City Council Agenda Packet 07-12-2010AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING – MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, July 12, 2010 – 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. Approval of Minutes – June 28, 2010 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) Riverfest Recap
2) Beer Tasting (7/23)
c. Staff Updates:
1) City of Monticello Facebook Presence
2) GFOA Distinguished Budget Presentation Award
5. Consent Agenda:
A. Consideration of approving new hires and departures for City departments
B. Consideration of adopting Resolution #2010-48 accepting a contribution from the
Thurber family
C. Consideration of adopting a Social Media Policy for the City
D. Consideration of granting one hour deviation to City Ordinance 6-1-10 Noise
Regulation for the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant on specified training
dates
E. Consideration of adopting Resolution #2010-49 approving a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment as related to the 1997 Downtown Revitalization Plan
F. Consideration of adopting Resolution #2010-38 approving Plans and
Specifications and authorizing advertisement for bids for the NE Quadrant
Improvements to State Hwy 25, CSAH 75 and East River Street, City Project No.
10C005 and for reconstruction of the East Bridge Park parking lot
G. Consideration of amending Job Description and Title from Lead Fiber Technician
to Technical Services Supervisor for FiberNet
H. Consideration of approving an application for a temporary gambling license for
the Wright County/West Metro Whitetails (MDHA) on September 12, 2010 at
River City Extreme
I. Consideration of adopting Summary Ordinance #516A for publication of the
Illicit Discharge, Detection and Elimination Ordinance #516 approved on June 28,
2010
6. Consideration of items removed from the consent agenda for discussion.
7. Consideration of reapportioning special assessments and amending the SW Interchange
Assessment Agreement for Monticello Industrial Park, Inc (Shawn Weinand & Charlie
Pfeffer)
8. Added Items
9. Approve payment of bills for July 12th
10. Adjournment
City Council Agenda: 07/12/10
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.
A1. Budget Impact: (positions are generally included in budget)
A2. Staff Work Load Impact: If new positions, there may be some training
involved. If terminated positions, existing staff would pick up those hours, as
needed, until replaced.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to ratify the hire/departures of the employees as identified on the attached
list.
2. Motion to deny the recommended hires and departures.
C. RECOMMENDATION:
By statute the City Council has the authority to approve all hires/departures. City staff
recommends Alternative #1, for the Council to approve the hires and/or departures as
listed.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
List of new/terminated employees
Name Title Department Hire Date Class
Robert Christenson PT Custodian MCC 6/24 PT
Dominique Rockstroh Guest Service MCC 6/28 PT
Name Reason Department Last Day Class
NEW EMPLOYEES
TERMINATING EMPLOYEES
5A Council_employee list 2010: 7/9/2010
City Council Agenda: 07/12/10
1
5B. Consideration of adopting Resolution #2010-48 accepting a contribution from the
Thurber family (CS)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
John and Tara Thurber made a contribution of $100 to go toward the equipment for the
Monticello Fire Department. 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.
A1. Budget Impact: None
A2. Staff Workload Impact: Staff accounts for and reconciles donations contributed
through the City.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the contributions 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. 2010-48
City of Monticello
RESOLUTION NO. 2010-48
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
John & Tara Thurber Cash $100
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
John & Tara Thurber Monticello Fire Dept equipment
ADOPTED BY the City Council of Monticello this 12th day of July, 2010.
______________________________
Mayor Clint Herbst
ATTEST:
______________________________________
Jeff O’Neill, City Administrator
City Council Agenda: 07/12/10
1
5C. Consideration of adopting a social media policy for the City (MB)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
To further enhance the City’s methods of communicating to the public and hopefully
capture many different generations, an official City of Monticello Facebook page has
been created. Check it out, become a fan:
Please note, Staff will complete a formal introduction and presentation of the City’s
Facebook page at the July 12, 2010 City Council meeting during Staff Updates. In
general, the Facebook page will simply provide immediate updates on events as they
occur and, more importantly, be a reference page of quick information that directs users
back to the City’s website or other applicable links.
City Council Agenda: 07/12/10
2
For example, here is a typical “posting”:
The City’s Facebook page will be utilized to broaden communication efforts to the
predominately younger generation that utilizes social media as a way to obtain
information and will be ready for those that are likely to adopt this technology in the
future. Postings will include upcoming events, action taken at City meetings, awareness
information (i.e. public safety), construction notifications, and other pertinent information
as needed.
City Staff will generate “postings.” Facebook allows the City to limit “fans” from
submitting their own “postings” on the page. However, Facebook does not block the
ability of “fans” to “comment” on the City’s “postings.” Due to the fact that the public
will be allowed to comment on information posted on the City page, it would seem
appropriate to establish a Social Media policy. The policy outlines the City’s standards
for receiving and accepting public “comments” and gives the City guidelines for
removing “comments” that violate these standards. The essence of the policy is to simply
set the standard for a General Audience Facebook presence.
The attached policy outlines a purpose statement that reflects the City’s goal to provide
the public with accurate and timely information in a professional manner. The policy
simply states the City will not tolerate public “comments” that are: vulgar, personal
attacks, illegal, offensive, etc. It is also clear in the policy that public “comments” do not
reflect the opinions or position of City Staff and elected officials. The policy does allow
for expression of opinion on a posting, however, the posting could be removed if the
content of the message has elements that violate these standards. For instance, a
comment that is critical of a city program would not typically be removed; however, a
comment about a city program that includes inaccurate information or vulgar language
could be removed.
As previously stated, by establishing this policy, Staff will have the ability to remove
“comments” by the public that are not consistent with the goals of the site, which is to
provide accurate information to the public. Staff will monitor public “comments” on a
frequent basis in order to keep the City’s social media presence professional and
appropriate for all generations. Many cities have and continue to establish Facebook
City Council Agenda: 07/12/10
3
pages. In general, Cities are not having a major issue with negative or vulgar postings. In
fact, communities with Communication Departments are finding that Facebook is really a
great way to connect with the community and have received positive feedback from
citizens.
A1. Budget Impact: Facebook is free. The only cost incurred is staff time to post
information on the site.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: Postings are quick in nature and will generally link
back to information on the City’s website. The City’s existing website will
continue to be the platform for citizens to obtain detailed information. Although
Facebook can be used as a place to comment; if residents have questions or
concerns, they will continue to be directed to the Citizen Help Desk on the City’s
website. Staff workload will increase slightly due to the need to keep postings
current and monitor any public “comments;” however, time intensity will
continue to occur through the City’s existing website to key in details.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to adopt the proposed Social Media Policy.
2. Motion to deny the proposed Social Media Policy.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City Staff recommends Alternative 1. The proposed policy is general in nature to allow
“fans” the ability to comment on all the City postings, while maintaining a positive and
general audience viewing standard. Facebook is becoming a very common form of
communicating “news feeds” (events, programs, services, etc.) to multiple generations by
cities, government agencies, and businesses.
The Social Media policy does not address the use of Facebook by employees and elected
officials. The Human Resource Manager will incorporate any necessary policy into the
Employee Handbook. The Social Media Policy that the City Council is being asked to
adopt is simply to address the standard for acceptable “comments” by the general public
on the City of Monticello’s Facebook page.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Proposed Social Media Policy
City of Monticello Social Media Policy
Purpose:
The City of Monticello strives to provide the public accurate and timely information,
communicated in a professional manner, and in accordance with the laws regarding public
information and data practices. The City makes use of social media as a means to provide
communication with the public.
General Guidelines:
The City recognizes the public has the ability to comment on social media postings. The City
herein reserves the right to delete comments on the City of Monticello and affiliated social media
pages that:
Contain vulgar language
Are personal attacks of any kind
Are offensive
Are prejudiced or hurtful remarks made toward any person or entity, including any
ethnic, racial or religious group
Are spam
Include sales/promotion of goods or services, or links to other sites
Are off-topic
Advocate illegal activity
Promote political organizations
Infringe on copyrights or trademarks
Violate laws regarding public information and data practices
Do not support goal of providing accurate public information
Furthermore, comments expressed on the City of Monticello social networking sites do not
reflect the opinions or positions of the City of Monticello, its employees, advisory boards, or
elected officials.
***************************************************************************
ADOPTED BY the Monticello City Council this 12th day of July, 2010.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
____________________________________
Clint Herbst, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Jeff O’Neill, City Administrator
City Council Agenda: 07/12/10
1
5D. Consideration of granting one hour deviation to City Ordinance 6-1-10 Noise
Regulation for the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant on specified training dates.
(AS/CS)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
The City of Monticello recently received a request from the Monticello Nuclear
Generating Plant (MNGP) requesting approval for a one hour deviation from the City’s
Noise regulations as noted in City Ordinance 6-1-10 from 10:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.
MNGP made a similar request in 2009, which was approved by the City Council.
The Nuclear Generating Plant plans to conduct training of security officers on the dates
as shown below. The training includes regulatory requirements for shooting events to be
conducted under low light conditions (after dark). There is a slight possibility that the
firing of weapons could be heard within the surrounding area and they are seeking
approval to hold the training beyond the time allowed in the ordinance.
The following dates in 2010 have been selected for training. If they would need to
reschedule any of these dates, the City would be notified in advance and could post the
information at our City website.
August 2, 3
August 31, September 1
September 7, 8
September 14, 15
September 21, 22
September 28, 29
A1. Budget Impact: None.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: City Staff would notify the Wright County Sheriff’s
Department of the training dates, if approved, and post the information on our
City website. Similar to action taken in 2009, the City has prepared a notification
to residents, with Xcel Energy paying for production and postage of the
notification.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Motion to authorize the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant security forces to
conduct up to 18 low-light shooting training events, ending no later than 11:00
p.m. on the dates requested, or on substituted dates following notice to the City of
the rescheduled dates.
2. Motion to deny the request to vary from the 10:00 p.m. regulation of the City
Noise Ordinance 6-1-10.
City Council Agenda: 07/12/10
2
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of Alternative #1. Plant facilities include an on-site shooting
range, which is located close to a mile from city residential neighborhoods. The City
received no complaints or citizen concerns resulting from the 2009 activity.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A: June 23, 2010 Letter from Xcel Energy
Exhibit B: Copy of City Ordinance Section 6-1-10
Exhibit C: Aerial Illustration
City Council Agenda: 07/12/10
1
5E. Consideration of adopting Resolution #2010-49 approving a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment as related to the 1997 Downtown Revitalization Plan (AS)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
City Council is asked to approve this resolution, which is essentially a housekeeping
item, formalizing previous action taken on June 28th.
On June 28th, the City Council approved an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan at the
request of Semper Development. The amendment focused primarily on building and
parking area placement in relationship to street fronts. The resolution proposed simply
codifies the decision and the language of the amendment.
Council will recall that the 2008 Comprehensive Plan adopted the 1997 Downtown
Revitalization Plan as the guiding document for the downtown district. As such, by
amending the 2008 plan, the 1997 plan is also amended.
It is recognized that further discussion and review of policies for the downtown will be
forthcoming with the new downtown planning effort.
A1. Budget Impact: A small fee will be incurred for the update of the
Comprehensive Plan document.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: None.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to adopt Resolution #2010-49 approving a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment as related to the 1997 Downtown Revitalization Plan.
2. Motion to deny adoption of Resolution #2010-49 approving a Comprehensive
Plan Amendment as related to the 1997 Downtown Revitalization Plan.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends Alternative #1. This alternative is consistent with action taken on
June 28, 2010.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Resolution #2010-49
Agenda Staff report from June 28, 2010
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2010-49
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AS RELATED TO THE 1997 DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION PLAN
WHEREAS, the City adopted an update to its municipal Comprehensive Plan in 2008; and
WHEREAS, the City adopted a Downtown Plan: A New Bridge: Revitalizing Monticello’s
Downtown and Riverfront in 1997, which is an appendix document to the 2008 Comprehensive
Plan; and
WHEREAS, it is in the City's best interest to reevaluate its comprehensive plan and consider and
analyze amendments as necessary; and
WHEREAS, the City, through its Planning Commission and other committees and groups, have
undertaken a thorough analysis of a proposed amendment to the 2008 Comprehensive Plan and
the 1997 Downtown Revitalization Plan; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to a review and approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment by the
City Council on June 28, 2010;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO,
MINNESOTA THAT, the 2008 Comprehensive Plan shall be amended as follows:
At the intersection of Broadway and Pine Streets, parking lots may be constructed
only when all of the following conditions exist:
Applicable traffic safety and access requirements limit the ability to
comply with building location standards of this Plan.
At least fifty (50) percent of either the Broadway or Pine Street frontage
is occupied by a building (non-parking area).
An alternative vertical element is located at the street corner which, as
determined by City Officials, establishes an architecturally compatible corner
presence. Such elements may include, but not be limited to public art,
interpretive signage, architectural business signs and architecturally
appropriate lighting.
ADOPTED BY the Monticello City Council this 12th day of July, 2010.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
_________________________________
ATTEST: Clint Herbst, Mayor
________________________________
Jeff O’Neill, City Administrator
City Council Agenda: 06/28/10
1
10. Consideration of approving a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Conditional Use
Permit for Cross Parking, Cross Access and Drive-Through Facility, and
Preliminary Plat and Final Plat for the proposed Nicolle Addition, a commercial
development in the CCD (Central Community District); Applicant: Semper
Development. (NAC/AS)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION
The Planning Commission reviewed these requests during a public hearing held on
June 8th, 2010.
During the public hearing, the majority of comment was related to the proposed
transportation improvements supporting the development. These comments
included those from residents along River Street, who indicated some concern
regarding the proposed cul-de-sac at River and Cedar. The City Council has since
heard and addressed these comments in a subsequent hearing on the NE Quadrant
project improvements.
A concern was also noted by Myrna Anderson, a property owner on the block,
regarding on-street parking on Cedar Street. She sought assurance that this
proposal would not remove that parking. Staff confirmed that this proposed project
does not include any loss of parking on Cedar.
Public comment was also taken on the amount of parking provided on site. Planner
Grittman confirmed that the amount of parking shown, while less than that
required by the straight zoning requirements for retail, does meet code. This is
because the CCD has a special provision allowing for a reduction if parking is
allowed for public use (this provision will be specified by development agreement)
and due to proximity of other public and on-street parking facilities. Conceptual
plans also illustrate the opportunity for additional on-street parking on River Street.
In their review of the project, the Planning Commission expressed general support
for the land-use applications. The Commission confirmed that the building height
was permitted in the CCD and that the landscaping improvements as shown were
sufficient to meet the code and fitting given this project’s prominence at the corner
of CSAH 75/TH 25. Planner Grittman noted that the overall site landscaping
treatments were consistent with the streetscape plan and met code requirements.
However, he did explain that the conditions of approval did recommend for
enhancement of sign base landscaping.
The Commission did request that greater color variation be provided in the final
building elevation plans. Although the building elevations do exhibit a number of
height articulations, the Commission felt that additional color variation would
City Council Agenda: 06/28/10
2
provide better visual definition to the building. The developer was present and
agreed that such an improvement would be acceptable.
The developer indicated that the balance of conditions listed were acceptable.
Council will note that most of the conditions listed in Exhibit Z are minor and will
be addressed in the final record plan sets. The most notable plan adjustments relate
to the right of way. Right of way adjustments include the shifting of the entire site
toward the north, which will accommodate the right of way needs for the dual right
turn lanes on CSAH and adequate visibility for the development’s free-standing
sign. The plan/plat documents will also be adjusted for final right of way
configurations on CSAH 75 and TH 25.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of all requests in a 4-1 vote.
Commissioner Spartz voted in dissent, citing his opinion that the current downtown
planning effort be complete prior to approval of the comprehensive plan
amendment and corresponding land use approvals.
BACKGROUND
Semper Development has submitted plans calling for the construction of a 14,820 square
foot Walgreens drug store upon a 1.5 acre site located north of Broadway Street and east
of Pine Street (Highway 25). In addition to the drug store building, a two story, 5166
square foot commercial building has also been proposed at River Street. The subject site
is zoned CCD, Central Community District, the intent of which is to implement the
various plans and provisions of the City‟s Downtown Plan.
To accommodate the proposal, the following specific approvals are necessary:
1. Comprehensive Plan (Downtown Plan) Amendment
2. Preliminary/Final Plat (Nicolle Addition)
3. Conditional Use Permit (to allow an accessory drive-through lane and cross
parking/access)
ISSUES
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
In 1997, the City adopted a Plan for the Monticello Downtown entitled “A New
Bridge: Revitalizing Monticello‟s Downtown and Riverfront.” Generally
speaking, the Downtown Plan directs development which builds upon the
traditional character of the Downtown and reinforces Monticello‟s small town
qualities. In this regard, the Plan includes several policy statements applicable to
the proposed placement of the drug store upon the subject property.
According to the Downtown Plan, buildings should be placed along Broadway
Street to create a strong “edge” to the street. The Plan further states that street
City Council Agenda: 06/28/10
3
corners should be occupied by a significant use and parking lots at street
intersections should be prohibited.
The Plan specifically directs a “build to” line of zero feet (or a zero lot line
setback) along Broadway Street and a 100 percent “build out” along the street
except if pedestrian passages and plaza spaces are developed.
While structures are proposed to abut Pine and River Streets, the drug store‟s
parking lot is proposed to border Broadway Street. Thus, the proposal is not
consistent with the current policies of the City‟s Downtown Plan.
To address this inconsistency, an amendment to the Downtown Plan is necessary.
In this regard, the following draft language should be considered:
At the intersection of Broadway and Pine Streets, parking lots may be
constructed only when all of the following conditions exist:
Applicable traffic safety and access requirements limit the ability
to comply with building location standards of this Plan.
At least fifty (50) percent of either the Broadway or Pine Street
frontage is occupied by a building (non-parking area).
An alternative vertical element is located at the street corner
which, as determined by City Officials, establishes an
architecturally compatible corner presence. Such elements may
include, but not be limited to public art, interpretive signage,
architectural business signs and architecturally appropriate
lighting.
While making an allowance for the proposed Broadway Street parking lot, it is
believed the preceding language maintains a present intent of the Downtown Plan
by continuing to promote visually dominant street corners.
Preliminary/Final Plat
Process. As part of the development of the subject property, the formal platting
of the land has been proposed. In this case, the applicant has requested
simultaneous preliminary/final plat approval. The platting is essentially a replat
of existing lots to accommodate the new building configurations.
Streets. As part of the subdivision, right-of-way is proposed to be dedicated along both
Pine and Broadway Streets. The acceptability of right-of-way dedications as should be
subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer. Two recommendations
of the City Engineer are particularly relevant to this application.
City Council Agenda: 06/28/10
4
First, to accommodate the right turn lanes from west-bound Broadway to north-bound TH
25 (Pine), an additional triangular area of right of way dedication is necessary at the
southwest corner of Block 53. Engineering staff has produced a drawing that illustrates
this additional right of way.
The second recommendation flows from the first. By taking the triangular area of right
of way at the corner of Broadway and Hwy 25, the applicant‟s sign and parking area will
no longer fit on the property as originally anticipated. As a result, the Engineers are
recommending that the site development shift four feet to the north. This will require a
vacation of a four foot sliver of the River Street right of way along the width of the
property. This vacation is described in a separate item on this agenda and requires a
separate public hearing. Engineering staff indicates that grades and adequate right of way
will still remain to accommodate sidewalk and street reconstruction of River Street as a
part of this project.
MN/DoT has also reviewed the plats as submitted and has provided comments. A
secondary review by MN/DoT will be required once the final plat is resubmitted based on
the approved right of way configuration.
Lots. The proposed subdivision (Nicolle Addition) consists of three lots, the use
and area of which are summarized below:
Lot # Use Lot Area
1 Walgreen‟s Drug
Store (proposed)
46,445 square feet
2 Commercial
Building
(proposed)
8,871 square feet
3 Existing
Commercial
Building
15,297 square feet
The applicable CCD, Central Community District, does not impose a minimum lot area
or lot width requirement. Thus, all proposed lots meet the minimum dimensional
requirements of the Ordinance.
While a minor issue, it should be noted that the areas of lots 1 and 2 are incorrectly listed
on the area summary included on the preliminary plat drawing. This should be corrected
as a condition of preliminary/final plat approval.
Easements. Appropriately, the preliminary and final plat drawings illustrate drainage
and utility easements. The acceptability of such easements should be subject to comment
and recommendation by the City Engineer.
As shown on the submitted site plan, Lots 1 and 2 share both access and parking. In this
regard, cross parking and access easements should be established. This issue and the
City Council Agenda: 06/28/10
5
easement documents to be prepared by the applicant should be subject to comment and
recommendation by the City Attorney.
As a separate document, the applicants will be asked to dedicate easements for
pedestrian/sidewalk purposes along TH 25 and East River Street, as the public sidewalk
will be partially located on the applicant‟s private property. The location of the sidewalk
on TH 25 will accommodate green space between Pine Street and the sidewalk along
most of the Pine Street frontage.
Park Dedication. The City does not impose any park dedication requirements upon
commercial subdivisions.
Conditional Use Permits
Drive-Through Lane. As shown on the submitted site plan, a drive-through lane has
been proposed on the east side of the drug store building. In CCD zoning districts,
accessory drive-through facilities are allowed via conditional use permit and are subject
to the following requirements:
1. Service through drive-through facilities is accessory to interior on-site or
sit-down service within the same building.
2. Drive-through lanes are designed to avoid disruption of pedestrian and
vehicular traffic flow both on and off-site.
3. Landscaping and other site improvements are included which screen
automobile stacking space from the public street.
4. The principal building occupies no less than forty 40 percent of the
property exclusive of easements devoted to public pedestrian use or other
outdoor public spaces.
5. The building site and signage meet the standards for the CCD district
and design review is conducted by the Planning Commission.
6. The proposed use demonstrates compatibility and consistency with the
City‟s Comprehensive Plan and Downtown Revitalization Plan.
As proposed, the drive-through lane measures 12 feet in width with approximately 60 feet
of stacking space behind the “pick up” window, (providing stacking space for three cars).
The proposed drive through lane is considered “low volume” (in comparison to “high
volume” coffee shop and fast food drive-through lanes). The amount of stacking space
provided has also proven itself to be sufficient in other Walgreens drug stores. In this
regard, the proposed drive-through lane satisfies applicable evaluation criteria of the
Ordinance and is considered acceptable.
City Council Agenda: 06/28/10
6
Access. Access to the site is provided from the north via River Street and the south via
Broadway Street.
It is understood that the Broadway Street access to the site is to be right-in only. With
this in mind, it is recommended that the configuration of the access drive be modified
such that its design is not conducive to right-out turning maneuvers.
Internally, future access to the adjoining property to the east has been provided for on the
site plan. A part of the cross-access and cross-parking Conditional Use Permit will be to
accommodate joint access with future redevelopment on the adjoining property. Staff is
suggesting that this element be included in the conditions of the approval on this site.
Joint access and parking is an essential element of the reduced overall parking supply
allowed in the CCD zoning district.
Curb cut locations and widths should be subject to comment and recommendation by the
City Engineer.
Off-Street Parking. As shown on the submitted site plan, off-street parking is proposed
on the south and west sides of the site. While, the configuration of the off-street parking
area is considered straight-forward and well conceived from a functional standpoint, as
noted above, a Comprehensive Plan Amendment is necessary to accommodate parking at
the corner of Broadway and Pine Streets (currently discouraged by the Plan).
For retail commercial uses, the Zoning Ordinance requires one off-street parking space
per 200 square foot of floor area, with an allowance of 10% reduction for common or
non-productive areas. Under this scenario, a total of 67 spaces would be required for the
drug store and 23 stalls would be required for the two-story commercial building (totaling
90 spaces), which results in a final requirement of 81 spaces after the 10% allowance.
However, the Zoning Ordinance also allows a 40 percent reduction in off-street parking
supply requirements provided that cross parking/access easements are provided. In such
a scenario, the applicant could provide as few as 49 off-street spaces to comply with the
minimum.
The submitted site plan illustrates 66 off-street parking stalls, 56 stalls for the Walgreens
store and 10 stalls for the two story commercial building. Assuming cross parking/access
easements will be provided, applicable off-street parking supply requirements have been
satisfied. As a condition of CUP approval however, cross parking/access easements
should be provided.
According to the Ordinance, off-street parking stalls must not be less than nine feet in
width and 20 feet in depth, with drive aisles 24 feet in width. The applicants have
designed the project with 25 foot wide aisles and 18 foot deep stalls throughout. Staff is
recommending reconfiguration of the parking lot design to accommodate the full-sized
parking stalls wherever practical.
City Council Agenda: 06/28/10
7
Stalls depths of 18 feet have been allowed (as a City policy) for interior parking stalls
which allow for bumper overhangs, such as those adjacent to sidewalk areas where there
will be no interference with landscaping or snow storage. The applicant has stated that
they will seek to increase parking lot stall dimensions, including through slight narrowing
of landscaped islands.
Building Design. As shown on the submitted building elevations, the drug store and
two-story commercial building to the north are to be finished in face brick (“beige” and
„light iron” in color). Standing seam metal awnings (“dark bronze” in color) have been
proposed above window and door openings. While the proposed building colors are
considered generally acceptable, it is recommended that color samples and/or a color
rendering of the building (s) be provided for City review.
The drug store is a single story measuring just over 28 feet in height. The commercial
building to the north is to be two stories and measures 29 feet in height.
Architecture of the two buildings draws cues from historic, architecturally significant
commercial buildings in the Downtown area applying similar building materials, colors
and details. In this regard, the new buildings appear to “belong” in Downtown
Monticello.
The subject site has significant visibility along Pine Street. Thus, particular care was
taken in the design of building elevations which face the street. As shown on the
submitted elevations, the west building facades include building entrances, windows,
faux windows and awnings, all of which contribute to a positive pedestrian experience.
The proposed building architecture is consistent with the directives of the City‟s
Downtown Plan.
As an informational note, City staff has been notified of potential concern for the
structural integrity of the building on the adjoining parcel to the east. The applicant
should take measures to ensure safe removal of the structures on the subject parcel as part
of any demolition permit.
Building Height. Unlike many zoning districts, the applicable CCD, Central Community
District establishes a minimum building height requirement. Specifically, a minimum
height requirement of 15 feet is imposed. At 28 and 29 feet in height respectively, both
the drug store and two-story commercial building exceed the minimum height
requirement of the district.
Landscaping. For commercial sites, a minimum of one overstory tree per 1,000 square
feet of gross building floor area, or one tree per 50 lineal feet of site perimeter, whichever
is greater, is required. The perimeter of the development site (excluding Lot 3) measures
approximately 1,020 lineal feet. As a result, 20 overstory trees are required as opposed to
the 17 trees which would be required under the floor area calculation.
City Council Agenda: 06/28/10
8
As shown on the submitted landscape plan, a total of 18 overstory trees have been
proposed on the site. Proposed plantings include five White Pines, seven Honey Locust
and six Autumn Blaze Maples. The number of trees provided is two short of the
minimum requirement. The Honey Locust plantings include a number along the
Broadway frontage, or as part of the parking lot landscaping, complementing the City‟s
Broadway streetscape.
A variety of shrubs and perennials are also planned for the site, including Alpine Current
shrubs, various perennials and flowers.
As noted, the number of proposed overstory trees is two short of the minimum supply
requirement. The Ordinance does however, allow for an equivalent of up to 50% of the
required number of overstory trees to be created through the use of overstory trees in
combination with other landscape design elements such as ornamental trees, shrubs,
flowers, and berming. In no case however, may the number of overstory trees be less
than 50% of the above formula. The burden shall be upon the developer to demonstrate
by narrative and by graphics how the equivalent effect is provided. The equivalent effect
is subject to the approval of the City Council.
After reviewing the number of proposed perennials (89) and shrubs (18), Staff
recommends accepting them as a substitute for the required number of trees. It must be
recognized that the subject site holds significant limitations in regard to landscaping.
Zero lot line setbacks as well as land devoted to access drives and sight visibility
triangles leaves very little area on the site which may be devoted to plantings. The ratio
of plantings per available land area for landscaping is considered consistent with the
intent of the Ordinance.
One area where additional landscaping may be beneficial is the future development site
of the two-story building on the north half of the property. As discussed below, the
landscaping on this parcel will be an important component of the view of the north wall
of the Walgreens building, as well as the screening of the trash and loading area from the
north.
The City will be examining opportunities to supplement the private landscaping with
elements that enhance the City‟s streetscape in the area. One such element will be the
placement of the City‟s bridge-rail segments that are in various locations throughout the
core downtown area. The use of these elements may be most appropriate at the corner of
River Street and TH 25, as well as to supplement the corner emphasis at Broadway and
TH 25.
Signage
Pylon Sign. As shown on the submitted site plan, a drug store pylon sign has been
proposed at the corner of Pine and Broadway Streets. The sign measures 22 feet in
height and 87 square feet in area (per face). According to the Ordinance, pylon signs
City Council Agenda: 06/28/10
9
may not exceed 22 feet in height and 100 square feet per face. Additionally, a 15 foot
setback from public rights-of-way is also required.
While the sign meets all dimensional requirements of the Ordinance, it is believed an
opportunity exists to build upon the intentions of the City‟s Downtown Plan which
encourages strong edge treatments, particularly at block corners. While the proposal
succeeds at the corner of Pine Street and River Street, a strong visual “anchor” at the
Broadway Street/Pine Street corner is somewhat lacking. To address this issue,
consideration should be given to enhancing the freestanding sign. In this regard, the sign
could incorporate some of the materials used in the principal building(s). More
specifically, a visually dominant sign base could be constructed using the same masonry
course used on the principal building(s).
No pylon sign has been identified upon the northerly parcel (Lot 2) at this time. A
specific sign proposal is not expected until such time as a future building occupant has
been determined.
Wall Signs. As shown on the submitted building elevations, wall signage has been
proposed on the south and west sides of the drug store building. Specifically, the
following signs have been proposed:
South Elevation (Broadway) West Elevation (Pine Street)
Walgreen‟s Script (149.8 s.f.) Walgreen‟s Script (149.0 s.f.)
Photo (11.6 s.f.) Photo (11.6 s.f.)
Pharmacy (19.2 s.f.) Pharmacy (19.2 s.f.)
Note: 6 s.f. “exit box” signs are also proposed on north and south
elevations
Including the proposed freestanding sign, a total of 480 square feet of signage has been
proposed upon the drug store parcel, significantly less than the 904 square feet allowed
by the Ordinance.
No wall signs have been proposed upon the two-story commercial building at this time.
As in the case of the pylon sign, a specific sign proposal is not expected until such time
as a future building occupant has been determined.
Trash. A trash enclosure is proposed between the two commercial buildings, along Pine
Street. According to the site plan, the enclosure is to be accessed from the east. While
the site plan notes that the western side of the enclosure is to be finished in masonry, no
details are provided. In this regard, it is suggested that similar colors and details be
utilized on the enclosure as on the two abutting commercial buildings. As a condition of
CUP approval, trash enclosure details should be submitted and approved by the City.
Considering that there is no timetable for the construction of the north commercial
building, question exists in regard to how the trash handling area will be screened on the
City Council Agenda: 06/28/10
10
north prior to construction of the two-story building (which will ultimately be used to
screen the area). This issue should be addressed by the applicant by the submittal of a
landscaping plan for the area.
One option would be a fence, combined with a landscaped screening plan. The screening
should be tall enough to create an effective screen until the future building is constructed.
Lighting. As required, a photometric lighting plan has been submitted for review.
According to the Ordinance, any lighting used to illuminate an off-street parking area,
sign, or other structure must be arranged as to deflect light away from any adjoining
residential zone or public streets. The Ordinance further states that the source of lights
must be hooded or controlled in some manner so as not to cast light on adjacent property.
In regard to the degree of illumination, the Ordinance states that any light or combination
of lights which cast light on a public street may not exceed one (1) foot candle (meter
reading) as measured from the center line of said street. As shown on the lighting plan,
this requirement has been satisfied.
Commercial Building. According to the applicant, the two-story commercial building is
to be constructed as part the second phase of the development (when a tenant has been
determined). Because no timetable has been established in regard to building
construction, interim improvements to the future building site and site maintenance
should be addressed by the applicant (to the satisfaction of the City). As noted above,
landscaping of this site should be required, including some measures taken to enhance the
view of the north wall of the Walgreens building in the interim.
Grading, Drainage, and Utilities. City Engineering staff, the City‟s Consulting
Engineer, and Public Works staff have made comments relating to specific aspects of the
project. Those comments are attached to this report as an Exhibit, and are incorporated
into the recommendations made herein.
Development Agreement. It should be highlighted that the development approvals
requested here are conditioned on the execution of final development and redevelopment
agreements.
Typically, the City approves a final plat concurrent with the development agreement.
However, the developer and the ultimate property owner, Walgreen‟s, have indicated that
a decision on the land use requests is a critical first step prior to drafting and execution of
the development agreement. As such, the final plat is submitted now for Council review.
If approved with the other land use requests, staff will begin drafting of the development
agreements.
Approval by the City Council and complete execution of the agreement will be required
prior to award of contract for the NE Quadrant improvements and final execution of the
final plat.
City Council Agenda: 06/28/10
11
The development agreement will require compliance with the plans as approved by the
City Council, will specify applicable development fees and charges, and will identify the
special assessment program for the developer‟s share of the NE Quadrant infrastructure
improvements.
It should also be noted that a redevelopment contract will also be required to be executed
with the developer/property owners prior to the award of contract. The redevelopment
contract supports the use of excess TIF (from 1-22) for the City‟s share of the
infrastructure improvements on the basis of job creation on the site. More information on
that item is included with a separate item in this packet.
A1. Budget Impact: As reviewed in previous Council items, the proposed
development is supported by a number of infrastructure improvements. The City
Council has ordered the improvements, but will not formally begin the project
until award of contract. Based on the approved feasibility report, award of
contract is on schedule for August of 2010.
At that time, the developer will be required to execute a development agreement
assigning payment for their portion of the costs.
Additionally, it is required that at the time of final plat approval, all review costs
associated with the land-use applications be paid. As such, that condition has been
assigned in Exhibit Z.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: Staff time on the review of this project is being coded
to the project and is payable with review costs as noted above.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
The Planning Commission recommends alternative 1 under both decisions below.
Decision 1: Comprehensive Plan Amendment
1. Motion to approve the Comprehensive Plan (Downtown Plan) Amendment as
proposed in the staff report of June 28th, 2010, based on a finding that the
proposal is consistent with the City‟s Comprehensive Plan policies.
2. Motion to deny the Comprehensive Plan (Downtown Plan) Amendment based on
a finding that the proposal is not consistent with the City‟s Comprehensive Plan
policies.
Decision 2: Preliminary and Final Plat, Conditional Use Permits
1. Motion to approve a Preliminary/Final Plat and Conditional Use Permits based on
a finding that, with conditions, the proposal is consistent with the City‟s
City Council Agenda: 06/28/10
12
Comprehensive Plan policies and applicable Ordinance requirements, subject to
the conditions listed in Exhibit Z.
2. Motion to deny the Comprehensive Plan (Downtown Plan) Amendment,
Preliminary/Final Plat and Conditional Use Permit based on a finding that the
proposal is not consistent with the City‟s Comprehensive Plan policies and
applicable Ordinance requirements.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Generally speaking, the submitted development plan is considered well conceived and
responds well to a variety of site design parameters.
A decision regarding the proposed Comprehensive Plan for Downtown Plan Amendment
(to allow parking at the corner of Broadway and Pine Streets) is considered a policy
matter to be determined by City officials. It is however, believed that via the
incorporation of the proposed Plan amendment language, a primary intent of the Plan (to
achieve a visual presence at the corners) can still be achieved.
Based on the preceding review, Staff recommends approval of the Comprehensive Plan
(Downtown Plan) Amendment, Preliminary/Final Plat and Conditional Use Permit
subject to the conditions outlined in Exhibit Z.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
A. Preliminary Plat
B. Final Plat
C. Site Plan dated 4/22/10
D. Grading & Drainage Plan dated 4/21/10
E. Utility Plan dated 4/22/10
F. Landscape Plan dated 4/22/10
G. Floor Plan dated 8/29/06
H. Building Elevations dated 4/30/10
I. Sign Plan dated 4/30/10
J. Lighting Plan dated 4/30/10
K. Consulting Engineer Comment Letter dated 5/26/10
L. City Engineer/Public Works Comment Letter dated 5/27/10
M. MN Department of Transportation Comment Letter dated 6/17/10
N. Proposed Improvement Diagram
Z. Conditions of Approval
1
EXHIBIT Z
1. The City’s Downtown Plan (“A New Bridge: Revitalizing Monticello’s Downtown and
Riverfront”) be amended to incorporate the following text:
At the intersection of Broadway and Pine Streets, parking lots may be constructed
only when all of the following conditions exist:
Applicable traffic safety and access requirements limit the ability to
comply with building location standards of this Plan.
At least fifty (50) percent of either the Broadway or Pine Street frontage
is occupied by a building (non-parking area).
An alternative vertical element is located at the street corner which, as
determined by City Officials, establishes an architecturally compatible
corner presence. Such elements may include, but not be limited to
public art, interpretive signage, architectural business signs and
architecturally appropriate lighting.
2. Right-of-way dedications on the Preliminary/Final Plat are found to be acceptable by the City
Engineer.
3. Verify with qualified expertise that demolition will not negatively impact structures on
adjoining properties.
4. The area summary on the Preliminary Plat drawing be revised to correctly identify the area of
Lots 1 and 2 (consistent with the Final Plat drawing).
5. Drainage and utility easements on the Preliminary/Final Plat are found to be acceptable by
the City Engineer.
6. Cross parking and access easements for Lots 1 and 2 be established. Cross parking and
access should include an agreement for future agreements with the adjoining property to the
east. This issue shall be subject to comment and recommendation by the City Attorney.
7. Pedestrian easements are established for sidewalks along TH 25 for public sidewalks on
private property, consistent with the recommendations of the City Engineer.
8. The configuration of the Broadway Street access drive be modified such that its design is not
conducive to right-out turning maneuvers
9. Curb cut locations and widths are found to be acceptable by the City Engineer.
10. The parking lot design be reconfigured to accommodate the full-sized parking stalls wherever
practical.
11. Color samples and/or a color rendering of the building (s) be provided for City review.
2
12. City Officials find the proposed overstory tree quantities to be acceptable.
13. The freestanding sign be modified to incorporate some of the materials used in the principal
building and create a visually dominant sign base.
14. The applicant modify the building elevation plan to incorporate additional building color
variation. (Additional Planning Commission condition.)
15. The trash enclosure utilize colors and details similar to those utilized on the on the two
abutting commercial buildings. Trash enclosure details shall be submitted and approved by
the City.
16. The applicant address the screening of the trash area from the north prior to the construction
of the north commercial building (which will ultimately be used to screen the area).
17. Lighting be hooded and directed such that the source is not visible from adjacent rights-of-
way.
18. The applicant provide a plan for interim improvements upon Lot 2, Block 1, including but
not limited to, site improvements and maintenance.
19. Final grading, drainage, and utility plans are subject to comment and recommendation by the
City Engineer, Consulting Engineer, and Public Works Staff. Specific review comments of
those staff members are summarized in this report, and attached as an Exhibit.
20. The revised final plat shall be resubmitted to Wright County and MN/DoT for secondary
review and shall comply with County and State comments.
21. Provide final record drawings prior to execution of the development agreement.
22. The applicant provide payment for all review charges to-date associated with the review of
the land use applications.
23. The applicant and City execute and record a development agreement incorporating the
development plans, standards and conditions as approved.
City Council Agenda: 07/12/2010
1
5F. Consideration of adopting Resolution #2010-38 approving Plans and Specifications
and authorizing Advertisement for Bids for the NE Quadrant Improvements to
State Highway 25, CSAH 75 and East River Street, City Project No. 10C005 and for
reconstruction of the East Bridge Parking Lot (BW, WSB)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the May 24, 2010, City Council meeting, the Council authorized the preparation of
plans and specifications for the transportation and access improvements to the northeast
quadrant of TH 25 and CSAH 75. This project was initiated by Semper Development,
who has made formal application to the City for redevelopment of a portion of block 53
in the northeast corner of State Trunk Highway 25 and Wright County State Aid
Highway 75.
The following improvements are included with the final plans to accommodate the
proposed development of the NE quadrant of TH 25 and CSAH 75.
Add dual right-turn lanes from CSAH 75 to TH 25
Add a right-turn lane from TH 25 to River Street East
Cul-de-sac at River Street east of Cedar Street and modify access to East Bridge
Park, including a 9-foot bituminous pathway with a gate
Reconstruct River Street (between TH 25 and Cedar Street) and add a right-turn
lane from River Street onto TH 25
The Parks Department would like to reconstruct the East Bridge parking lot with this
project as the pavement is in need of rehabilitation. It is proposed to add this work to the
project plans and bid it accordingly. The estimated cost to reconstruct the parking lot is
$25,000, which includes indirect costs.
The estimated total project cost from the feasibility report for the improvements related to
the NE quadrant is $623,850. This includes a 10% contingency and 28% indirect cost.
The project is proposed to be funded by the developer in the amount of $245,170 and the
remaining $378,680 utilizing City funds.
A1. Budget Impact: General Obligation bonds are proposed to fund the project. The
EDA approved using TIF funds for the City’s portion of the project. The
developer will fund their share as per the terms of the development agreement to
be approved prior to the project being awarded. The Parks Department would
fund the East Bridge Park parking lot improvements.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: The project could start construction this September,
pending Wright County and Mn/DOT approval. Semper Development plans to
start demolition work this summer with an anticipated Walgreen’s opening in the
spring of 2011 given they have all the required approvals. Various staff from the
Building, Community Development, Engineering, Finance, and Public Works
Departments will be impacted by the proposed improvements.
City Council Agenda: 07/12/2010
2
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to adopt Resolution No. 2010-38 approving the plans and specifications
and authorizing the advertisement of bids for the NE Quadrant Improvements at
Trunk Highway 25, CSAH 75 and River Street East, and for reconstruction of the
East Bridge Park parking lot.
2. Motion to adopt Resolution No. 2010-38 approving the plans and specifications
and authorizing the advertisement of bids for the NE Quadrant Improvements at
Trunk Highway 25, CSAH 75 and River Street East, without reconstructing the
East Bridge Park parking lot.
3. Motion to deny Resolution No. 2010-38 approving the plans and specifications
and authorizing the advertisement of bids for the NE Quadrant Improvements and
reconstruction of the East Bridge Park parking lot.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Alternate #1, presuming that Council concurs that the East Bridge
parking lot is in need of rehabilitation at this time. With the proposed cul-de-sac
improvements at River and Cedar streets and the favorable bidding climate, it makes
sense to reconstruct the East Bridge parking lot at this time. Semper Development
received planning and plat approval at the June 28, 2010 City Council meeting and is
proceeding with the design and construction of their site. The NE Quadrant
improvements are necessary for the development of the Walgreens site.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Resolution #2010-38
Diagram of East Bridge Park entrance
Pictures of East Bridge parking lot
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2010-38
APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT
IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRUNK HWY 25, CSAH 75/BROADWAY,
AND EAST RIVER STREET, CITY PROJECT NO. 10C005
AND
FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF THE PARKING LOT AT EAST BRIDGE PARK
WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution approved by the City Council on May 24, 2010, the City
Engineer has prepared plans and specifications for the NE Quadrant of Trunk Hwy 25, CSAH 75
and River Street East improvements and other appurtenant work; and
WHEREAS, the Monticello Parks Department has recommended reconstruction of the parking
lot at East Bridge Park in conjunction with the improvements on River Street East; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has presented such plans and specifications to the Council for
approval;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO,
MINNESOTA:
1. Such plans and specifications, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk,
are hereby approved.
2. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official paper and in the Star
Tribune and/or Finance & Commerce publication an advertisement for bid upon the
making of such improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The
advertisement shall be published no less than three weeks before the last day for
submission of bids, once in the City’s legal publication and at least once in either a
newspaper published in a city of the first class or a trade paper. To be eligible as a trade
paper, a publication shall have all the qualifications of a legal newspaper except that,
instead of the requirement that it shall contain general and local news, such trade paper
shall contain building and construction news of interest to contractors in this state, among
whom it shall have a general circulation.
The advertisement shall specify the work to be done, and shall state that bids will be
opened at 10 a.m. on August 18, 2010 and that the award of the bid and the responsibility
of the bidders will be considered by the City Council at 7 p.m. on August 23, 2010 in the
Council Chambers of City Hall. Any bidder whose responsibility is questioned during
consideration of the bid will be given an opportunity to address the Council on the issue
of responsibility. No bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the Clerk and
accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier’s check, bid bond or certified check payable to
the City for 5% of the amount of such bid.
ADOPTED BY the Monticello City Council this 12th day of July, 2010.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
_________________________________
Clint Herbst, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Jeff O’Neill, City Administrator
City Council Agenda: 7/12/10
1
5G. Consideration of amending Job Description and Title from Lead Fiber Technician
to Technical Services Supervisor for FiberNet (JO, DP, TE)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
City Council is asked to consider amending the job description and title of Lead Fiber
Technician to Technical Services Supervisor. This position is currently held by Matt
Henning. Henning was hired back in July 2009 as FiberNet Monticello’s first Installation
Technician. Matt was hired to manage the installation process and ensure installations
were done correctly and the process ran smoothly. This past year as FiberNet has grown
and developed, so have Matt’s responsibilities. Some additional responsibilities that Matt
has taken on include: providing work direction to two full-time Installation Technicians,
the CO/HE Technician and temporary staff; contract management; strategic planning
involving the expansion of products and services; and planning, development, evaluation
and coordination of the voice, video and data networks. Matt’s capabilities and
knowledge of the system and staff have grown and developed along with the building of
the FiberNet system. Upon the completion of Matt’s six month review, his job
description was updated to accurately reflect his job responsibilities. Attached is the
updated job description which includes a full list of his responsibilities.
The current position of Lead Fiber Technician is a Grade 10 position which has a pay
range of $40,568.59 to $52,739.17. The new position of Technical Services Supervisor
has been pointed at a Grade 12 position with a pay range of $46,061.44 to $59,879.87.
Matt is currently at Step 1.5 with an annual salary of $41,437.92 and this change would
place him at step 1 at the new grade resulting in a salary of $46,061.44.
Both the FiberNet Advisory Board and Personnel Committee have reviewed this request
and support amending the job description based on the fact that he has, for some time
now, been performing the job duties identified in the modified description.
A1. Budget impact: The additional cost for the remainder of the budget year would
be $2,133.93.
A2. Staff Workload impact: NA
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve amending the job description and title from Lead Fiber
Technician to Technical Services Supervisor.
2. Motion to deny amending the job description and title from Lead Fiber
Technician to Technical Services Supervisor.
City Council Agenda: 7/12/10
2
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Personnel Committee, FiberNet Advisory Board and staff recommend Alternative 1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Technical Services Supervisor Job Description
FiberNet Monticello Organizational Chart
Technical Services Supervisor
City of Monticello- FiberNet
Exempt
Title of Class: Technical Services Supervisor
Effective Date: April 9, 2010
Revised Date:
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
General Statement of Duties: Performs tasks of high complexity relating to the installation,
maintenance and troubleshooting of transmission and reception equipment for video, telephony
and high-speed online in the Head end, hubs and other signal origination facilities.
Supervision Received: Works under the general supervision of the Fiber General Manager.
Supervision Exercised: Provides general and technical work direction to CO/HE Technician,
Installation Technician and IT Technician
TYPICAL DUTIES PERFORMED
Provide technical analysis for all options being considered for strategic expansion of
products and services.
Manage and provide work direction to the Network Operations Center, including HE/CO
Tech, IT Tech, Installation Tech and Contractors.
Provide planning, development, evaluation, and coordination of the voice, video and data
networks, information and technology systems, and related services delivered to
customers.
Manages all hardware and software acquisition and maintenance contracts for data, voice,
and television systems.
Manages relationships with vendors for sales, service and support of all information
systems and technology. Negotiates best pricing for procurement of vendor products and
services.
Supervises computer operations including local area networks and wide-area networks.
Responsible for the management of multiple information and communications systems
and projects, including voice, data, video, and office automation.
Maintains contact with IT suppliers and maintains knowledge of current technology,
equipment, prices and terms of agreements to minimize the investment required to meet
established service levels. Evaluates alternatives, performs appropriate cost benefit
analysis, and recommends solutions that maximize effectiveness and minimize costs
commensurate with acceptable risks.
Responds to operational issues related to the voice, video and data networks, software, hardware
and service delivery.
Provides technical support for telephony sales and installation.
Responds to customer service issues and schedules necessary service calls.
Provides internal and external customer service that meets or exceeds expectations.
Keeps work team and General Manager informed of status on work tasks, projects, and
problems or obstacles.
Records, processes and reports all data as required by procedure.
Proactively communicates with customers, vendors and managers.
Provide primary and backup support for the HE/CO Tech and IT Tech.
Schedules employees to ensure necessary coverage to meet customer demands.
Ensures employees receive necessary training to complete their jobs in a safe and proper
manner.
Monitors the annual operating and capital budgets for technology related systems.
Organizes maintenance with contractors and outside vendors.
KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS AND ABILITIES
Ability to design and install all processes and equipment necessary for the extension and
repair of Fibernet’s fiber plants.
Considerable knowledge and understanding of the key business issues that exist in the
telecommunications industry.
Strong analytical and technical skills to address and troubleshoot issues as they arise.
Considerable knowledge relating to operational issues with voice, video and data
services.
Strong interpersonal skills with excellent verbal and written communication skills.
Ability to complete work in a cost effective and safe manner that is balanced with the
needs and expectations of customers.
Considerable ability to research and analyze trends in the telecommunications industry.
Considerable knowledge of all field operations and equipment.
Considerable ability to prioritize work and handle multiple projects.
Working knowledge of personal computer use including standard software packages.
MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS
An Associate Degree in Technology or related field and a minimum of 3 years experience in
related area is required. Experience in a communications environment dealing with the delivery
of voice, video and data services is desirable. Supervisory experience is preferred. Must possess
and maintain a valid MN Drivers License.
FiberNet GM
(HBC Employee)
FILLED
Technical
Services Supervisor-Proposed
(1)
Matt
CSR
(2)
Kim
Alyssa
OPEN
1 Open Installation Tech
(2)
Bryan
Brandon
Open
FILLED
Account Manager
(1)
Brett
CO/HE Tech
(1)
Thaddaeus
Field Operations Technician
(1)
Brent
Locator
(1)
Dan
Contract Installation
Techs/Seasonal Help
Council Agenda: 7/12/2010
1
5H. Consideration of approving an application for a temporary charitable gambling
permit for the Wright County/West Metro Whitetails on September 12, 2010 at
River City Extreme (CS)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Wright County/West Metro Whitetails organization has submitted an application for
approval to grant a charitable gambling permit for the group to sponsor a raffle with the
drawing to be held on September 12th at River City Extreme. The West Metro Whitetails
has sponsored similar events in the past.
In the past the City has not opposed these exempt gambling permit applications for
charitable events.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve the application for a charitable gambling permit for the West
Metro Whitetails raffle to be held on September 12, 2010 at River City Extreme.
2. Motion to deny the request.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is not aware of any reason why this application should not be approved and
recommends approval with no waiting period.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of gambling permit application
City Council Agenda: 7/12/10
1
5I. Consideration of adopting Summary Ordinance No. 516A for publication of
Ordinance No. 516 - Illicit Discharge, Detection and Elimination (IDDE)
regulations (CS,BW)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
On June 28th, City Council adopted Ordinance #516 regulating Illicit Discharge,
Detection and Elimination (IDDE). This was established as part of the Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) that was approved by the MN Pollution
Control Agency on March 24, 2008.
City Council is now asked to approve a Summary Ordinance of the IDDE which will
be provided for publication as prescribed by State Statutes. The newly adopted
ordinance is quite lengthy. By adopting and publishing a summary ordinance, the
City will save a significant amount.
A.1 Budget Impact: Adopting the proposed Summary Ordinance No. 516A is
estimated to save over $1000 rather than publishing Ordinance 516 in its
entirety.
A.2 Staff Workload: NA
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to adopt Summary Ordinance No. 516A for publication.
2. Motion to deny adoption of Summary Ordinance No. 516A.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends Alternative #1. With the significant cost savings, it is
assumed that Council would prefer this option. Any person desiring to review the
full ordinance can contact City Hall for a copy. The full ordinance goes into effect
after publication and will be posted on the City’s website after that.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Summary Ordinance No. 516A
Agenda item from 6/28/10
City Ordinance No. 516 (adopted 6/28/10)
SUMMARY ORDINANCE NO. 516A
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE REGULATING ILLICIT DISCHARGE, DETECTION AND
ELIMINATION RELATING TO THE CITY’S STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, on June 28, 2010, Ordinance No. 516 was
adopted by the City Council of the City of Monticello, Minnesota. Due to the lengthy
nature of Ordinance No. 516, the following summary of the ordinance has been prepared
for publication as authorized by state law.
The ordinance adopted by the Council amends the City Zoning Ordinance by
adding a new Chapter 10 of Title VII to regulate illicit discharge, detection and
elimination. The ordinance specifically regulates the contribution of pollutants to the
municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) by stormwater discharges by any user;
prohibits illicit connections and discharges to the municipal separate storm sewer system;
and establishes legal authority to carry out all inspection, surveillance, enforcement, and
monitoring procedures necessary to ensure compliance with this Ordinance.
A printed copy of the whole ordinance is available for inspection by any person
during the City’s regular office hours.
APPROVED for publication by the City Council of the City of Monticello,
Minnesota, this 12th day of July, 2010.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
Clint Herbst, Mayor
ATTEST:
Jeff O’Neill City Administrator
VOTING IN FAVOR:
VOTING IN OPPOSITION:
City Council Agenda: 6/28/10
1
12. Consideration of adopting City Ordinance No. 516 adding Title 7, Chapter 10
relating to Illicit Discharge, Detection and Elimination (IDDE) regulations
(BW)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
In 2005, the City of Monticello was designated as a regulated small municipal
separate storm sewer system (MS4) under Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7090. This
required us to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State
Disposal System (NPDES/SDS) storm water permit, and to develop and implement a
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) to reduce the discharge of
pollutants and sediments from our storm sewer system to the maximum extent
practicable. On February 15, 2007 we submitted our draft SWPPP to the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) for review and approval. On March 24, 2008 our
draft SWPPP was approved by the MPCA and we were granted general permit
coverage.
All SWPPPs, including ours, address 6 minimum control measures (MCM’s)
including:
Public education and outreach;
Public participation/involvement;
Illicit discharge, detection and elimination;
Construction site runoff control;
Post-construction site runoff control; and,
Pollution prevention/good housekeeping.
In total, 39 best management practices and measurable goals associated with these 6
MCM’s are identified in our SWPPP for implementation. One of these goals is to
adopt an Illicit Discharge, Detection and Elimination (IDDE) ordinance, which was
supposed to have occurred by April 1, 2008 according to our SWPPP. However, this
was simply a target date and no penalty will occur for not meeting it.
The purpose of this ordinance is to provide for the health, safety and general welfare
of the citizens of Monticello through the regulation of non-storm water discharges to
our storm drainage system to the maximum extent practicable as required by federal
and state law.
As was noted in the June 12th Council agenda item for the 2009 annual SWPPP
report, items 5H and 5I of the report stated that the City adopted an Illicit Discharge,
Detection and Elimination (IDDE) ordinance. However, if Council chooses not to
adopt the proposed IDDE ordinance tonight, staff will revise the annual report before
submitting it to the MPCA on Tuesday, June 29th, to state that we have not yet
adopted an IDDE ordinance, but that we anticipate adopting it in the near future.
City Council Agenda: 6/28/10
2
A.1 Budget Impact: Adopting the proposed City Ordinance No. 516 will allow
the City to recover costs associated with mitigating damages caused by illicit
discharges into our storm sewer system.
A.2 Staff Workload: It is estimated that staff spent approximately 70 hours
developing and reviewing the proposed ordinance.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to adopt City Ordinance No. 516.
2. Motion to deny adoption of City Ordinance No. 516 at this time.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The proposed Ordinance is a requirement of our Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Program (SWPPP) so staff recommends that the City Council adopt the Ordinance
by approving Alternative #1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Proposed City Ordinance No. 516
EPA fact sheet
Monticello City Ordinance Title VII, Chapter 10, Page 1
ORDINANCE #516
CHAPTER 10
ILLICIT DISCHARGE, DETECTION AND ELIMINATION ORDINANCE
SECTION:
7-10-1: Purpose and Intent
7-10-2: Definitions
7-10-3: Applicability
7-10-4: Responsibility for Administration
7-10-5: Severability
7-10-6: Ultimate Responsibility
7-10-7: Prohibitions
7-10-8: Suspension of MS4 Access
7-10-9: Industrial or Construction Activity Discharges
7-10-10: Monitoring of Discharges
7-10-11: Requirement to Prevent, Control, and Reduce Storm Water Pollutants by
the use of Best Management Practices
7-10-12: Watercourse Protection
7-10-13: Notification of Spills
7-10-14: Enforcement
7-10-15: Appeal of Notice of Violation
7-10-16: Enforcement Measures After Appeal
7-10-17: Cost of Abatement of the Violation
7-10-18: Injunctive Relief
7-10-19: Compensatory Action
7-10-20: Violations Deemed A Public Nuisance
7-10-21: Criminal Prosecution
7-10-22: Remedies Not Exclusive
7-10-23: Adoption of Ordinance
7-10-1: PURPOSE AND INTENT: The purpose of this ordinance is to provide for the
health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Monticello through the
regulation of non-storm water discharges to the storm drainage system to the
maximum extent practicable as required by federal and state law. This ordinance
establishes methods for controlling the introduction of pollutants into the
municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) in order to comply with
requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit process. The objectives of this ordinance are:
(A) To regulate the contribution of pollutants to the municipal separate storm
sewer system (MS4) by stormwater discharges by any user;
(B) To prohibit illicit connections and discharges to the municipal separate
storm sewer system; and,
Monticello City Ordinance Title VII, Chapter 10, Page 2
(C) To establish legal authority to carry out all inspection, surveillance,
enforcement, and monitoring procedures necessary to ensure compliance
with this ordinance.
7-10-2: DEFINITIONS: For the purpose of this chapter, certain words and terms are
defined as follows:
ACCIDENTAL DISCHARGE: Means a discharge prohibited by this ordinance
and without planning or thought prior to occurrence.
AUTHORIZED ENFORCEMENT AGENCY: Employees or designees of the
City of Monticello designated to enforce this ordinance.
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs): Schedules of activities,
prohibitions of practices, general good housekeeping practices, pollution
prevention and educational practices, maintenance procedures, and other
management practices to prevent or reduce the discharge of pollutants directly or
indirectly to stormwater, receiving waters, or stormwater conveyance systems.
BMPs also include treatment practices, operating procedures, and practices to
control site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or water disposal, or drainage from
raw materials storage.
CLEAN WATER ACT: The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S. C. §
1251 et seq.), and any subsequent amendments thereto.
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY: Activities subject to the NDPES Construction
Permits. Currently these include construction projects resulting in land
disturbance of 1 acre or more. Such activities include but are not limited to
clearing and grubbing, grading, excavating, and demolition.
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Any material, including any substance, waste, or
combination thereof, which because of its quantity, concentration, or physical,
chemical, or infectious characteristics may cause, or significantly contribute to, a
substantial present or potential hazard to human health, safety, property, or the
environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or
otherwise managed.
ILLICIT DISCHARGE: Any direct or indirect non-storm water discharge to the
storm drain system, except as exempted in Section 7 of this ordinance.
ILLICIT CONNECTIONS: An illicit connection is defined as either of the
following:
(A) Any drain or conveyance, whether on the surface or subsurface, which
allows an illegal discharge including sewage, process wastewater, and
wash water to enter the storm drain system, including any connections to
Monticello City Ordinance Title VII, Chapter 10, Page 3
the storm drain system from indoor drains and sinks, regardless of whether
said drain or connection had been previously allowed, permitted, or
approved by an authorized enforcement agency or,
(B) Any drain or conveyance connected from a commercial or industrial land
use to the storm drain system which has not been documented in plans,
maps, or equivalent records and approved by an authorized enforcement
agency.
INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY: Activities subject to NDPES Industrial Permits as
defined in 40 CFR, Section 122.26 (b) (14).
MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORM SEWER SYSTEM (MS4): A stormwater
conveyance or unified stormwater conveyance system (including without
limitation: roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins,
stormwater detention facilities, curbs, gutters, ditches, natural or man-made
channels, or storm drains), that:
(A) Is located within the corporate limits of Monticello, MN.
(B) Is owned or operated by the State, County, the City, or other public body.
(C) Discharges to Waters of the State and/or United States, excluding publicly
owned treatment works, and lawful connections thereto, which in turn
discharge into the Waters of the State and/or United States.
NATIONAL POLLUTION DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES)
PERMIT: Any permit or requirement enforced pursuant to the clean water act as
amended for the purposes of regulating storm water discharge.
NON-STORM WATER DISCHARGE: Any discharge to the storm drain system
that is not composed entirely of storm water.
PERSON: Means any individual, association, organization, partnership, firm,
corporation or other entity recognized by law and acting as either the owner or as
the owner’s agent.
POLLUTANT: Anything which causes or contributes to pollution. Pollutants
may include, but are not limited to: paints, varnishes, and solvents; oil and other
automotive fluids; non-hazardous liquid and solid wastes and yard wastes; refuse,
rubbish, garbage, litter, or other discarded or abandoned objects, ordinances, and
accumulations, so that same may cause or contribute to pollution; floatables,
pesticides, herbicides; hazardous substances and wastes; sewage, fecal coliform
and pathogens; dissolved and particulate metals; animal wastes; wastes and
residues that result from constructing a building or structure; and noxious or
offensive matter of any kind.
Monticello City Ordinance Title VII, Chapter 10, Page 4
POLLUTION: Man-made or man-induced alteration of the chemical, physical,
biological, thermal, and/or radiological integrity of water.
PREMISES: Any buildings, lot, parcel of land or portion or land whether
improved or unimproved including adjacent sidewalks and parking strips.
STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM: Publicly-owned facilities by which storm water
is collected and/or conveyed, including but not limited to any roads with drainage
systems, municipal streets, gutters, curbs, inlets, piped storm drains, pumping
facilities, retention and detention basins, natural and human-made or altered
drainage channels, reservoirs, and other drainage structures.
STORMWATER: Any surface flow, runoff, and drainage consisting entirely of
water from any form of natural precipitation, and resulting from such
precipitation.
STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (SWPPP): A document
which describes the Best Management Practices and activities to be implemented
by a person or business to identify sources of pollution or contamination at a site
and the actions to eliminate or reduce pollutant discharges and/or Receiving
Waters to the Maximum Extent Practicable.
WASTEWATER: Any water or other liquid, other than uncontaminated storm
water, discharged from a facility.
WATERS OF THE STATE AND/OR UNITED STATES: All water bodies
regulated by the State and/or United States including streams, lakes, ponds,
wetlands, marshes, waterways, wells, springs, reservoirs, aquifers, irrigation
systems, drainage systems and all other bodies or accumulations or water, surface
or underground, natural or artificial, public or private, which are contained within,
flow through, or border upon the state of Minnesota or any portion thereof, or
which may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce.
7-10-3: APPLICABILITY: This ordinance shall apply to all water entering the storm
drain system generated on any developed and undeveloped lands unless explicitly
exempted by an authorized enforcement agency.
7-10-4: RESPONSIBILTY FOR ADMINSTRATION: The City of Monticello shall
administer, implement, and enforce the provisions of this ordinance. Any powers
granted or duties imposed upon the authorized enforcement agency may be
delegated in writing by the Director of the authorized enforcement agency to
persons or entities acting in the beneficial interest of or in the employ of the
agency.
Monticello City Ordinance Title VII, Chapter 10, Page 5
7-10-5: SEVERABILITY: The provisions of this ordinance are hereby declared to be
severable. If any provision, clause, sentence, or paragraph of this Ordinance or
the application thereof to any person, establishment, or circumstances shall be
held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions or applications of
this Ordinance.
7-10-6: ULTIMATE RESPONSIBILITY: The standards set forth herein and
promulgated pursuant to this ordinance are minimum standards: therefore this
ordinance does not intend nor imply that compliance by any person will ensure
that there will be no contamination, pollution, nor unauthorized discharge of
pollutants.
7-10-7: PROHIBITIONS:
(A) Prohibition of Illicit Discharges:
No person shall discharge or cause to be discharged into the municipal storm
drain system or watercourses any materials, including but not limited to pollutants
or waters containing any pollutants that cause or contribute to a violation of
applicable water quality standards, other than storm water.
The commencement or continuance of any illicit discharge to the storm drain
system is prohibited except as described as follows:
1. The following discharges are exempt from discharge prohibitions
established by this ordinance: water line flushing or other potable
water sources, landscape irrigation or lawn watering, diverted stream
flows, rising ground water, ground water infiltration to storm drains,
uncontaminated pumped ground water, foundation or footing drains
(not including active groundwater dewatering systems), crawl space
pumps, air conditioning condensation, springs, non-commercial
washing of vehicles, natural riparian habitat or wet-land flows,
swimming pools (if chlorinated – typically less than one PPM
chlorine), fire fighting activities, and any other water source not
containing pollutants.
2. Discharges specified in writing by the authorized enforcement agency
as being necessary to protect public health and safety.
3. Dye testing is an allowable discharge, but requires a verbal notification
to the authorized enforcement agency prior to the time of the test.
4. The prohibition shall not apply to any non-storm water discharge
permitted under an NPDES permit, waiver, or waste discharge order
issued to the discharger and administered under the authority of the
Federal Environmental Protection Agency, provided that the
Monticello City Ordinance Title VII, Chapter 10, Page 6
discharger is in full compliance with all requirements of the permit,
waiver, or order and other applicable laws and regulations, and
provided that written approval has been granted for any discharge to
the storm drain system.
(B) Prohibition of Illicit Connections:
1. The construction, use, maintenance or continued existence of illicit
connections to the storm drain system is prohibited.
2. This prohibition expressly includes, without limitation, illicit
connections made in the past, regardless of whether the connection
was permissible under law or practices applicable or prevailing at the
time of connection.
3. A person is considered to be in violation of this ordinance if the person
connects a line conveying sewage to the MS4, or allows such a
connection to continue.
7-10-8: SUSPENSION OF MS4 ACCESS:
(A) Suspension due to Illicit Discharges in Emergency Situations:
The City of Monticello may, without prior notice, suspend MS4 discharge access
to a person when such suspension is necessary to stop an actual or threatened
discharge which presents or may present imminent and substantial danger to the
environment, or to the health or welfare of persons, or to the MS4 or Waters of
the State and/or United States. If the violator fails to comply with a suspension
order issued in an emergency, the authorized enforcement agency may take such
steps as deemed necessary to prevent or minimize damage to the MS4 or Waters
of the State and/or United States, or to minimize danger to persons.
(B) Suspension due to Detection of Illicit Discharges:
Any person discharging to the MS4 in violation of this ordinance may have their
MS4 access terminated if such termination would abate or reduce an illicit
discharge. The authorized enforcement agency will notify a violator of the
proposed termination of its MS4 access. The violator may petition the authorized
enforcement agency for a reconsideration and hearing.
A person commits an offense if the person reinstates MS4 access to premises
terminated pursuant to this Section, without the prior approval of the authorized
enforcement agency.
7-10-9: INDUSTRIAL OR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY DISCHARGES: Any person
subject to an industrial or construction activity NPDES storm water discharge
Monticello City Ordinance Title VII, Chapter 10, Page 7
permit shall comply with all provisions of such permit. Proof of compliance with
said permit may be required in a form acceptable to the City of Monticello prior
to the allowing of discharges to the MS4.
7-10-10: MONITORING OF DISCHARGES:
(A) Applicability: This section applies to all facilities that have storm water
discharges associated with industrial activity, including construction
activity.
(B) Access to Facilities:
1. The City of Monticello shall be permitted to enter and inspect facilities
subject to regulation under this ordinance as often as may be necessary
to determine compliance with this ordinance. If a discharger has
security measures in force which require proper identification and
clearance before entry into its premises, the discharger shall make the
necessary arrangements to allow access to representatives of the
authorized enforcement agency.
2. Facility operators shall allow the City of Monticello ready access to all
parts of the premises for the purposes of inspection, sampling,
examination, and copying of records that must be kept under the
conditions of an NPDES permit to discharge storm water, and the
performance of any additional duties as defined by state and federal
law.
3. The City of Monticello shall have the right to set up on any permitted
facility such devices as are necessary in the opinion of the authorized
enforcement agency to conduct monitoring and/or sampling of the
facility’s storm water discharge.
4. The City of Monticello has the right to require the discharger to install
monitoring equipment as necessary. The facility’s sampling and
monitoring equipment shall be maintained at all times in a safe and
proper operating condition by the discharger at its own expense. All
devices used to measure stormwater flow and quality shall be
calibrated to ensure their accuracy.
5. Any temporary or permanent obstruction to safe and easy access to the
facility to be inspected and/or sampled shall be promptly removed by
the operator at the written or oral request of the City of Monticello and
shall not be replaced. The costs of clearing such access shall be borne
by the operator.
Monticello City Ordinance Title VII, Chapter 10, Page 8
6. Unreasonable delays in allowing the City of Monticello access to a
permitted facility is a violation of a storm water discharge permit and
of this ordinance. A person who is the operator of a facility with a
NPDES permit to discharge storm water associated with industrial
activity commits an offense if the person denies the authorized
enforcement agency reasonable access to the permitted facility for the
purpose of conducting any activity authorized or required by this
ordinance.
7. If the City of Monticello has been refused access to any part of the
premises from which stormwater is discharged, and he/she is able to
demonstrate probable cause to believe that there may be a violation of
this ordinance, or that there is a need to inspect and/or sample as part
of a routine inspection and sampling program designed to verify
compliance with this ordinance or any order issued hereunder, or to
protect the overall public health, safety, and welfare of the community,
then the authorized enforcement agency may seek issuance of a search
warrant from any court of competent jurisdiction.
7-10-11: REQUIREMENTS TO PREVENT, CONTROL, AND REDUCE STORM
WATER POLLUTANTS BY THE USE OF BEST MANAGEMENT
PRACTICES: The City of Monticello will adopt requirements identifying Best
Management Practices for any activity, operation, or facility which may cause or
contribute to pollution or contamination of storm water, the storm drain system, or
waters of the State and/or United States. The owner or operator of a commercial
or industrial establishment shall provide, at their own expense, reasonable
protection from accidental discharge of prohibited materials or other wastes into
the municipal storm drain system or watercourses through the use of these
structural and non-structural BMPs. Further, any person responsible for a
property or premise, which is, or may be, the source of an illicit discharge, may be
required to implement, at said person’s expense, additional structural and non-
structural BMPs to prevent the further discharge of pollutants to the municipal
separate storm sewer system. Compliance with all terms and conditions of a valid
NPDES permit authorizing the discharge of storm water associated with industrial
activity, to the extent practicable, shall be deemed compliance with the provisions
of this section. These BMPs shall be part of a stormwater pollution prevention
plan (SWPPP) as necessary for compliance with requirements of the NPDES
permit.
7-10-12: WATERCOURSE PROTECTION: Every person owning property through which
a watercourse passes, or such person’s lessee, shall keep and maintain that part of
the watercourse within the property free of trash, debris, excessive vegetation, and
other obstacles that would pollute, contaminate, or significantly retard the flow of
water through the watercourse. In addition, the owner or lessee shall maintain
existing privately owned structures within or adjacent to a watercourse, so that
Monticello City Ordinance Title VII, Chapter 10, Page 9
such structures will not become a hazard to the use, function, or physical integrity
of the watercourse.
7-10-13: NOTIFICATION OF SPILLS: Notwithstanding other requirements of law, as
soon as any person responsible for a facility or operation, or responsible for
emergency response for a facility or operation has information of any known or
suspected release of materials which are resulting or may result in illicit
discharges or pollutants discharging into storm water, the storm drain system, or
water of the State and/or United States said person shall take all necessary steps to
ensure the discovery, containment, and cleanup of such release. In the event of
such a release of hazardous materials said person shall immediately notify
emergency response agencies of the occurrence via emergency dispatch services.
In the event of a release of non-hazardous materials, said person shall notify the
authorized enforcement agency in person or by phone or facsimile no later than
the next business day. Notifications in person or by phone shall be confirmed by
written notice addressed and mailed to the Public Works Director, City of
Monticello within three business days of the phone notice. If the discharge of
prohibited materials emanates from a commercial or industrial establishment, the
owner or operator of such establishment shall also retain an on-site written record
of the discharge and the actions taken to prevent its recurrence. Such records
shall be retained for at least three years.
7-10-14: ENFORCEMENT:
Notice of Violation: Whenever the City of Monticello finds a person has violated
a prohibition or failed to meet a requirement of this Ordinance, the authorized
enforcement agency may order compliance by written notice of violation to the
responsible person. Such notice may require without limitation:
1. Monitoring, analyses, and reporting;
2. Elimination of illicit connections or discharges;
3. Abatement of pollution and hazards;
4. Restoration of affected property;
5. Payment of fine to cover administrative and remediation costs;
6. Implementation of source control or treatment BMPs; and
7. Other actions as deemed necessary by the City.
If abatement of a violation and/or restoration of affected property is required, the
notice shall set forth a deadline within which such remediation or restoration must
be completed. Said notice shall further advise that, should the violator fail to
remediate or restore within the established deadline, the work will be done by a
designated governmental agency or a contractor and the expense thereof shall be
charged to the violator.
7-10-15: APPEAL OF NOTICE OF VIOLATION: Any person receiving a Notice of
Violation may appeal the determination of the authorized enforcement agency.
Monticello City Ordinance Title VII, Chapter 10, Page 10
The notice of appeal must be received within 14 calendar days from the date of
the Notice of Violation. Hearing on the appeal before the appropriate authority or
his/her designee shall take place within 30 calendar days from the date of receipt
of the notice of appeal. The decision of the municipal authority or their designee
shall be final.
7-10-16: ENFORCEMENT MEASURES AFTER APPEAL: If the violation has not been
corrected pursuant to the requirements set forth in the Notice of Violation, or, in
the event of an appeal, within 7 calendar days of the decision of the municipal
authority upholding the decision of the authorized enforcement agency, then
representatives of the authorized enforcement agency shall enter upon the subject
private property and are authorized to take any and all measures necessary to
abate the violation and/or restore the property. It shall be unlawful for any
person, owner, agent, or person in possession of any premises to refuse to allow
the government agency or designated contractor to enter upon the premises for the
purposes set forth above.
7-10-17: COST OF ABATEMENT OF THE VIOLATION: Within 30 calendar days after
abatement of the violation, the owner of the property will be notified of the cost of
abatement, including administrative costs. The property owner may file a written
protest objecting to the amount of the assessment within 30 calendar days. If the
amount due is not paid within a timely manner as determined by the decision of
the municipal authority or by the expiration of the time in which to file an appeal,
the charges shall become a special assessment against the property and shall
constitute a lien on the property for the amount of the assessment. Any person
violating any of the provisions of this article shall become liable to the city by
reason of such violation.
7-10-18: INJUNCTIVE RELIEF: It shall be unlawful for any person to violate any
provision or fail to comply with any of the requirements of this Ordinance. If a
person has violated or continues to violate the provisions of this ordinance, the
authorized enforcement agency may petition for a preliminary or permanent
injunction restraining the person from activities which would create further
violations or compelling the person to perform abatement or remediation of the
violation.
7-10-19: COMPENSATORY ACTION: In lieu of enforcement proceedings, penalties, and
remedies authorized by this Ordinance, the authorized enforcement agency may
impose upon violator alternative compensatory actions, such as storm drain
stenciling, attendance at compliance workshops, creek cleanup, etc.
7-10-20: VIOLATIONS DEEMED A PUBLIC NUISANCE: In addition to the
enforcement of processes and penalties provided, any condition caused or
permitted to exist in violation of any of the provisions of this Ordinance is a threat
to public health, safety, and welfare, and is declared and deemed a nuisance, and
may be summarily abated or restored at the violator’s expense, and/or a civil
Monticello City Ordinance Title VII, Chapter 10, Page 11
action to abate, enjoin, or otherwise compel the cessation of such nuisance may be
taken.
7-10-21: CRIMINAL PROSECUTION:
(A) Any person that has violated or continues to violate this ordinance shall be
liable to criminal prosecution to the fullest extent of the law.
(B) The enforcement agency may recover all attorneys’ fees court costs and
other expenses associated with enforcement of this ordinance, including
sampling and monitoring expenses.
7-10-22: REMEDIES NOT EXCLUSIVE: The remedies listed in this ordinance are not
exclusive of any other remedies available under any applicable federal, state or
local law and it is within the discretion of the authorized enforcement agency to
seek cumulative remedies.
7-10-23: ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE: All prior ordinances and parts of ordinances in
conflict with this ordinance are hereb y repealed.
(#516, 6/28/2010)
City Council Agenda: 7/12/10
1
7. Consideration of reapportioning special assessments and amending the SW
Interchange Assessment Agreement for Monticello Industrial Park, Inc (Shawn
Weinand & Charlie Pfeffer) (TK, AS)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Property owner Shawn Weinand has requested that the City Council consider a request to
re-apportion the special assessments on his properties in Monticello Industrial Park. The
special assessments are related to the infrastructure improvements associated with I-
94/CSAH 18 Interchange.
There are five separate parcels affected by this requests and two separate special
assessments. The assessments were originally assessed for 10 years with 4% interest and
are deferred interest free until 2013. The total amount owed on the five parcels is
$2,321,794.00. The property owner is requesting that the City restructure the payment
schedule from amortizing over a ten year period to a 15 year period. The current and new
payment schedule, as prepared by the Finance Director is attached. Since the term of the
assessments are spelled out in the development agreement, and if the term of the
assessments is extended to 15 years, an amended development agreement should be
prepared and signed.
The City issued debt to finance the project, so the impact on the City would be to
internally finance the bond payments for the first ten years of the assessment based on the
assessments being spread over 15 years instead of 10, until the final five years of
assessments are paid, which would reimburse the City. However since the assessments
will be paid back over a longer period than was originally planned the City would collect
more in interest over the life of the assessments.
This request is similar to previous requests to reapportion assessments over a longer
period with one exception. The previous requests were to reapportion levied
assessments, where the property owners were currently paying the assessments through
their property taxes. This request is based on assessments that are deferred interest free
until 2013. If the Council’s intent for approving reapportionment of assessments is to
provide property tax relief to property owners, then this reapportionment does not meet
the criteria of tax relief at this time, as these assessments are deferred until 2013. To
meet the tax relief criteria, the Council should review and act on this request prior to the
expiration of the deferral in 2013 or if the property is sold, which would also terminate
the deferral.
A1. Budget Impact: By extending out the assessments, the City would be repaid
over a longer period for the cost of the improvements and would need to
internally fund the annual bond payments for the first ten years. The final five
years of assessment collection would reimburse the City. Also, by extending the
assessments over the life of the assessment, the property owner would pay more
in interest. There would be some attorney fees to draft an amended development
agreement. Also, note that the interchange construction fund has a deficit, but
this action would not affect the deficit because the assessments are used to repay
the bonds, which funded the project.
City Council Agenda: 7/12/10
2
A2. Staff Workload Impact: There will be a small amount of staff time involved in
preparing the required assessment information for Wright County.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve the reapportionment of special assessments on the Monticello
Industrial Park to a 15 year term at 4%, with the 15 year term beginning with
taxes payable 2013, and to authorize the City Attorney to prepare an amended
development agreement.
2. Motion to deny the reapportionment of special assessments on the Monticello
Industrial Park as proposed, and to revisit the issue prior to the expiration of the
deferral or if the property is sold.
3. Motion to deny the reapportionment of special assessments on the Monticello
Industrial Park as proposed.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This request represents a significant policy decision for the City Council. There are a
number of special assessment projects which have been levied over the past ten years.
Each represents a substantial cost to the City in terms of bond repayment. The Council
will need to weigh the precedent set by adjusting this assessment with the economic
conditions for the development community. The Council will need to consider the basis
of granting or not granting these requests as a whole and individually.
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 payment compared to nothing.
In this case, the assessments are deferred so by reapportioning the assessments at this
time has little to no impact on the City or the property owners. If the City does not
reapportion the assessment at this time, the Council can revisit the request in the future
when the property is sold, prior to the expiration of the deferment, or for any other
reason.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
(A) Waiver of public hearing notice
(B) Assessment Reapportionment Illustration (spreadsheets)
(C) Monticello Industrial Park, Inc request (Charlie Pfeffer)
(D) Current and Revised Bond Fund Cash Flow Projection
Charlie Pfeffer/Shawn Weinand Special Assessments
10 Year Assessment
Parcel: 155-011-000101
Interest Yrs Original Assessment Annual Assessments
Auditor ## of Years 1st Yr Rate Remaining Assessment Balance 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total
27211-2/3/4/5 10 yrs 2013 4.00%10 yrs 192,645.00 192,645.00 Principal 19,264.50 19,264.50 19,264.50 19,264.50 19,264.50 19,264.50 19,264.50 19,264.50 19,264.50 19,264.50 192,645.00
Interest 7,705.80 6,935.22 6,164.64 5,394.06 4,623.48 3,852.90 3,082.32 2,311.74 1,541.16 770.58 42,381.90
Total 26,970.30 26,199.72 25,429.14 24,658.56 23,887.98 23,117.40 22,346.82 21,576.24 20,805.66 20,035.08 235,026.90
Parcel: 155-011-000111
Interest Yrs Original Assessment Annual Assessments
Auditor ## of Years 1st Yr Rate Remaining Assessment Balance 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total
27211-2/3/4/5 10 yrs 2013 4.00%10 yrs 328,630.00 328,630.00 Principal 32,863.00 32,863.00 32,863.00 32,863.00 32,863.00 32,863.00 32,863.00 32,863.00 32,863.00 32,863.00 328,630.00
Interest 13,145.20 11,830.68 10,516.16 9,201.64 7,887.12 6,572.60 5,258.08 3,943.56 2,629.04 1,314.52 72,298.60
Total 46,008.20 44,693.68 43,379.16 42,064.64 40,750.12 39,435.60 38,121.08 36,806.56 35,492.04 34,177.52 400,928.60
Parcel: 155-011-000171
Interest Yrs Original Assessment Annual Assessments
Auditor ## of Years 1st Yr Rate Remaining Assessment Balance 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total
27211-2-9 10 yrs 2013 4.00%10 yrs 738,966.00 738,966.00 Principal 73,896.60 73,896.60 73,896.60 73,896.60 73,896.60 73,896.60 73,896.60 73,896.60 73,896.60 73,896.60 738,966.00
Interest 29,558.64 26,602.78 23,646.91 20,691.05 17,735.18 14,779.32 11,823.46 8,867.59 5,911.73 2,955.86 162,572.52
Total 103,455.24 100,499.38 97,543.51 94,587.65 91,631.78 88,675.92 85,720.06 82,764.19 79,808.33 76,852.46 901,538.52
27211A-0-7 10 yrs 2013 4.00%10 yrs 507,290.00 507,290.00 Principal 50,729.00 50,729.00 50,729.00 50,729.00 50,729.00 50,729.00 50,729.00 50,729.00 50,729.00 50,729.00 507,290.00
Interest 20,291.60 18,262.44 16,233.28 14,204.12 12,174.96 10,145.80 8,116.64 6,087.48 4,058.32 2,029.16 111,603.80
Total 71,020.60 68,991.44 66,962.28 64,933.12 62,903.96 60,874.80 58,845.64 56,816.48 54,787.32 52,758.16 618,893.80
Parcel
Total 174,475.84 169,490.82 164,505.79 159,520.77 154,535.74 149,550.72 144,565.70 139,580.67 134,595.65 129,610.62 1,520,432.32
Parcel: 155-143-001020
Interest Yrs Original Assessment Annual Assessments
Auditor ## of Years 1st Yr Rate Remaining Assessment Balance 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total
27211-2/3/4/5 10 yrs 2013 4.00%10 yrs 85,269.00 85,269.00 Principal 8,526.90 8,526.90 8,526.90 8,526.90 8,526.90 8,526.90 8,526.90 8,526.90 8,526.90 8,526.90 85,269.00
Interest 3,410.76 3,069.68 2,728.61 2,387.53 2,046.46 1,705.38 1,364.30 1,023.23 682.15 341.08 18,759.18
Total 11,937.66 11,596.58 11,255.51 10,914.43 10,573.36 10,232.28 9,891.20 9,550.13 9,209.05 8,867.98 104,028.18
Parcel: 155-196-000010
Interest Yrs Original Assessment Annual Assessments
Auditor ## of Years 1st Yr Rate Remaining Assessment Balance 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total
27311 10 yrs 2013 4.00%10 yrs 468,994.00 468,994.00 Principal 46,899.40 46,899.40 46,899.40 46,899.40 46,899.40 46,899.40 46,899.40 46,899.40 46,899.40 46,899.40 468,994.00
Interest 18,759.76 16,883.78 15,007.81 13,131.83 11,255.86 9,379.88 7,503.90 5,627.93 3,751.95 1,875.98 103,178.68
Total 65,659.16 63,783.18 61,907.21 60,031.23 58,155.26 56,279.28 54,403.30 52,527.33 50,651.35 48,775.38 572,172.68
Total All
Parcels 325,051.16 315,763.98 306,476.81 297,189.63 287,902.46 278,615.28 269,328.10 260,040.93 250,753.75 241,466.58 2,832,588.68
15 Year Assessment
Parcel: 155-011-000101
Interest Yrs Original Assessment Annual Assessments
Auditor ## of Years 1st Yr Rate Remaining Assessment Balance 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Total
27211-2/3/4/5 15 yrs 2013 4.00%15 yrs 192,645.00 192,645.00 Principal 12,843.00 12,843.00 12,843.00 12,843.00 12,843.00 12,843.00 12,843.00 12,843.00 12,843.00 12,843.00 12,843.00 12,843.00 12,843.00 12,843.00 12,843.00 192,645.00
Interest 7,705.80 7,192.08 6,678.36 6,164.64 5,650.92 5,137.20 4,623.48 4,109.76 3,596.04 3,082.32 2,568.60 2,054.88 1,541.16 1,027.44 513.72 61,646.40
Total 20,548.80 20,035.08 19,521.36 19,007.64 18,493.92 17,980.20 17,466.48 16,952.76 16,439.04 15,925.32 15,411.60 14,897.88 14,384.16 13,870.44 13,356.72 254,291.40
Parcel: 155-011-000111
Interest Yrs Original Assessment Annual Assessments
Auditor ## of Years 1st Yr Rate Remaining Assessment Balance 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Total
27211-2/3/4/5 15 yrs 2013 4.00%15 yrs 328,630.00 328,630.00 Principal 21,908.67 21,908.67 21,908.67 21,908.67 21,908.67 21,908.67 21,908.67 21,908.67 21,908.67 21,908.67 21,908.67 21,908.67 21,908.67 21,908.67 21,908.67 328,630.00
Interest 13,145.20 12,268.85 11,392.51 10,516.16 9,639.81 8,763.47 7,887.12 7,010.77 6,134.43 5,258.08 4,381.73 3,505.39 2,629.04 1,752.69 876.35 105,161.60
Total 35,053.87 34,177.52 33,301.17 32,424.83 31,548.48 30,672.13 29,795.79 28,919.44 28,043.09 27,166.75 26,290.40 25,414.05 24,537.71 23,661.36 22,785.01 433,791.60
Parcel: 155-011-000171
Interest Yrs Original Assessment Annual Assessments
Auditor ## of Years 1st Yr Rate Remaining Assessment Balance 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Total
27211-2-9 15 yrs 2013 4.00%15 yrs 738,966.00 738,966.00 Principal 49,264.40 49,264.40 49,264.40 49,264.40 49,264.40 49,264.40 49,264.40 49,264.40 49,264.40 49,264.40 49,264.40 49,264.40 49,264.40 49,264.40 49,264.40 738,966.00
Interest 29,558.64 27,588.06 25,617.49 23,646.91 21,676.34 19,705.76 17,735.18 15,764.61 13,794.03 11,823.46 9,852.88 7,882.30 5,911.73 3,941.15 1,970.58 236,469.12
Total 78,823.04 76,852.46 74,881.89 72,911.31 70,940.74 68,970.16 66,999.58 65,029.01 63,058.43 61,087.86 59,117.28 57,146.70 55,176.13 53,205.55 51,234.98 975,435.12
27211A-0-7 15 yrs 2013 4.00%15 yrs 507,290.00 507,290.00 Principal 33,819.33 33,819.33 33,819.33 33,819.33 33,819.33 33,819.33 33,819.33 33,819.33 33,819.33 33,819.33 33,819.33 33,819.33 33,819.33 33,819.33 33,819.33 507,290.00
Interest 20,291.60 18,938.83 17,586.05 16,233.28 14,880.51 13,527.73 12,174.96 10,822.19 9,469.41 8,116.64 6,763.87 5,411.09 4,058.32 2,705.55 1,352.77 162,332.80
Total 54,110.93 52,758.16 51,405.39 50,052.61 48,699.84 47,347.07 45,994.29 44,641.52 43,288.75 41,935.97 40,583.20 39,230.43 37,877.65 36,524.88 35,172.11 669,622.80
Parcel
Total 132,933.97 129,610.62 126,287.27 122,963.93 119,640.58 116,317.23 112,993.88 109,670.53 106,347.18 103,023.83 99,700.48 96,377.13 93,053.78 89,730.43 86,407.08 1,645,057.92
Parcel: 155-143-001020
Interest Yrs Original Assessment Annual Assessments
Auditor ## of Years 1st Yr Rate Remaining Assessment Balance 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Total
27211-2/3/4/5 15 yrs 2013 4.00%15 yrs 85,269.00 85,269.00 Principal 5,684.60 5,684.60 5,684.60 5,684.60 5,684.60 5,684.60 5,684.60 5,684.60 5,684.60 5,684.60 5,684.60 5,684.60 5,684.60 5,684.60 5,684.60 85,269.00
Interest 3,410.76 3,183.38 2,955.99 2,728.61 2,501.22 2,273.84 2,046.46 1,819.07 1,591.69 1,364.30 1,136.92 909.54 682.15 454.77 227.38 27,286.08
Total 9,095.36 8,867.98 8,640.59 8,413.21 8,185.82 7,958.44 7,731.06 7,503.67 7,276.29 7,048.90 6,821.52 6,594.14 6,366.75 6,139.37 5,911.98 112,555.08
Parcel: 155-196-000010
Interest Yrs Original Assessment Annual Assessments
Auditor ## of Years 1st Yr Rate Remaining Assessment Balance 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Total
27311 15 yrs 2013 4.00%15 yrs 468,994.00 468,994.00 Principal 31,266.27 31,266.27 31,266.27 31,266.27 31,266.27 31,266.27 31,266.27 31,266.27 31,266.27 31,266.27 31,266.27 31,266.27 31,266.27 31,266.27 31,266.27 468,994.00
Interest 18,759.76 17,509.11 16,258.46 15,007.81 13,757.16 12,506.51 11,255.86 10,005.21 8,754.55 7,503.90 6,253.25 5,002.60 3,751.95 2,501.30 1,250.65 150,078.08
Total 50,026.03 48,775.38 47,524.73 46,274.07 45,023.42 43,772.77 42,522.12 41,271.47 40,020.82 38,770.17 37,519.52 36,268.87 35,018.22 33,767.57 32,516.92 619,072.08
Total All
Parcels 247,658.03 241,466.58 235,275.13 229,083.67 222,892.22 216,700.77 210,509.32 204,317.87 198,126.42 191,934.97 185,743.52 179,552.07 173,360.62 167,169.17 160,977.72 3,064,768.08