City Council Agenda Packet 10-26-2009AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING – MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, October 26, 2009 – 7 p.m.
Mayor: Clint Herbst
Council Members: Tom Perrault, Glen Posusta, Brian Stumpf, Susie Wojchouski
1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance.
2A. Approve minutes of October 12, 2009 Special Meeting.
2B. Approve minutes of October 12, 2009 Regular Meeting.
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
4. Citizen comments, public service announcements and Council updates.
a. Citizen Comments:
b. Public Service Announcements:
1) Zoning Ordinance Revision Open House – Nov 4 (Angela)
2) Live Wright – Nov 2 (Angela)
3) Craft Shows – Nov 7 (Cat)
4) School Board forum – Oct 28 (Kitty)
b. Council Updates:
1) Snowmobile routes and regulations (Tom M)
5. Consent Agenda:
A. Consideration of approving new hires and departures for City departments
B. Consideration of approving Ordinance for Neighborhood Block Parties for the City of
Monticello
C. Consideration of approving appointment of Judith Gomez-Duchac to the Monticello
Library Board effective immediately
D. Consideration of accepting third quarter Financial Reports
E. Consideration of accepting quotes and authorizing purchase of a self leveling, color
sewer inspection camera for the Water & Sewer Department
F. Consideration of Change Order No. 1 for the Fire Hall Improvements, City Project No.
09C009
G. Consideration of adopting Resolution #2009-68 to approve contribution of $200 from
O’Reilly Auto Parts for fire department equipment
6. Consideration of items removed from the consent agenda for discussion
SPECIAL MEETING
5:30 p.m. – Snow Removal Policy Workshop
7. Public Hearing - Consideration of adopting Resolution #2009-61 approving assessment roll
for delinquent utilities through August 24, 2009 for certification for 2010 payable tax year
8. Public Hearing - Consideration of adopting Resolution #2009-62 approving assessment roll
for delinquent accounts receivable from September 2008 to August 2009 for certification for
2010 payable tax year
9. Public Hearing – Consideration of adopting Resolution #2009-63 approving assessment roll
for Fallon Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation, City Project No. 09C005, to be certified for 2010
payable tax year
10. Consideration of approving an ordinance amendment for Off Street Parking Standards and
approval of summary ordinance for publication
11. Consideration of directing City Attorney to prepare an amended assessment agreement with
John Chadwick for Outlot D of Otter Creek Crossing for taxes payable 2010
12. Consideration of approving a request for a Conditional Use Permit for an accessory storage
building in a mobile home park, zoned R-4, Mobile Home Park District. Applicant:
Kjellberg’s, Inc
13. Consideration of approving updates to the annual Snow Plowing/Removal Policy and
discussion of pathways designated for snow removal
14. Approve payment of bills for October 26th
15. Adjournment.
Council Agenda: 10/26/09
1
5A. Consideration of approving new hires and departures for City departments. (TE)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Council is asked to ratify the hiring and departures of employees that have occurred
recently in the departments listed. It is recommended that the Council officially ratify the
hiring/departure of all listed employees including part-time and seasonal workers.
A.1 BUDGET IMPACT: None
A.2 STAFF WORK LOAD IMPACT: Until the positions are filled again, existing staff
would pick up those hours.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Ratify the hire/departures of the employees as identified on the attached list.
C. RECOMMENDATION:
By statute the City Council has the authority to approve all hires/departures. There is no
other recommendation but for the Council to exercise the authority given to them by state
statute.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
List of new/terminated employees.
Name Title Department Effective Date Class
Beth Pennington Slide Attendant MCC 10/7/09 PT
Hannah Knettel Guest Service 2 MCC 10/21/09 PT
Name Reason Department Last Day Worked Class
Tirzah Lemmens Voluntary MCC 10/1/09 PT
NEW EMPLOYEES
TERMINATING EMPLOYEES
5A council_employee list.xls: 10/23/2009
City Council Agenda: 10/26/09
1
5B. Consideration of approving Ordinance for Neighborhood Block Parties for the City of
Monticello. (NAC/AS/CS/TM)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As neighborhood block party events are becoming commonplace within the community, City
staff has developed an ordinance to allow for the administrative review and approval of such
events. The proposed ordinance is an effort to streamline the process for residents. Currently,
the City has no ordinance to address such events, and as such, the City Council is required to
approve each block party individually.
For the purposes of this ordinance, administrative review and approval of block parties would
occur only in such circumstances when the event is “a temporary gathering held on a
barricaded public street contained within a residential neighborhood”. Residents do not
currently, and would not under the proposed ordinance, need approval to host a neighborhood
block party that does not involve the closure of public streets.
The ordinance presented includes procedures for application, notification requirements, the
general circumstances under which a permit could be approved and indemnification clauses.
City staff has researched practices related to block parties in surrounding communities and
has found that administrative review of these types of requests is common.
Council review and approval would still be required for events requiring the closure of other
public property (ex. City parks or parking lots), major collector routes, or streets through non-
residential neighborhoods.
A1. Budget Impact: At this time, staff proposes no fee for the block party permit. Staff
are proposing no fee based on the idea that the time to review and respond to these
requests will be minimal and could be provided as a general customer service.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: Staff impacts would include the review of the permit
application by the City Clerk and Street Superintendant, completion of a barricade
placement map for the resident, notification of law enforcement, and supply of
neighborhood resident information to the permittee for notification purposes.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve adoption of Title 3, Chapter 17 of Monticello City Code for
Neighborhood Block Parties for the City of Monticello.
2. Motion to deny adoption of Title 3, Chapter 17 of Monticello City Code.
City Council Agenda: 10/26/09
2
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends Alternative #1 for adoption of the proposed Ordinance. The ordinance
as proposed limits administrative approvals only to those parties contained within residential
neighborhoods, yet allows residents to request and receive a permit for a block party without
the time required for Council review. The proposed ordinance streamlines the process for
citizens and reduces time for processing by staff. However, if Council prefers to be included
in the approval process, then Alternative 2 should be selected.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of proposed Title 3, Chapter 17 – Neighborhood Block Parties (Ordinance #505)
CHAPTER 17
NEIGHBORHOOD BLOCK PARTIES
SECTION:
3-17-1: Purpose
3-17-2: Definitions
3-17-3: Permit Required
3-17-4: Permit Application
3-17-5: Reserved
3-17-6:
3-17-1: PURPOSE: The City Council finds that reasonable regulations of and
allowances for temporary gatherings held in a section of street contained
within a neighborhood are necessary because of the impact such activities
may have on a specific area.
3-17-2: DEFINITIONS: Unless otherwise stated, whenever used in this chapter,
the following words shall have the meaning given them in this section:
BLOCK PARTY: A temporary gathering held on a barricaded public
street contained within a residential neighborhood.
3-17-3: PERMIT REQUIRED: No person shall engage or participate in, aid,
form, or hold any block party unless a permit has been properly obtained
from the City.
3-17-4: PERMIT APPLICATION:
(A) A person seeking the issuance of a block party permit shall file an
application with the City on an application form prescribed by the
City Clerk. Such an application shall be filed with the City not less
than twenty-one (21) days nor more than sixty (60) days before the
proposed date of the event.
(B) With the printed application form, the applicant shall provide a site
plan depicting the location of all proposed facilities and equipment
and the proposed street segments to be closed.
(B) Within seven (7) days of receipt of permit, the applicant shall be
provided a list of persons to be notified of the proposed event. All
parties on the list shall be notified within seven (7) days of the
event in writing by the applicant. The applicant shall notify the
City upon completion of the notification.
(C) No permits shall be issued to applicants that cannot demonstrate
compliance with all provisions of this ordinance or who have had
block parties previously terminated by police action.
(D) The applicant shall agree to indemnify and hold harmless the City,
its agents, and employees from any and all claims, demands,
actions, or cause of action of whatsoever nature or character
arising out of or by reason of, the conduct of the block party in any
respect, including, but not limited to costs, attorney’s fees,
expenses, etc., incurred in connection with the defense or
settlement of any claims for injuries or damage resulting from or
connected with the block party.
3-17-5: FEES
(A) Fees as adopted in the ordinance for fee schedule set annually by
the Monticello City Council.
3-17-6: GENERAL PROVISIONS:
(A) To promote public safety and to ensure adequate access, no more
than one (1) block or section of road shall be barricaded for the
duration of the event.
(B) Barricades shall be placed at either end of the temporarily closed
street section as directed by City Staff. Barricades shall be placed
in a manner to allow for access by emergency vehicles. A ten (10)
foot wide lane shall be free from barricades, equipment, and
devices throughout the barricaded street section.
(C) Only local roads may be closed or barricaded for a block party.
(D) A block party shall be limited to residents in the immediate
affected area and their invited guests and not the general public.
(E) Parties shall be limited to a maximum of eight (8) hours in duration
and shall be conducted between 8:00 AM and 10:00 PM.
(F) Noise and music levels shall not be audible beyond the area
designated for the block party. The block party shall be in
compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance (Section 6-1-10).
(G) The applicant shall be responsible for cleaning up after the event.
The right-of-way shall be completely free of all materials, objects,
or obstructions within one (1) hour of the scheduled end of the
event. The applicant shall remove the barricades from the street at
the conclusion of the event and place in an area designated by City
Staff with the permit approval.
(H) Alcohol sales are prohibited.
(I) The consumption of alcohol in the right-of-way is prohibited.
(J) The applicant is responsible for any damages to the right-of-way
and street surface.
(K) The City’s authorized public safety agents are authorized to
terminate any block party not in full compliance with all provisions
of this ordinance, not in full compliance of all conditions of
operation required at the time of approval, or being maintained as a
public nuisance.
3-17-7: APPLICATION REVIEW: The City Clerk shall review the application
and consider approval based on the following factors:
(A) The applicant has provided a complete submittal.
(B) The City’s designated public safety department has no objections
to the content of the submission.
(C) The Fire Department has no objections to the content of the
submission.
(D) The Public Works director has no objections to the content of the
submission and has the capabilities to handle the departments
obligations to administer the permit.
(E) The submission is in full compliance with all requirements of all
City Ordinances.
(F) There is adequate City Staff available to ensure all aspects of this
ordinance may be enforced and acted upon.
(G) There are no other extenuating circumstances that may endanger
the health, safety, and general welfare of the City of Monticello
and its citizens.
3-17-8: PERMIT ISSUANCE: Upon issuing the permit, the City Clerk shall
notify the applicant and provide a list of all conditions of approval and
requirements for the permit. Copies of the approval shall be provided to
all affected agencies and departments.
3-17-9: REVOCATION OF PERMIT: The City may revoke the permit at any
time due to any violation of this ordinance, conditions of approval, or any
emergency condition.
City Council Agenda: 10/26/09
1
5C. Consideration of approving appointment of Judith Gomez-Duchac to the Monticello
Library Board effective immediately. (CS, TK)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Monticello Library Board is requesting that Judith Gomez-Duchac be appointed to
fill out the 3-year term of Beth Osiek, who resigned September 22nd. Ms. Gomez-Duchac
resides at 6234 River Mill Drive in Monticello and is interested in filling the vacancy.
Librarian Debra Luken submitted the following information: Judith Gomez-Duchac has
been responsible for the Bilingual story times at the Library for the last two years. She
has read the second Tuesday of the Month for a half an hour to a small group of children.
She will begin again this January as the library is teaming up with the Monticello
Community Diversity Committee to expand these story times to reach a larger audience.
Prior to Judith’s work on Bilingual Story times, she participated in the first “Dia de los
Ninos/Dia de los Libros” program that the library presented, helping the ch ildren with the
crafts and food. She also was a participant in the Moms Group, which was a monthly
discussion group organized by the Library’s Latino Outreach team in the winter of 2006.
City Council is asked to approve Ms. Gomez-Duchac for a term expiring December 31,
2011.
A1. Budget Impact: None.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: None.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve appointing Ms. Gomez-Duchac to the Monticello Library
Board for a term expiring December 31, 2011.
2. Motion of other.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends Alternative #1
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
None
City Council Agenda: 10/26/09
1
5D. Consideration of accepting 3rd quarter Financial Reports. (TK)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Attached is the 2009 3rd quarter financial status report. The main concern through the
3rd quarter of the year still is building permit revenue compared to budget, which will
be falling short. All other revenue and expenditures appear to be in-line with budget
amounts.
A1. Budget Impact: The quarterly reports have very little budget impact
other than staff time to prepare the report.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: The report takes staff a couple of hours to
prepare, but the hope is the new software system will reduce this time in the
future.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Accept the 2009 3rd quarter financial status report.
2. Do not accept the 2009 3rd quarter financial status report.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The City staff supports Alternative #1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
2009 3rd Quarter Financial Status Report
September 30th Investment Schedule
1
2009 3rd Quarter Financial Status Report
It is hard to believe that one year ago I provided the City Council with the first quarterly
financial status report. It was my intention (which we were able to achieve) to provide
Council with quarterly financial reports, that compared how the City was doing
financially compared to last year and compared to current budget. It was also my hope
that by providing Council with these quarterly financial reports, the Council will be in a
better position to make decisions which could affect the current and/or future finances of
the City. I hope the Council has found these reports informative and useful, as I plan on
continuing to provide the Council with these reports each quarter. With that, here is the
2009 3rd Quarter Financial Report for the City.
Overall
As expected the economy has affected the City’s revenues and expenditures. The City
reduced its revenue budgets (General Fund and Special Revenue Funds) for funding
operations in 2009 and because of this revenues as a percentage received are very similar
to 2008. The chart below shows each fund type compared to budget for years 2008 and
2009 through the end of the 3rd quarter (September, 30th).
Revenues: 2008 2008 % 2009 2009 %
Budget 3rd QTR YTD Received Budget 3rd QTR YTD Received
General Fund 7,479,449 4,257,625 56.92% 7,157,601 4,036,274 56.39%
Special Revenue Funds 6,719,308 4,260,530 63.41% 6,632,144 6,963,283 104.99%
Debt Service Funds 5,575,499 29,373,469 526.83% 6,192,140 3,149,539 50.86%
Capital Improvement Funds 0 85,140 #DIV/0! 4,495,643 27,266 0.61%
Enterprise Funds 6,029,868 4,326,551 71.75% 6,257,325 4,387,303 70.11%
Total Revenues 25,804,124 42,303,315 163.94% 30,734,853 18,563,665 60.40%
Expenditures: 2008 2008 % 2009 2009 %
Budget 3rd QTR YTD Spent Budget 3rd QTR YTD Spent
General Fund 7,421,909 4,606,570 62.07% 7,157,601 5,716,703 79.87%
Special Revenue Funds 7,039,100 4,837,164 68.72% 9,065,958 6,842,662 75.48%
Debt Service Funds 5,962,793 32,110,846 538.52% 9,134,080 9,059,586 99.18%
Capital Improvement Funds 0 498,909 #DIV/0! 4,715,000 -13,209 -0.28%
Enterprise Funds 7,174,908 6,286,374 87.62% 7,960,546 5,523,282 69.38%
Total Expenditures 27,598,710 48,339,863 175.15% 38,033,185 27,129,024 71.33%
The big difference for both revenues and expenditures is the Debt Service Funds where in
2008 the City refinanced two bonds issues (waste water treatment plant note and
community center bond) which resulted in the added revenue for the sale of the new debt
and then the added expenditure to retire the old debt. Also the revenues and expenditures
are higher in 2009 for the Special Revenue Funds due to the activities of the Fire
Department Radio Grant and the Neighborhood Stabilization Program grant. The rest of
this report will summarize the activity of each fund type.
2
General Fund
The City has collected 56.4% of its budgeted revenues so far which compares to 56.9%
last year, but has spent 79.9% of its budgeted expenditures compared to 62.1% last year.
The City still has its second half property tax to collect in December. The good news is
the City has received 47% of its General Fund property tax levy, which given the housing
market and economy is a very good collection rate and is similar to past year collections.
The property tax budget accounts for 74% of all General Fund revenues. As expected the
revenue for building activities is down with the City collecting $236,440 through
September compared to $776,505 last year, which had the hail storm damage boosting
activity. The City has distributed investment earning through June, 2009 and the General
Fund share of interest earning is $104,171, which is $153,781 below its budget due to the
low interest rates. Overall the General Fund revenues should end the year very close to
budgeted revenues with the exception of building permit revenues and interest earnings.
The table below compares 2008 and 2009 budgets and 3rd quarter revenues for the
General Fund.
On the expenditure side the City has spent 79.9% of its budget through September. The
table below compares 2008 and 2009 budget to actual expenditures by department.
General Fund has spent 79.9% of their budget, which is higher for spending through the
3rd quarter than in the past. While having spent 79.9% of the budget when we are 75% of
the way through the year may look bad, the majority of it is due to large one-time capital
2008 2008 % 2009 2009 %
Budget 3rd QTR YTD Received Budget 3rd QTR YTD Received
Property Taxes 5,743,929 2,842,818 49.49% 5,272,397 2,471,757 46.88%
Licenses & Permits 592,295 776,505 131.10% 591,900 236,440 39.95%
Intergovernmental Revenues 259,790 86,506 33.30% 498,056 283,965 57.01%
Charges for Services 469,700 190,049 40.46% 383,950 531,374 138.40%
Fines & Forfeits 150 1,331 887.33% 750 120 16.00%
Miscellaneous 367,195 314,026 85.52% 291,452 162,618 55.80%
Transfers from Other Funds 46,390 46,390 100.00% 119,114 350,000 293.84%
Total General Fund Revenues 7,479,449 4,257,625 56.92% 7,157,619 4,036,274 56.39%
2008 2008 % 2009 2009 %
Budget 3rd QTR YTD Spent Budget 3rd QTR YTD Spent
General Government 1,531,524 1,046,801 68.35% 1,441,244 1,163,015 80.70%
Public Safety 1,960,553 1,182,157 60.30% 1,977,997 1,823,474 92.19%
Public Works 2,685,593 1,608,076 59.88% 2,524,089 1,793,665 71.06%
Miscellaneous 384,665 270,746 70.38% 345,601 473,367 136.97%
Parks 816,113 458,368 56.16% 793,974 407,638 51.34%
Economic Development 43,461 40,422 93.01% 74,714 55,544 74.34%
Total General Fd Expenditures 7,421,909 4,606,570 62.07% 7,157,619 5,716,703 79.87%
3
expenditures and operating transfers out to other funds which were made earlier in the
year.
The general government department is currently above budget amounts, but should end
the year slightly below budget. The two reasons this department looks like it is above
budget is the data processing activity has spent all the funds for computer replacements
and software improvements for 2009 and the city hall budget includes a one-time
operating transfer of $80,000 which was not budgeted. This transfer was for the $80,000
for DMV remodeling project and was transferred to the Capital Revolving Fund.
The public safety department is 92.2%, but this is largely due to the purchase of the
new fire truck at $524,968, of which the majority of the cost was budgeted in prior years
and had reserves designated for this purchase. The once a year payment to the fire relief
association will be made in October.
The building inspections activity is at budget, but would be under budget if it weren’t for
an operating transfer of $80,000 to the Capital Revolving Fund for the garage remodel
project, which hasn’t been done. A portion of these funds will be used on the fire station
residing project currently under way.
This department will finish the year over budget due to the fire truck purchase, so if that
was not purchased the public safety department would finish the year under budget.
The public works department has spent 71% of their budget so far. This is under
budget because of equipment purchases budgeted that were not purchased in 2009 or
were budgeted but scheduled to be purchased in future years. The snow and ice activity
will be purchasing salt and sand for the early snow season shortly and depending on snow
could have some overtime expenses which will have the public works department close
to budgeted amounts by year-end.
The budget for the miscellaneous department appears to be over budget (137% spent)
but it should be on target to finish the year a little below budget. The City has paid its
2009 insurance policies out of the unallocated insurance activity and will be allocating
the costs to the various departments and funds in the 4th quarter of the year. Once that
allocation is completed the miscellaneous department will be on track to finish the year a
little below budget.
The parks department is below budget due to capital expenditures which are yet to be
made either this year or in the future. Finally, the economic development department is
close to budget so far this year, but will be well below budget by year-end because the
economic development director’s time has been charged here but a large portion will be
transferred and paid for by the City’s Fiber Fund, where she has spent the majority of her
time.
In summary I believe the General Fund revenues will finish the year slightly below
budget as will expenditures. However, it is to close to know if revenues will meet or
4
exceed expenditures for the year. Looking at things right now my guess would be
expenditures will finish the year slightly above revenues due to the equipment purchases,
mainly the fire truck. Again the use of reserves for the purchase of the fire truck was
anticipated.
Special Revenue Funds
Special Revenue Funds are funds which the uses of their revenues are restricted for
specific purposes by a governing body. The City currently operates 16 special revenue
funds, each with their own budgets. Funds such as the Library, Shade Tree, Street
Reconstruction and Community Center all depend on a property tax levy to support their
activities. Below is the chart comparing each Special Revenue Fund’s budget to actual
through September 30th.
Budget to Actuals - Revenues
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
Lib
r
a
r
y
F
u
n
d
Str
e
e
t
R
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
F
u
n
d
Mi
n
n
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
F
u
n
d
ED
A
F
u
n
d
NS
P
F
u
n
d
De
p
u
t
y
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
r
F
u
n
d
Sh
a
d
e
T
r
e
e
F
u
n
d
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
F
u
n
d
Pa
r
k
/
P
a
t
h
w
a
y
D
e
d
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
F
u
n
d
OA
A
F
u
n
d
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
R
e
v
o
l
v
i
n
g
F
u
n
d
Gr
a
n
t
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
Str
e
e
t
L
i
g
h
t
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
F
u
n
d
Wa
t
e
r
A
c
c
e
s
s
F
u
n
d
Sa
n
i
t
a
r
y
S
e
w
e
r
A
c
c
e
s
s
F
u
n
d
Sto
r
m
S
e
w
e
r
A
c
c
e
s
s
F
u
n
d
Budget 3rd QTR YTD
The total revenue budget for all Special Revenue Funds is $6,632,144 and the City has
collected 105.0% of these so far. However, if you take away the operating transfers,
which were not budgeted from the EDA and Capital Revolving Funds, the Special
Revenue Funds have collected only 69% of budgeted revenues. Those funds which
collect property taxes or tax increments have only received their first half tax settlement,
with the balance to be received in December. For that reason the Library Fund has
collected only 48.2% of revenues, Street Reconstruction Fund 70.9%, EDA Fund 58.2%,
5
Shade Tree 41.6% and Community Center 60.2%. Once they receive their second half
taxes they should be near budgeted amounts.
The City’s three access funds, which in part depend on new developments, are struggling
with the economy. The Sanitary Sewer Access Fund has collected only 23.1% of their
budget including over $74,500 in access and trunk fees. The Storm Water Access Fund
has only 10.7% collected mainly from special assessment collections. The Water Access
Fund has only collected 20.1% of their budgeted revenues. These three funds revenues
will fall short of budget amounts.
On the Expenditure side the funds as a group have spent 75.5% of their budgeted
expenditures. The majority of the Special Revenue Funds expenditures are transfers to
other funds for debt service or capital projects. Expenditures for the EDA Fund are for
the first half pay-as-you-go obligations (the second half will be paid in December). The
chart below shows the Special Revenue Funds budget to expenditures.
Budget to Actuals - Expenditures
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
Lib
r
a
r
y
F
u
n
d
Str
e
e
t
R
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
F
u
n
d
ED
A
F
u
n
d
NS
P
F
u
n
d
De
p
u
t
y
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
r
F
u
n
d
Mi
n
n
I
n
v
e
s
m
e
n
t
F
u
n
d
Sh
a
d
e
T
r
e
e
F
u
n
d
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
F
u
n
d
Pa
r
k
/
P
a
t
h
w
a
y
D
e
d
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
F
u
n
d
OA
A
F
u
n
d
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
R
e
v
o
l
v
i
n
g
F
u
n
d
Gr
a
n
t
F
u
n
d
Str
e
e
t
L
i
g
h
t
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
F
u
n
d
Sa
n
i
t
a
r
y
S
e
w
e
r
A
c
c
e
s
s
F
u
n
d
Sto
r
m
S
e
w
e
r
A
c
c
e
s
s
F
u
n
d
Wa
t
e
r
A
c
c
e
s
s
F
u
n
d
Budget 3rd QTR YTD
Debt Service Funds
The City has made its debt payment for the year, so expenditures should be completed for
the year as they are 99.2% spent. On the revenue side most of the transfers of City funds
for the City share of debt payment have been made and the first half special assessments
have been collected. Second half special assessments will be received in December and
these funds still have their 3rd and 4th quarter interest earnings to be received.
6
Overall the City has outstanding debt of $67,665,000 as of 9/30/09, of which $26,445,000
is for the FiberNet bond issue and is held in escrow. The amount of debt outstanding is
very high for a City of our size, but it has a lot to due with the financing of the
interchange project, which still has bonds outstanding of $20,415,000 as of 12/31/09 and
the FiberNet bond. I say this because the common tool for comparing debt from one City
to another is debt per capita and I often see these ranging from $700 to $1,500, but if we
used a population of 12,000 for Monticello, our debt per capita would be over $5,638.75.
But again you can point to the fiber project, interchange project, waste water treatment
plant and community center projects as good reasons to be high and does not mean the
City is in bad financial health.
Capital Project Funds
In the past the City did not budget revenues or expenditures for the City’s capital
projects, thus there was nothing to compare these with. However most of these activities
take place in the summer months due to Minnesota weather. Project sizes affect both
costs and revenues from one year to the next so comparing them to past revenue and
expenditures also is not a good gage. The 2009 budget did include budgets for the
Capital Project Funds. So far the Capital Project Funds have revenues of $27,266, which
is mostly interest earnings and they have spent nothing on the various projects. However
with the approval of the Fallon Avenue project, the City will see some expenditure and
some revenue activities for this fund type.
Enterprise Funds
The City has five Enterprise Funds that it operates. These are operations that the City
runs like a business activity. The Water and Sewer Funds through September have billed
and recorded revenues for the first two quarters of the year and will bill for the third
quarter in October. The Liquor and Cemetery Funds receive their revenues on a pretty
consistent basis throughout the year, with December for the Liquor Fund being its busiest
period. Finally the FiberNet Monticello Fund is still in the start up phases and no
revenue to really speak of as of yet. Below is the table of budget to actual for the
Enterprise Fund revenues for the past two years:
2008 2008 % 2009 2009 %
Budget 3rd QTR YTD Received Budget 3rd QTR YTD Received
Water Fund 932,558 513,896 55.11% 973,375 425,368 43.70%
Sewer Fund 1,395,140 754,525 54.08% 1,485,950 714,905 48.11%
Liquor Fund 3,665,570 3,035,329 82.81% 3,742,000 3,226,709 86.23%
Cemetery Fund 36,600 22,311 60.96% 31,000 16,472 53.14%
FiberNet Monticello Fund 0 489 100.00% 25,000 3,849 15.40%
Total 6,029,868 4,326,550 71.75% 6,257,325 4,387,303 70.11%
As you can see the revenues total for 2009 compared to budget are very similar to 2008
figures as far a percentage and amount received to date. However the revenues for the
Water and Sewer Funds are down which would mean less water is being used in 2009
7
compared to 2008. Revenues for the Liquor Fund are up significantly from last year with
the 4th quarter, which is typically their busiest time, still ahead.
On the expenditure side there are no big surprises either. Just like the revenues the
expenditures for the Water and Sewer Funds are well below budget. While the FiberNet
Monticello Fund is the only fund above anticipated budget levels as you can see from the
table below:
All funds except the FiberNet Monticello Fund appear to be on pace to take in more
revenue than they spend as the revenue collection is only for half the year compared to
expenditures for 3 quarters of the year in the Water and Sewer Funds. Once all the
revenues are recorded for the year these funds should have revenues exceeding their
operating expenses, however revenues will not fully offset expenses for asset
depreciation.
The expenditure budget for the FiberNet Monticello Fund assumed the City would have
the system up and running and cost would be for operations and some costs for
completing infrastructure however the costs in 2009 are for installation of the system.
The revenues from the sale of bonds were recorded in 2008 and are being used to fund
these expenditures. The City has requested and received from the escrow funds
$2,930,426 in July and $1,117,108 in October. The July request covered expenditures
from 2008 and 2009, while the October request funded 3rd quarter and some October
2009 expenditures.
Investments
Finally, the City’s investment activity has been relatively minor. As of September 30th
the City had $29,016,471 invested at an average interest rate of 3.61% and an average
yield of 3.65%. This compares to $34,047,572 at an average interest rate of 4.45% and
average yield of 4.58% a year ago. The breakdown of the investments is on the following
page:
2008 2008 % 2009 2009 %
Budget 3rd QTR YTD Spent Budget 3rd QTR YTD Spent
Water Fund 1,195,843 713,209 59.64% 1,165,368 401,774 34.48%
Sewer Fund 2,249,437 1,857,631 82.58% 2,402,754 953,652 39.69%
Liquor Fund 3,694,016 2,906,799 78.69% 3,714,926 2,811,243 75.67%
Cemetery Fund 35,612 18,638 52.34% 35,498 13,198 37.18%
FiberNet Monticello Fund 0 790,097 100.00% 642,000 1,343,415 209.25%
Total 7,174,908 6,286,374 87.62% 7,960,546 5,523,282 69.38%
8
Investments by Type
Money Markets
FHLFHLMC
FFCB
FNMA
CD's
FHL = Federal Home Loan; Money Markets = Government Security Money Market Funds; CD’s =
Certificate of Deposits; FNMA = Federal National Mortgage Association; FFCB = Federal Farm Credit
Bank; FHLMC = Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation.
Below is the investment breakdown between third quarter 2008 and 2009:
Investments: 2008 2009
CD's 4,779,000 5,721,000
FNMA 7,269,000 9,160,000
FFCB 4,000,000 1,575,000
FHLMC 11,410,000 7,535,000
FHL 4,380,000 3,050,000
Money Markets 2,209,572 1,975,471
Total 34,047,572 29,016,471
Attached are the investment holdings of the City as of September 30th.
Conclusion
Overall revenues should end the year near budget amounts, while expenditures should
finish the year below budget. In areas where revenues appear to be coming in below
budget, so are the expenditures. We will continue to monitor both revenues and
expenditures so that there are no big surprises come year-end.
September Investment Schedule
Maturity 1st Call Purchase Days Interest Par Cost of Market Interest Interest
Date Date Date Held Bank Type of Invement Rate Yield Amount Investment Value Accrual Dates
30 4M Fund MMK 0.140%0.140%31,595.42 31,595.42 3.64 Monthly
30 4M Fund MMK+0.280%0.280%20,593.07 20,593.07 4.74 Monthly
30 FNC MMK (Dryfus)0.050%0.050%16,162.36 16,162.36 0.66 Monthly
30 RBC Dain Rauscher MMK 0.010%0.010%1,867,846.56 1,867,846.56 15.35 Monthly
30 CITI Smith Barney MMK 0.010%0.010%39,273.88 39,273.88 0.32 Monthly
12/30/09 6/30/09 183 Wells Fargo First Federal Bank 0.600%0.600%245,000.00 245,000.00 737.01 Monthly
1/4/10 7/1/09 187 Wells Fargo American Express Bank FSB 0.450%0.450%150,000.00 150,000.00 345.82 1/4/10
1/4/10 7/1/09 187 Wells Fargo American Express Centurion Bank 0.450%0.450%150,000.00 150,000.00 345.82 1/4/10
1/4/10 7/2/09 186 Wells Fargo First Bank of Puerto Rico 0.600%0.600%150,000.00 150,000.00 458.63 Monthly
1/8/10 7/8/09 184 Wells Fargo State Bank of India 0.600%0.600%245,000.00 245,000.00 741.04 1/8/10
1/8/10 7/8/09 184 Wells Fargo Transportation Alliance Bank 0.550%0.550%245,000.00 245,000.00 679.29 Monthly
1/8/10 7/9/09 183 Wells Fargo Charter Bank 0.500%0.500%215,000.00 215,000.00 538.97 Monthly
2/12/10 2/10/06 1,462 CITI Smith Barney GMAC Automotive Bk 4.850%4.850%96,000.00 96,000.00 97,673.28 18,649.51 2/12 & 8/12
3/18/10 3/28/08 720 FNC Suntrust Bk Atlanta GA 100,000.00 100,000.00 93,990.00 0.00 Monthly
4/26/10 4/25/07 1,081 CITI Smith Barney Western Bk Puerto Rico - PR 5.050%5.050%96,000.00 96,000.00 97,918.08 14,358.05 4/26 & 10/26
5/7/10 5/7/08 730 CITI Smith Barney CD Boston Private Bank & Trust 3.700%3.700%96,000.00 96,000.00 96,573.12 7,104.00 5/7 & 11/7
8/24/10 8/24/05 1,826 RBC Dain Rauscher Wachovia Bk - S&P 500 Index 95,000.00 95,000.00 90,592.00 0.00 8/24/10
10/22/10 4/23/08 912 CITI Smith Barney FirstBank of Puerto Rico 3.750%3.750%96,000.00 96,000.00 96,417.60 8,995.07 10/22/10
10/29/10 4/30/08 912 CITI Smith Barney Advanta Bank Corp UT 3.650%3.650%96,000.00 96,000.00 96,252.48 8,755.20 4/30 & 10/29
11/19/10 5/21/08 912 FNC Spirit Bank 3.950%3.950%99,000.00 99,000.00 100,360.00 9,770.89 Monthly
2/15/11 2/15/06 1,827 CITI Smith Barney BMW Bk of North America 4.850%4.850%96,000.00 96,000.00 98,132.16 23,305.51 2/15 & 8/15
2/15/11 2/15/06 1,827 CITI Smith Barney Lehman Brothers Bk, FSB 4.900%4.900%96,000.00 96,000.00 98,230.08 23,545.78 2/15 & 8/15
2/17/11 2/17/06 1,827 CITI Smith Barney Fireside Bk 4.900%4.900%96,000.00 96,000.00 98,235.84 23,545.78 2/17 & 8/17
3/30/11 3/30/09 731 FNC Doral Bank 2.550%2.550%99,000.00 99,000.00 5,055.92 Monthly
4/21/11 4/23/08 1,093 CITI Smith Barney Irwin Union Bank 4.000%4.000%96,000.00 96,000.00 96,525.12 11,498.96 4/21 & 10/21
5/19/11 11/19/04 2,373 FNC HSBC Bk NY - S&P 500 Index 92,000.00 92,000.00 95,037.00 0.00 5/19/11
9/12/11 3/11/09 915 CITI Smith Barney Keybank Nat'l Assoc - OH 2.600%2.600%96,000.00 96,000.00 6,257.10 Monthly
11/21/11 5/20/09 915 FNC R-G Premier Bank Puerto Rico 3.000%3.000%100,000.00 100,000.00 7,520.55 5/20 & 11/20
2/28/12 2/28/07 1,827 FNC Farmers Bk & Trust Great Bend S&P 500 Index 50,000.00 50,000.00 47,500.00 0.00 2/28/12
3/12/12 3/11/09 1,097 CITI Smith Barney American Express Centurion Bank 3.000%3.000%96,000.00 96,000.00 8,655.78 3/12 & 9/12
3/12/12 3/11/09 1,097 CITI Smith Barney American Express Bank FSB 3.000%3.000%96,000.00 96,000.00 8,655.78 3/12 & 9/12
3/19/12 3/18/09 1,097 FNC Branch Banking & Trust Comp 3.000%3.000%90,000.00 90,000.00 8,114.79 3/19 & 9/19
3/29/12 9/28/07 1,629 FNC Brentwood Bk Bethel PA - S&P 500 Index 100,000.00 100,000.00 95,000.00 0.00 3/29/12
4/2/12 4/2/09 1,096 CITI Smith Barney GE Capital Financial Inc 2.950%2.950%96,000.00 96,000.00 8,503.76 4/2 & 10/2
4/23/12 4/23/08 1,461 CITI Smith Barney National City Bank - OH 4.000%4.000%96,000.00 96,000.00 95,701.44 15,370.52 4/23 & 10/23
4/25/12 4/19/07 1,797 CITI Smith Barney Discover Bk - DE 5.100%5.100%96,000.00 96,000.00 98,205.12 24,104.42 4/25 & 10/25
4/30/12 4/30/08 1,461 CITI Smith Barney Banco Popular Bank of North America 4.150%4.150%96,000.00 96,000.00 96,145.92 15,946.92 4/30 & 10/30
5/14/12 5/13/09 1,097 Wells Fargo CD Midfirst Bank 3.050%3.050%95,000.00 95,000.00 8,708.38 5/14 & 11/14
5/14/12 5/13/09 1,097 Wells Fargo CD Acacia FSB 3.000%3.000%95,000.00 95,000.00 8,565.62 5/14 & 11/14
11/15/12 5/15/09 1,280 Wells Fargo CD Pinnacle Bank 2.700%2.700%95,000.00 95,000.00 8,995.07 Monthly
1/30/13 4/30/08 1,736 FNC Citizens First Savings Bank - DJIA Index 55,000.00 55,000.00 47,025.00 0.00 1/30/13
1/31/13 1/30/08 1,828 CITI Smith Barney Washington Mutual Bk NV 4.150%4.150%96,000.00 96,000.00 94,738.56 19,952.75 1/31 & 7/31
2/6/13 2/6/08 1,827 CITI Smith Barney Wachovia Bk FSB - TX 3.650%3.650%96,000.00 96,000.00 92,951.04 17,539.20 2/6 & 8/6
2/6/13 2/6/08 1,827 CITI Smith Barney Wachovia Mortgage FSB 3.650%3.650%96,000.00 96,000.00 92,951.04 17,539.20 2/6 & 8/6
September Investment Schedule
Maturity 1st Call Purchase Days Interest Par Cost of Market Interest Interest
Date Date Date Held Bank Type of Invement Rate Yield Amount Investment Value Accrual Dates
2/15/13 5/15/08 2/15/08 1,827 FNC First Natn'l Bk Cent. Burlington 4.000%3.955%98,000.00 98,000.00 97,997.00 19,621.48 Quarterly
3/18/13 3/18/09 1,461 FNC Eurobank 3.350%3.350%90,000.00 90,000.00 12,068.26 Monthly
3/27/13 3/27/09 1,461 FNC Saehan Bank 3.250%3.250%90,000.00 90,000.00 11,708.01 Quarterly
4/30/13 4/30/08 1,826 CITI Smith Barney Capmark Bank UT 4.400%4.400%96,000.00 96,000.00 95,621.76 21,131.57 4/30 & 10/30
5/13/13 5/13/09 1,461 Wells Fargo CD Sallie Mae Bank 3.350%3.350%95,000.00 95,000.00 12,738.72 Monthly
5/15/13 5/15/09 1,461 Wells Fargo CD Citizens State Bank 3.100%3.100%95,000.00 95,000.00 11,788.07 Monthly
6/12/13 6/12/06 7/14/03 3,620 CITI Smith Barney FHLMC 4.000%4.186%385,000.00 385,000.00 409,786.30 152,734.25 6/12 & 12/12
12/30/13 12/30/08 1,826 CITI Smith Barney CD GE Money Bank 4.100%4.100%96,000.00 96,000.00 94,940.16 19,690.78 6/30 & 12/30
1/2/14 1/2/09 1,826 CITI Smith Barney CD Morgan Stanley Bank 4.250%4.250%96,000.00 96,000.00 20,411.18 Monthly
3/11/14 3/11/09 1,826 CITI Smith Barney CD CIT Bank - UT 3.450%3.450%96,000.00 96,000.00 16,569.07 3/11 & 9/11
5/21/14 8/21/09 5/21/09 1,826 CITI Smith Barney FNMA Step Up 2.000%2.000%500,000.00 500,000.00 50,027.40 5/21 & 11/21
11/28/14 11/28/07 2,557 CITI Smith Barney Capital One NA - VA 5.000%5.000%96,000.00 96,000.00 95,513.28 33,626.30 5/28 & 11/28
11/28/14 11/28/07 2,557 CITI Smith Barney Capital One Bk - VA 5.000%5.000%96,000.00 96,000.00 95,513.28 33,626.30 5/28 & 11/28
1/30/15 1/30/08 2,557 CITI Smith Barney Goldman Sachs Bk USA UT 4.000%4.000%96,000.00 96,000.00 90,992.64 26,901.04 1/30 & 7/30
2/9/15 2/8/08 2,558 CITI Smith Barney M & I Bank FSB NV 4.000%4.000%96,000.00 96,000.00 90,973.44 26,911.56 2/9 & 8/9
2/9/15 2/8/08 2,558 CITI Smith Barney Southwest Bk of St Louis MO 4.000%4.000%96,000.00 96,000.00 90,973.44 26,911.56 2/9 & 8/9
3/16/16 3/16/10 3/16/09 2,557 CITI Smith Barney FHLB 4.100%4.100%500,000.00 500,000.00 143,612.33 3/16 & 9/16
4/29/16 7/29/09 5/5/09 2,551 CITI Smith Barney FHLB 3.500%3.500%500,000.00 500,291.67 122,308.22 4/29 & 10/29
7/15/16 7/15/10 7/2/09 2,570 CITI Smith Barney FHLMC 4.000%4.000%400,000.00 400,000.00 112,657.53 1/15 & 7/15
2/6/17 2/6/09 2/8/08 3,286 CITI Smith Barney FNMA 4.500%4.500%750,000.00 750,000.00 750,232.50 303,842.47 2/6 & 8/6
2/25/19 2/25/10 3/9/09 3,640 CITI Smith Barney FHLB 4.500%4.500%350,000.00 350,612.50 157,068.49 2/25 & 8/25
3/4/19 3/4/10 3/5/09 3,652 CITI Smith Barney FFCB 4.500%4.500%500,000.00 500,065.18 225,123.29 3/4 & 9/4
3/4/19 3/4/10 3/5/09 3,652 CITI Smith Barney FFCB 4.500%4.500%145,000.00 145,018.91 65,285.75 3/4 & 9/4
4/23/19 7/23/09 4/23/09 3,650 CITI Smith Barney FHLMC Step up 3.000%3.000%250,000.00 250,000.00 75,000.00 4/23 & 10/23
4/23/19 7/23/09 4/23/09 3,650 CITI Smith Barney FHLMC Step up 3.000%3.000%500,000.00 500,000.00 150,000.00 4/23 & 10/23
7/15/19 1/15/10 7/15/09 3,652 RBC Dain Rauscher FNMA Step Up 3.000%5.250%2,500,000.00 2,502,506.00 750,410.96 1/15 & 7/15
8/27/19 8/27/12 8/27/09 3,644 Wells Fargo FHL Step UP 3.000%3.000%200,000.00 200,000.00 59,901.37 2/27 & 8/27
3/18/20 10/8/07 4/20/04 5,812 RBC Dain Rauscher FNMA - Invest Note 5.000%5.511%200,000.00 190,117.11 200,188.00 159,232.88 3/18 & 9/18
4/14/20 4/14/09 4/14/08 4,383 RBC Dain Rauscher FNMA 5.000%5.014%2,000,000.00 1,997,500.00 2,009,380.00 1,200,821.92 4/14 & 10/14
8/13/20 2/13/09 2/13/08 4,565 RBC Dain Rauscher FHLMC 5.000%5.000%500,000.00 500,006.00 501,155.00 312,671.23 2/13 & 8/13
4/15/21 4/15/10 4/15/08 4,749 RBC Dain Rauscher FHLMC 5.000%5.016%1,000,000.00 998,500.00 1,006,430.00 650,547.95 4/15 & 10/15
6/7/22 6/7/12 3/27/09 4,823 RBC Dain Rauscher FNMA 5.780%5.000%585,000.00 639,119.15 446,794.79 6/7 & 12/7
2/13/23 2/13/09 2/13/08 5,480 RBC Dain Rauscher FHLMC 5.250%5.268%1,000,000.00 998,131.00 998,020.00 788,219.18 2/13 & 8/13
2/21/23 5/21/08 2/21/08 5,480 RBC Dain Rauscher FNMA Step Up 4.500%5.412%500,000.00 500,006.00 494,375.00 337,808.22 2/21 & 8/21
2/22/23 2/22/10 2/1/08 5,480 RBC Dain Rauscher FHLMC 5.250%5.250%1,000,000.00 1,000,006.00 1,004,550.00 788,219.18 2/22 & 8/22
6/15/24 6/15/10 6/25/09 5,469 RBC Dain Rauscher FHLMC 5.000%5.000%500,000.00 500,006.00 374,589.04 6/15 &12/15
8/13/24 8/13/10 8/13/09 5,479 RBC Dain Rauscher FHLB 5.125%5.144%1,000,000.00 998,006.00 769,311.64 2/13 & 8/13
2/4/28 2/4/09 2/4/08 7,307 RBC Dain Rauscher FHLMC 5.500%5.210%1,000,000.00 997,500.00 987,460.00 1,101,054.79 2/4 & 8/4
2/11/28 2/11/09 11/18/08 7,021 RBC Dain Rauscher FNMA 5.500%6.019%525,000.00 501,942.46 519,912.75 555,428.42 2/11 & 8/11
11/13/28 11/13/14 2/25/09 7,201 RBC Dain Rauscher FNMA 5.380%5.090%1,000,000.00 1,050,637.08 1,061,407.67 5/13 & 11/13
9/28/29 9/28/10 9/28/09 7,305 RBC Dain Rauscher FNMA 5.400%5.294%500,000.00 506,477.13 540,369.86 3/28 & 9/28
3/15/30 3/15/06 3/21/05 9,133 FNC FNMA - Step Up 5.000%6.228%100,000.00 100,041.67 100,031.00 125,109.59 3/15 & 9/15
4/12/32 7/17/09 8,305 RBC Dain Rauscher FFCB 5.000%5.275%930,000.00 970,938.92 1,058,034.25 4/12 & 10/12
6/27/36 6/27/11 2/5/09 10,004 RBC Dain Rauscher FHLB 6.500%6.000%500,000.00 536,436.56 890,767.12 6/27 & 12/27
4/16/37 4/16/12 5/14/09 10,197 RBC Dain Rauscher FHLMC 6.000%5.625%1,000,000.00 1,057,172.67 1,676,219.18 4/16 & 10/16
September Investment Schedule
Maturity 1st Call Purchase Days Interest Par Cost of Market Interest Interest
Date Date Date Held Bank Type of Invement Rate Yield Amount Investment Value Accrual Dates
2,614 Totals 3.608%3.650%29,016,471.29 29,222,509.30 11,750,200.43 15,841,168.67
City Council Agenda: 10/26/09
1
5E. Consideration of accepting quotes and authorizing purchase of a self leveling, color
sewer inspection camera for the Water & Sewer Department. (MT, BP)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The City of Monticello’s Water & Sewer Department purchased a sewer camera in the
mid 1980’s from Infratech. That camera was manufactured by UEMSI and called the
“Predator”. It has a 3” color head, 200’ push/pull cable, VHS recording ability, and 120
volts. This camera served its purpose well for many years but we are having some issues
with the monitor and VHS recorder so it is now time for the department to upgrade to
current technology in order to be more efficient.
Two (2) quotes were received for a new inspection camera with the lowest quote from
Infratech for the Pro Cam DVR Inspection System. The Water & Sewer Department is
requesting approval to purchase the Pro Cam DVR Inspection System. This system
includes a 200’ push/pull cable, 10.4”color LCD monitor, self leveling head and on-
screen footage, and DVR player/recorder. The cost of the system is $6,395.00, plus
$438.06 tax, for a total cost of $6,833.06. The biggest advantage of the new camera is
that its head is less than 2” in diameter compared to the old camera which has a 3” head.
The smaller head will allow for it to get into tighter spots which will allow for more
sewer lines to be televised and this will be a benefit to us in the upcoming core city
project. The new cameral also has a self leveling head and is one-fourth the weight of the
old camera.
A1. Budget Impact: $10,000 has been budgeted in the in the 2009 Sewer Fund
Budget under “Other Equipment”. The money was budgeted to cover a new
sewer camera as well as a 20 hp flygt pump for future bypass pumping.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: Purchasing the new sewer camera will aid the
department in being more efficient in televising sewer lines as stated above in the
background information.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to authorize staff to purchase a new Pro Cam DVR Inspection System
from Infratech for a total cost (including tax and freight) of $6,833.06.
2. Motion to deny the purchase of the new inspection system at this time.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends Alternative #1 to authorize the purchase of the new video
inspection system for the Sewer Department.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the two (2) quotes received for the new inspection system.
City Council Agenda: 10/26/09
5F. Consideration of approving Change Order No. 1 for the Fire Hall Improvements, City
Project No. 09C009. (BP, GA)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
During the tear off of the old siding from the fire station for the exterior improvements, the
Building Department was required to perform a sheathing inspection on the exterior
underlayment. Unexpectedly they discovered rotted plywood and studs on the lower few feet
of the north exposure of the building and the enclosure area. The expertise of staff doing the
inspection indicated the cause of the moisture to be the lack of gutters to divert the water
away from the building, second fold; the water spilling from the building was directly falling
on the electric transformer for the fire station which could be a safety hazard. The correction
required was to remove and replace the compromised underlayment. Authorization was given
by the Building Department for the contractor to go forward with the repair as it was a
necessity and Public Works was unavailable to assist due to involvement with other projects
at hand. However, staff will remove a small section of bushes that do not grow well on the
north exposure and replace the portion with concrete when they are pouring sidewalk in the
area. This will deter the building from wicking moisture from the ground. Staff proposes to
council that in the future a gutter system be installed on the north exposure and diverters
installed on the roof for the south exposure to prevent unnecessary moisture contact.
A1. Budget Impact: The City has purchased and delivered the plywood underlayment,
stud materials and ice/water barrier for the repair of rotted areas for a total of $110.95
to date, with an additional $350 in materials estimated to still purchase for the
enclosure area. The contractor’s rate to repair as discovered is $35.00/hour.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: As current tasks allow.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve repairs as discovered by the current contractor, confirmed and
monitored by Monticello Building Department, compensating the contractor at a rate
of $35.00/hour.
2. Motion to deny consideration.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends Alternative #1 which approves repairs necessary for proper installation
of siding with the recommendation of a gutter system to be installed on the north exposure
and diverters installed on the roof for the south exposure of the Monticello Fire Station.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of contractors labor rate for repairs.
Council Agenda: 10/26/09
1
5G. Consideration of adopting Resolution #2009-68 accepting contribution of $200 from
O’Reilly Auto Parts for firefighting equipment. (CS)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The City has received a donation of $200 from O’Reilly Auto Parts to go to the Monticello
Fire Department for firefighting equipment. As required by state statute, if the City
accepts the donation of funds, the City Council needs to adopt a resolution specifying the
amount of the donation and its use.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the contribution and authorize use of funds as specified.
2. Do not approve the contributions and return the funds to the donors.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommendation is to adopt the resolution accepting the contributions.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Resolution No. 2009-68
City of Monticello
RESOLUTION NO. 2009-68
RESOLUTION APPROVING CONTRIBUTIONS
WHEREAS, the City of Monticello is generally authorized to accept
contributions of real and personal property pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections
465.03 and 465.04 for the benefit of its citizens and is specifically authorized to maintain
such property for the benefit of its citizens in accordance with the terms prescribed by the
donor. Said gifts may be limited under provisions of MN Statutes Section 471.895.
WHEREAS, the following persons and or entities have offered to contribute
contributions or gifts to the City as listed:
DONOR/ENTITY DESCRIPTION VALUE
O’Reilly Auto Parts Cash $200
WHEREAS, all said contributions are intended to aid the City in establishing
facilities, operations or programs within the city’s jurisdiction either alone or in
cooperation with others, as allowed by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds that it is appropriate to accept the
contributions offered.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Monticello as
follows:
1. The contributions described above are hereby accepted by the City of
Monticello.
2. The contributions described above will be used as designated by the
donor. This may entail reimbursing or allocating the money to another
entity that will utilize the funds for the following stated purpose:
DONOR/ENTITY RECIPIENT PURPOSE
O’Reilly Auto Parts Monticello Fire Dept Firefighting equipment
Adopted by the City Council of Monticello this 26th day of October, 2009.
______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________________
Jeff O’Neill, City Administrator
City Council Agenda: 10/26/09
1
7. Public Hearing - Consideration of adopting Resolution #2009-61 approving
assessment roll for delinquent utilities as of August 24, 2009 for certification to
County Auditor for 2010 payable tax year. (TK)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The City Council is again asked to adopt an assessment roll for utility billing accounts
which are delinquent more than 60 days and to certify the assessment roll to the County
Auditor for collection on next year's real estate taxes.
The delinquent utility accounts that are included with the agenda are accounts that are at
least 60 days past due and include all new delinquents from the last time we certified
them. In addition to the delinquent amount, the Council also previously approved the
establishment of an administrative fee of $50 per account that is added to each delinquent
assessment. The amounts shown on the enclosed delinquent utilities list do not include
the additional $50 administration fee for the preparation of the assessment roll.
The delinquent utility amounts being certified now is slightly below previous
certifications at this time period and the number of properties being certified are very
similar to past delinquent utility certifications.
It is recommended that the delinquent accounts be put on an assessment roll for
certification at an interest rate of 6% as allowed by state statute. As in the past, if any
accounts are paid within 30 days after the adoption of the assessment roll, they can be
paid without the additional interest. After 30 days, payments will be charged interest.
A1. Budget Impact: Certification of delinquent utility accounts is collection of
revenue the City should have received in 2009 but because of the non-payment
these monies will not be collected until 2010 when it will appear on the tax rolls.
A2. Staff Workload - The process for collecting delinquent utility amounts is time
consuming with preparing and mailing delinquent notices; preparing and mailing
notices of the public hearing on the assessment of delinquent notices as well as
other clerical work in preparing the amounts for certification. The most time
consuming step of the process is verifying the delinquent account data against
Wright County property tax records. The $50 fee that is added to the delinquent
accounts helps defray the cost of staff time and publication expenses.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to adopt the Resolution approving the assessment roll for the delinquent
charges as presented.
2. Based on public hearing input, adjust the assessment roll as required.
City Council Agenda: 10/26/09
2
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Alternative #1 that the Council adopt the assessment roll as presented.
All of the accounts are at least 60 days past due and have been given proper notice of this
assessment hearing and ample opportunity to pay the accounts in full. All delinquent
utility accounts were notified that there would be an additional $50 administrative fee
attached to each outstanding balance if the account was not paid by noon on October 26,
2009.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Resolution 2009-61
Complete listing of delinquent accounts to be certified.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
RESOLUTION NO. 2009-61
RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ROLL
DELINQUENT UTILITIES TO AUGUST 24, 2009
WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the Council has met and
heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for delinquent utility account
charges,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO,
MINNESOTA:
1. Such proposed assessments, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, is
hereby accepted, for the amount shown plus an additional $50 certification fee, and shall
constitute the special assessments against the parcels named herein, and each tract of land
therein included is hereby found to be benefitted by the assessment levied against it.
2. Such assessments shall be payable in one (1) annual installment payable in the tax year of
the first Monday in January 2010, and shall bear interest at the rate of 6 percent per
annum from the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first
installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of this
resolution until December 31, 2010.
3. The owner of the property so assessed may, at any time up to November 30, 2009, pay
the whole of the assessment on such property to the City Treasurer, with interest accrued
to the date of payment, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is
paid within 30 days from the adoption of this resolution.
4. The clerk shall forthwith transmit a certification of this assessment to the county auditor
to be extended on the property tax list of the county. Such assessment shall be collected
and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes.
Adopted by the Monticello City Council this 26th day of October, 2009.
ATTEST: _____________________________________
Clint Herbst, Mayor
_________________________________
Jeff O’Neill, City Administrator
Council Agenda: 10/26/09
1
8. Public Hearing – Consideration of adopting Resolution #2009-62 approving assessment
roll for delinquent accounts receivable bills from September 2008 through August 2009
for certification to County Auditor for 2010 payable tax year. (TK)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The City Council is asked to adopt an assessment roll for accounts receivable bills which are
delinquent more than 60 days and to certify the assessment roll to the County Auditor for
collection on the 2010 real estate taxes if not paid within 30 days of this public hearing.
The delinquent accounts receivable that are included with the agenda are accounts that are at
least 60 days past due and include all new delinquents from the last time we certified them. In
addition to the delinquent amount, the Council also previously approved the establishment of
an administrative fee of $50 per account that is added to each delinquent assessment. The
amounts shown on the enclosed delinquent utilities list do not include the additional $50
administration fee for the preparation of the assessment roll.
It is recommended that the delinquent accounts be put on an assessment roll for certification
at an interest rate of 6% as allowed by state statute. As in the past, if any accounts are paid
within 30 days after the adoption of the assessment roll, they can be paid without any
additional interest.
The amount of the assessment roll is similar to past delinquent accounts receivable assessment
rolls, but the number of properties being assessed is much larger due to the lots in Hunter
Crossing being assessed separately for mowing charges.
A1. Budget Impact: This action would reimburse the City for cost it has already spent and
therefore would have no impact on the City budget.
A2. Staff Impact: Staff impact consists of the delinquent notification process and
preparation of the assessment roll.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to adopt the Resolution approving the assessment roll for delinquent accounts
receivable charges as presented.
2. Based on public hearing input, adjust the assessment roll as required.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of Staff that the Council adopt the assessment roll as presented. All
of the accounts are at least 60 days past due and have been given proper notice of this
assessment hearing and ample opportunity to pay the account in full. All delinquent accounts
were notified that there would be an additional $50 administrative fee attached to each
outstanding balance if the account was not paid by noon on October 26, 2009.
Council Agenda: 10/26/09
2
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Resolution 2009-62
List of delinquent accounts
CITY OF MONTICELLO
RESOLUTION NO. 2009-62
RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ROLL
DELINQUENT ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE
JANUARY THROUGH JUNE, 2009
WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the Council has met and
heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for delinquent utility account
charges,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO,
MINNESOTA:
1. Such proposed assessments, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, is
hereby accepted, for the amount shown plus an additional $50 certification fee, and shall
constitute the special assessments against the parcels named herein, and each tract of land
therein included is hereby found to be benefitted by the assessment levied against it.
2. Such assessments shall be payable in one (1) annual installment payable in the tax year of
the first Monday in January 2010, and shall bear interest at the rate of 6 percent per
annum from the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first
installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of this
resolution until December 31, 2010.
3. The owner of the property so assessed may, at any time up to November 30, 2009, pay
the whole of the assessment on such property to the City Treasurer, with interest accrued
to the date of payment, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is
paid within 30 days from the adoption of this resolution.
4. The clerk shall forthwith transmit a certification of this assessment to the county auditor
to be extended on the property tax list of the county. Such assessment shall be collected
and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes.
Adopted by the Monticello City Council this 26th day of October, 2009.
ATTEST: _____________________________________
Clint Herbst, Mayor
_________________________________
Jeff O’Neill, City Administrator
Council Agenda: 10/26/09
1
9. Public Hearing – Consideration of adopting Resolution #2009-63 approving
assessment roll for Fallon Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation, City Project No. 09C005,
to be certified for 2010 payable tax year. (BW)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The final assessment roll for the reconstruction of Fallon Avenue between School
Boulevard and the section recently reconstructed with Chelsea Road, City Project No.
09C005, is attached as supporting data. Wright County requires that assessments be
certified to the Count y Auditor by November 30, 2009 for collection on next year’s taxes.
This deadline will be met by conducting the public assessment hearing tonight. In
accordance with Minnesota State Statutes Chapter 429, assessment hearing notices were
mailed to the assessed property owners on October 8th and the hearing was publicly
noticed in the Monticello Times on October 8, 2009.
Assessment hearings are typically conducted near to or after project completion to allow
all project costs to be identified as completely as possible. Though construction of this
project is not yet complete, staff is confident that the final costs will not differ appreciably
from the project costs approved by the City Council in the amount of $187,550.64, which
included $146,523.94 in construction costs and $41,026.70 indirect costs for engineering,
materials testing, administration, legal, and financing costs. However, Council could elect
to table the assessment hearing and adoption of the final assessment roll until their meeting
on November 9th, at which time the project will likely be completed thereby ensuring that
all costs will be known at the time of the hearing.
This project is being funded through a combination of City funds and special assessments
to adjacent benefiting properties, which are all properties having direct access to Fallon
Avenue. This excludes all residential units in Klein Farms adjacent to Fallon Avenue.
Benefiting properties are being assessed for the improvements based on their total front
footage along Fallon Avenue, which is then multiplied by a fixed rate of $36.90 per front
foot. This fixed rate distributes the total project costs equally along the 5,083 linear feet of
adjacent property footage. The assessment costs total $143,052.10, which leaves the
City’s share at $44,498.54 which will be funded through the Street Reconstruction Fund.
As always, should any of the assessed property owners choose to pay their assessment in
full within 30 days of this assessment hearing they will be forgiven all interest payments.
And while assessment notices have been mailed to each of the benefiting property owners,
if Council wishes to modify any of the assessment amounts staff could mail new notices to
the affected properties and still meet the 30-day pre-pay requirement.
Letters were previously mailed to each of the assessable property owners explaining that at
the time Fallon Avenue is improved due to the need to install the deep trunk sanitary sewer
to serve future development south of the current City limits, property owners currently
being assessed for improvements under this project will be assessed strictly for additional
street widening including curb and gutter, storm sewer and pathway improvements, and
will not be assessed a second time for the 24-foot wide reconstructed street section.
Council Agenda: 10/26/09
2
The recommended interest rate is 4.5%, which is 1.5% more than the estimated 3.0% rate
the City would pay to bond for the improvements. And per Council request, staff will
provide all assessed property owners the option of paying their assessments using a 5-year
or a 10-year term. Upon Council adoption of the final assessment roll, staff will mail each
of the property owners a letter outlining their options and requesting them to sign off on
which term they would prefer. If this letter is not returned to the City by November 20th,
the property owner will be required to pay their assessment under a 5-year term.
Council should be aware that all property owners identified in the preliminary assessment
roll were invited to a preliminary assessment information meeting at City Hall on
September 9th but none of the noticed parties attended the meeting. In addition, only one
of the property owners to be assessed with this project was present at the Public Hearing
held on September 14th. Staff has also not received any questions to date on the proposed
assessments.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to adopt Resolution 2009-63 approving the assessment roll for City Project
No. 09C005 as attached.
2. Motion to adopt Resolution 2009-63 approving the assessment roll for City Project
No. 09C005 as modified by Council direction.
3. Motion to table adoption of Resolution 2009-63 until November 9, 2009.
4. Motion to deny adopting Resolution 2009-63 at this time.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends that Council approve Alternative Action No. 1. By adopting the
assessment roll tonight it will allow the required 30-day appeal period to commence in
order to meet the County’s deadline.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
City of Monticello Resolution No. 2009-63
Final Assessment Roll – Exhibit A
Assessment Map – Exhibit B
City Council Agenda: 10/26/09
1
10. Consideration of approving an ordinance amendment for Off Street Parking Standards
and approval of summary ordinance for publication. (NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission recently held a public hearing on the amendments included
with this report, and passed it with a recommendation for adoption by the City Council.
As a part of its recommendation, the Planning Commission made one significant change
from the workshop consensus that was agreed to by the Planning Commission and City
Council.
At that workshop (as noted in the original staff report below), final consensus on how to
address smaller commercial vehicle parking was left for further discussion. The
Planning Commission felt that “Small Commercial Vehicles” – as defined in the
proposed ordinance – should be treated just as passenger vehicles in residential areas.
In the original draft of the table summarizing parking regulations, much of the
requirements for small commercial vehicles were left blank. In this version, we have
imported the passenger vehicle requirements into the small commercial vehicle section,
and those requirements are highlighted for easier review.
As the ordinance was recommended by the Planning Commission, a distinction is made
between small and large commercial vehicles. The definition is intended to track
generally with State Statute regulating the licensing of such passenger and commercial
vehicles. In Statute, passenger vehicles include everything we would normally think of
as “cars”, as well as ALL pick-ups and sport utility vehicles less than 9,000 pounds
GVW (Gross Vehicle Weight), plus, pick-ups and SUVs between 9,000 pounds and
13,000 pounds that have no commercial message attached to them. Also included are 16
passenger “commuter” vans and motorcycles.
The State provides that all vehicles over 13,000 pounds, plus those picks-ups and SUVS
between 9,000 and 13,000 pounds with visible commercial messages fall into their
commercial licensing class.
The Planning Commission’s recommendation is that some of these vehicles should be
permitted to be parked on residential property, while others should not. Thus, a
distinction is made between “small” and “large” commercial vehicles. “Small
Commercial Vehicles” are any pick-up or SUV, regardless of poundage or commercial
message, plus other commercial vehicle that are below the size threshold of 8 feet in
height, 8.5 feet in width, and 22 feet in length. These “Small Commercial Vehicles” are
then treated just as passenger vehicles for parking purposes on residential property.
Larger commercial vehicles that do not meet the “Small” definitions are prohibited
from parking in residential areas. It was noted at the public hearing that such vehicles
are also prohibited from driving on residential streets (City Code Title 9, Chapter 1-5),
so there should not be a specific conflict in this area of regulation.
City Council Agenda: 10/26/09
2
If the City Council believes that the Planning Commission’s recommendation reflects its
direction, the ordinance may be adopted as drafted. As an alternative, the Planning
Commission recommended that the Council consider the two items separately, so that
the Council may choose to adopt the basics of the ordinance for passenger and
recreational vehicles, reserving the Small Commercial Vehicle regulations for further
discussion. The changes to be excluded in that case are noted in blue highlight.
A question was also addressed regarding the need for both clauses in the proposed
parking ordinance identified as 3-5-2 [F] 3 and [F] 4. Subparagraph [F] 3 specifically
allows parking on the paved driveway within 15 feet of the street. This clause came into
being in response to a previous clause that prohibited parking within 15 feet of the curb,
regardless of the setback from the property line. The suggestion was that residents
should be able to park in their driveways as long as they were off of the street,
regardless of the location of the property line. The new change here limits this
allowance to single and two-family dwellings.
Subparagraph [F] 4 takes a different approach, allowing parking in the “boulevard”
portion of the right of way under the same conditions as [F] 3. For most cases, the
allowance in [F] 3 will eclipse [F] 4 since most boulevard areas adjacent to residential
property ranges between 10 and 15 feet in width. Conceivably, however, [F] 4 will come
into play when there is a particularly wide boulevard. This condition exists on East
River Street, where there is a wide right of way and the street is offset within the right of
way to the south.
In summary, the two clauses will almost always overlap, but there a few rare cases
where they may have an impact.
Provided below is the staff report providing an overview for the proposed ordinance
item.
The City has been working to clarify its allowances for the keeping of motor vehicles on
residential property. This discussion has focused on passenger automobiles and light trucks,
but has included attention to the keeping of recreational vehicles and equipment (such as
trailers), as well as some limited discussion of the keeping of commercial vehicles.
There are a number of locations in the current ordinance where parking and storage standards
are located, and these standards have been amended over the years, raising some concerns
about both ease of use and comprehensive coverage. The City Council and Planning
Commission conducted a workshop meeting to develop a consistent view on how to approach
these vehicles, and where on residential lots they believed best provided for reasonable
storage with minimal negative impacts to neighbors.
In relationship to commercial vehicles, in the proposed ordinance language, we have created a
category called “Small commercial vehicles” and where standards for such vehicles would be
located, text has been inserted based on the recommendation of the Planning Commission.
Pending the outcome of Council action, these items can be adjusted to “Reserved” to allow
City Council Agenda: 10/26/09
3
for further discussion. In this way, the City can adopt regulations addressing passenger
vehicles and recreational equipment, then make a minor adjustment when commercial vehicle
regulations are agreed to.
As such, we have created preliminary definitions that track some State licensing regulations
for commercial vehicles. Some of those regulations are based on weight, which is a common
municipal standard, but which the Wright County Sheriff’s office has expressed reluctance to
enforce on private property (enforcement on public roadways avoids some of the concerns
over showing “probable cause” when entering private property).
The regulations that are proposed in this regard are primarily included as placeholders to
facilitate final amendments – it is acknowledged that changes are likely when commercial
vehicle parking regulations are addressed as a second step in this project.
It is also acknowledged that there will be limited situations in which existing residential
parking configurations may not meet the requirements of the new ordinance. These situations
may be addressed through regulations protecting existing lawful non-conforming uses, as well
as a variance process, if required.
The changes to the existing code language are proposed below, in a strikeout – underline
format to permit easier review and analysis of the proposal.
A1. Budget Impact: Not applicable.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: Not applicable.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
The Planning Commission recommends alternative 1 below.
Decision 1: Amendment of the Zoning Ordinance related to the requirements for location and
surfacing of parking and storage of Passenger, Recreational, and certain Commercial vehicles.
1. Motion to approve the ordinance as proposed, including Ordinance #506A authorizing
summary publication.
2. Motion to approve the ordinance, reserving action on the Small Commercial Vehicles
section of Figure 3-5-1 for further review, including Ordinance #506A authorizing
summary publication.
3. Motion to recommend denial of the ordinance as proposed.
City Council Agenda: 10/26/09
4
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the ordinance. For the most part, the ordinance represents the
stated outcomes of discussion by the Commission and Council during their joint work session.
It provides the addition of specific definitions related to parking and clarity in both yard and
vehicle type that the current ordinance does not include. The ordinance also includes both a
table and illustration to provide greater clarification.
Staff would also recommend approval of the recommendation related to commercial vehicles
as proposed by the Planning Commission. Staff has documented concerns related to large
commercial vehicles parking in residential districts. The clarification on the definition of
large and small commercial vehicle types and the inaction of specific regulations will allow
staff to respond to these concerns more effectively.
The recommendation for approval is made with the understanding that further discussion by
the City Council may be needed to finalize the commercial vehicles portion of the material.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Proposed Ordinance
Summary Ordinance #506A for Publication
City of Monticello
Wright County, Minnesota
Ordinance No. 506A
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTERS 2-2, 3-2, and 3-5 OF THE
MONTICELLO CITY CODE, KNOWN AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE, PROVIDING
FOR THE REGULATION OF PARKING AND STORAGE IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS
INCLUDING REVISED ZONING DEFINITIONS, AND PROVIDING FOR
PUBLICATION OF THE REVISED ORDINANCE IN SUMMARY FORM.
The City Council of the City of Monticello hereby ordains:
Section 1.
Title 10, Chapters 2-2, 3-2 [M], 3-2 [N]2 and [N]4, 3-5 [D]7, 3-5 [D]9.(k), and 3-5 [F]3-8, are
hereby amended per Ordinance No. 506 on file with the City Clerk, a summary of which follows.
Section 2.
Chapter 2-2. is amended by adding definitions.
Chapter 3-2 [M] is amended to provide for a reference to the City’s Nuisance Code.
Chapter 3-2 [N] is amended to provide for clarifications of the requirements for outdoor storage
and parking of recreational vehicles and small commercial vehicles.
Chapter 3-5 [D]7 is amended to establish regulations for parking of vehicles on residential
property, and to add figures clarifying requirements for location and improvements of such
parking.
Chapter 3-5 [D]9 is amended to establish and clarify regulations relating to surfacing and paving
requirements for residential parking and storage.
Chapter 3-5 [F] is amended to establish and clarify regulations relating to location of parking and
storage on residential property.
Section 3.
This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage and summary
publication. A copy of the full text of the Ordinance shall be on file in the office of the City
Clerk.
Adopted by the Monticello City Council this 26th day of October, 2009.
__________________________________
Clint Herbst, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Jeff O’Neill, Administrator
AYES:
NAYS:
City Council Agenda: 10/26/09
1
11. Consideration of directing City Attorney to prepare an amended assessment agreement
with John Chadwick for reapportionment of special assessments for Outlot D, Otter
Creek Crossings for taxes payable 2010. (AS/TK)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Property owner John Chadwick has requested that the City Council consider a request to re-
apportion the special assessment on his remaining property at Otter Creek Crossings. The
special assessments are related to the infrastructure and improvements associated with
Chelsea Road from 90th Street to CSAH 39, through Otter Creek Crossing.
In his request, Mr. Chadwick notes that the inability to sell property given current economic
conditions has made payment of the special assessment costs difficult.
In 2005, Mr. Chadwick, along with adjacent property owner Jim Bowers, entered into an
assessment agreement obligating them to 79% of the infrastructure costs for the Chelsea Road
improvements. The total assessment amount of $2,383,226.77 was to be apportioned
between Outlots C and D over 10 years at 5.5% interest.
Currently, Mr. Chadwick is in year 3 of that repayment schedule. He is current in his
payments and has paid $622,831.48 in special project assessments.
In order for City Council to reapportion the special assessments, the original assessment
agreement must be amended to reflect the proposed changes. It is proposed to have City
Attorney Joel Jamnik craft the amendment to the assessment agreement and bring this back to
Council on November 9 for consideration for approval. City staff will request that Mr.
Chadwick waive his right to a public hearing for the reapportionment in order to meet the
deadlines to submit the revised assessment to Wright County for taxes payable 2010.
The new payment schedule, as prepared by finance director Tom Kelly is attached. The City
will need to balance with this request with the understanding that the City will still be
required to make its debt payment on the 2005 bond that included these infrastructure costs.
That annual payment on the bond totals approximately $3,200,000.
A1. Budget Impact: There will be some cost associated with having the City Attorney
revise the assessment agreement. In addition, by extending out the assessments, the
City would need to use reserves (which the City currently has ability to utilize for this
purpose) for the difference between what currently is owed each year and the new
amounts. However, by extending the assessments over the life of the assessment, the
property owner would pay more in interest, so the City would be paid back what it
uses from reserves plus additional interest.
City Council Agenda: 10/26/09
2
A2. Staff Workload Impact: There will be a small amount of staff time involved in
preparing the amended assessment agreement and revised assessment information for
Wright County.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to direct the City Attorney to draft an amendment to the assessment agreement
for the reapportionment of remaining special assessment for Outlot D, Otter Creek
Crossings to a 15 year term at 5.5%, with the 15 year term beginning with taxes
payable 2010.
2. Motion to deny the request to have the City Attorney draft an amendment to the
assessment agreement.
3. Motion of other.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This request represents a significant policy decision for the City Council. There are a
considerable number of special assessment projects which have been levied over the past ten
years. The City has funded major infrastructure projects including Chelsea Road, School
Boulevard and the I-94 Interchange through the use of bonds to be paid in part through special
assessments. Each represents a substantial cost to the City in terms of bond repayment. It is
estimated that the City has special assessments totaling around $11,269,952.79 in the various
debt service funds and another $2,837,906.90 in the park dedications and various access funds
for a total of $14,107,859.69 in special assessments that could be subject to requests for
deferrals or reapportionment. Those assessments are tied to $36,933,811.00 in bonds that are
to be paid from special assessments, taxes and access funds.
The inability of the property owner to pay the levied assessments also has a negative impact
on the City’s ability to make the bond payment. If by extending the assessment out, it allows
the property owner to continue to pay the property taxes and keep them current, the City is
better off receiving a partial (reapportioned) payment as compared to receiving no payment.
It is anticipated, for example, that the adjacent property owner (Outlot C, Otter Creek
Crossings) will also be making a request related to deferral or reapportionment of the Chelsea
Road assessments, which total $1,001,997.59 in principal and interest. That property is
currently delinquent in payment.
The Council will need to weigh the precedent set by adjusting this specific assessment, and
potentially many others, against the economic conditions for the development community.
City Council Agenda: 10/26/09
3
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
a. Request Letter
b. Council Agenda – 10/23/05
c. City Resolution 2006-102
d. Property Tax Statement – 2009
e. Assessment Reapportionment Illustration
City Council Agenda: 10/26/09
1
12. Consideration of approving a request for a Conditional Use Permit for an accessory
storage building in a mobile home park, zoned R-4, Mobile Home Park District.
Applicant: Kjellberg’s, Inc. (NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
This item has been pending since the Planning Commission’s recommendation for
approval with the condition that the applicant submit a landscaping/screening plan for
the outdoor storage area that is attached to the storage building. The storage building
itself is the subject of the CUP. Although the outdoor storage area pre-dated the storage
building, a properly screened outdoor storage area is a condition of approval of any
CUP for a new accessory building.
The applicants indicated that they would submit a plan for the storage area screening.
They also indicated that they believe that screening is accomplished by existing
vegetation in and around the storage area. As such, they have submitted a survey that
identifies the existing trees and shrubs along the west and south boundaries of the
outdoor storage yard but does not propose any additional screening.
The existing vegetation consists of five Silver Maple trees along the south boundary, and
a large number of Chinese Elm and Cedar trees along the west boundary.
The Silver Maple trees along the south are over-story trees that do not provide
screening. The applicants contend that the south boundary should not be required to be
screened as it faces the sales yard. The City Council should determine whether the
home-sites to the southwest of the storage yard have views into the yard through this
area – it appears to staff that such views are possible.
The Chinese Elms and Cedars are commonly considered to be “volunteer” growth, often
considered invasive tree species. They provide a partial screen along the west boundary
of the storage area, although during winter months, the elms do not screen views into
the yard.
Staff’s recommendation has been to require more standard evergreen shrub plantings
along the fence line to replace, or to at least augment the existing vegetation and meet
the intent of the screening requirement in this area.
The applicant is seeking a Conditional Use Permit to allow the use of an accessory storage
building. The storage building has been previously constructed without the required zoning
reviews or building permits. The construction of the building without the required approvals
represents a clear violation of the City building and zoning codes.
The applicant indicates in the project narrative accompanying the application that the building
has been inspected and passed for fire code compliance by Monticello Fire Department
officials.
City Council Agenda: 10/26/09
2
The Zoning Ordinance, in Chapter 9, R-4, Mobile Home Park District, makes the following
provisions:
9-4: CONDITIONAL USES: The following are conditional uses in an "R-4"
district:
[A] Accessory Storage Buildings subject to the following conditions:
1. If associated with any open storage, the storage area is
screened from surrounding mobile home units.
2. The storage area is surfaced to control dust and drainage.
3. The storage area and building(s) are for the sole use of the
residents of the mobile home park and are not available for use
by non-residents.
In Section 9-3 [A] 1. (g), the ordinance further requires: “All structures (fences, sidewalks,
roads, storage, cabana, or other) shall require a building permit from the Monticello Building
Inspector.”
The building is a 30 foot by 36 foot cold storage building. It has been located within a storage
yard of about 120 feet by 200 feet. The storage area is surfaced with a gravel Class V surface
and is enclosed by a 6 foot tall chain link fence, strung with barbed wire along the top. There
is a line of lilac shrubs along the eastern edge of the storage area. The storage area is open to
view from the west and south.
Conditional Uses are considered to be an approved use of property, provided the conditions
required by the Ordinance and other reasonable conditions imposed by the City are met. In
reviewing this CUP application, it is necessary to consider the request as if the building had
not already been constructed. In doing so, staff would make the following observations:
1. The storage yard is not fully screened in accordance with the requirements of the CUP
provisions. As a part of any CUP consideration, the applicant should be required to
submit a landscaping plan that provides screening in accordance with the ordinance
section screened from surrounding mobile home units. Landscaping plans are
common requirements of Conditional Use Permit applications, and are specifically
called for in the Mobile Home Park District, Section 9-2 [A] 3.(g) iii as follows: All
areas shall be landscaped in accordance with landscaping plan approved by the City.
2. The storage area is surfaced with Class V gravel. It appears that the requirement for
control of dust and drainage is met by the existing surface.
3. The applicants indicate that the building will be used for operations integral to the
needs of the Mobile Home Park and its residents. While the building will be used by
employees of the facility, and not the residents themselves, the applicant does not
indicate any intent to use the building for outside users.
As noted above, the applicants constructed the building without the required building permit.
Such a permit is generally required for any building in the City, but is also specifically
City Council Agenda: 10/26/09
3
required by the language of the zoning district. The City’s Building Code provides for a
double fee attached to the review of any building so constructed.
As a part of this CUP, the applicant should be required to submit to a full inspection of the
building, including corrections as noted by the Building Official resulting from said
inspection(s).
A1. Budget Impact: Not applicable.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: Not applicable.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the CUP (alternative 1), with the
condition that the applicant supply a landscape plan to be reviewed for conformance by
City staff.
Decision 1: Conditional Use Permit for an accessory storage building in an R-4, Mobile
Home Park District.
1. Motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit, with the following conditions (see
draft findings attached to this report):
a. Submission of a landscaping plan to City Staff showing full screening as
recommended in the staff report dated 10/26/09 around the west and south
boundaries of the storage area. Said landscaping should be designed to provide
year-round screening to a height of at least six feet.
b. Installation of the planned landscaping should be required to be completed by
November 13th, 2009.
c. Any fencing proposed as part of the plan shall receive the proper permits from
the City of Monticello
d. The building shall receive full inspections by the City of Monticello Building
Department, and be subject to double fees as provided by the City’s Building
Code.
e. The applicant shall make all corrections directed by the Building Department
in a timeframe as directed by the Building Official
2. Motion to deny the Conditional Use Permit. This motion should be based on the
following findings, and other findings to be made by the Planning Commission:
a. The associated outdoor storage area is not screened as required by the
applicable zoning ordinance section (9-4 [A] 3).
City Council Agenda: 10/26/09
4
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Alternative 1. If the City Council believes that the existing vegetation
meets the intent of the Zoning Ordinance, it may approve the CUP deleting conditions a. and
b. in the options above.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
A. Site Plan and Application Materials (Supplied with 10/12/09 Council Packet)
B. Landscape Plan dated 10/14/09
C. Draft Findings of Fact for Approval
Exhibit A
Please refer to Agenda Item #8 from October 12, 2009 – review supporting data attached to this
item.
Exhibit C
Draft Findings of Fact for Approval
Kjellberg’s Inc.
1000 Kjellberg Park
9127 State Highway 25, NE
Monticello, MN 56362
1. The proposed building, if compliant with the Conditions identified in this report, will provide
screening as required by the zoning ordinance.
2. The proposed building, if compliant with the Conditions identified in this report, will meet the
requirements of the Monticello Building Code.
3. The proposed Conditional Use Permit meets all other applicable conditions and requirements
of the zoning ordinance.
4. With adherence to these conditions, the proposed Conditional Use Permit will not be a threat
to public health, safety, or welfare.
5. The proposed CUP will meet the intent of the Comprehensive Plan relating to this use.
6. The proposed CUP will not tend to depreciate the value of the area in which it is located.
7. The applicants have demonstrated a need for the Conditional Use through their application
materials.
City Council Agenda: 10/26/09
1
13. Consideration of approving updates to the annual Snow Plowing/Removal Policy
and discussion of pathways designated for snow removal. (TM)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Each year the Public Works Department reviews the previous year’s Snow
Plowing/Removal Policy and proposes updates to the document. In early October after
all of the different divisions of Public Works have had an opportunity to check plow
routes, new construction and changes we meet as a group for several hours to go over the
policy in depth. Comments generated from this group meeting often result in
modifications and changes to the policy. These changes then are outlined and clearly
marked in yellow in the draft document and carried to the City Council for review,
possible changes and adoption. This document then becomes the framework for the snow
plowing and removal operations throughout the City by Public Works. Individual
departments then develop their own plans on how they are to accomplish the goals set out
in the policy.
The policy lays out priorities and timing for all facets of snow plowing/removal
throughout the community. The priorities set out in the policy are to be achieved by the
Public Works Department under reasonable conditions and budget assuming that at least
one piece of major equipment and one operator are not available. In most cases we are
able to meet the goals set out in the policy in less time than stated.
The following is a summary of this year’s minor changes:
SNOW EMERGENCY ROUTES:
Primary: Add Gillard Avenue (from CSAH 39 E to 95th Street) due to topography.
Secondary: Add School Boulevard (from TH 25 to Redford Lane)
Public Parking Lots: Add Prairie West Building at 6th & Walnut plowed by 8 a.m.
Add FiberNet Head End Building plowed within 12 hours.
CITY MAINTAINED SIDEWALKS:
Add: 201 East Broadway (Old Cedar Street Garden Center) cleared within 24 hours.
CITY MAINTAINED PATHWAYS:
Add: School Boulevard (North side from TH 25 to River City Extreme)
DAMAGE TO PERSONAL PROPERTY:
Add: Maximum reimbursement of $200 for cluster mailboxes damaged by city plows.
City Council Agenda: 10/26/09
A1. Budget Impact: The proposed changes to the policy this year will have minimal
(if any) impact on the City’s budget.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: The proposed changes to the policy will slightly (if at
all) increase the workload for the Public Works Department during the winter
season. We are adequately staffed to handle this workload.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve the 2009/2010 Snow Plowing/Removal Policy for the
upcoming season.
2. Motion to make additional changes to the 2009/2010 Snow Plowing/Removal
Policy as determined by the City Council and approve the final document.
3. Motion to deny adopting the 2009/2010 Snow Plowing/Removal Policy.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends Alternative #1 to approve Snow Plowing/Removal Policy with
modifications for 2009/2010.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the 2009/2010 Snow Plowing/Removal Policy with the proposed changes
highlighted in yellow
Map of snow plow routes and primary and secondary routes
Map of snowmobile route thru the City
Sidewalk/pathway map noting which sidewalks are maintained by the property owner or
currently maintained by the City (map designates which pathways are currently set up
for snow removal for the winter)