA. I believe that we would all agree that disputed annexation petitions
serve the interests of neither the township, the city, nor the property owners involved.
Moreover, such disputes only add to the uncertainty of other area landowners and strain
relations between our governing bodies. Instead, a properly constructed agreement would
.allow all of the involved parties to reach our respective objectives in an environment which
protects everyone else's interests.
It is in this spirit that we offer this proposal. The City understands the Township's concern
over tax base, predictability of urban growth, protection of agricultural operations, and
containment of sprawl. The attached proposal seeks to grant assurances to the Township
that the OAA will continue to protect those interests. The City's interests intersect with the
Township's in many areas. We too are concerned about orderly predictable growth,
protecting agriculture, and containing sprawl.
As a result, the proposal seeks to ensure that the OAA will be preserved for urban
development only as landowners are ready to develop. Hand in hand with this idea is the
preservation of the Township's existing tax base for a significant time period after an
annexation, and removing the OAA's "about to become urban or suburban" label from a
large area--Iarger than the additional land we seek to add to the OAA.
Now approximately 25 years old, the original OM as defined by the Municipal Board
served as a reasonable estimate of urban growth for several years. However, as the growth
of the community has come closer to the OM line, its inadequacies are more apparent. It
bisects single properties indiscriminately and was drawn without the benefit of adequate
utility or watershed analysis. The rationale for the proposed alteration in the OAA
.oundary is to provide a more accurate depiction of the future growth of the City, given our
recent Comprehensive Plan adoption, actual growth patterns, urban service capacity (such
as sanitary sewer and water), and property ownership patterns.
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
...
Monticello Township Board letter
November 12, 1997
Page 2
.
The original OAA has not been adjusted since its formation in the early 1970s, and the City
is prepared to offer a small reduction in area as an indication of our intent to reach a
workable agreement. We believe this offer to be a reasonable one for all involved. We hope
that you wi} agree. In order to allow adequate time for the Town Board to consider this offer
and to limit expenses which would be involved in preparing for the contested annexation
hearings, we will hold this offer open for thirty days from the above date.
Please respond to the undersigned, City Administrator Rick Wolfsteller, in writing at your
earliest convenience. If the Township's response is positive we will have our attorney draft
a joint resolution for consideration at the next regularly scheduled meetings of the Town
Board and the City Council.
Thank you for your serious consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
CITY OF MONTICELLO
a ({//I~
Rick W oJfstel;/f .
City Administrator
.
cc: Mayor and City Council
Dennis Dalen, City Attorney
Michael Couri, Township Attorney
.
7-'
. Monticello Orderly Annexation Area
OAA Expansion/Alteration
Annexation Imtiation
Land Use Regulation in new OAA
Duration of Agreement
Interim Line
Tax-Base Sharing
Timing of Annexations in new OAA
Proposal for Amendment to the Monticello Orderly Annexation Area:
This amendment to the Monticello Orderly Annexation Area would amend the
Minnesota Municipal Board's Order of 1974.
OAA Alteration
The OAA line is altered from its current location to that shown on the attached exhibit.
The essence of the changes are as follows:
A. Additional land is added in the southwest area to accommodate the City's intent
to grow in a direction which is primarily south and west of current City limits.
This land will accommodate residential, commercial, and industrial growth, as
well as support land uses for that growth.
f'
B.
Additional land is added to accommodate the Orrin Thompson south 40 acres.
This land is added to absorb existing samtary sewer trunk line capacity in the
area, consistent with the City of Monticello Comprehensive Plan land use
objectives.
C. Land to the east of the current City limits would be removed from the OAA,
including both developed and undeveloped areas.
It is anticipated that the revised OAA boundaries would be agreed to by the City and
the Township, then submitted to the Minnesota Municipal Board for final approval.
In addition, all existing petitions would be included as joint resolutions by the City and
the Township.
Jnterim Annexation Lines (e.~. Urban Service Areas. etcJ
There would be no interim annexation lines within the revised OAA.
Annexation Tnitiation
Annexations of property within the revised OM under this agreement would be by
I' Township Board or property owner petition only. The City agrees not to initiate
ANNEXAGR: 11/12/97
Pagel'"
-.-..'-------' .~
...., " -..- , "-".
- --. _.-~
....
.
.'
.-
,
-:lEC-19-1997 09:23
NAC
612 595 9837 P.02/04
N
COMMUNITYPl..ANNINQ - DESIGN - MA~Ke:T RESEARCH
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Denni3 Dalen
Ricl<. Wolfsteller
FROM:
Stephen Grittman
DATE:
December 17, 1997
Re:.
.....
Mcnticailo - Township Annexation Discussions
FILE NO:
191.06 - 97.05
[I have put this much of a memo together regarding this morning's meeting.
As soon as you can, please review it and let me know if (1) it is complete in
its discussion of issues, and (2) if you think it is acceptable to share with
Mike Cauti. For the City Council. I anticipate adding our discussion of
possible solutions, and what appeared to be the primary outstanding issue
among the staff groups - that of planning authority in the OAA. Also; please
let me know of your impression of the Orrin Thompson south 40 acres issue.
It seemed to me that Mike ftrst said the Town Board would go to war on this
one, but later seemed to soften his view of it. I am unsure of how it was left.}
This memorandum is intended to summarize the issues discussed at a meeting held on
this date between representatives of the Township and the City. Attendees were: Rick
Wolfsteller, City Administrator, Steve Griitman, NAC, City Planner; David Licht, NAC; and
Dennis Dalen. City Attorney; all on beh~ of the City, and Mike Couri, Township Attorney;
and Dean Carlson, RSC, Consulting Planner to the Township.
The Township Attorney explained a number of issues which were of importance to the
Township in coming to an agreement. These are as follows:
1. Certainty. The Town Board is concerned that the line which is established as the
OM line be a relatively pennanent line. 'M1ile the Township has been notified that
the City will want to discuss occasional adjustments, the OM boundary should be I
"775 WAYZATA BOULEVARO. SUITE SSS ST. LOUIS PARK. MINNESOTA 5541 ~1
PHONE 612-595-9636 FAX 6\2-595-9637 E-MAIL NAC@WINTERNET.COM
,-
.
-.
c.~ ~o~ oo<? P ~?/~h
DEC-19-1997 09:23
NAG
612 595 9837 P.04/04
2.
Timing of Annexations. It was noted that annexations of 40 aaas at a time is not
feasible either to protect the City's infrastructure investments or a landowner's
development planning. An important issue for the City was allowing large parcels
to come into the City without a size restriction. This is an issue for all developm ent
interests, and is particularly acute for industrial development
3. Planning authority in the OAA. City concern over the ability to effectuate its rand
usa plans in the Southwest Area. and make efficient use of its service extensions is
a major issue where the City does not have land use control. New residential
growth in the planned industrial areas would severely interfere with industrial
growth.
Also of issue for the City, but of lesser importance, is a mechanism by which the
agreement will expire and create the incentive to renegotiate the issues in the future.
'\ -' ,")..
"Trot..,.."", ,...",-.,.,....
J~N-20-1998 14:40
NRC
612 595 9837 P.03/06
.
.
.
the adoption of a building and platting moratorium in the OAA pending the adoption
of the new plans and ordinances. The plan is to be bAsed on the City's land use
Elan. 'particularly the Southwest Area Plan, -.and other land use proposals put
together bv the City. The Ordinances are not to be based on County ordinances.
Instead, it was suggested that some fom of City-based hybrid would be developed.
It was also agreed that in addition to the Joint Board and a property owner in the
OM that the City and Township governing bodies would have standing to petition
for an amendment to the plans and/or ordinances.
5.
The Township proposed to change the cost-based exclusion to development from
133% in the Concept to 150%. The City reps did not contest this detail much. .
6_
Both sides agreed with the procedures outlined in this paragraph.
7.
It was left to the City Planner to come up with proposed numbers for the thresholds
mandating a renegotiation of the OAA. [I'm working on it - I can put together a
number for the Council's discussion].
8.
The Township wanted all property, including City-owned property, to follow the
procedures in paragraph 6. However, my notes indicate that Couri will put together
proposed language which will allow the former Remmele parcel to bypass some of
this based upon its proximity to the Kjellberg West property.
9.
This language was not contested too much, with the exception that the City wants
to retain the option of annexation of areas which are to be served with sewer
pursuant to a peA order. This exception would apply in or out of the OM.
10. S- hit the fan. Township wants 10 years taxes prorated on developed land, and
5 years prorated on undeveloped land. Also discussed was the statutory default
rule which is 1000~ the first year, then 90%, 70%, 50%, 30%, finally 10%. Debate
on this topic spilled over into the discussion on the OM boundaries, point 11,
where things got really stagnant.
11_ This item is the sticking point. The township reps opened up by proposing no
change at all. They said that the east area (proposed by the City to be removed)
had always been in and they didn't want to change it. The City responded by
explaining why the City had proposed things as it did:
a. East area out due to inability to service in the foreseeable future, since new
infrastrudure improvements would be directed by the Comp Plan to the
south and west areas - a plan which the Township had publicly approved of.
b.
Orrin Thompson in, due to the lay of the land on that site. that the south 40
acres are wooded. not farmland, and that the single parcel is illogically split
by the original OM line.
'1.-1"
.
.
.
. JAN-20-1998 14:40
612 595 9837 P.04/06
NAC
c.
Franklin Denn parcel out, due to the fact that his land is split by the OAA line
d. Southwest area in, due to the long-term growth direction, and the need to
program long-term infrastructure investments on a solid expectation of
urbanization.
e. Northwest area (Osowski land, primarily), due to the long-tenn growth
direction, and the need to protect the area for future industrial use.
This argument did not persuade the Township reps. The discussion degenerated
into a debate over the fact. that the City had not simply told Orrin Thompson to pack
up and get out of town, whereas the City stated that after 25 years. it was high time
that the original OAA boundary was looked at more closely, given that it was far
from any urban development at its inception, it split parcels randomly, and did not
reflect any long-term infrastructure planning. There was precious little discussion
on any area other than the Orrin Thompson south 40 acres. I noted that the
discussion over the land use plan should have been mostly irrelevant if the
Township did not intend to alter the line at all. As a result, my guess is that the
whole thing boils down to the south part of the Orrin Thompson piece.
12. An extra note was discussed which would allocate attorneys tees to the losing party
in the event of an appeal to District Court.
With this, it was agreed that the parties would return to their respective groups and ask
them to prioritize the three areas proposed to be added to the OM by the City.
1\~~
.' . JAN-20-1998 14: 41 NAC
1Ii\\1, .Uv ';1111~Jl..1 J ! ~: IIU Uu~Ul~/u~~t.l r.l\.
612 595 9837 P.05/06
It.u:bl; 'U~ Oti/lj r. UUl
.
.
.
CONCEPT OUTLINE OF J'C)TENTW..
ORDEIlLY ANNEXA.TION AGB.EEMENT
MONTI~l.l ~ TOWNSBJP/ClTY
S. At least 5ooA. of each parcel.ft"~I!d.:mut be served wi1h sewer and. water
within three years of Aftft""tfon of the property. JfllOt served within 3 y
DO future mwnl!'!YJlnnnll of my p:opatY UDtil5CWC1' and water are o:tco~ed to
50% of said property. ExeeptiODJ to SCOAt rule:
A. Regulatory impossibility outside the City's control (e.g. MPCA will no
allow property to be sewered within 3 ~. time perl.ad).
B. Cost of ~11"'e utilities exeee~t 133% of the City F.ngjfteers estiJnate
(same eslimate as llSed for letter of r:redit7).
6. Annexation procedure:
A. Landowner submits J""'eYRftOD. petition and prtlimin~ plat requir
to the Ci1y.
1
"~,,
$_ . _ j~N-20-1998 14: 41 NAC
IIKI~. Vu '0(.)1\1) !~;'tU VL,)vrHU,).)J:oI r.l\.
612 595 9837 P.06/06
l~L;Ol' ~~~ ~51j r.'UJ
.
B. The Ci~ fonvards this infarmaticm to ~ joint pla,m;,,! board wi1h enou
lead time for the joint plAnni"1 boanlto ma.b a detemUDa1ion and
f;Om'fnen't badi; to the City reprdiD& the proposal's comis~ with the
joint plsYm",g boud 1md.usc plan and contiguity of the properlY to the
City.
C. City grams eqaivalcm ofpP!lnnin~ty' plat approwl (or site plaJ1 approwl .
platting of 1hc property is not required by Qfdiftaru:~e) and. enters into
~e1opment agreeuaP-ftt conci~teDt wid1. the land use plan in the OM.
developet" s apem~t will rcqtIiIe the deve1apcr to agre. to Uast&U s .
sewer' and water to the property to be I1'ft'"ted and requiIc devdoper to
up a letter of credit or other security guarmtceiDg payment of iDstal1a1i
sewer and water I,,,mrl~. The City must also make. a dete""inpiotl that e
property is capable ofhem, laYed. With City sewer md water within a
three year period an4 JDDSt e.ti"'!ltI!! the cost of such. seM.CC cxteOSiOIl.
D. City tben AnnexeS land to be scwcrcd and. waunci withm three YCIIS of
of Jnnfl!YSltion aDd gram fiDal plat approval (or site p1m approvat if
appropriate). Fu.ture p'h.~tlS which have received prelimfn:lllJ plat appro
rem-in in townshiP 1Dlti11hey are ready to have utilities installed.
.
7. Orderly \1nftPJ:aDOD. agtee'ft'l~nt shaD. be in force for lOyears. If1ess tban
acres ofvac:urt resiclcmtiallaDd. acres of
cW'mereiall8Dd. or ~I of~ industrial land remain
the OAA,..cny and TOWDSbip shall have peIiod oftimc (6 ~~?) to
renegotiate agreement liDO new agrccmellt. OAA will t-mJrn-te at end 0 6
month period.
8. City owned land west of'Hilhway 2S will be smn~ immediately upon
approval of this qteeJDCDtbyCity, Townahip andMMB.
9. CitY will ILOt umex. aUen'lPt to 'MI~~ at support the 1D,,~rinn of any
gntcride oftbe O.AA area while me ~ is in force.
10. Tax slwiDg-tD be detcmlinecl.
11. OM area-to be 4n(l!l"l";w'f'!d
12.. ~~ fw7 ~ ~ ~~ F~'
.
2
tt~~
TOTAL P.06
.;
) ...
~
MEMORANDUM
MONTICELLO
TO:
Monticello Orderly Annexation Board
FROM:
Jeff O'Neill, Deputy City Administrator C'Dr",l-+(..cP 10 0 '\
'$ {LV! 6,.; if: M"-" J
DATE:
March 24, 1999
RE:
Monticello Orderly Annexation Area Land Use Plan
This memorandwn forwards a copy of a proposed land use plan for the MOAA. This plan was approved
by the Monticello City Council as a part of its consideration of the MOAA' s land use planning efforts, and
a nwnber of organizations within the City which have provided input on the plan. These include the City's
Industrial Development Committee (IDC) and the City's Planning Commission. Attached is a resolution
avhich outlines reasons supporting the compromise adopted unanimously by the City Council on March 22,
_999. There are some changes to the MOAA's last proposal was summarized as follows:
[1]
[2]
[3]
.
The land east of Silver Springs has been designated as a residential area on both sides of the
Chelsea Road extension.
The "Chadwick Gravel Mine" parcel is programmed for industrial use in this plan. This
recommendation is based on the extensive power line easements cutting through this area, and the
wide separation between any potential residential area and the YMCA property which was
originally thought to provide a potential residential amenity.
The "Gold Nugget" property east ofTH 25 and south of Kjellberg East is split between a
commercial designation along the highway, approximately 400 feet wide, and the remainder as low
density residential. This recommendation stems from the IDC's preference for industrial adjacent
to the Chelsea Road corridor and the freeway and the discontinuous industrial pattern that would be
created by industrial in this area. The previous plan created industrial areas on Gold Nugget land,
on a portion of the "Goeman" property west of 90th Street, the existing industrial park area, and the
future industrial beyond the Orchard Road interchange area. Each of these were separated from
other industrial uses by large areas of residential or commercial land. The highway frontage in the
Gold Nugget area was believed to be better suited for commercial use than either residential or
industrial. A new frontage road connection would be suggested to provide access to this new
commercial district.
1.,/8
Monticello City Hall, 250 E. Broadway, PO Box 1147, Monticello, MN 55362-9245 . (612) 295-27 II . Fax; (612) 295-4404
Office of Public Works, 909 Golf Course Rd., Monticello, MN 55362 . (612) 295-3170 . Fax; (612) 271-3272
.
Memo
Monticello Orderly Annexation Board
Page 2
On a related note, City staff has reservations about the process which has led to the land use plan
disagreements and an extension of the time necessary to complete the MOAA plan. As a part of the initial
negotiations between the City and Township which led to the current OAA agreement, it was understood
by all parties that the City would develop the initial land use recommendations which would then be
considered, and adopted, by the MOAA Board. Naturally, the Board is its own planning authority and
must undergo a complete planning process including public involvement, review, hearing, and adoption.
Nonetheless, the negotiations which led to the agreement never anticipated that the MOAA Board would be
starting from scratch in its land use plan adoption.
Several times, all parties (including the Township's legal counsel) asked the City Planner how quickly a
plan could be prepared and presented for adoption. Since the City was in the process of developing a plan
for the southwest area, and there had been no significant objections to eitherjthat plan, the City's
Comprehensive Plan (which the Township and the MOAA both reviewed and approved of), or the
MOAA's original land use plan which directed residential land use along the southern portion of the OAA,
the City Planner answered that a plan could be presented within a few months to the MOAA. An interim
draft of the plan was included as "Exhibit C", evidence that all parties anticipated that the City would be
developing the draft plan, and that there was little expectation of any conflict. The agreement set a one
year time frame in which to adopt the plan, a date which both parties agreed was far in excess of what
.should be necessary, given the state of the land use planning for the area.
This process changed when the Chadwick gravel mine became an issue for the residents of the MOAA
living near the site. By coincidence, the residents of this neighborhood happened to be at an MOAA Board
meeting when the land use plan was being discussed. Their objections to any industrial use in the area
resulted in the MOAA Board's reconsideration of the entire land use planning area. As a result, the
original intent of the agreement - that the City would be instrumental in developing the draft plan - was
derailed, and the process has taken much longer than anticipated. This change was made easier in that
many members of the MOAA Board - including the County's representative, the City's Planning
Commission representative, and the MOAA Board's staff - were not part of the negotiated agreement.
This background is being provided to reestablish the intent of the current agreement. One of the
shortcomings of the process which has resulted is that a very small part of the interested public has been
involved in the public portion of the plan development. There are several residents of the Dunes and
Prairie Acres area which voiced a strong concern over industrial use on the Gold Nugget site at a recent
City Planning Commission meeting - these residents have not been heard by the Board. Moreover, there
are hundreds of City residents in Klein Farms who would likely be severely impacted by industrial use in
this area. This portion of the public has not been heard from either.
.
1,f!
Memo
. Monticello Orderly Annexation Board
Page 3
In summary, City staff believes that the underlying basis of the OAA agreement was for strong
consideration for the City's interest in developing the land use plan. This in no way minimizes the MOAA
Board's role in planning, nor in the required public involvement for adoption ofland use regulations.
However, it is important that all of the public have the opportunity to participate equally in the process of
consideration and adoption of the plan. The City's compromise draft land use plan, included with this
report, is intended to serve as the basis for the MOAA's consideration and adoption. Full public review of
this plan is encouraged to give the MOAA Board a fair representation of the entire public's opinion of its
pros and cons.
Attachment
.
.
?-,~D
MONTICELLO JOINT PLANNING BOARD
. AGENDA AND STAFF REPORT
I. Approve Agenda; Approve Minutes for March 3, 1999
II. Land Use Plan Review
~7
(,.,.~fC /14 d.(/)
~41l'" ,."llJ (c:Jr
(,l... tOp ~
* 'Ii O"y' )"\
.\ I - S <,;".
/
",r ~-.
.~, ",,'
t' f
1.1- _ t... lJ.
'].01',1 ~b
):\ 1'0 ~ i"''\
,,2J
~ ~ftft
\t,.\.I'/
?'
Enclosed please find the following documents and maps for your review:
- Memorandum from Jeff O'Neill dated March 24, 1999
- Resolution 99-15 from the City of Monticello
- Draft "Monticello Orderly Annexation Area-Land Use Plan- Policy
Considerations
- Color Land Use Plan map labeled City Draft 3/24/99 ~
- Black and white map labeled Monticello Orderly Annexation Area (which is the
last Land Use Plan formally adopted by the Orderly Annexation Area Board)
..-
\(}"'-
~~ C\
,<; ~
/0''''''
V,-'f
Staff have been asked to research the enabling statutes to determine the vote necessary to
adopt a Land Use Plan by the Joint Planning Board. The Board is operating under County
ordinances at present, which require only a majority vote. However, the statute enabling
the formation of Joint Planning Boards (414.0325) refers directly to city enabling
statutes (462.351 to 462.364) as the authority for planning and zoning, and that statute
requires a 2/3, or in the case of a five member board, a 4/5 vote to adopt a plan. It would
have been best if the joint agreement specified the vote required, but in the absence of
such direction, and acknowledging that Counsel may provide different advice, staff
believe that a 4/5 vote of the Board is necessary to adopt a Land Use Plan.
.
Frankly, staff are at a loss to provide appropriate advice to the Board in light of tlle City
Council resolution and the memo from Mr. O'Neill. Mr. O'Neill spends a page of his
memo explaining the "true" intent of the joint agreement between the City and Township.
He implies rather forcefully that the current problems encountered by the Board are partly
a result of the fact that the MOAA staff and several current and former members of the
Board were not part of the negotiated agreement. Staff are always concerned when one
party to an agreement decides to explain its "true" meaning to all the other parties, which
is why staff to the Board have always tried to remain faithful to the wording of the
agreement rather than various explanations of what it is really supposed to mean. IfMr.
O'Neill is right, and the true intent of the joint agreement was that the Joint Planning
Board is supposed to simply adopt the City plan for the area, staff are at a loss to explain
why the agreement does not simply state that intent. Staff agreed to be the administrator
for the Board with the understanding that the intent of the agreement was to foster
cooperation between the Township and the City, and to develop a plan, which, in the
words of the agreement, would be "in the best interest of the City, the Township and their
respective residents."
1
7~4),'1
.
The City Council resolution # 99-15 is in many regards even more troubling and
confusing to staff, because of the respect we hold for the City Council, and all the elected
officials involved in this mater. It is not clear why, but it appears from the resolution that
the entire future of Monticello is dependent on the quick approval of one residential
development, despite the fact that every version of the Land Use Plan under consideration
includes thousands (and likely over ten thousand) acres of land for residential
development. Staff understand that there are rational arguments for the designation of the
"Golden Nugget" area as residential, but do not understand why the resolution needed to
include statements like the following that undermine its credibility.
-"The site terrain of the Golden Nugget site is not suited for industrial
development due to difficulty in developing loading bays."
- "designation of the Golden Nugget area for industrial uses will result in
expensive legal action against the MOAA, which is funded largely by the City of
Monticello"
- "Disparate land use designations will render such areas undevelopable for at
least ten years."
Staff are of the opinion that cooperation is rarely achieved through tlu"eats and
misinformation. t
.
If indeed the true intent of the joint agreement was to adopt the City Plan in the orderly
annexation area in order to generate enough housing to pay for the wastewater treatment
plant, then perhaps the agreement should be modified to make that clear. Otherwise, staff
agree wholeheartedly with Mr. O'Neill that "one of the shortcomings of the process
which has resulted is that a very small part of the interested public has been involved in
the public portion of the plan development..." and that "full public review of this plan is
encouraged to give the MOAA Board a fair representation of the entire public's opinion
of its pros and cons." This plan will have a major impact on the City, Township, County,
School District and, most importantly, the people who live and work in and around
Monticello for years, if not decades, to come. Virtually no resources have been spent on
the development of the plan, and that is not to denigrate the valiant efforts of Mr.
Grittman who was put in the position of trying to develop a Plan to satisfy the Joint
Planning Board while working for the City. In hindsight, the Board should have hired an
independent consultant a year ago to develop a plan, and the process should have
included widespread public participation in the very early stages. In light of the apparent,
current impasse, and considering the importance and impact of the plan, staff still
recommend such a course of action as the most reasonable. The issue is far too important
to be driven solely by the current interests of a handful of developers. Staff suggest that
the most appropriate action for the Board may be to develop a procedure for approving
those few annexations which present no controversy in the short term, and embark on a
more fruitful process to develop a plan, with full citizen participation, that the City,
Township and Joint Planning Board can all endorse.
.
Such action would not be easy, will require a commitment of funds by both the City and
Township, and will require a further extension of the deadline in the joint agreement.
Such a course of action may seem unreasonable at this juncture, but the altematives, such
as no plan and the failure of the agreement, or adopting a plan in conflict with the City
plan, or a continuing impasse, would seem to present the prospect of continuing conflict
for many years to come.
2
7 --.a ~
.
In summary, if four members of the Board are satisfied with the current City proposal,
then the work is nearly done, and we can concentrate on reviewing and expanding the
enclosed narrative policy considerations. If there are not four votes for the current City
proposal, staff recommend that the Board consider extending the deadline again, hiring
an independent consultant or seeking assistance from some other appropriate mediator,
and starting the process over, with an emphasis on a plan to be developed with broad
participation by the public, and especially landowners and residents who currently live in
the affected areas.
cf'JI (c~,~
/-r:~A-sk;f jMoAA
A~{rLc.f To
III. Other Business
f e. 7J ..) € 'S + e.. 1,'.-1A I"" C\. r-u:V'\ 0."\
Ev/.,,;j,,-fC - 7(~!I&..c-P u..;;-t'-t
+""0..1 fO'tTIC/\-<. 0/ (;;~I/t'/lAlse
Plo.../1 R~~(X IU /Vto Ak u~"'~
Sfu.dYr
.
.
, Planning Board Administrator
cc. J. O'Neill
.
3
7;~?J
,.
RESOLUTION 99 - 15
.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
RESOLUTION ADOPTING
A RECOMlYIENDED COMPROMISE LAND USE PLAN
TO BE PRESENTED TO MOAA
WHEREAS, The City adopted the comprehensive plan in 1996 guiding land use changes
from agricultural to urban land uses at the time of annexation. Public input and a public hearing
process was followed in development of the plan, which included input from Township and
MOAA officials. Prior to adoption, the plan was reviewed and supported by the Township and
MOAA. The plan was adopted on a unanimous vote of the City Council in 1996 and has guided
City and developer decision-making since then; and
WHEREAS, it is not the intent of the agreement between the City and Township to grant
a blank slate for the MOAA to have the latitude to establish a land use plan at great variance
from the City's comprehensive plan, however in the spirit of cooperation, there is some latitude
to make adjustments to the City's comprehensive plan in light of Township and MOAA concerns
and input even though these concerns were not expressed prior to City adoption of its
comprehensive plan; and
.
WHEREAS, the City Council has previously voted unanimously to support residential
development at the Gold Nugget site when the following action was taken:
1. Adopted comprehensive plan in 1996 establishing the Gold Nugget site as a
residential area.
2. Approved Klein Fanus agreement governing extension of utilities to Gold Nugget
for residential development.
3. Approved a concept plan PUD for residential development.
4. Made a declaration of negative impact in processing an Environmental
Assessment Worksheet.
WHEREAS, utility infrastnlcture design has been based on the comprehensive plan. An
additional expenditure of over $200,000 is necessary to make Gold Nugget site fully developable
for industrial use rather than residential.
'WHEREAS, the caliber and value of the housing proposed at the Gold Nugget site
exceeds the current estimated median home value in Monticello and will range from $130,000 to
$190,000 as designated in the proposed restrictive covenants; and
.
WHEREAS, moderating residential growth at the Gold Nugget site will be accomplished
by the developers agreements to restrict housing to 50 per year. This will result in 10-year build
out of the site. Fifty (50) homes represents less than one-half of the annual new home LI"
construction projected to support City wastewater treatment funding plan. 7 ". ~ .,..
.
.
.
Resolution 99-15
Page 2
The City needs sanitary sewer hook-up fees to help repay wastewater treatment plant
debt. The Gold Nugget site will generate fees at a rate of $3,000Ihome (adjust 4%/yr) at 50
homes per year for 10 years. This will result in the collection of $1 ,800,916, which represents
17% of the wastewater treatment plant debt of $1 0,800,000.
Trunk sanitary sewer and water funds are needed to pay for oversizing expenses already
funded by the City. Potential sanitary sewer trunk fees from Gold Nugget development over 10
years is $487,000; water is $247,000 for a total of $734,000; and
WHEREAS, a supply of land for residential growth is needed to help support recent
church, school, hospital district, and City debt based on current and projected trends, sufficient
industrial land is identified on the City compromise; and
WHEREAS, school facilities are poised to handle additional school population. Surplus
school capacity exists due to the recent school expansion.
The PI arming Commission supports the compromise plan. The IDC supports residential
development and commercial development at the Gold Nugget site.
The site terrain of the Gold Nugget site is not suited for industrial development due to
difficulty in developing loading bays.
Industrial and commercial development benefits from the employee and market base
resulting from new housing at the Gold Nugget site; and
WHEREAS, a significant share of traffic from Gold Nugget area will utilize School
Boulevard in passing through residential neighborhoods on the way to and from the freeway.
Industrial traffic per acre exceeds residential traffic, and the nature of the traffic will negatively
impact the Klein Farms, Cardinal Hills, and School Campus areas. Industrial areas identified on
the City's compromise are served by roads that pass through commercial or on roads that are on
the edge of residential areas; and
WHEREAS, the City compromise plan agrees with the MOM in designating residential
land uses between the freeway and Silver Springs Golf Course; and
WHEREAS, designation of the Gold Nugget area for industrial uses will result in
expensive legal action against the MOAA, which is funded largely by the City of Monticello;
and
WHEREAS, this is a critical negotiation where it is vital that the MOAA plan be
consistent with the City plan. Disparate land use designations will render such areas
undevelopable for at least ten years.
7"~S--
Resolution 99-15
. Page 3
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: City representatives are directed to represent
the will of the majority of the Council in the land llse designation planning for the MOAA. The
City representatives shall present the City compromise plan (attached as exhibit A) to the MOAA
and take no action except to vote for the plan as presented. Any plan different than the City
compromise plan must come back to the City Council for ratification.
The Southwest Area Plan (exhibit C of Cityrrownship Agreement) shall remain in place
unless the City response to the MOAA plan is adopted.
Adopted by the Monticello City Council this 22nd day of March, 1999.
~~
Ma~r
.
ATTEST:
(--7"" ( J I J! -c-;-a /
"-. / f.c"Cr L..V. /~c.z..zL-
City Administrator //
..,
.
7-w..~
.
Iii
i,i
:i:
.J;0~----
'~Z
.~"
~
---"'--
'1110
c K n ~ ~
g; c !i l i
~ ~ a c ~
C I!. a ~ il
: !!. ~ ~
~ :i' I
J !
D:
i
~
...-----
1-.............- ---- =-
-=- .~---
<,
, '
.-~.....--_r__~----t~----
: I
.~ i i .'o~t
' I
--.,.-+------ I'
I -....~----
I i \\ i
z
".
".
..
('\
l
Ij
~
r-
>
z
o
c:
(J)
m
lJ
I"'"
)>
Z
3:
o
::s
"'
c:r
CD
-
-
~ 0
'" 0
::r
.. a
~ CD
c ..,
~.~
;I;: )>
'" :::J
;: ::s
.. CD
~ ><
.. I>>
"'
-.
n
, "
.
N
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS
COMMUNITYPLANNING ~ DESIGN ~ MARKET RESEARCH
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Monticello Mayor and City Council
-FRGM:--
-Stephen Grittman
..--......- .-." '--'-'~.,__~, n. ____. _..__
DATE:
November 5, 1997
RE:
Monticello - Annexation Petitions in Monticello Township
FILE NO:
191.06
.
This memorandum is intended to outline a potential proposal to Monticello Township to
resolve the annexation disputes currently scheduled for hearing on Monday, November 17.
The proposal is designed to offer the Township a strong incentive to enter into an
agreement which would replace the current Monticello Orderly Annexation Area. Most
importantly, it is designed to facilitate the City's long-term planning for growth beyond its
current boudarie..s.
The advantage to the City for entering into an agreement such as this is that it allows the
..
long term plannina without concern over annexation disputes. The current OAA Order
does not provide this kind of assurances. As you are aware, this shortcoming was the
incentive for the City's original interest in establishing the Urban Service Area agreement,
and also the reason that the Township's offer of an amended agreement did not meet the
City's interests. In addition, the proposed agreement revises the OAA line to better reflect
the City's long term service capacity, growth objectives, and property ownership patterns;
Allows the City to veto incompatible development proposals in unincorporated OAA, and
creates a termination date for the agreement, currently lacking in the OAA Board Order.
The advantage to the Township is that it offers the Township several assurances which it
is unlikely to get if the MMB sides with the City in a disputed annexation hearing. These
assurances include: (1) Property owner petitioned annexations only; and (2) Ten years
tax payments to the Township following an annexation.
1~tAcJ
.
5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST, LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 55416
PHONE 6 12-595-9636 FAX 6 12-595-9837
~)<H If? Ii po
, ,
. The draft agreement includes the following elements:
.
.
OAA Expansion/Alteration
Annexation Initiation
Land Use Regulation in new OAA
Duration of Agreement
Interim Line
Tax-Base Sharing
Timing of Annexations in new OAA
Proposal for Amendment to the Monticello Orderly Annexation Area:
This amendment to the Monticello Orderly Annexation Area would amend the Minnesota
Municipal Board's Order of 1974. P J
I . ~I e
G...AJ'1{;? ~ f
----- ------ - ---------&-~_ e __ 5_____
OM Alteration
The OM line is altered from its current location to
that shown on the attached exhibit. The essence of the
changes are as follows:
A. Additional land is added in the southwest area
to accommodate the City's intent to grow in a
direction which primarily south and west of
current City limits. This land will accommodate
residential, commercial, and industrial growth, as
well as support land uses for that growth.
B. Additional land is added to accommodate the
Orrin Thompson south 40 acres. This land is
added to absorb existing sanitary sewer trunk
line capacity in the area, consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan land use objectives.
C. Land to the east of the current City limits would
be removed from the OM, including both
developed and undeveloped areas.
It is anticipated that the revised OAA boundaries
would be agreed to by the City and the Township, then
submitted to the Minnesota Municipal Board for final
approval. In addition, all existing petitions would be
included as joint resolutions by the City and the
Township.
This section is intended to
offer the Township the
confidence that both
developed and undeveloped
lands east of the City would
not be requested for
annexation.
At this time, it is my
understanding that this area
cannot be served for the most
part mrywqy. Moreover, it
is not within the Comp
Plan's anticipated
development area.
Of greatest concern would
still likely be the Orrin
Thompson piece. The City
could offer some sort of
language declaring certain
surrounding lands as "no
annexation request" zones.
1 ,;}.,
, .
.
Interim Annexation Lines (e. g. Urban Service
Areas. etc.)
There would be no interim annexation lines within the
revised OM.
Annexation Initiation
.
Annexations of property within the revised OM under
___t!Us ~ee_ment ~ou1d be bYT?wn_s~!E Board?~ ______
property owner petition only. The City agrees not to
initiate annexations within the OM on its own
resolution, with the sole exception for City-owned
property. Moreover, the City agrees not to initiate any
annexation by Ordinance. For property owner
petitioned annexation proposals within the OM,
including property owned by the City, the Township
Board hereby agrees to approve a joint resolution for
annexation, pending the approval of the City Council.
If the Township Board initiates an annexation request,
the City will consider location, seIVice, and cost, among
other factors.
.
This agreement would take
the place of both the Urban
Service Agreement and the
current OM.
This offers the Township the
confidence that the City will
not uni{aterally initiate an
annexation proceeding except
on land that it owns.
Morever, we would promise
not to initiate any
- annexation l?Jl ordinance
proceeding.
This should be OKlor the
City, since we have more
petitions than we can handle
anywq.y.
We would suggest, as part of
this concept, that the City
make no references to lands
outside of the OM. If the
Township requests a promise
that the agreement precludes
annexation of other lands,
we would recommend that
the City's position be to
include the specified lands
within the OM, and write
a separate clause relating to
those lands. In this wq.y,
the City could evaluate each
area which the Township
wants to have included in
the agreement.
1'~O
, .
.
Tax Base Sharing
The City agrees to share the existing tax base of
annexed parcels with the Township in a decreasing
amount over a period of years, depending upon the
land use status of the parcel at the time of annexation
as recorded with the Wright County Assessor:
For all parcels annexed to the City from within the
OM, the City agrees to pay an amount to the
Township equal to the Township property tax on the
----date-of--annexation,Iess ten percent of such tax for
every twelve full months passed since the date of
annexation. The first payment shall be made within 30
days of the next May 15 following the date of
annexation, and payments shall be made within 30
days of each successive May 15 thereafter, concluding
with the 10th payment.
.
.
This section is a generous
incentive to the Township w
enter into the agreement.
The idea is that existing
development, such as the
rural subdivisions near the
future industrial park, would
continue to generate the same
reVenue for the Townshipas--
they do now. Moreover,
after an annexation (which
would onlY occur upon
propertY owner petition
anywqy), the Township
would not have the expense
of providing services.
We could shorten the time
frame, but I thought it might
be a minimal cost to the City
with a big enough hook w get
their attention, or that of the
Municipal Board, at least.
The supposition is that few
developed parcels will be
petitioned in unless an
environmental emergenry
arises. Therefore, the City is
not likelY to be on the hook
for servicing areas which
produce no revenue. The
primary exception mqy be
the Monte Club. However,
its tax capacity is likelY to
rise following an annexation,
and the City would capture
all of the increase.
?,~I
.
Land Use Regulation in the new OM
This agreement creates a joint powers building and Although he City would not
zoning authority over the OM. The City's necessarily gain anything lry
Comprehensive Plan shall be the gpverning land use sending requests to the
document within the OM. All requests for zoning, County, this clause is
subdivision, or building permits and/or approvals shall included to build in the
first be submitted to the City's Planning Conunission Township's nonnal zoning
in accordance with the appropriate process for a review process for OAA
recommendation to the City Council, where required. development proposals.
The City Council shall act upon the request pro or con. However, this language gives
If approved, the applicant shall then be-subject-te -the - -the--Qtyan--effectiv~~veto~-
applicable County approval process. If denied by the over proposals inconsistent
City, only a successful appeal through the City's with the City's Comp Plan.
normal appeal process would allow forwarding of the Therefore, sending things on
proposal to the County. The effect of the City's for the County's and
approval would be advisory to the County. Township's nonnal process
would not cause the City
any risk of inappropriate
land uses in the OAA.
.
Timing of Annexations in the new OM
There shall be no timing or staging mechanism in the
new OM agreement. All lands within the OAA
boundary, as revised, shall be considered urban or
suburban in character, and therefore ripe for
annexation, pending appropriate initiation as described
above.
.
It was important to make it
clear that there will no
longer be any real or inferred
amount of development
necessary to <Justify" an
annexation. In our view,
this kind of calculation
makes long tenn
infrastructure planning
highly speculative for both
the City and the landowner.
As a result, we would
recommend that land in the
OM is defined as being
<<annexable" without any
additional review of the land
or the City's ability to serve
it.
7, ~2-
.
Duration of Agreement
This agreement shall be in force for a period of ten This section is intended to
years. Following the ten year period, the agreement create an end to the OM,
may be extended, renegotiated, revised, or allowed to where the current OM has
lapse. Upon written notification to the other party at none. NaturallY, a
least six months prior to the end of the ten year period, renegotiation could Occur at
either the City or Township can announce its intention a'D' time. One of the
to allow the agreement to lapse. In the event no such greatest shortcomings of the
notification is given, the agreement shall be rorrent OM ordered lry the
automatically extended for a period of five years. This Municipal Board is that
agreement -shall- net--be- ex-tende4--autematic-aJ.ly-for--more--ther-e-is-no end to-the-OM
than one five year period. The parties may amend this rules. Therefore, this
agreement at any time prior either to the end of the ten agreement would specificallY
year period, or the end of the five year extension mention that it replaces the
period. original Board Order, and
that it will be in effect for a
certain period of time.
.
.
,,33
.
Council Agenda - 4/12/99
8. Consideration of reviewinl! ordinance amendment establishinl! term )en~th for
Mayor. (R. W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At our last meeting, Council discussed what process would be necessary if the Council
wanted to reconsider the recently~established 4-year term for the Mayor. The process is
quite simple as it was last fall, and that is that the Council can simply adopt an ordinance
amendment indicating that the Mayor's term is 2 years instead of the recently-established
4 years if the Council wanted to revert back to a shorter term.
This item was originally discussed at our August la, 1998, meeting when the ordinance
amendment was adopted creating the 4-year term to be effective January 1, 2001. The
only requirement for changing the Mayor's term is to simply adopt an ordinance
amendment at least four weeks prior to the closing date for filing of candidacy for the
next Mayor's election. As a reference, the motion last summer was made by Bruce
Thielen, seconded by Brian Stumpf, with Clint Herbst voting in opposition to the new
term.
.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1.
Adopt an ordinance amendment creating a 2-year term instead of a 4-year term for
Mayor.
lfthe Council would like to revert baek to a 2-year term for the Mayor, a simple
ordinance amendment by a majority vote is all that is needed.
2. Do not adopt an ordinance amendment at this time.
This would leave the Mayor's term as 4 years effective with the next election
starting January l, 2001.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The staff does not have a recommendation on this ordinance, as it is a policy decision of
the Council.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of current ordinance; Copy of ordinance amendment if changed to 2-year term.
.
15
1-5-10:
.
1-5-11:
1-5-12:
.
SUSPENSION; AMENDMENT OF RULES: The rules and regulations of the Council
may be temporarily suspended by a majority votc of all the Council membcrs and shall
not be repeal cd or amcnded except by a majority vote of the whole Council after notice
has been givcn at some preceding Council meeting.
COMPENSAfION; The monthly salary for offices of Mayor and Council members shall
be as follows:
Mayor;
$450.00 per month
Council Members:
$350.00 per month
,f.
(#124, ]0/12/82)
(#163,8/22/88)
(#196,9/10/90)
(#256,9/12/94)
WORKER'S COMPENSATION - ELECTED OFFICIALS; Pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, Section 176.011, Subdivision 9, Clause 6, the elected officials of the City of
Monticello are hereby include in the coverage of the Minnesota Worker's Compensation
Act.
(# 168, 1/23/89)
MA YORAL TERM: Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 412.022, the term of an elected
mayor shall be four (4) years, effective January 1, 2000.
tUJ'nnr
ord ina,nct"
.,- l
)<" """"".'
.,
o
MONTICELLO CITY ORDINANCE
TITLE IIChpt S/Page 5
.
.
.
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO HEREBY ORDAINS THAT ORDINANCE
SECTION 1-5-13 RELATING TO THE MAYOR TERM BE AMENDED TO READ AS
FOLLOWS:
1~5-l3:
Mayoral Term. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 412.022, the term of an
elected mayor shall be two (2) years, effective January 1, 2001.
Adopted this 12th day of April, 1999.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Administrator
O~J-~
Council Agenda - 4/12/99
.
9. Consideration of closing park restrooms to the public evenines and weekends and
eliminatine the position of Groundskeeper/Maintenance Worker. (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Last summer, the Parks Superintendent, Gregg Engle, in an effort to reduce vandalism,
maintenance time, and overtime, temporarily closed the restrooms to the public after
hours at West Bridge Park, Ellison Park, and Fourth Street Park. It is my understanding
that Gregg had discussed this with the Parks Commission, and they had given their
approval to do so. The public restrooms are therefore closed after 4:30 in the evening
Monday through Friday and closed all weekend unless someone is renting one of the
buildings. Then the renter opens and locks the bathrooms. So that the public would not
be inconvenienced, a rental/satellite type toilet was placed at each one of the locations.
.
I was unaware that the closings had taken place and discussed this with Gregg and
informed him that the City had an ordinance regulating the times of openings and
closings of our parks and cemetery. I informed him that this may need additional study
and would ultimately have to be brought before the City Council. Gregg has indicated
that as vandalism became prevalent in the City of Anoka and many metro park systems,
these measures were adopted in the metro area. To date, J have myself not received a
single complaint from any citizen regarding having to use the satellite toilets rather than
the building restrooms for after hours and weekends. Enclosed you will find a copy of
the ordinance regarding opening and closing of parks and cemeteries.
The Parks Department would also like to eliminate the position of Groundskeeper/
Maintenance Worker and add another Park Maintenance position. The Groundskeeper is
largely responsible for the maintenance of these restrooms and opening and closing them
on weekends, as well as grounds maintenance at other buildings. The Parks Department
has requested that this position be eliminated if we are no longer required to open and
close restrooms after hours and absorb the position within the job description of Park
Maintenance Worker and Seasonal Help. This would require minor clarifications to the
job descriptions for Seasonal Help and for the Park Maintenance Worker. The increase in
cost, (due to the approximately $7 per hour difference between the Groundskeeper
position and the Park Maintenance Worker position), would amount to about $14,560 per
year, assuming the top Groundskeeper hourly wage versus the top Park Maintenance
Worker hourly wage. The Groundskeeper would start at step 1 of the Park Maintenance
scale; consequently, the first few years would not require such additional funding.
.
Deleting the position of GroundskeeperfMaintenance Worker and putting those tasks into
the Park Maintenance Worker position would allow for greater flexibility in the Parks
Department. The job classifications of all Park Maintenance Workers would be the same.
Consequently, task assignment would be simplified and the work force would be more
productive.
16
.
Council Agenda - 4/1 2/99
I f the City Council approves of the closed park restrooms in the evenings and weekends,
and approves the elimination of the Groundskeeper/Maintenance Worker and the creating
of one additional position of Parks Maintenance Worker, the Parks Department would
function more efficiently. The drawbacks to the changes would be:
1. the inability of residents to use the public restroom facilities after hours
2. the increased cost for wages
3. having to create mlother position and bargain for such a position in the future,
should a Groundskeeper type individual be needed with the City.
8. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative would be to approve closing of the public restrooms in the
parks at 4:30 weekdays and all weekends, continuing the use of rent all satellite
toilets during those hours, the elimination of the GroundskeeperlMaintenance
Worker position, and the creation of another Park Maintenance Worker position.
2.
The second alternative would be to keep the restrooms open in the parks between
the hours of 8 a.m. and 10 p.m., seven days per week, and include cemetery hours
from 7 a.m. until ~ hour after sunset as prescribed in City Ordinance, but still
eliminate the position of Groundskeeper/Maintenance Worker and create one
additional Park MaintenmlCe Worker. This would allow for continued flexibility
in the Parks Department, but could increase costs beyond the $14,000 previously
mentioned, as overtime hours would be needed for closing the parks when
seasonal workers are not available.
.
3. The third alternative would be to keep the restrooms open in the parks during the
normal park hours as outlined by ordinance from 8 a.m. until 10 p.m., seven days
a week and cemeteries from 7 a.m. until ~ hour after sunset as also described in
City Ordinance, and also to not eliminate the position of Grounds/Maintenance
Worker nor create an additional Park Maintenance Worker position.
4. The fourth alternative could be a modification in the hours of restroom, park and
cemetery operation as recommended by the City Council. Any of these decisions
affecting the park hours, of course, would require in our ordinance, which could
be completed at another meeting.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
.
The Parks Superintendent, Gregg Engle, who recommends alternative #1, has made some
valid arguments in regard to the action he has taken with Parks Commission's approval to
close the restroom and provide satellite toilets. The City Administrator and myself:
however, have reservations about closing our building facilities at the times when they
are most likely to be needed and used by our residents, that is, after work in the evenings
and on weekends. OUf taxpayers have invested thousands of dollars in these restroom
17
.
Council Agenda - 4/12/99
buildings for convenience at these parks. Closing them seems inappropriate. Should you
decide to keep them open, we may have to be more aggressive in controlling vandalism
so that we do not become another Anoka.
In regard to the elimination of the Groundskeeper position, Rick and I agree with the
Parks Superintendent that this would give the Parks Department greater flexibility and
additional manpower if this position was eliminated and an additional Park Maintenance
Worker created. The actual increase in costs to eliminate the position and keep the
restrooms open may be greater than $14,000 per year, but this may be a small amount to
pay to keep our facilities open and add greater f1exibility and manpower to our Parks
Department. The City Administrator and I would, therefore, recommend alternative #2.
The City Administrator has discussed these proposed changes with the Operating
Engineers Local 49 bargaining unit controlling both of these positions to see how this
affects our union contract. The union steward indicated they have no problems with this
change. The staff would also like direction on the hours for Hillside Cemetery. Should it
be open evenings and weekends and closed in the winter? We should discuss this.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
.
Copy of the ordinance regulating the hours of operation for parks and cemeteries; Copy
of the job description for Groundskeeper/Maintenance Worker; Copy of job description
for Park Maintenance Worker.
.
18
.
.
.
SECTION:
8-6-1 :
8-6-2:
8-6-3:
8-6-4:
8-6-5:
8-6-6:
8-6-7:
8-6-8:
8-6-9:
8-6-1 :
8-6-2:
8-6-3:
8-6-4:
8-6-5:
8-6-6:
8-6-7:
8-6-8:
8-6-9:
CHAPTER 6
PARKS AND CEMETERIES
Purpose
Observation of posted rules
Parking
Refuse
Fires
Snowmobiles
Speed Limit
Park Hours
Cemetery Hours
PURPOSE: It is the purpose of this chapter to protect and promote the public health,
safety, and general welfare of the city of Monticello by regulating the use of City parks
and cemeteries.
OBSERVATION OF POSTED RULES: All posted rules and regulations by the City of
Monticello must be observed in addition to those contained in this ordinance.
P ARKlNG: Parking is allowed only in defined areas. Parking is prohibited on grass or
walk paths.
REFUSE: Refuse must be disposed ofproperIy.
FIRES: Fires are only allowed in barbecue pits or fireplaces and all other fires are
prohibited.
SNOWMOBILES: Snowmobiles are not allowed in cemeteries or the West Riverside
Park.
SPEED LIMITS: All vehicular traffic in City parks and cemeteries is limited to a speed
of 10 mph.
PARK HOURS: All city parks shall be closed to the public between the hours of 10 p.m.
until 8:30 a.m. daily.
(#81, 7/14/80)
CEMETERY HOURS: All cemeteries shall be closed to the public 1/2 hour after sunset
until 7 a.m. daily.
(#244, 10/25/93)
0,-1
MONTICELLO CITY ORDINANCE
TITLE VIII/Chpt 6/Page 1
.
.
.
..
Bulldings and Grounds Maintenance Worker
City or MoatkeDo
Title of Clus: BuilcU:ags and Grounds Maintenance Worker
Effective Date: November 15, 1991
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
General Statement of Duties: Perfonns routine maintenance work on City buildings and
parks; and performs related duties as required.
Supervision Received: Works under the general supervision of the Street and Park
Superintendent
Supervidon 2xercised: None.
TYPICAL DUTIES PERFORMED
The listed examples may not include all duties performed by all positions in this class.
Duties may vary soltlewhat from position to position within a class.
Opens and closes parks, picks up trash, cleans bathrooms, empties bathroom garbage
cans, a.nd locks and unlocks bathrooms.
Locks and unlocks warming house at skating rink, cleans bathrooms, checks to assure
heat is workini and the lights are turned off at night; paints warming house.
Cleans city hall bathrooms; performs routine plumbin: repair 8l1d other routine
maintenance on City Hall bathrooms and at other City buildings.
Removes snow and ice from sidewalks at City buildings; applies sand and deicer as
needed.
Maintains inventory of supplies at each location.
Maintains grounds and landscaping at City Hall and otber city buiIdinss including .
mowing, raking, planting flowers and shrubs, trimming shrubbery, and watering as
needed.
Post! announcements On and changes City information sign.
Maintains stock of new licenses plates at City Hall counter; stores extra license plates in
the basement; collects and disposes of old plates.
Performs routine maintenance and repair on lawn mowers and snow blower.
Assist! other City departments as needed.
(continued on next page)
q-~
.
.
Buildinas and Grounds Maintenance Worker
City of Monticeno
KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, AND ABILITIES
Working knowledge of routine building maintenanc~ repair, plumbing and painting.
Workin, knowledge ot grounds maintenance and landscaping.
Workini ability to operate, repair, and maintain snow removal and grass cutting
equipment.
Working ability to prioritize work and perform duties independently.
Working ability to follow oral and written instructions.
MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS
Valid Minnesota Oass C driver's license or equivalent out of state liceme.
.'
.
q-3
.
.
.
JOB DESCRIPTION
Park Maintenance Worker
City of Monticello
Title olClass:
Effective Date:
Park Maintenance Worker
November 17, 1997
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
General Statement of Duties: Performs routine to skilled labor and maintenance work in the
public works department; and performs related duties as required.
Supervision Received: Works under the technical direction of the Park Superintendent and
general direction of the Public Works Director.
Supervision Exercised: None; may provide technical work direction over summer help.
TYPICAL DUTIES PERFORMED
The listed examples may not include all duties performed by all positions in this class. Duties
may vary somewhat from position to position within a class.
Installs and repairs service utilities as needed, including sewer lines, water lines, sprinkler
lines, etc.
Performs sidewalk and pathway repair and patching.
Performs preventative maintenance and repair of department vehicles, including repairing or
adjusting hydraulic systems and motors, brakes, disc drives, steering, electrical cooling
systems, alternators, starters, etc.
Operates front-end loader and trucks to remove snow from city streets, municipal parking lots,
alleys, sidewalks, pathways and skating rinks during winter; operates sanders and applies
salt to roadways, sidewalks, pathways, and municipal parking lots; may be required to
perform these duties during hours not normally worked.
Assists with the installation and removal of holiday decorations.
Using heavy and light equipment and hand tools, installs and maintains ballfields, playground
facilities and equipment, including planning and placement of equipment, repairing of
swings, slides and other equipment, building sand boxes and providing sand, etc.
Maintains skating rinks, including flooding rinks, clearing snow, including banking snow or
gravel in order to flood rinks, etc.
Applies fertilizer and weed killer in accordance with state regulations as needed to parks and
other public lands; keeps accurate records of same.
Performs miscellaneous maintenance, construction, and repair work as needed on city buildings
and property, including construction, plumbing, pouring concrete and Concrete block
work, welding, basic electrical, painting and staining, sheet rocking and taping, block
work, shovel excavation, etc.
Oversees and assists the work of summer employees including assigning work, training, etc.
Performs miscellaneous cleaning, maintenance and repair work as needed.
Winterizes buildings and sprinklers to keep pipes from bursting.
C:\OFFICE\PARKSIPARKWORK.JOB: 11/17197
Cj_Ll
T:AGE 1 .
.
.
.
JOB DESCRIPTION
Park Maintenance Worker
City of Monticello
Performs routine checks of playground equipment, keeping accurate records of repairs and
maintenance.
Prunes dead or diseased trees using an aerial boom truck.
Uses chain saws safely and proficiently to fell and remove dead or diseased trees.
Operates a trailer or tractor mounted tree spade to transplant trees or shrubs.
Recognizes and controls noxious weeds.
Establishes new turf areas by seeding or laying sod.
Maintains turf and landscape areas by mowing and trimming.
Maintains native prairie grasses through prescribed burns and mowing practices.
Installs and repairs proper informational, directional, regulatory and warning signs.
Trims trees from trails to maintain accessibility.
Keeps accurate records of maintenance and repairs.
Recommends cost savings or performance improvement changes to supervisor.
Assists other city departments as directed.
KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS AND ABILITIES
Knowledge of the repair and maintenance of bituminous and concrete surfaces.
Considerable knowledge of equipment and vehicle maintenance and repair, including procedures,
methods and tools.
Considerable knowledge of the establishment and maintenance of turf areas.
Considerable knowledge of the physical requirements for trees and grasses.
Considerable knowledge of arboricultural practices.
Working knowledge of traffic laws, ordinances and regulations involved in equipment operation.
Considerable skill in the operation of snow removal equipment, mowing equipment, heavy
machinery and other public works and park equipment and vehicles used in construction
and maintenance of parks and related facilities.
Considerable skill in building and grounds maintenance, including carpentry, plumbing, pouring
concrete and concrete block work, welding, basic electrical, painting and staining, sheet
rocking and taping.
Considerable ability to analyze repair and/or maintenance problems and determine appropriate
solutions.
Considerable ability to use all stationary and hand power tools for cutting, drilling and plaining
of wood or metal.
Considerable ability to identify different species of trees and shrubs.
Working ability to interpret construction plans and carry out accordingly.
Working ability to follow oral and written instructions.
Working ability to prioritize work and perform duties independently.
Working ability to work and communicate effectively with City staff and the general public.
q,~
C:\OFFICE\PARKS\PARKWORK.JOB: 11/17/97
- PAGE 2 .
.
.
.
JOB DESCRIPTION
Park Maintenance Worker
City of Monticello
PHYSICAL REQUIREMENTS
Considerable ability to cope with varying work activities in diverse weather condition requires
the individual to be in very good health. Many of the assigned duties require physical strength
and stamina as prolonged periods of lifting such items as logs, chain saws, and digging with a
shovel are not uncommon. Being able to walk for extended periods while carrying a piece of
equipment is also a common procedure. Much of the work performed requires manual dexterity
to safely operate heavy equipment and tools. The person must also be unaffected by extended
periods of being off the ground, whether being in the aerial boom truck or on a ladder painting.
Examples of work are: Chain saw operation, hauling wood, brushing trails, mowing, painting,
spraying for weed control, trimming trees, operations of heavy equipment, shoveling,
landscaping, operation of stationary and hand power tools, and general construction.
MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS
High school diploma or equivalent. Minnesota Class C driver's license (and ability to obtain
Class B within 90 days of hire) and three years of experience, knowledge and skills in park
maintenance including; light or heavy equipment operation and maintenance, construction,
rough and finish carpentry, and landscape turf and tree/plant care. Two year post secondary
education in parks and recreation helpful and may substitute for one year of field experience.
q-IP
C:\OFFICE\PARKS\PARKWORK.JOB: 11/17/97
. PAGE 3 -
_.JC: .
.
Council Agenda - 4/12/99
10. Consideration of presentation of award from the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agencv to the City of Monticello and Professional Services Group for the past vear's
operations of the Wastewater Treatment Facility. (1.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
On March 17, Chuck Keyes, Professional Services Group Project Manager for the
Monticello Wastewater Treatment Facility, and myself accepted an award on behalf of
the City of Monticello from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency at the annual
Wastewater Operators Seminar at the Thunderbird Conference Center in Bloomington.
Governor Ventura was invited to present the awards to those cities that won this year.
However, he was unable to attend, and Karen Stutters, the new director of the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency, was on hand to present the award.
Chuek Keyes would like to officially present the award to the City Council at this
evening's meeting. The award is for excellence of operations of Wastewater Treatment
Facilities and for protecting the waters of the state. No further information is provided.
Chuck will be at Monday evening's meeting to present the award.
.
.
19
.
Council Agenda - 4/12/99
11. Consideration of a proposal to purchase a portion of city nroperty at Dundas Road
and Cedar Street. (R. W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
A few weeks ago I had informed the Council that Mr. Bruce Hamond had expressed an
interest in purchasing approximately 5.35 acres ofland from the City that we obtained
through the tax forfeiture process. This property is located at the intersection of Dundas
Road and Cedar Street south ofI-94. I had provided the Council with an update on
potential purchase options that Mr. Hamond had proposed, but the Council consensus
was to wait until the City had obtained an appraisal on the property before considering
offers to sell.
.
At the direction of the Council, I had obtained quotations trom a number of qualified
appraisal firms to complete seven appraisals for the City of Monticello covering five
parcels of land that the City owns and also two additional appraisals on land that may be
of interest for the City to acquire for future industrial park purposes. As it turns out, the
firm that is working on the appraisals for the City at this time is R.A. Field & Associates,
the same appraiser that Mr. Hamond had used himself on the 5-acre parcel being
discussed here. In other words, Mr. Hamond has agreed to share the appraisal
information he obtained on our 5.35-acre parcel knowing that the City will be getting its
own appraisal from the same firm.
The reason for Mr. Hamond's interest in our property is primarily because of his desire to
relocate the former Hart Medical Clinic building, currently south of the Monticello Ford
site, to a new location. Monticello Ford is currently in the process of expanding their
facility, and the Hart Medical Clinic building either has to be removed or will be
demolished as part of the expansion process. The deadline for removal of the building is
approximately the end of May; and as a result, Mr. Hamond has to find a site quickly if
the building is going to be relocated. Mr. Hamond has modified his original proposal that
the Council received a few weeks ago and is willing to consider purchasing only I acre of
our 5.35 acres at this time to accommodate the needs of the clinic building only. While
Mr. Hamond would like an option on the balance of the property, I don't believe his offer
to purchase I acre is contingent upon obtaining the option for the balance. As you will
note on the appraisal, the approximate I-acre market value has been estimated at $72,897.
Mr. Hamond has proposed a purchase price for 1 acre of $68,500 and would like an
option on the balance of the property at the same price per acre. Total purchase price of
the entire parcel would then amount to $366,475, which is fairly close to the estimated
market value noted in the appraisal.
.
The original goal of obtaining this property in the tax forfeiture process was to repay
ourselves for the special assessment debt that had accrued on the property and to also
allow us to realign Cedar Street slightly to the east of its present location. I'm sure the
Council would agree that ultimately it's in the best interest of the City to get this parcel
back on the tax rolls and to also receive fair compensation for the property. When
20
.
Council Agenda - 4/12/99
reviewing the appraisal, which is the same appraisal we will get ourselves, the offer being
proposed seems reasonable for the I-acre parcel. What hasn't been determined is the
location of the I acre should we decide to split the parcel; but if it's acceptable to the
Council, I would suggest the I acre be split from the northwest corner of the property,
allowing it to front on Cedar Street.
While I believe Mr. Hamond's proposal seems reasonable in light of the appraisal
provided, it should he noted that the property has not been marketed or publicly been
made available to other individuals. Likewise, I have not had any inquiries from other
parties concerning this property. I believe a concern Mr. Hamond has is if the Council
wmlts to advertise this property for sale or request RFP's from other interested developers
before considering the sale, the time frame would likely not work in his schedule, as he
needs to know fairly Soon whether he cml acquire at least I acre of this property. As
Highway 25 is improved and Dundas Road is extended to Highway 25, the property
should continue to have commercial value in the future. On the other hand, having an
offer that is fairly close to the appraised value without the City having to market the
property or pay a commission to sell it is also very attractive.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
.
1.
The first alternative would be to consider entering into a purchase agreement with
Mr. Hamond for his purchase of a I-acre parcel at his proposed price of $68,500.
Under this option, the Council could propose that selling 1 acre would be
acceptable, with the I acre being located in the northwest corner of the property
off of Cedar Street.
2. The second alternative could be to agree to the sale of 1 acre as proposed and to
also provide Mr. Hamond with an option on the remaining 4.35 acres at the same
price with terms and conditions to be determined for the option agreement.
3. The third alternative could be to agree to sell the I-acre parcel and/or provide an
option for the additional land at the appraised value of $72,000 per acre.
Under this option, the Council would be agreeable to the sale but would
counteroffer with the sale price being based on the appraised value provided.
4. The fourth alternative would be to not consider a sale at this time but to offer the
property for sale.
.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
While I don't believe the City intends to be lmld speculators, I had originally had
concerns about selling any city property without first obtaining an appraisal and
attempting to receive fair value for the property. Since Mr. Hamond already has an
21
.
Council Agenda - 4/12/99
appraisal and its from the same firm that the City will be using on all our appraisal
requests, it appears that Mr. Hamond's offer f{)r purchasing at least 1 acre is very
reasonable in light of the appraised value. Whether or not the City could receive more or
less by subdividing this property or selling it as one large tract of land remains
speculative. It is unlikely that the value of the land will diminish with the Highway 25
improvement and the opening of Dundas Road to Highway 25; but then putting the
property back on the tax rolls as Soon as possible at or near the appraised value is very
attractive. If the purchase price is set near or at the appraised value, it would be my
recommendation that the Council seriously consider the proposal under any of the
alternati ves I - 3.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of appraisal report and purchase proposal.
.
.
22
.
Work Paper
Project:#: 990001
Project Desc: Cedar Street Commerical Property
Org Date: January 9, 1999
Rev Date: April 7, 1999
Document #:
WOrk Paper #: Hart_PAS_prOj2B
Subject: Cedar Street Property - Purchase Agreement Specifications
Description
Target
Rick Wolfsteller
City Administrator
City of Monticello
250 Broadway E.
Monticello, MN 55362
Dear Rick,
Attached is a revised formal purchase agreement to acquire 1 acre of the avalible 5.35 acres of
PID# 155-500-42300 and PID# 155-500~142303 on Cedar Street. Included is a formal proposal
and a complete copy of the licensed appraisal performed by R. A. Field and Associates on the
two parcels. A copy of this material is included for each council member to review prior to the
City Council meeting on Monday night.
· The sne plan requirements for the building, parl<ing locations, and site landscaping call for a /01
siZe of 298.83' by 170.00' by 260.47' by 115.00' (see attached Plat map, Building sketch,).
::a
Request for approval
Of the avalible 5.35 acres on PID# 155~500-142300 and 142303 (see attached), we are
requesting the City of Monticello to approve the sale of 1 acre at the purchase price of $68,500
per acre. One acre is for the location of the building, parking and site landscaping. We are also
requesting the city to approve an option in the agreement to purchase the remaining 4.35 acres
for future COmmerical development.
I am looking forward to presenting our project at the council meeting on Monday April 12th.
Please review this material before the meeting. Call me at 475~0242 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Bruce Hamond
.
11-1
.
Work Paper
Project:#: 990001 Work Paper #: HART _PAS_proj2A
Project Desc: Cedar Street COMMERCIAL PROPERTY
Org Date: 12/15/98
Rev Date: 4n/99
Document #:
Subject: Cedar Street Property. Purchase Agreement Specifications
Property Description: Comer of Cedar Street and Dundas Road
PID#: 155-500-142303
Monticello, MN 55362
Property Description: Cedar Street
PID#: 155.500.142300
Monticello, MN 55362
Agent: Rick Wolfsteller
City Administrator
City of Monticello
250 Broadway E.
Monticello, MN 55362
612.295-2711 buffalo clinic
.
Purchaser:
Bruce Hamond
VisiCom Inc
PO Box 488
1021 West River St
Monticello, MN 55362
Purchase Price:
$68,500 (1 acre)
Optional: Option in agreement to purchase remaining 4.35 acres at
$68,500 per acre.
Purchase Date:
On or before April 17, 1999
Purchase Contingent on:
General Terms:
Seller acceptance of Financial Terms of this Purchase Agreement
Inspection of environmental condition of property.
Wright County validation of commercial property zoning.
Validation of clear title by City of Monticello.
Purchaser ability to physically move the building.
.
II~~~
.
Work Paper
Project:#: 990001 Work Paper #: HART _PAS_proj2A
Project Desc: Cedar Street COMMERCIAL PROPERTY
Org Date: 12/15/98
Rev Date: 4n/99
Document #:
Subject: Cedar Street Property - Purchase Agreement Specifications
Financial Terms:
Purchase price __
Number of Acres ==
Price per Acres __
$68,500
1.00
$68,500
$1,000
Earnest money __
Option Exercise Term~:
.
PID#1 55-500-142300 and PID#1 55-500~ 142303 is Currently raw undeveloped property.
VisiCom Inc. intends to develop these properties in phases for commercial business
usage. Phase I - The Hart Memorial medical building will be moved to a section of
property PID#155.500.142300.
When the raw property for PID# 155-500~142300 and 142303 is assigned to developed
property, the option in the agreement will be exercised and full payment for the
developed acre will be made by VisiCom Inc. to the City of Monticello. Clear title for
purchased acres would be provided by the City of Monticello to VisiCom Inc.
Project Overview
My family has been residents of Monticello for 19 years. We have raised our children
here and have participated in many local and community activities. We have just
completed the renovation and upgrade of the oldest commercial building in Monticello. I
am currently a trustee and board member for the Monticello~Bjg Lake Community
Hospital
We have been working on the Hart medical building project since September 1998.
This project continues our commitment to revitalize viable commercial properties in
Monticello. The Hart medical building is scheduled to be demolished some time after
May 31 st of this year as part of the expansion and remOdeling project for the Monticello
Ford Dealership. We have acquired the building from Dave Peterson.
.
11-3
.
.
.
Work Paper
Project:#: 990001 Work Paper#: HART_PAS_proj2A
Project Desc: Cedar Street COMMERCIAL PROPERTY
Org Date: 12/15/98
Rev Date: 4n/99
Document #:
Subject: Cedar Street Property - Purchase Agreement Specifications
Property Usage and Benefits
This is a beautiful building and has excellent features for a commercial service or a
medical practice business. The two PID locations on Cedar street that the city owns
represent ideal locations for the relocation of the building.
t
These properties are within the City of Monticello which make it attractive for
potential lease tenants.
They replicate a very similar land topography to the present location of the
building.
They are close to the present location which makes the physical move easier.
We believe that the development of this project will enhance the area and
supports the land use plan for the city.
We have paid for a Professional license appraisal to determine the property
value.
Re-engage property on the tax roles as property is developed.
Beautiful and fully fUnctional 4950 sq ft building will be saved from
condemnation.
Building will be used to provide place of work for employees of business.
This constitutes a letter of intent to purchase one or two acres of property and proceed with
completing a formal purChase agreement to complete the sale.
L:/ I/~
4r> I ( /'l-ff
/
Bruce A. Hamond
President
VisiCom Inc.
Date
I/-lf
..
.
..
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
.
PLAT MAP
\ \ ,
\,,\u\
\ \
\... f
--\-' -
\ ;,
,.. ...',. ,",..r'.. , ...: ... '1.
f ., ..,."
I
I
I
'*
.Oft.
(..' .. ..... ,....
~
.
'"
.
..
..
.
..
'I
....
I....
r.-,
,;;
" "
t':!
I~
~'":
9
,
11- S -,
~EC-14-ge MON 12:43 PM ~ R FIELD
1512 4:S4 1$7'11
.
.
.
I'*UOO
I..
C
....
t:
r..)\IoI ...It,,,
I ,
142~OI
~
..
y
,..~
',I .....' ~"t.
... "I...~
'f""It! "
H'
. ..
III: 0 I
1,,'Z,Oa ; ~ 114UO~ ~ I
I
I . ..,,, .11. ..
~. . "I. ~..
I
.
'.
....
"~;~
"tI'
'I/'I(~' -'-
l".e1
~ -
225 Jj';:7
.!'
YtJL 4cJ
11-7
,.
..
.
I
~
w._.. _~
. ... ..
o 0 "" Ii
- -. ''\ " ,
.. .
..\
.. \
.
+
+
e.
..
..
..
..
+
...
..
.. ..
+
'.
II " --...-
+ .:=-=~~
_An .._ ,____~~ .~-
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
4111f25/1999 08:48:53
Schedule of Bills
CITY OF MONTICELLO
GL050S-V06.00 COVERPAGE
GL540R
Reoort Selection:
RUN GROUP... 00325 COMMENT... 3/25 CKS
DATA-JE-ID
DATA COMMENT
-------------- -~----------------------
0-03251999-789 3/25 CKS
Run Instructions:
Jobo Banner Copies Form Printer Hold Space LPI Lines CPI
J 01 Y S 6 066 10
.
.
-- -..--- - -. -"-'.-. - -.. .- . -. -.-
-----.---..---.---- - - -
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM CITY OF MONTICELLO
.25/1999 08:48:53 Schedule of Bills GL540R-V06.00 PAGE 2
VENDOR NAME
DESCRI PTION AMOUNT ACCOUNT NAME FUND & ACCOUNT CLAIM INVOICE PO# FIP 10 LINE
CYBERSPACE SOLUTIONS, IN
FIRE DEPT 161.41 REPAIR & MTC - MACH & EO 101.42201.4044 9900510 189 00010
DAHLHEIMER DISTRIBUTING
3.125.81 BEER 609.49150.2520 42526 189 00060
36.25CR BEER 609.49150.2520 42813 189 00059
3,689.62 *VENDOR TOTAL
DAY DISTRIBUTING COMPANY
469.00 BEER 509.49150.2520 56088 789 00081
DEHN TREE CO
SHADE TREE 5,058.75 MISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 224.46102.3199 031699 789 00011
DYNA SYSTEMS
STREETS 549.35 MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 101.43127.2199 10043400 789 00091
EMERGITEK CORPORATION
FIRE DEPT 1,678.03 REPAIR & MTC - VEHICLES 101.42201.4050 5571 789 00012
FLESCH'S PAPER SERVICES,
. 105.44 MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 609.49754.2199 1227230 789 00078
G & K SERVICES
WATER 53.85 UNIFORM RENTAL 601.49440.4170 789 00016
PW ADM 26.70 UNIFORM RENTAL 101.43110.4170 789 00017
PW INSP 75.15 UNIFORM RENTAL 101.43115.4170 789 00018
STREETS 146.55 UNIFORM RENTAL 101.43120.4170 789 00019
PARKS 406.50 UNIFORM RENTAL 225.45201.4170 789 00020
ENV CHARGE, SALES TAX 93.08 MISC OTHER EXPENSE 101.43120.4399 809365 789 00013
SEWER 51.75 UN I FORM RENTAL 602.49490.4170 813452 789 00015
SHOP TOWELS 44.70 MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 101.43127.2199 817582 789 00014
898.28 *VENDOR TOTAL
GENERAL RENTAL CENTER
STREETS 77.71 MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 101.43120.2199 604633 789 00093
STREETS 35.13 MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 101.43120.2199 604639 789 00092
112.84 *VENDOR TOTAL
GLASS HUT/THE
SHOP 404.78 REPAIR & MTC - MACH & EQ 101.43120.4044 98-1537 789 00021
GREG LARSON SPORTS
PARKS 111.09 CLOTHING SUPPLIES 225.45201.2111 I 76983 789 00022
GRIGGS, COOPER & COMPANY
. 24.00 FREIGHT 609.49750.3330 28635 789 00061
2,149.96 LIQUOR 609.49750.2510 28635 789 00062
19.50 FREIGHT 509.49750.3330 28636 789 00065
735.15 WINE 609.49750.2530 28636 789 00066
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM CITY OF MONTICELLO
.25/1999 08:48;53 Schedule of Bills GL540R-V06.00 PAGE 5
VENDOR NAME
DESCR I PTI ON AMOUNT ACCOUNT NAME FUND & ACCOUNT CLAIM INVOICE POll F/P ID LINE
O'NEILL/JEFF
CELL PHONE REIMB 169.58 TELEPHONE 101.41910.3210 789 00134
OLSON, USSET & WEINGARDE
HWY 25 1, 797 .25 PROF SRV - LEGAL FEES 450.49201.3040 11 789 00130
COMM CENTER 850.75 PROF SRV - LEGAL FEES 461.49201.3040 11 789 00131
GEN 270.00 PROF SRV - LEGAL FEES 101.41601.3040 9 789 00129
KJELLBERG 34.00 PROF SRV - LEGAL FEES 101.41601.3040 98 789 00132
GENERAL 365.50 PROF SRV - LEGAL FEES 101.41601.3040 98 789 00133
3,317.50 *VENDOR TOTAL
PAWELK/TOM
STEEL TOE 800TS REIMB 89.00 CLOTHING SUPPLIES 225.45201.2111 789 00212
PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS
0.64 FREIGHT 609.49750.3330 478365 789 00068
77.50 LI OUOR 609.49750.2510 478365 789 00069
8.50 FREIGHT 609.49750.3330 478366 789 00070
393.55 WINE 609.4975'0.2530 478366 789 00071
21.40 MISC TAXABLE 609.49750.2540 478366 789 00072
501.59 *VENDOR TOTAL
.EY BOWES
CH-POSTAGE MACHINE RENT 504.00 EQUIPMENT RENTAL 101.41940.4150 2/99 TO 5/99 789 00036
RELIABLE CORPORATION/THE
DATA PROC 115.85 MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES 101. 41920.2099 NYS00200 789 00135
CH 9.75 MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES 101.41940.2099 NYS00200 789 00136
125.60 *VENDOR TOTAL
RELIANT ENERGY
CH 163.82 GAS 101.41940.3830 789 00103
DEP REG 48.76 GAS 101.41990.3830 789 00104
PARKS 71. 37CR GAS 225.45201.3830 789 00105
WATER 9.59 GAS 601.49440.3830 789 00106
FIRE STATION 328.51 GAS 101.42201.3830 789 00107
SHOP/GARAGE/MAl NT 2,756.65 GAS 101.43127.3830 789 00108
LIBRARY 89.32 GAS 211.45501.3830 789 00109
WWTP 35.71 GAS 602.49480.3830 789 00110
3,360.99 *VENDOR TOTAL
RIVERSIDE OIL
STREETS 714.60 EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS 101.43120.2210 21939 789 00038
STREETS 31.68 EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS 101.43120.2210 21942 789 00039
746.28 *VENDOR TOTAL
~S GOURMET ICE 62.85 MISC TAXABLE 609.49750.2540 31427 789 00077
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM CITY OF MONTICELLO
.5/1999 08:48:53 Schedule of Bills GL540R-V06.00 PAGE 6
VENDOR NAME
DESCR I PT! ON AMOUNT ACCOUNT NAME FUND & ACCOUNT CLAIM INVOICE POll FIP 10 LINE
RUFFRIDGE JOHNSON EQUIPM
PARKS 61.84 MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 225.45201.2199 C12315 789 00137
SALZWEDEL/PATRICIA
AN CONTROL CONTRACT 1.197.50 PROF SRV - ANIMAL CTRL 0 101.42701.3120 APRIL 15 789 00112
SENSIBLE LAND USE COALIT
JEFF 30.00 CONFERENCE & SCHOOLS 101.41301.3320 789 00138
MAYOR 30.00 CONFERENCE & SCHOOLS 101.41110.3320 789 00139
60.00 *VENDOR TOTAL
SIMPSON/CYNTHIA R
FIRE HALL CLEANING 50.00 PROF SRV - CUSTODIAL 101.42201.3110 MARCH 789 00037
SPECTRUM SUPPLY CO.
STREETS 209.72 MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 101.43127.2199 76484 789 00113
SPRINGSTED
GEN OBL IMP BONDS 1997A 250.00 FISCAL AGENTS' FEES 332.47001.6201 789 00140
SUMMIT SUPPLY CORPORATIO
~RKS-PLAYGROUND IMP 258.01 IMPROVEMENTS 225.45201.5301 12656 789 00041
TAYLOR LAND SURVEYORS IN
8LDG INSP-IONING CODE 175.00 MISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 101.42401.3199 97408 789 00042
THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMP
74.40 BEER 609.49750.2520 789 00056
56.40 BEER 609.49750.2520 031999 789 00055
3.311.10 BEER 609.49750.2520 156703 789 00057
173.40 MISC TAXABLE 609.49750.2540 156709 789 00054
3,615.30 *VENDOR TOTAL
TRUMBULL RECREATION SUPP
PARKS-RIVER MILL PARK 125.93 IMPROVEMENTS 225.45201.5301 6931 789 00043
TWIN CITY SUPPLY. INC
TREE PLANTING 24.85 MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 224.46102.2199 00090927 789 00044
U S POSTAL SERVICE
CH 2.000.00 POSTAGE 101.41301.3220 MTR 1126272021 789 00141
US FILTER-WATERPRO
WATER 250.50 METERS & VALVES FOR RESA 601.49440.2271 5098672 789 00045
WATER 3,024.75 METERS & VALVES FOR RESA 601.'49440.2271 5160406 789 00046
3.275.25 *VENDOR TOTAL
~ASTE SERVICES. INC
2,806.09 PROF SRV - REFUSE COLLEC 101.43230.3100 3/01 TO 3/11 789 00142
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM CITY OF MONTICELLO
.5/1999 08:48:53 Schedule of Bills GL540R-V06.00 PAGE 7
VENDOR NAME
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ACCOUNT NAME FUND & ACCOUNT CLAIM INVOICE POll F/P ID LINE
VENTURE PUBLISHING, INC
PARKS 69.40 DUES, MEMBERSHIP & SUBSC 225.45201.4330 00900832 789 00047
VIKING COCA COLA
LIQUOR 204.65 MISC TAXABLE 609.49750.2540 789 00048
CH 117.58 MISC OTHER EXPENSE 101.41940.4399 789 00049
322.23 *VENDOR TOTAL
WATER LABORATORIES, INC
WATER 20.00 MISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 601.49440.3199 99C-127 789 00050
WATER 20.00 MISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 601.49440.3199 99C-156 789 00051
40.00 *VENDOR TOTAL
WATSON COMPANY, INC/THE
0.35 FREIGHT 609.49750.3330 537535 789 00079
283.22 MISC TAXABLE 609.49750.2540 537535 789 00080
283.57 *VENDOR TOTAL
WRIGHT COUNTY AUDITOR-TR
SCERG GRANT REIMB 2,760.51 GRANT REIMBURSEMENT 222.46501.6601 789 00114
4111rHT COUNTY SURVEYOR
PS 10.00 MAPS 101.41301.2580 789 00052
WSB & ASSOCIATES, INC.
GEN ENG 824.00 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 101.41910.3030 01010.00-00021 789 00152
STATE AID NETWORK 667.75 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 101.41910.3030 01010.09-00008 789 00154
ST AID NETWORK 333.00 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 101.41910.3030 01010.09-00009 789 00182
MONTICELLO MAPS 2,778.50 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 101.41910.3030 01010.27-01013 789 00151
MONTICELLO MAPS 1,875.90 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 101.41910.3030 01010.27-01014 789 00183
GEN LOT SURVEY 232.50 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 101.41910.3030 01010.30-00998 789 00199
GEN LOT SURVEY 46.50 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 101.41910.3030 01010.30-00999 789 00143
ST HENRY 312.00 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 462.49201.3030 01010.44-01008 789 00184
COMP WATER RESOURCE 609.50 MISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 262.49201.3199 01010.53-00008 789 00157
MONTICELLO COMP WATER 6,282.75 MISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 262.49201.3199 01010.53-00009 789 00185
E OAK MEADOWS 124.00 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 101.41910.3030 01010.57-00011 789 00150
KJELLBERG W 90.50 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 466.49201.3030 01010.60-00003 789 00177
KJ ELLBERG W 877.00 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 466.49201.3030 01010.60-00004 789 00178
MONTI-BL HOSPITAL 4,925.75 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 101.41910.3030 01010.63-00012 789 00147
1-94 INTERCHANGE 1,764.00 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 101.41910.3030 01010.67-00004 789 00156
RIVER MILL 3RD/4TH 121.13 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 101.41910.3030 01010.68-00010 789 00186
ST HENRY 25.75 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 101.41910.3030 01010.72-00011 789 00187
GOLD NUGGET 93.00 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 101.41910.3030 01010.73-00007 789 00201
GOLD NUGGET 1,601.75 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 101.41910.3030 01010.73-00008 789 00200
GOLD NUGGET 428.75 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 101.41910.3030 01010.73-00008 789 00202
WILDWOOD RIDGE 93.00 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 101.41910.3030 01010.75-00011 789 00173
~LDWOOD RIDGE 273.25 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 101.41910.3030 01010.75-00012 789 00188
. RE STATION DRIVEWAY 86.00 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 101.41910.3030 01010.77-00005 789 00174
ST HENRY'S 90.13 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 101.41910.3030 01010.81-00005 789 00149
---.... .----.-. ---~,-,----, --- .-.--. ---- -
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM CITY OF MONTICELLO
~25/199g 08;48;53 Schedule of Bills GL540R-V06.00 PAGE 8
VENDOR NAME
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ACCOUNT NAME FUND & ACCOUNT CLAIM INVOICE POll F/P ID LINE
WSB & ASSOCIATES, INC.
RIVER FOREST 93.00 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 101.41910.3030 01010.83-00007 789 00175
RIVER FOREST 205.00 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 101.41910.3030 01010.83-00008 789 00189
5T AR CITY BLDERS 46.50 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 101.41910.3030 01010.84-00001 789 00176
STAR CITY BLDERS 325.50 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 101.41910.3030 01010.84-00002 789 00190
AMCON HOTEL 90.50 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 101.41910.3030 01010.85-00001 789 00205
AMCON HOTEL 124.00 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 101.41910.3030 01010.85-00002 789 00206
LYMAN/EMMERICH 1,862.00 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 101.41910.3030 01010.88-00005 789 00170
GOLD NUGGET 20.00 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 101.41910.3030 01010.89-00004 789 00158
PARKING LOT OVERLAYS 129.00 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 101.41910.3030 01010.90-00008 789 00192
7TH STREET 565.00 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 462.49201.3030 01010.91-00006 789 00144
PARKING LOT OVERLAYS 344.00 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 101.41910.3030 01010.910-0007 789 00171
7TH ST STUDY 541. 75 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 101.41910.3030 01010.94-00003 789 00166
ROLLING WOODS 90.13 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 101.41910.3030 01010.96-00003 789 00172
WATER & SEWER TRUNK 4,794.00 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 101.41910.3030 01010.97-00002 789 00162
WATER & SEWER TRUNK 1,796.00 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 101.41910.3030 01010.97-00003 789 00161
RIVER VIEW SO 943.00 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 101.41910.3030 01010.98-00001 789 00207
RIVER VIEW SQ 1,353.75 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 101.41910.3030 01010.98-00002 789 00208
RIVER VIEW SQ 1,145.88 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 101.41910.3030 01010.98-00003 789 00209
LITTLE MTN TOWN HOMES 93.00 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 101.41910.3030 01010.99-00001 789 00204
LYMAN/EMMERICH 107.25 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 101.41910.3030 0101088-000006 789 00191
~IAR OAKES 2ND 3,927.19 CONTRACTS PAYABLE 447.20601 01023.00-00001 789 00153
25 2,251.75 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 450.49201.3030 01033.00-01050 789 00169
TH 25 6,815.76 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 450.49201.3030 01033.00-01051 789 00193
CHELSEA ROAD/SCHOOL BLVD 276.00 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 101.41910.3030 01033.30-00010 789 00179
SCH BLVD SJR REPORT 596.50 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 101.41910.3030 01033.31-00004 789 00203
TH 25 1,383.00 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 450.49201.3030 01033.32-00003 789 00180
TH 25 731.00 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 450.49201.3030 01033.32-00004 789 00145
TH 25 930.00 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 450.49201.3030 01033.40-00014 789 00163
TH 25 1,581.00 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 450.49201.3030 01033.40-00015 789 00194
TH 25 81.50 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 450.49201.3030 01033.50-00004 789 00164
TH25 7,502.00 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 450.49201.3030 01033.60-00003 789 00165
TH25 9,316.63 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 450.49201.3030 01033.60-00004 789 00146
KLEIN FARMS 4TH 1,640.50 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 458.49201.3030 01059.21-00011 789 00195
7TH STREET 195.00 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 462.49201.3030 01087.01-00005 789 00167
7TH STREET CONSTR 40.00 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 462.49201.3030 01087.01-00006 789 00196
RESURECTION CHURCH 73.00 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 101.41910.3030 01096.01-00008 789 00148
COMM CENTER 822.00 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 461.49201.3030 01101.01-00004 789 00197
CSAH 75 132.75 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 101.41910.3030 01109.00-00007 789 00159
CSAH 75 5,460.00 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 101.41910.3030 01109.10-00003 789 00160
CSAH 75 17,471.38 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 101.41910.3030 01109.10-00004 789 00181
CR 118 PATHWAY 272.00 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 460.49201.3030 01125.00-00004 789 00155
SE BOOSTER STATION 850.00 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 101.41910.3030 01129.00-00005 789 00168
CR 118 UTIL 772.00 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING f 101.41910.3030 01134.01-00004 789 00198
102,346.63 *VENDOR TOTAL
.OTH BRUSH WORKS, INC
REElS 560.72 MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 101.43120.2199 68086 789 00211
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
~5/1999 08:48:53
VENDOR NAME
DESCRIPTION
REPORT TOTALS:
.
.
AMOUNT
206,430.53
Schedule of Bills
ACCOUNT NAME
FUND & ACCOUNT
RECORDS PRINTED - 000213
CITY OF MONTICELLO
GL540R-V06.00 PAGE 9
CLAIM INVOICE PO# F/P ID LINE
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM CITY OF MONTICELLO
.5/1999 08:48:58 Schedule of Bills GL060S-V06.00 RECAPPAGE
GL540R
FUND RECAP:
FUND DESCRIPTION DISBURSEMENTS
----------------------------
101 GENERAL FUND 83,814.41
211 LIBRARY FUND 316.82
213 HRA FUND 106.00
222 SCERG (ECON RECOVERY GRANT) 5,243.96
223 CMIF (CENT MN INIT FUND) 1,100.21
224 SHADE TREE FUND 5.083.60
225 PARK FUND 1,090.91
226 COMMUNITY CENTER 189.00
262 SANITARY SEWER ACCESS FUND 13,512.29
332 1997A G.O. IMPR BOND 250.00
447 96-02C BRIAR OAKES 2ND 3,927.19
450 96-04C HWY25/MNDOT IMPR 33,154.89
458 97-04C KLEIN FARMS 4(LION'S) 1,640.50
460 98-02C PED BRIDGE/CR 118 272.00
461 98-03C COMMUNITY CENTER 31,207.61
462 98-12C 7TH STREET EXTENSION 1,112.00
466 99-01C KJELLBERG WEST SAN S 2,370.00
601 WATER FUND 4,945.20
. SEWER FUND 87.46
MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND 17,006.48
TOTAL ALL FUNDS 206,430.53
BANK RECAP:
BANK NAME
DISBURSEMENTS
GENL GENERAL CHECKING
LIQR LIQUOR CHECKING
189,424.05
17,006.48
TOTAL ALL BANKS
206,430.53
THE PRECEDING LIST OF BILLS PAYABLE WAS REVIEWED AND APPROVED FOR PAYMENT.
DATE ............
APPROVED BY
.
aRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
04/07/1999 14:15:05
.
Schedule of Bills
CITY OF MONTICELLO
GLOSOS-V06.00 COVERPAGE
GL540R
Report Selection:
RUN GROUP... M331D COMMENT... 3/31 MANUAL CKS
DATA-JE-ID
DATA COMMENT
-------------- -----------------------~
M-03311999-778 3/31 MANUAL CKS
Run Instructions:
Jobq Banner Copies Form Printer Hold Space LPI Lines CPI
J 01 Y S 6 066 10
.
.
.- --- - -. --- -.. - -. -
--- -_.-~ -.-.- - ------. - -
eRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
04/07/1999 14:15:06
.OR NAME
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
REPORT TOTALS:
15,467.89
ACCOUNT NAME
RECORDS PRINTED - 000036
.
.
Schedule of Bills
FUND & ACCOUNT
CITY OF MONTICELLO
GL540R-V06.00 PAGE 3
CLAIM INVOICE PO# FIP 10 LINE
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
04/07/1999 14:15:08
.
FUND RECAP:
Schedule of Bills
FUND DESCRIPTION
DISBURSEMENTS
101 GENERAL FUND
265 WATER ACCESS FUND
436 93-14C WWTP EXPANSION PRJ
450 96-04C HWY25/MNDOT IMPR
461 98-03C COMMUNITY CENTER
462 98-12C 7TH STREET EXTENSION
602 SEWER FUND
651 RIVERSIDE CEMETERY
25,623.88
717.80
2.603.00 CR
1.000.00
2.750.00
16.681. 54 CR
4.428.00
232.75
TOTAL ALL FUNDS
15.467.89
BANK RECAP:
BANK NAME
DISBURSEMENTS
.
GENERAL CHECKING
15,467.89
TOTAL ALL BANKS
15.467.89
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
~3/30/1999 11:35:39
Schedule of 8ills
CITY OF MONTICELLC
GL050S-V06.00 COVERPAGE
GL540R
Reoort Selection:
RUN GROUP... 00331 COMMENT... 3/31 CKS
OATA-JE-ID
DATA COMMENT
~------------- ------------------------
0-03311999-818 3/31 CKS
Run Instructions:
JobQ Banner Copies Form Printer Hold Space LPI Lines CPI
J 01 Y S 6 066 10
.
/
/
.;;;--.
.
~RC FINANCIAL SYSTEM CITY OF MONTICELLO
.3130/1999 11 :35: 39 Schedule of Bills GL540R-V06.00 PAGE 1
VENDOR NAME
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ACCOUNT NAME FUND & ACCOUNT CLAIM INVOICE POll F/P 10 LINE
ADOLFSON & PETERSON, INC
WWTP 18,067.00 PROF SRV - CONSTRUCTION 436.49201.3025 1125 818 00040
ANDERSON/RICK
22 HRS G $27.50 605.00 1997 STORM DAMAGE EXPENS 101.42501.4401 818 00041
113. MILES G .28 31. 64 1997 STORM DAMAGE EXPENS 101.42501.4401 818 00042
636.64 *VENDOR TOTAL
BARR ENGINEERING COMPANY
COMM CENTER 430.00 PROF SRV - ENGINEERING F 461.49201.3030 2386046-7 818 00044
BELLBOY CORPORATION BAR
3.75 FREIGHT 609.49750.3330 16145300 818 00002
334.00 LIQUOR 609.49750.2510 16145300 818 00003
52.50CR LIQUOR 509.49750.2510 16185500 818 00004
285.25 *VENDOR TOTAL
BERNICK'S PEPSI COLA COM
108.23 FREIGHT 509.49750.3330 480329 818 00015
27.00CR MISC TAXABLE 609.49750.2540 64596 818 00014
12.95 BEER 609.49750.2520 74947 818 00012
e 128.05 MISC TAXABLE 609.49150.2540 14948 818 00013
222.23 *VENDOR TOTAL
BRC - ASSIST CENTER
DATA PROC 2,151.00 PROF SRV - DATA PROCESS I 101.41920.3090 1209160 RI 818 00043
BROCK WHITE COMPANY, LLC
STREETS 60.40 OTHER EQUIPMENT 101.43120.5801 EGl1259501 818 00045
DAHLHEIMER DISTRIBUTING
3,944.05 BEER 609.49750.2520 42920 818 00009
89.85 MISC TAXABLE 609.49150.2540 42921 818 00001
1.543.70 BEER 609.49750.2520 43141 818 00008
5,571.60 *VENDOR TOTAL
DAY DISTRIBUTING COMPANY
1,978.25 BEER 609.49750.2520 56622 818 00038
20.20 MISC TAXABLE 509.49750.2540 56622 818 00039
1,998.45 *VENDOR TOTAL
DOTY /KAREN
CONFERENCE 125.23 CONFERENCE & SCHOOLS 101.41301.3320 818 00046
EARL F ANDERSON & ASSOCI
RIVER MILL PROJ 1,962.01 IMPROVEMENTS 225.45201.5301 15690 818 00041
eRL'S WELDING & IND SUP 59.43 MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 101.43127.2199 EW 184343 818 00048
STREETS
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM CITY OF MONTICELLO
.3/30/1999 11:35;39 Schedule of Bills GL540R-V06.00 PAGE 2
VENDOR NAME
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ACCOUNT NAME FUND & ACCOUNT CLAIM INVOICE POI F/P 10 LINE
G & K SERVICES
LIQUOR 69.49 REPAIR & MTC - BUILDINGS 609.49754.4010 818 00050
WATER 35.90 UNIFORM RENTAL 601.49440.4170 818 00054
PW ADM 8.90 UNIFORM RENTAL 101.43110.4170 818 00055
PW INSP 50.10 UNIFORM RENTAL 101.43115.4170 818 00056
STREETS 98.30 UNIFORM RENTAL 101.43120.4170 818 00057
PARKS 124.90 UN I FORM RENTAL 225.45201.4170 818 00058
SHOP TOWELS 29.80 MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 101.43127.2199 821705 818 00052
ENV CHARGE, SALES TAX 58.57 MISC OTHER EXPENSE 101.43120.4399 821717 818 00051
SEWER 34.50 UNIFORM RENTAL 602.49490.4170 825847 818 00053
DEP REG 36.89 REPAIR & MTC - BUILDINGS 101.41990.4010 825854 818 00049
547.35 *VENDOR TOTAL
GLEASON PRINTING, INC.
SPRING NEWLETTER 910.58 NEWSLETTER 101.41301.3195 43132 818 00059
GRIEFNOW SHEET METAL
WATER 48.00 UTILITY SYSTEM MTCE SUPP 601.49440.2270 9319 818 00060
GRIGGS, COOPER & COMPANY
12.75 FREIGHT 609.49750.3330 31444 818 00020
. 322.70 LI OUOR 609.49750.2510 31444 818 00021
163.60 WINE 609.49750.2530 31444 818 00022
19.50 MISC TAXABLE 609.49750.2540 31444 818 00023
6.00 FREIGHT 609.49750.3330 31445 818 00026
468.99 WINE 609.49750.2530 31445 818 00027
0.75 FREIGHT 609.49750.3330 31738 818 00028
55.00 MISC TAXABLE 609.49750.2540 31738 818 00029
4.50 FREIGHT 609.49750.3330 31739 818 00024
246.92 WINE 609.49750.2530 31739 818 00025
1.300.71 *VENDOR TOTAL
GROSSLEIN BEVERAGE INC.
5,342.65 BEER 609.49750.2520 165477 818 00011
GROSSNICKLE/THOMAS P
TRAVEL EXPENSE 27.72 TRAVEL EXPENSE 225.45201.3310 818 00061
HAWKINS WATER TREATMENT
SEWER 783.31 CHEMICAL PRODUCTS 602.49490.2160 495451 818 00063
WATER 2,880.13 CHEMICAL PRODUCTS 601.49440.2160 495459 818 00062
3,663.44 *VENDOR TOTAL
JOHNSON BROS WHOLESALE L
0.14CR FREIGHT 609.49750.3330 85175 818 00034
58.70CR WINE 609.49750.2530 85175 818 00035
. 30.60 FREIGHT 609.49750.3330 957258 818 00030
2,328.64 LIQUOR 609.49750.2510 957258 818 00031
13.60 FREIGHT 609.49750.3330 957259 818 00032
497.55 WINE 609.49750.2530 957259 818 00033
2,811.55 *VENDOR TOTAL
- --. -.- --.- -"-'.- ---"--
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM CITY OF MONTICELLO
.3/30/1999 11:35:39 Schedule of Bills GL540R-V06.00 PAGE 4
VENDOR NAME
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ACCOUNT NAME FUND & ACCOUNT CLAIM INVOICE POI F/P 10 LINE
RELIANT ENERGY
LIQ STORE 114.56 GAS 609.49754.3830 818 00084
THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMP
9,792.30 BEER 609.49750.2520 157684 818 00036 .
U SLINK
PARKS 2.90 TELEPHONE 101.45201.3210 818 00086
CH 16.22 TELEPHONE 101.41301.3210 818 00087
FIRE HALL 1.61 TELEPHONE 101.42201.3210 818 00088
PW 13.55 TELEPHONE 101.43110.3210 818 00089
SLOG INSP 8.47 TELEPHONE 101.42401.3210 818 00090
DEP REG 2.96 TELEPHONE 101.41990.3210 818 00091
LIQ STORE 19.40 TELEPHONE 609.49754.3210 818 00092
65.11 *VENDOR TOTAL
US FILTER-WATERPRO
FREIGHT 6.94 METERS & VALVES FOR RESA 601.49440.2271 5098672 818 00085
US WEST DIRECTORY ADVERT
LIQ STORE 33.40 ADVERTISING 609.49754.3499 005152788000 818 00093
~KING COCA COLA
LIQUOR 98.40 MISC TAXABLE 609.49750.2540 2202791 818 00005
CH 30.89 MISC OTHER EXPENSE 101.41940.4399 2203886 818 00006
129.29 *VENDOR TOTAL
WATER LABORATORIES. INC
WATER TESTS 10.00 MISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 601.49440.3199 99C-255 818 00094
WRIGHT COUNTY MAYOR'S AS
MAYOR'S DUES 150.00 DUES. MEMBERSHIP & SUBSC 101.41110.4330 1999 818 00095
WRIGHT-HENNEPIN COOP ELE
STREET LIGHTS 8.00 ELECTRIC 101.43160.3810 818 00096
SECURITY LIGHTS 11.69 ELECTRIC 101.43160.3810 818 00097
19.69 *VENDOR TOTAL
ZEP MANUFACTURING COM PAN
STREETS 46.31 MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 101.43120.2199 57759426 818 00098
~
- -.- -- -.--.- - - - ---. ----
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
4111j3/30/1999 11:35:39
VENDOR NAME
DESCRIPTION
REPORT TOTALS:
.
.
AMOUNT
131.147.21
Schedule of Bills
ACCOUNT NAME
FUND & ACCOUNT
RECORDS PRINTED - 000097
---,-.----.-- ------.-.... -----..-----..-- ---
CITY OF MONTICELLO
GL540R-V06.00 PAGE 5
CLAIM INVOICE POI F /P 10 LINE
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
4111i3/30/1999 11:35:42
FUND RECAP:
Schedule of Bills
CITY OF MONTICELLO
GL060S-V06.00 RECAPPAGE
GL540R
FUND DESCRIPTION
DISBURSEMENTS
----------------------------
101 GENERAL FUND
211 LIBRARY FUND
225 PARK FUND
240 CAPITAL PROJECT REVOLVING FD
436 93-14C WWTP EXPANSION PRJ
461 98-03C COMMUNITY CENTER
601 WATER FUND
602 SEWER FUND
609 MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND
18.873.07
846.78
2.596.73
55.20
18.067.00
430.00
5,962.58
43.436.24
40.879.61
TOTAL ALL FUNDS
131.147.21
BANK RECAP:
BANK NAME
DISBURSEMENTS
.--
GENL
LIQR
----------------------------
GENERAL CHECKING
LIQUOR CHECKING
90.267.60
40,879.61
TOTAL ALL BANKS
131,147.21
THE PRECEDING LIST OF BILLS PAYABLE WAS REVIEWED AND APPROVED FOR PAYMENT.
DATE ............
APPROVED BY
.. .. .. .. t .. ~ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ~ .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. t .. oj .. .. .. .. ..
................... .............. ........
.... ..... .............. .................
.
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
~4/06/1999 09:39:41
Schedule of 8ills
CITY OF MONTICELLO
GL050S-V06.00 COVERPAGE
GLS40R
Report Selection:
RUN GROUP... 331D
COMMENT... 3/31 2ND RUN CKS
DATA-JE-ID
DATA COMMENT
-------------- ----~------~-------~----
0-03311999-829 3/31 (2ND RUN) CKS
Run Instructions:
Joba Banner Copies Form Printer Hold Space LPI Lines CPI
J 01 Y S 6 066 10
.
.
aRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM CITY OF MONTICEllO
.4/06/1999 09:39:42 Schedule of Bills Gl540R-V06.00 PAGE 1
VENDOR NAME
DESCRI PTlON AMOUNT ~,CCOUNT NAME FUND & ACCOUNT CLAIM INVOICE POll F/P ID LINE
BEllBOY CORPORATION BAR
2,181.00 LIQUOR 509.49750.2510 16185500 829 00023
BERLIN TIRE CENTERS, INC
STREETS 237.51 MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 101.43120.2199 2807448 829 00026
BERNICK'S PEPSI COLA COM ,
OVERPD CH 1120652 108.23CR FREIGHT 609.49750.3330 480329 829 00019
377.20 BEER 609.49750.2520 78280 829 00020
53.25 MISC TAXABLE 609.49750.2540 78281 829 00021
322.22 *VENDOR TOTAL
BROCK WHITE COMPANY, llC
STREETS 51.55 REPAIR & MTC - MACH & EQ 101.43120.4044 EG11264701 829 00027
DAHLHEIMER DISTRIBUTING
3,434.18 BEER 509.49750.2520 43261 829 00004
80.00 BEER 609.49750.2520 43444 829 00003
3,514.18 *VENDOR TOTAL
DAHLHEIMER/lUKE
. CONF REIM8 290.57 CONFERENCE & SCHOOLS 101.42201.3320 829 00028
DAY DISTRIBUTING COMPANY
571.00 BEER 609.49750.2520 57226 829 00014
DECISION RESOURCES lTD
COMM CENTER SURVEY 2,450.00 MISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 461.49201.3199 033099.01 829 00029
DELANO RENTAL
SOD CUTTER 2,000.00 IMPROVEMENTS 101.45201.5301 829 00041
EMERGITEK CORPORATION
FIRE 540.67 REPAIR & MTC ~ MACH & EQ 101.42201.4044 5608 829 00056
FEDERAL RESERVE BK OF MN
OLLIE 75.00 CONFERENCE & SCHOOLS 101.46501.3320 829 00025
FORESTRY SUPPLIERS, INC
PARKS 173 .15 SMALL TOOLS & EOUIPMENT 225.45201.2410 676582-00 829 00030
FRONTLINE PLUS FIRE & RE
FIRE-NOZZLES 808.00 FURNITURE & FIXTURES 101.42201.5601 829 00032
FIRE 808.00 CLOTHING SUPPLIES 101.42201.2111 6478 829 0003 'I
f:IRE 134.19 CLOTHING SUPPLIES 101.42201.2111 6479 829 00033
1,750.19 *VENDOR TOTAL
eENEVIEVE AYOT
uTILITY REFUND 14.39 ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE 601.11501 829 00034
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM CITY OF MONTICELLO
.4/06/1999 09:39:42 Schedule of Bills GL540R-V06.00 PAGE 2
VENDOR NAME
DESCRI PT ION AMOUNT ACCOUNT NAME FUND & ACCOUNT CLAIM INVOICE POll F/P ID LINE
GLUNZ/RAYMOND J
MORTENSON 325.00 PROF SRV - EXCAVATION 651.49010.3115 829 00035
GROSSLEIN BEVERAGE INC.
21.80 MISC TAXABLE 609.49750.2540 165878 829 00017
4,721.85 BEER 609.49750.2520 165879 829 00018
4,743.65 *VENDOR TOTAL
GROSSNICKLE/THOMAS P
PARKS 15.00 TRAVEL EXPENSE 225.45201.3310 829 00042
HAWKINS WATER TREATMENT
WATER 30.12 EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS 601.49440.2210 495921 829 00036
JOHNSON BROS WHOLESALE L
77.35 FREIGHT 609.49750.3330 960016 829 00007
8,844.25 LI QUOR 609.49750.2510 960016 829 00008
1,098.30 WINE 609.49750.2530 960017 829 00005
30.60 FREIGHT 609.49150.3330 960017 829 00006
10,050.50 *VENDOR TOTAL
4111rRCO BUSINESS PRODUCTS,
DEP REG 105.44 DUPLICATING & COpy SUPPL 101.41990.2020 01801565 829 00037
MARTIE'S FARM SERVICE
FIRE 71.89 TRAINING SUPPLIES 101.42201.2070 33471 829 00055
MENARD, INC
WATER 60.72 IMPROVEMENTS 601.49440.5301 37042 829 00038
PARKS 204.42 MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 225.45201.2199 37877 829 00058
PARKS 281. 11 MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 225.45201. 2199 036768 829 00057
546.25 *VENDOR TOTAL
MN DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
1ST OTR 1999 2,980.00 WATER SERVICE CONNECTION 601.49440.4375 CONNECTI ON FEE 829 00040
MN STATE TREASURER
SURCHARGE-1ST QTR 1999 1,932.09 BUILDING PERMITS 101.32211 829 00039
NORTHWEST MINNESOTA CHAP
BLOG 15.00 CONFERENCE & SCHOOLS 101.42401.3320 MEETING 829 00043
PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS
108.23 FREIGHT 609.49750.3330 480329 829 00009
11. 90 FREIGHT 609.49750.3330 482661 829 00010
1,255.48 LIQUOR 609.49750.2510 482661 829 00011
. 1,634.70 WINE 609.49750.2530 482662 829 00012
45.05 FREIGHT 609.49150.3330 482662 829 00013
3,055.36 *VENDOR TOTAL
- --'--.- - - -.- -
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM CITY OF MONTICELLO
.4/06/199909:39:42 Schedule of 8ills GL540R-V06.00 PAGE 3
VENDOR NAME
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ACCOUNT NAME FUND & ACCOUNT CLAIM INVOICE POll FIP 10 LINE
RON'S GOURMET ICE
227.50 MISC TAXABLE 609.49750.2540 . 31899 829 00002
SAFETY-KLEEN CORP.
SHOP 82.96 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS 101.43127.3190 739154 829 OD044
SURPLUS SERVICES
PW INSPECTION 551. 20 SMALL TOOLS & EQUIPMENT 101.43115.2410 901066 829 00045
TAYLOR LAND SURVEYORS IN
E~.STWOOD KNOLL 100.00 MISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 101.41910.3199 99082 829 00046
THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMP
5,054.30 BEER 609.49750.2520 157689 829 00016
4,394.15 8EER 609.49750.2520 157834 829 00015
9,448.45 *VENDOR TOTAL
TSR WIRELESS - MINNESOTA
JOHN M 9.31 TELEPHONE 601. 49440.3210 829 00047
JOHN L 9.31 TELEPHONE 101.45201.3210 829 00048
18.62 *VENDOR TOTAL
~NITED LABORATORIES
STREETS 219.39 LUBRICANTS & ADDITIVES 101.43120.2130 11877 829 00049
STREETS 287.34 LUBRICANTS & ADDITIVES 101.43120.2130 12149 829 00050
506.73 *VENDOR TOTAL
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
OLLI E 30.00 CONFERENCE & SCHOOLS 101.46501.3320 FILLMORE MISS 829 00024
VIKING COCA COLA
121. 70 MISC TAXABLE 609.49750.2540 2203894 829 00022
WRIGHT COUNTY JOURNAL PR
RENEWAL 27.00 DUES, MEMBERSHIP & SUBSC 101.41301.4330 829 00051
WRIGHT HENNEPIN SECURITY
FIRE 55.91 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS 101.42201.3190 MON ITORING 829 00052
PARKS 15.98 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS 101.45201.3190 MONITORING 829 00053
WATER TOWER 21. 25 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS 601.49440.3190 MaN ITORING 829 00054
93.14 *VENDOR TOTAL
ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE
42.95 MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 609.49754.2199 54120704 829 00001
.
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
~4/06/1999 09:39:42
VENDOR NAME
DESCRIPTION
REPORT TOTALS:
"--
/"""
-......-
AMOUNT
49,291.98
ACCOUNT NAME
RECORDS PRINTED - 000058
Schedule of Bills
'UND & ACCOUNT
CITY OF MONTICELLO
GL540R-V06.00 PAGE 4
CLAI~ INVOICE PO# FIP ID LINE
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
~4/06/1999 09:39:44
Schedule of Bills
FUND RECAP:
FUND DESCRIPTION
DISBURSEMENTS
101 GENERAL FUND
225 PARK FUND
461 9S-03C COMMUNITY CENTER
601 WATER FUND
509 MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND
651 RIVERSIDE CEMETERY
8,449.00
673.68
2,450.00
3,115.79
34,278.51
325.00
TOTAL ALL FUNDS
49,291.98
BANK RECAP:
BANK NAME
DISBURSEMENTS
GENL GENERAL CHECKING
~IQR LIQUOR CHECKING
TOTAL ALL BANKS
15,013.47
34,278.51
49,291.98
THE PRECEDING LIST OF BILLS PAYABLE WAS REVIEWED AND APPROVED FOR PAYMENT.
DATE ............
APPROVED BY
.
-
CITY OF MONTICELLO
GL060S-V06.00 RECAPPAGE
GL540R
,'"
.
.
.
....
r2uJ
COUNCIL UPDATE ITEM
April 9, 1999
RE:
Trunk Highway (TH) 25 Park & Ride Lot
FROM:
WSB & Associates, Inc.
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As you are aware, the TH 25 project will include the installation of new ramps for eastbound 1-94
that will eliminate the existing Park & Ride lot. The lot has been proposed to move to a location off
of School Boulevard, west at TH 25. The original location west ofTH 25 has been slightly relocated
in accordance with the attached sketch. Mn/DOT has agreed to purchase property from the City for
a new Park & Ride lot at market value, pay for the frontage road in front of the Park & Ride lot, as
well as paying the cost of constructing the Park & Ride lot to the design as shown on the attached
figure. The City would be responsible for all design costs and coordination associated with the
construction of the Park & Ride and the associated frontage road. Mn/DOT would like to have the
Park & Ride completed with the TH 25 construction so that the ramp construction can be completed
in the year 2000 without concern for the existing Park & Ride. Mn/DOT has requested that this
construction be added onto the TH 25 project, which requires a quick design so that the plans can
be sent out to the interested contractors. The TH 25 plans are currently out for bid.
No action is necessary on this item as long as the Council is comfortable with the Mn/DOT proposal.
Issues that will be included in the Cooperative agreement between the City and Mn/DOT will be
approved prior to the contract being awarded. Staff will be available to discuss this issue in greater
detail at the meeting if the Council would like to discuss it as a part of the official meeting. If there
are any questions prior to the meeting, please contact Bret Weiss or Ron Bray at 541-4800.
F:\KARENDlWORDPROCIAGENDAS\040999"COUNCI LPKT. WPD: 4/9/99
. '~
APR-09-1999 14:33
WSE & ASSOCIATES INC.
6125411700 P.02/02
+-'
o
~
~
~
ad
~
~
~
Q)
~
o
0..
e
~
I
.,....
N
~
~
bJ)
. ...,(
=
~
~
~
....-
0
rn
d)
.~
\ ~
I I ~
I .sa
l! ...-t
I a)
I C,,)
. """"
i' =
~
~
;, 0
I. ~
II
I.
~ ~
"
:1 0
I,
!I
'. .e
i~ U
I t--
I
I~
I
I
I
I ,"
'"
I
I
I
I~
TOTAL P.12l2
J ~.. - ......-.;.;".:. ". :., .
r -:. r":~"
~ .- ,....
..... ,.,.... ~.
. .' .
I 0; J" .:. ..'~.
~..+ ~.~ . ~.
\. :~ M~
. .,. . ".
.-.
..:.',~"O,
~~..: '\
h,.f,)\' t.~ ~ ....
~Y";""
- "'.' .' i
-8 :,:. '. '\
. ...-l . '.' .
~ -:;.::':.: i
t.t::= . '.. I
:.a '~ .' '.. : I
~ '.,'.. \'
~ .t,I, ,
S :i:~: i
..... . .. .
g :;.:< I
.~ .
~I; !
. I I
fr<~-, i
Q . :-?,.:.' h'
= ....--- --- --------
o ..------~,~.......-----
U ti;~":: - '
. ."'...,..-
-
-
-------
-.--............ ::~."'
rJI n I
jli H ~
.1 I
~liI
.
.
.
COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEM
April 8, 1999
Citv Assessor resi!!nation. (R.W.)
Mr. Jerry Kramber, the City's contract assessor since 1993, has informed me that he will not be
renewing his contract arrangement for doing the city assessing next year. Mr. Kramber indicated
that he did not feel he would have the time to devote to our growing community and that the
work involved has increased substantially over the years.
In light of this resignation, I did have a conversation with the new Wright County Assessor, Jerry
Kritzek, regarding whether the County would be able to provide this service for the City. Wright
County currently does the assessing for the City of Buffalo, which is the only other community
in Wright County that is required to have an accredited assessor doing their work. The City of
Monticello, because of its large commercial tax base, must have an accredited assessor
responsible for the assessing duties, which may limit our ability to find future individuals willing
to do the service for the City.
Mr. Kritzek did indicate that although they do the assessing work for the City of Buffalo, they
may not have the time or staffing available to add the City of Monticello for next year. I did
inquire as to the County's policy regarding providing services to other cities and townships who
have requested assessing contracts, and he indicated he would investigate with the County
Coordinator and the County Board the feasibility of adding our workload. In the meantime, the
City could also advertise or seek RFP's from qualified individuals to perform the work next year.
Under this method, we would have an idea as to whether the service is financially feasible for us
to continue independently or whether we should simply have the County Assessor assume our
assessing duties like Buffalo.
Unless the Council would like me to immediately advertise for the position, I would suggest
simply waiting for the County Assessor to respond to whether or not they would have the ability
or desire to assume the duties. It is very likely an arrangement with the County will be our least
costly method of continuing assessing services.
Another option to consider might be combining the assessor duties with planning and zoning and
creating a new staff position. We have had in our budgets the past two years funds to create a
Planning Tech position. While we haven't determined whether combining these positions is
feasible yet, it may be worth exploring. Our assessing contract is approaching $20,000 annually,
and this would go along way in supporting a full-time staff position.
F:\KAREN DlWORDPROCIAGENDASIASSESSOR. UPD: 4/9/99
-.
.
.
... ~
.. u:q-
COUNCIL UPDATE
Utilities in the area of the new Community Center (IS)
The Public Works Department is proposing three minor extensions of Sanitary Sewer and
Watermains near the Community Center. The first involves the extension of water main down the
new proposed Linn Street between 6th Street and 5th Street. This six inch connection would
provide looping between 5th and 6th Street for better flow characteristics and alternate sources of
water in the area. This work is expected to be completed prior to the construction of Linn Street.
The second improvement involves the extension of water main along the north side of the
Community Center to Walnut Street. The eight inch line along 5th Street was removed in
preparation for the construction of the Community Center. The water line is to be extended by
Donlar only to about the mid point of the Community Center on the north building line. We
intend to re-connect that line to Walnut Street so there are two sources of water for the
Community Center as well as the Fire Hall. This recommendation came forward from the Water
Superintendent and the Fire Department. In addition, the six inch water service for the hydrant on
the north side of the building will be enlarged to eight inch, so that we have the same functionality
that we had prior to the Community Center being built.
The last utility improvement involves re-establishing a eight inch stub to the north for Commercial
use, such as Sunny Fresh. The original interceptor sewer had an eight inch stub going north on
Walnut Street for purposes of extending to Sunny Fresh in the future. Due to the re-configuration
of the interceptor sewer with the relocation for the Community Center, the stub had to be placed
in a westerly direction. The location of the stub currently is in the area of the off street parking
stalls and the concrete sidewalk paving area. If this line were to be extended in the future,
northward, all of this concrete work would be destroyed. Consequently, we at the Public Works
Department felt it would be better to extend this line north to a point near the railroad tracks at
this time so that if this line were needed in the future, we would not have to remove all of the
concrete parking areas, sicJewalk and driveway
The estimated cost for these improvements as follows based upon bids from local contractors:
1.
2.
3.
Linn Street watermain loop
north watermain loop along Community Center to Walnut Street
sanitary stub to the north at Walnut Street and 5th Street
$6,600.00
$8,500.00
$8,000.00
All of the work is expected to be complete within the next four to six weeks. Funding for the
utility improvements will be from a combination of trunk funds and Community Center Funds.
..
~r-24-99 11:00A .WSB St Cloud
~ -<1. ^
," (/') ::E
320-252-3100
P~02
.
VI
~
Q)
.....
-
.
0:
W
>
01.&.1
~
ZLLJ
-V>
V>
oc[~
mQ:
o
~ut-
..:(1::
U .
<r-
I--
o C)
:::JZ
a::-
I- I-
c,l)tI)
:z: .......
a""
uw
a:::
LlJ
>0:::
Ow
~ .-
z w a:
-V>
V')
<C[ ~ "?-
m a::: it)
o
::t:t-
UVJ
I-
<(It
UN
..
.
CD
0::
:::Jc.o
UIO
.-
J
I-- a.. -
(j (!) 0 IV")
::>:z I- 0')
cr-
I- I- :x: II
V') V') U
z- I-- .
ax <[.....J
UW ~w
x
1 . ..- --.' ...., - ..
i~,,>___.___~
i ~ l3trnLS Hl
U)
\0
l-
e:: a::
1.JJ ...
>0:: III
p") Ow r-
~ 01 :ill:
6 ZUJ .
0 - Vl CD
~ V) a::
-<~ ::>
.~I- r-- tOe: u
0
, :x:t- a..
. z ~ uV') 0
O<al N ..... .....
'I:r a: c:: I . ~t:
-- ~ --.
.
..
OSSING
~ 8'XS'
I ., I
I~
l~
I I
L
--.---
-N!R AND TRAINING CENTER
FFE=934.50
~~~
~ ft!4N~
NEL Y LINE OF 45 FT. E4SfMENT PER CITY
I .1
S e.~ ~ I
----------
JB
':::922.24
/
I
0/
I
o 01
L_-.l
o
r
.
~
I I I
] --"- --"- -~._-.. -:-. .
- 40'
----------
c:>
c