The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Agenda Packet 04-25-2011AGENDA REGULARMEETING–MONTICELLOCITYCOUNCIL Monday,April25,2011–7p.m. Mayor:ClintHerbst CouncilMembers:LloydHilgart,TomPerrault,GlenPosusta,BrianStumpf 1.CalltoOrderandPledgeofAllegiance 2A.ApprovalofMinutes–April11,2011RegularMeeting 3.Considerationofaddingitemstotheagenda 4.Citizencomments,publicserviceannouncements,andstaffupdates a.CitizenComments: b.PublicServiceAnnouncements: 1)HiWayLiquorWineTasting(4/29) 2)LeafPickup(5/7) 3)AllCityGarageSale(5/14) c.StaffUpdates: 1)BuildingDepartmentupdate(Permits,Rental,Nuisance) 5.ConsentAgenda: A.ConsiderationofapprovingpaymentofbillsforApril25th B.ConsiderationofapprovingnewhiresanddeparturesforCitydepartments C.ConsiderationofadoptingResolution#2011-28approvingcontributionfromTom PerraultfortheGeneralFund D.ConsiderationofadoptingResolution#2011-29approvingcontributionsfrom CargillKitchenSolutionsforacommunitygarden,BertramFamilyFunDay,and decorativeplantingsonCSAH75median E.ConsiderationofadoptingResolution#2011-30approvingcontributionfrom FiberNetMonticellofortheBertramFamilyFunDay F.Considerationofapprovinganapplicationforatemporarycharitablegambling licenseinconjunctionwithaRotarygolfeventonJune6,2011 G.Considerationofallowingacommunityfoodgardenoncitypropertyatthe MonticelloHelpCenter/DMV H.ConsiderationofadjustingassessmentsforstreetlightingandsidewalkonLot1, Block1andLot1,Block2,AmaxAdditioninconjunctionwithCedarStreet Improvements,CityProjectNo.2002-06C I.ConsiderationofratifyingtheFiberNetservicesratestructurefor2010-2011as approvedbytheFiberNetAdvisoryBoard J.ConsiderationofacceptingproposalsandawardingcontractforupgradeofLiquor StorePoint-of-SaleandInventoryManagementSystemandhardware K.Considerationofapprovingvehiclespecificationsandauthorizingpurchaseofa HookTruckbasedonstatecontractpricing L.Considerationof approvingsubmittalofapplication toachieveETC(Eligible TelecommunicationsCarrier)statusenablingfundingofimprovementsnecessary toprovidetelecommunicationservicestounderservedpopulation 6.Considerationofitemsremovedfromtheconsentagendafordiscussion 7.PublicHearing–ConsiderationofadoptingResolution#2011-31vacatingaportionof drainageandutilityeasementsaspetitionedforLot19,Block3,Groveland2nd Addition (9960WestonDrive);Applicant,KennethHutchinson 8.PublicHearing–ConsiderationofadoptingResolution#2011-32vacatingaportionof drainageandutilityeasementsaspetitionedforLot6,Block1,MonticelloTravelCenter 2nd Addition(SWcornerofOakwoodDrive&CedarStreet);Applicant,IRETProperties 9.PublicHearing–ConsiderationofadoptingResolution#2011-33approvingproposed assessmentrollfordelinquentutilitybillsandcertificationtoCountyAuditorfor2012 payabletaxyear 10.ConsiderationofadoptingResolutionNo.2011-34approvingfinalplansand specificationsandauthorizingadvertisementforbids;andadoptingResolutionNo.2011- 35restrictingparkingonMSASsegmentsforthe2011StreetReconstructionandWalnut Street/7th StreetWestIntersectionImprovements,CityProjectNo.11C001 11.ConsiderationofadoptingResolution#2011-24andOrdinance#528amendingthe MonticelloZoningOrdinancerelatingtoAdult-OrientedLandUsesandamendmentsto theofficialMonticelloZoningMap;Applicant,CityofMonticello 12.Addeditems 13.Adjournment CityCouncilAgenda:04/25/11 1 5A.ConsiderationofapprovingpaymentofbillregistersforApril25th (TK) A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND: TheattachedbillregisterscontainallinvoicesprocessedsincethelastCouncilmeeting. SubjecttoMNStatutes,mostinvoicesrequireCouncilapprovalpriortoreleasingchecks forpayment.ThedayfollowingCouncilapproval,paymentswillbereleasedunless directedotherwise. IfCouncilhasnoquestionsorcommentsonthebillregisters,thesecanbeapprovedwith theconsentagenda.Ifrequested,thisitemcanberemovedfromconsentanddiscussed priortomakingamotionforapproval. A1.BudgetImpact:None A2.StaffWorkloadImpact:Noadditionalworkrequired B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS: 1.Motiontoapprovethebillregistersforatotalamountof$862,750.18. 2.MotiontoapprovethebillregisterswithchangesdirectedbyCouncil. C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION: CitystaffrecommendsAlternative#1or#2,perdirectionofCouncil. D.SUPPORTINGDATA: Billregisters CityCouncilAgenda:04/25/11 1 5B.ConsiderationofapprovingnewhiresanddeparturesforCitydepartments (TE) A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND: TheCouncilisaskedtoratifythehiringanddeparturesofemployeesthathaveoccurred recentlyinthedepartmentslisted.ItisrecommendedthattheCouncilofficiallyratifythe hiring/departureofalllistedemployeesincludingpart-timeandseasonalworkers. A1.BudgetImpact:(positionsaregenerallyincludedinbudget) A2.StaffWorkLoadImpact:Ifnewpositions,theremaybesometraining involved.Ifterminatedpositions,existingstaffwouldpickupthosehours,as needed,untilreplaced. B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS: 1.Motiontoratifythehire/departuresoftheemployeesasidentifiedontheattached list. 2.Motiontodenytherecommendedhiresanddepartures. C.RECOMMENDATION: BystatutetheCityCouncilhastheauthoritytoapproveallhires/departures.Citystaff recommendsAlternative#1,fortheCounciltoapprovethehiresand/ordeparturesas listed. D.SUPPORTINGDATA: Listofnew/terminatedemployees Name Title Department Hire Date Class Brian Rousselow Seasonal Parks Worker Parks 4/18 Seasonal Frank Robinson Seasonal Parks Worker Parks 5/2 Seasonal Herb Schoenborn Seasonal Parks Worker Parks 5/2 Seasonal James Maanum Seasonal Parks Worker Parks 5/2 Seasonal Justin Anderson Seasonal Streets Worker Streets 5/2 Seasonal Jon Hirschey Seasonal Streets Worker Streets 5/2 Seasonal Jaymon DeMarais Seasonal Water/Sewer Worker Water/Sewer 5/16 Seasonal Stephanie DeGraw Wedding/Event Host MCC 4/15 PT Name Reason Department Last Day Class Justin Juergensen Voluntary Finance 4/10 Temporary Frank Robinson Voluntary Streets/Parks 4/1 Seasonal Deborah Martin Voluntary FNM 4/11 PT NEW EMPLOYEES TERMINATING EMPLOYEES Book1: 4/19/2011 CityCouncilAgenda:04/25/11 1 5C.ConsiderationofadoptingResolution#2011-28toacceptcontributionfromTom PerraultfortheGeneralFund (CS) A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND: TomPerraultiscontributing$250forApriltogointotheGeneralFund.Asrequiredby statestatute,iftheCityacceptsthedonationoffunds,theCityCouncilneedstoadopta resolutionspecifyingtheamountofthedonationanditsuse. A1.BudgetImpact:None A2.StaffWorkloadImpact:Staffaccountsforandreconcilesdonationscontributed throughtheCity. B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS: 1.Approvethecontributionsandauthorizeuseoffundsasspecified. 2.Donotapprovethecontributionsandreturnthefundstothedonors. C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION: Staffrecommendationistoadopttheresolutionacceptingthecontributions. D.SUPPORTINGDATA: ResolutionNo.2011-28 CityofMonticello RESOLUTIONNO.2011-28 APPROVINGCONTRIBUTIONS WHEREAS,theCityofMonticelloisgenerallyauthorizedtoaccept contributionsofrealandpersonalpropertypursuanttoMinnesotaStatutesSections 465.03and465.04forthebenefitofitscitizensandisspecificallyauthorizedtomaintain suchpropertyforthebenefitofitscitizensinaccordancewiththetermsprescribedbythe donor.SaidgiftsmaybelimitedunderprovisionsofMNStatutesSection471.895. WHEREAS,thefollowingpersonsandorentitieshaveofferedtocontribute contributionsorgiftstotheCityaslisted: DONOR/ENTITYDESCRIPTIONVALUE TomPerraultCash$250 WHEREAS,allsaidcontributionsareintendedtoaidtheCityinestablishing facilities,operationsorprogramswithinthecity’sjurisdictioneitheraloneorin cooperationwithothers,asallowedbylaw;and WHEREAS,theCityCouncilherebyfindsthatitisappropriatetoacceptthe contributionsoffered. NOWTHEREFOREBEITRESOLVED bytheCityCouncilofMonticelloas follows: 1.ThecontributionsdescribedaboveareherebyacceptedbytheCityof Monticello. 2.Thecontributionsdescribedabovewillbeusedasdesignatedbythe donor.Thismayentailreimbursingorallocatingthemoneytoanother entitythatwillutilizethefundsforthefollowingstatedpurpose: DONOR/ENTITYRECIPIENTPURPOSE TomPerraultCityofMonticelloGeneralfund(April) AdoptedbytheCityCouncilofMonticellothis25thdayofApril,2011. CITYOFMONTICELLO ______________________________ ClintHerbst,Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________________ JeffO’Neill,CityAdministrator CityCouncilAgenda:04/25/11 1 5D.ConsiderationofadoptingResolution#2011-29toacceptcontributionsfromCargill KitchenSolutionsforacommunitygarden,BertramFamilyFunDay,and decorativeplantingsonCSAH75median (CS) A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND: CargillKitchenSolutionshasofferedtocontributetosomeupcomingcommunity activities. Thefirstisadonationfor$500togotowardacommunitygardentobelocatedatthe MonticelloHelpCenter;approvalforthecommunitygardenisincludedintheconsent agenda. BertramFamilyFunDayisscheduledforSaturday,June11th andCargilliswillingto donate$500towardthispublicevent. Cargillalsohasfundsavailableforcommunitybeautification,andtheCityhasbeen acceptedforadonationintheamountof$500fordecorativeplantingsthatwillbeplaced ontheCSAH75median. Asrequiredbystatestatute,iftheCityacceptsthedonationoffunds,theCityCouncil needstoadoptaresolutionspecifyingtheamountofthedonationanditsuse. A1.BudgetImpact:None A2.StaffWorkloadImpact:Staffaccountsforandreconcilesdonationscontributed throughtheCity. B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS: 1.Approvethecontributionsandauthorizeuseoffundsasspecified. 2.Donotapprovethecontributionsandreturnthefundstothedonors. C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION: Staffrecommendationistoadopttheresolutionacceptingthecontributions. D.SUPPORTINGDATA: ResolutionNo.2011-29 CityofMonticello RESOLUTIONNO.2011-29 APPROVINGCONTRIBUTIONS WHEREAS,theCityofMonticelloisgenerallyauthorizedtoaccept contributionsofrealandpersonalpropertypursuanttoMinnesotaStatutesSections 465.03and465.04forthebenefitofitscitizensandisspecificallyauthorizedtomaintain suchpropertyforthebenefitofitscitizensinaccordancewiththetermsprescribedbythe donor.SaidgiftsmaybelimitedunderprovisionsofMNStatutesSection471.895. WHEREAS,thefollowingpersonsandorentitieshaveofferedtocontribute contributionsorgiftstotheCityaslisted: DONOR/ENTITYDESCRIPTIONVALUE CargillKitchenSolutionsCash$1500 WHEREAS,allsaidcontributionsareintendedtoaidtheCityinestablishing facilities,operationsorprogramswithinthecity’sjurisdictioneitheraloneorin cooperationwithothers,asallowedbylaw;and WHEREAS,theCityCouncilherebyfindsthatitisappropriatetoacceptthe contributionsoffered. NOWTHEREFOREBEITRESOLVED bytheCityCouncilofMonticelloas follows: 1.ThecontributionsdescribedaboveareherebyacceptedbytheCityof Monticello. 2.Thecontributionsdescribedabovewillbeusedasdesignatedbythe donor.Thismayentailreimbursingorallocatingthemoneytoanother entitythatwillutilizethefundsforthefollowingstatedpurpose: DONOR/ENTITYRECIPIENTPURPOSE CargillKitchenSolutionsCityofMonticelloCommunitygarden($500) CargillKitchenSolutionsCityofMonticelloBertramFamilyFunDay($500) CargillKitchenSolutionsCityofMonticelloPlantingsonCSAH75($500) AdoptedbytheCityCouncilofMonticellothis25thdayofApril,2011. CITYOFMONTICELLO ______________________________ ClintHerbst,Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________________ JeffO’Neill,CityAdministrator CityCouncilAgenda:04/25/11 1 5E.ConsiderationofadoptingResolution#2011-30toacceptcontributionfrom FiberNetMonticellofortheBertramFamilyFunDay (CS) A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND: Aspartofitsmarketingcampaign,FiberNetMonticelloiswillingtocontribute$500for theBertramFamilyFunDayonSaturday,June11th.Asrequiredbystatestatute,ifthe Cityacceptsthedonationoffunds,theCityCouncilneedstoadoptaresolution specifyingtheamountofthedonationanditsuse. A1.BudgetImpact:None A2.StaffWorkloadImpact:Staffaccountsforandreconcilesdonationscontributed throughtheCity. B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS: 1.Approvethecontributionsandauthorizeuseoffundsasspecified. 2.Donotapprovethecontributionsandreturnthefundstothedonors. C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION: Staffrecommendationistoadopttheresolutionacceptingthecontributions. D.SUPPORTINGDATA: ResolutionNo.2011-30 CityofMonticello RESOLUTIONNO.2011-30 APPROVINGCONTRIBUTIONS WHEREAS,theCityofMonticelloisgenerallyauthorizedtoaccept contributionsofrealandpersonalpropertypursuanttoMinnesotaStatutesSections 465.03and465.04forthebenefitofitscitizensandisspecificallyauthorizedtomaintain suchpropertyforthebenefitofitscitizensinaccordancewiththetermsprescribedbythe donor.SaidgiftsmaybelimitedunderprovisionsofMNStatutesSection471.895. WHEREAS,thefollowingpersonsandorentitieshaveofferedtocontribute contributionsorgiftstotheCityaslisted: DONOR/ENTITYDESCRIPTIONVALUE FiberNetMonticelloCash$500 WHEREAS,allsaidcontributionsareintendedtoaidtheCityinestablishing facilities,operationsorprogramswithinthecity’sjurisdictioneitheraloneorin cooperationwithothers,asallowedbylaw;and WHEREAS,theCityCouncilherebyfindsthatitisappropriatetoacceptthe contributionsoffered. NOWTHEREFOREBEITRESOLVED bytheCityCouncilofMonticelloas follows: 1.ThecontributionsdescribedaboveareherebyacceptedbytheCityof Monticello. 2.Thecontributionsdescribedabovewillbeusedasdesignatedbythe donor.Thismayentailreimbursingorallocatingthemoneytoanother entitythatwillutilizethefundsforthefollowingstatedpurpose: DONOR/ENTITYRECIPIENTPURPOSE FiberNetMonticelloCityofMonticelloBertramFamilyFunDay AdoptedbytheCityCouncilofMonticellothis25thdayofApril,2011. CITYOFMONTICELLO ______________________________ ClintHerbst,Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________________ JeffO’Neill,CityAdministrator CouncilAgenda:4/25/11 1 5F.Considerationofapprovinganapplicationforatemporarycharitablegambling licenseinconjunctionwithaRotarygolfeventonJune6,2011 (CS) A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND: TheStMichaelAlbertvilleRotaryClubandMonticelloRotaryClubareteamingupfora fundraisinggolfeventtobeheldattheMonticelloCountryClubonJune6,2011.TheSt MichaelAlbertvilleRotaryhasappliedtotheCityforapermitforacharitablegambling licensetosponsorarafflewiththedrawingtobeheldonJune6attheendofthegolf tournament.Thetwoclubswillsplittheproceedswhicheachclubdesignatingthe beneficiariesofitsproceeds.Thisissimilartoeventsheldinthelastfewyears. InthepasttheCityhasnotopposedtheseexemptgamblinglicenseapplicationsfor charitableevents. B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS: 1.Motiontoapprovetheapplicationforacharitablegamblinglicenseforarafflein conjunctionwithaRotarygolftournamenttobeheldonJune6,2011. 2.Donotapprovetherequest. C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION: CitystaffsupportsAlternative#1. D.SUPPORTINGDATA: Copyofapplication CityCouncilAgenda:04/25/11 1 5G.ConsiderationofallowingaCommunityFoodGardenoncitypropertyattheMonticello HelpCenter/DMV (AS) A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND: TheCityCouncilisaskedtoconsiderallowingthedevelopmentofasmallcommunity foodgardenadjacenttotheMonticelloHelpCenterandDepartmentofMotorVehicle office. Thepurposeofthegardenwillbetoprovideacommunityvolunteeropportunityfor locally-growncontributionstotheFoodShelf.Placementofthegardennexttothefood shelfwillalsoallowusersofthefoodshelftocollecttheirownproduceandwillprovide adirectconnectionbetweenthefoodthatFoodShelfclientseatandwhereitisproduced. TheCitywasapproachedbyaWrightCountyMasterGardenerAndreaHolkerregarding theopportunitytodevelopthegardenatthatlocation.Ms.Holkerownsalocal landscapingbusinessandhasreceivedaLiveWrightgrantforthesuccessful developmentofasustainablefoodgardenatPinewoodElementarySchool.(Monticello isafocuscommunityfortheWrightCountyLiveWrightproject.) Indevelopingtheidea,Ms.Holkerhasreceivedconfirmationthatboththelocal MonticelloMonarch4-HgroupandtheMonticelloGirlScouttroopswouldplant, maintain,andharvestthegarden,ifitispermittedbytheCity.Thecorevolunteergroup, basedonthatcommitment,totalsover200youthandadults.Ms.Holkerhasalsooffered tocommittomanagingthegardenandthevolunteergroupsforatwo-yearperiod. Ms.Holkerhasdevelopedapreliminaryplanforthegarden,incorporatingpermaculture andsheetmulchingconcepts.Thegardenwillbeapproximately50’x25’feet.Theplot willutilizecompostfromtheCitycompostsiteandwillbewateredusingrainbarrelsand drip-linehoses.Asillustratedontheattachedaerial,aportionoftheparcelwillremain traditionalgrasslandscape.Theplanprovidedforreferencewillbealteredslightlyto allowroomforboththenewDMV/HelpCentersignandastripofgrassbetweenthe gardenandthesidewalk. Intermsoffundingandstaffcommitment,Councilisaskedonlytoallowthegardenon siteandfortheParksDepartmenttodelivertwoloadsofbothmulchandcomposttothe site.TheParksDepartmentwouldalsobeaskedtorestorethearea,ifthereisnota renewedcommitmentformaintenancebyeithertheCityCouncilorvolunteer organizationspast2011. TherewillbenocosttotheCityfortheplantingsandwateringsystem,asCargillKitchen Solutionshasoffereda$500donationtofundthegarden,shouldtheCityapprovethe placement.LocalsupplierssuchasMartie’sFarmSupply,Dan&Jerry’s,andlocal homeimprovementsstoreswillbeusedforsuppliestodevelopthegarden.TheCargill contributioncouldalsobeusedtocreateasmallchalk-boardsign“What’sGrowingOn” CityCouncilAgenda:04/25/11 2 inthegardenasawayforthevolunteerstostayconnectedandtoeducatethecommunity. AsmallamountoftheCargillcontributioncouldalsobeheldinescrowtocoverthe potentialre-seedingcostsinfutureyears,ifCouncildeemssuchtobenecessary. Therewillbenoneedforfencingorstoragefacilities,asthevolunteerswillbebringing theirowngardeningtoolsandwillbemaintainingthesiteatvaryingtimes.Asa communitygarden,fencingthesiteiscountertotheprimarypurpose,whichistocreatea spaceinwhichthecommunitycanview,enjoyandcontribute. TheFoodShelfDirectorhasbeencontactedandissupportiveofboththeideaandthe location.DMVManagerAnnJohnsonisalsosupportiveofthelocation. StaffhasconsultedwiththeDepartmentofAgricultureregardingtheregulationsfor contributionoflocally-grownproducetofoodshelvesandhasfoundthatcontributions areallowableiftheymeetDepartmentofHealthandAgricultureguidelines.Inshort,the foodshouldnotbetreatedwithpesticides.Asthisgardenisintendedasanexampleof completelysustainable,organicpermaculturegardening,thefoodwilleasilymeetall requiredguidelines. IfCouncilelectstoapprovethegarden,staffwillprovideaprojectsummarytoCouncil attheendoftheseason.Atthatpoint,Councilcanconsiderwhetherthegardenshould becontinuedforfutureyears. A1.BudgetImpact:None.Allprojectstart-upcosts,aswellasthepotential restorationtotraditionalgrasslawnwillbecoveredbya$500donationfrom CargillKitchenSolutions. A2.StaffWorkloadImpact:TheParksDepartmentwouldbeaskedtodelivertwo loadsofmulchandcomposttothesite. B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS: 1.MotiontoallowaCommunityFoodGardenoncitypropertyattheMonticello HelpCenter/DMV. 2.MotiontonotallowaCommunityFoodGardenoncitypropertyattheMonticello HelpCenter/DMV. C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION: CitystaffrecommendsAlternative#1above.Thesitewillbedevelopedthroughgrant funds,willbemaintainedbyvolunteers,andwillprovideapositiveandaestheticbenefit directlytotheareaandtotheFoodShelf.Ifapproved,staffwillprovideCouncilwith updatesonprogressandresultsinthegarden. CityCouncilAgenda:04/25/11 3 D.SUPPORTINGDATA: AerialImageofProposedSite CommunityFoodGardenPreliminaryPlanandExhibits CityCouncilAgenda:04/25/11 1 5H.ConsiderationofadjustingstreetlightingandsidewalkassessmentsonLot1,Block1and Lot1,Block2,AmaxAdditioninconjunctionwithCedarStreetImprovements,City ProjectNo.2002-06C (JO/TK/CS) A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND: CityCouncilisaskedtoapprovecorrectionstotheoriginalassessementprogramto betterreflecttheactualbenefittothepropertiesassessed.Thepropertiesunder considerationareLot1,Block1andLot1,Block2ofAmaxAddition,whichabutCedar StreetjustsouthofDundasStreet.Thisissueoriginatedwiththeremovalofthe decorativelightingcompletedsomemonthsago.Asyourecall,thedecorative streetlightwasremovedsoastoenablethestopsigntobeplacedamuchbetterlocation closertotheintersection.Inconjunctionwiththedecorativestreetlightremoval,the overheadcobralightwasreinstalled. Duetotheremovalofthedecorativestreetlightandassociatedreductioninbenefittothe property,andoutoffairnesstothepropertyowner,staffinitiatedthereviewofthe projectassessmentstodeterminehowtheassessmentforstreetlightingwasappliedtothe propertysoapotentalreductioncouldbeconsideredbytheCityCouncilaccordingly.In reviewingtheassessmentprogram,itwasdiscoveredthatthateachpropertyalongCedar StreetfromDundasStreetsouthtothecul-de-sacnexttoKjellberg’spropertywas assessedaportionoftheprojectcostbasedontheirfrontfootage.BretWeissexplained thatthesepropertieswouldeachreceiveaportionofthelightprojectedfromthe decorativestreetlampfixturesandthuschargedouttheassessmentbasedonfront footage.Whenstaffreviewedthis,theyfoundthatthe2lotsinAmaxAdditionnolonger receivedfullbenefitfromthestreetlightsafterthelampatthecornerwasremoved becausethedecorativelightsystemnowilluminatedabouthalftheproperty.Infact,each ofthe2lotswasreducedtoapproximately50%oftheoriginalbenefit.Accordingly, Staffsuggestesthatitwouldbefairtoreducethestreetlightingassessmentforeachlot by50%,orhalfoftheoriginalassessment. WhenstaffwasreviewingthestreetlightingportionoftheCedarStreetproject,Bret WeissnoticedthattherewasadeferredsidewalkassessmentplacedagainstAmax Addition,whichhequestioned.BretexplainedthatwhentheCedarStreetImprovements weredesigned,theprojectincludedplacingsidewalkalongportionsofCedarandDundas Streets.Whenthesidewalkwasactuallyconstructed,aportionwasinstalledalongthe westsideofCedarStreetoverLot1,Block2.Afterfailedinspectionsofthesidewalk portionsandnumerousattemptstogettheproblemscorrected,thesidewalkportionover thislotwasremoved.However,thepropertyowner,GlenPosusta,wasstillassessedfor thesidewalk,whichhadbeenagreedtobedeferreduntilthepropertydeveloped.Staff concludedthattheassessmentforthesidewalkonthispropertyshouldneverhavebeen certifiedandshouldberemoved. Todeterminetheamounttobeadjusted,Citystaffstartedwiththeoriginalassessment whichwasfirstplacedonthepropertyin2004whenitwasanunplattedproperty.The assessmentswerebrokendownintoannualinstallmentamountsandpayments,taking intoaccounttheyearsafterthepropertywassplitinto2lots.Thedeferredportionofthe CityCouncilAgenda:04/25/11 2 assessmentswasalsotakenintoaccountwiththecalculation.Thecalculationbecame quitecomplexasthepropertywasnotonlysplit,butLot1,Block2wassoldin2009and theassessmentspaidoff.Thecalculationworksheetisattachedtothisassupportingdata. A1.BudgetImpact:Thetotaltoberemovedforthesidewalkassessmentamountsto $4061.90.Theamounttobeadjustedforthestreetlightingassessmentis $8,864.72,whichisonehalfoftheoriginalstreetlightingcost.Inaddition,there wouldbeacreditforinterestthatwaspaid. A2.StaffWorkloadImpact:Citystaffspentsometimeresearchingpastrecordsand reviewingtheprojectforpossibleadjustmentstotheseassessments.BretWeiss fromWSBalsohadalimitedinvolvementtoprovidetheCitywithsomehistory ontheproject. B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS: 1.Motiontoapproveadjustmentstothestreetlightingandsidewalkassessmentson Lot1,Block1andLot1,Block2ofAmaxAdditionwithacreditintheamount of$8,733.63appliedtotheremainingassessmentbalanceonLot1,Block1and removalofthedeferredbalanceof$5,558.36fromLot1,Block2. Underthisalternative,theadjustmentswillbecertifiedtotheWrightCounty Auditor’sofficefortaxyearpayable2012. 2.Motiontodenyanyadjustmentstothestreetlightingandsidewalkassessmentson AmaxAdditionatthistime. C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION: CitystaffrecommendsAlternative#1.Byapprovingtheseadjustments,theassessment programwillbetterreflectthevalueoftheprojecttothetwoparcelsinAmaxAddition. D.SUPPORTINGDATA: Worksheetshowingcalculationofproposedadjustments RE-ALLOCATION OF STREET LIGHTING & SIDEWALK ASSESSMENTS (CS - 3/31/11) Cedar Street Project 2002-06C (Glen Posusta) ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT 155-500-142302 $89,031.91 Start in 2004 - 15 years - 5.25% interest - extra 77 days of interest first year ORIGINAL DEFERRED 155-500-142302 $12,926.42 Start deferral in 2004 - 15 years - 5.25% interest includes:$4,061.90 sidewalk (anticipated to be replaced; was removed) $8,864.72 1/2 street lighting (west side) ADJUSTMENTS: Sidewalk Since the sidewalk was removed and never replaced, $4061.90 to be removed from assessment Streetlighting Since the decorative light fixture was removed from corner of Cedar & Dundas, determined that benefit to total property decreased by 50%; recommend reducing streetlight assessment by half: deferred:8,864.72 assessed:8,864.72 equals:17,729.44 (original total) (4,432.36)(4,432.36)(8,864.72) 4,432.36 4,432.36 8,864.72 (revised total) ASSESSMENT ADJUSTMENT 155-500-142302 155-213-001010 & 002010 - effective 2009 Start Diff Diff Prin Bal Assessed Paid Assessed Paid Rem 2004 84,599.55 5,639.97 (5,935.46)(295.49)5,378.45 (5,660.24)(281.79)78,959.58 2005 5,639.97 (5,935.46)(295.49)4,145.38 (4,362.56)(217.18)73,319.61 2006 5,639.97 (5,935.46)(295.49)3,849.28 (4,050.95)(201.67)67,679.64 2007 5,639.97 (5,935.46)(295.49)3,553.18 (3,739.34)(186.16)62,039.67 2008 5,639.97 (5,935.46)(295.49)3,257.08 (3,427.73)(170.65)56,399.70 2009 DoJo 32,147.83 3,214.78 (3,383.21)(168.43)1,687.76 (1,776.19)(88.43)28,933.05 (payoff)balance->28,933.05 (30,448.92)(1,515.87)0.00 2009 Amax 24,251.87 2,425.19 (2,552.25)(127.06)1,273.22 (1,339.93)(66.71)21,826.68 2010 Amax 2,425.19 (2,552.25)(127.06)1,145.90 (1,205.94)(60.04)19,401.49 2011 Amax 2,425.19 (2,552.25)(127.06)1,018.58 (1,071.94)(53.36)16,976.30 OVERPAID (3,542.93)(1,325.99) Principal Interest DEFERRAL ADJUSTMENT 155-500-142302 155-213-001010 & 002010 - effective 2009 Start Diff Diff Prin Bal Assessed Paid Assessed Paid Rem 2004 4,432.36 0.00 4,432.36 2005 4,432.36 0.00 4,432.36 2006 4,432.36 0.00 4,432.36 2007 4,432.36 0.00 4,432.36 2008 4,432.36 0.00 4,432.36 2009 DoJo 4,432.36 0.00 4,432.36 (payoff)balance->4,432.36 (7,368.06)(2,935.70)1,401.93 (2,330.94)(929.01)0.00 2009 Amax 0.00 2010 Amax 0.00 ** NEED TO REMOVE DEFERRED BALANCE FROM BLOCK 2, AMAX - $5,558.36 2011 Amax 0.00 OVERPAID (2,935.70)(929.01) TOTAL CREDIT - APPLY TO REMAINING BALANCE (6,478.63)(2,255.00) AMAX Balance after 2011 taxes 16,976.30 Total Credit (8,733.63)*includes difference in principal and interest paid from start of asmt Starting Balance for 2012 8,242.67 Principal Interest CityCouncilAgenda:04/25/11 1 5I.ConsiderationofratifyingtheFiberNetservicesratestructurefor2010-2011asapproved bytheFiberNetAdvisoryBoard (JO) A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND: CityCouncilisaskedtoformallyratifythecurrentFiberNetservicesratestructure covering2010to2011asprescribedintheFiberNetMonticellogovernanceordinance. Asyouknow,HBCworkingwithintheparametersofthebusinessplanandwiththe assistanceoftheFiberAdvisoryBoardidentifiedtheinitialratesatthetimeservicewas instituted.Thisishousekeepingactionintendedtoformallyratifyadoptionoftherates currentlybeingapplied. A1.BudgetImpact:None A2.StaffWorkloadImpact:None B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS: 1.MotiontoratifytheFiberNetservicesratestructurefor2010-2011. 2.MotiontonotratifytheFiberNetservicesratestructurefor2010-2011. C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION: CitystaffrecommendsAlternative#1.TheFiberNetAdvisoryBoardformallyapproved thecurrentratestructureattheirApril12th meetingandrecommendsthatitberatifiedby theCityCouncil. D.SUPPORTINGDATA: CopiesofratestructurefromFNMwebsite CityCouncilAgenda:04/25/11 1 5J.ConsiderationofacceptingproposalsandawardingcontractforupgradeofLiquorStore Point-of-SaleandInventoryManagementSystemandhardware (TK/RJ) A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND: CouncilisbeingaskedtoconsiderauthorizingHiWayLiquorstoupgradetheirretail Point-of-Sale(POS)andInventoryManagement(IM)systemtoanewWindowsversion andtoreplacetheoutdatedcomputer/cashregistershardwaresystems.In2011,thereis $15,000budgetedintheLiquorFundforupgradingthecashregistersystemattheLiquor Store. Currently,HiWayLiquorsisusingaPOS/IMsystemwhichwasproducedbyARS BusinessSystems,butbundledandsoldbyathirdpartyvendor,TotalRegisterSystems (TRS),throughaspecialarrangementtheyhadwithARS.Inadditiontotheoriginalcost ofthesystemsoftwareandhardware,theCitypaysanannualmaintenancefeeof approximately$2,000toTRS.Duetoongoingissueswiththemaintenanceand performanceofTRSovertheyears,theCitysentalettertoTRSearlierthisyear notifyingTRSofourintenttonotrenewthemaintenancecontractwhenitexpiresin June.Followingthis,Citystaffbeganresearchingotheroptionstomaintainorupgrade thePOS/IMsystem. StaffcontactedARS,whoproducedtheoriginalPOS/IMsoftware,andfoundthatthey hadupgradedtheirentiresystemfromversion5to6afewyearsago.AfterARScame outandtalkedtostaffabouttheirupgradedsystem,itwasapparentthatthereweremany advantagestomovingtoanupgradedsystemincluding:manymorereportingoptions; greatlyenhancedinventorymanagement;faster,moreefficientoperations;integration withvendordatabases;potentialfore-commerce;improvedcredit/debitcardprocessing; andgreatlyreducedmaintenanceagreementfees(about1/3ofprevious).Staffrequested aquotefromARSandmetwiththeirsalesrepresentativetoreviewtheproposal. FollowingthemeetingswithARS,staffthenrequestedadditionalproposalstocompare pricinginthemarketplaceforsimilarPOS/IMsystems.TheLiquorStoreManagermet withandreceivedproposalsfromRetailInformationTechnologyEnterprises(RITE)and NorthCountryBusinessProducts(RMS).Inaddition,theCityalsorequestedquotes fromDougLyseng(theCity’sITconsultant)forserverandcashregisterhardware.The proposalsareasfollows: ARSS RITE NorthCountry DougLyseng Software/System$8,799.00 $8,249.00 $13,564.65 $400.14 Hardware11,483.80 10,211.00 10,496.45 9,871.64 Cost20,282.80 18,460.00 24,061.10 10,271.78 AnnualMaintenance ForSoftware 848.00 3,298.00 1,247.00 NA NetCost$21,130.80 $21,758.00 $25,308.10 CityCouncilAgenda:04/25/11 2 TheproposalfromARSwillupgradethesoftwarefromversion5,whichiscurrently beingusedatthestore,toversion6.TheLiquorStoreManagerandstaffarefamiliar withthecurrentARSsystemandlikeitseaseofoperations.Also,itmaybepossibleto reducethehardwarepricesbyhavingDougLysengpurchasesomeofthehardwareata lowercostthroughhisvendors.Citystaffwillworkwiththeselectedvendor,Doug Lyseng,andtheCity’screditcardprocessortoensureanysysteminstalledwillrun smoothlywithotherCitynetworksandsystems. WhilethequotefromRITEforthecostofthePOS/InventoryManagementsystemisthe lowest,whenfactoringinannualmaintenancecosts,theARSsystembecomesthelowest costtotheCityoverthelifeoftheequipmentandsystem. Inadditiontothesoftwareandhardwarepurchasesintheproposals,thebackoffice computerforManagerRandallJohnsenwouldalsobereplaced.Itisanticipatedthatthis wouldbecoveredthroughtheITbudgetfor2011;iftherearenotsufficientfunds,the balancewouldbetakenoutofLiquorStorefunds. A1.BudgetImpact:TheCitybudgeted$15,000intheLiquorFundforthispurchase in2011andwoulduseLiquorFundreservesandsomeinformationtechnology departmentfundsforthebalanceoffundsneededtocompletethistransaction. A2.StaffWorkloadImpact:BystayingwithARSS,theupgradetoVersion6should belessintensiveforliquorstoreemployees.Therewillbesomeadditional trainingrequired,butthebasicformatofthesoftwareandcashregisterscreens willremainverysimilartowhattheyarecurrentlyusing.Thebackofficestaff (RandallandMike)willreceivehigherleveltraining,especiallyforreportingand inventorymanagement. B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS: 1.MotiontoaccepttheproposalssubmittedandawardcontractstoARSSand/or DougLysengforupgradingtheLiquorStorePOS/IMsystematacostnotto exceed$20,600. 2.Motiontonotacceptproposalsanddenyawardofanycontractatthistime. C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION: CitystaffrecommendsAlternative#1.Hi-WayLiquorshasbeenoperatingwiththeir currentretailPOS/IMsystemforalmost10years.Thesoftwareversiontheyhavehas notbeenupgradedorenhancedsinceitwaspurchasedandthecashregistercomputers andserverareoverdueforreplacement. D.SUPPORTINGDATA: Copiesofproposals COMPANY: ARSS SOFTWARE NAME: ARS V6 CONTACT PERSON: Mathew Christen SOFTWARE Unit Cost (3)Total Cost Point of Sale/Inventory Mgmt System Software 3,995.00 System Setup 295.00 Licenses 895.00 2,685.00 Training 1,295.00 Label Printer - Zebra LP2844 529.00 Other:$8,799.00 SERVER HARDWARE (Office/Backroom)Unit Cost Total Cost Computer Server 1,345.00 Components (backup, monitor, keyboard, UPS, etc)590.95 $1,935.95 CASH REGISTER STATIONS (quantity 3)Unit Cost (3)Total Cost PC Station 998.00 2,994.00 Product scanner (inset in counter and/or handheld)219.00 657.00 Pole display 259.00 777.00 cash drawer/insert 255.00 765.00 touch screen monitor 639.00 1,917.00 UPS 121.95 365.85 USB receipt printer - Star TSP113U 369.00 1,107.00 USB Credit Card scanner/reader**90.00 270.00 Integrated credit card software interface 695.00 $9,547.85 MAINTENANCE (annual agreement)Unit Cost Total Cost software support - 4 months ($749 per year)62.42 249.68 hardware support - labor incl if hardware purchased from ARS other: database conversion - not needed 0.00 credit card software support - 8 months 8.25 66.00 $315.68 GRAND TOTAL $20,598.48 **Signature Capture not yet available LIQUOR STORE POS/IMS SYSTEM CHECKLIST Hardware/Software COMPANY: Retail Info Technology Enterprises (RITE) SOFTWARE NAME: Retail Mgmt System (RMS) CONTACT PERSON: Gary Noble SOFTWARE Unit Cost (3)Total Cost Point of Sale/Inventory Mgmt System Software 1,190.00 3,570.00 System Setup 1,498.00 Licenses - MS Maint Plan 215.00 645.00 Training - included in setup 0.00 Label Printer - Zebra 2824 ($390) + software ($399)789.00 Other: Gift card, Profit Checker, Supplier Integration 1,747.00 Other: Advanced PO Tools ($999 VALUE)FREE $8,249.00 SERVER HARDWARE (Office/Backroom)Unit Cost Total Cost Computer Server + upgrade package ($499)1,248.00 Components (backup, monitor, keyboard, UPS, etc)119.00 $1,367.00 CASH REGISTER STATIONS (quantity 3)Unit Cost (3)Total Cost PC Station 2,749.00 8,247.00 Product scanner (inset in counter and/or handheld)incl incl Pole display incl incl cash drawer/insert incl incl touch screen monitor incl incl UPS 199.00 597.00 USB receipt printer - Star TSP113U incl incl USB Credit Card scanner/reader**incl incl Integrated credit card software interface - included in RMS system software $8,844.00 MAINTENANCE (annual agreement)Unit Cost Total Cost software support - 25 hrs (other plans available)2,399.00 hardware support ? other: database conversion (estimate)899.00 credit card software support - included in RMS system software $3,298.00 GRAND TOTAL $21,758.00 **Signature Capture not listed LIQUOR STORE POS/IMS SYSTEM CHECKLIST Hardware/Software COMPANY: North Country Business Products SOFTWARE NAME: LOC Store Mgmt Suite (SMS) CONTACT PERSON: Scott Barta SOFTWARE Unit Cost (3)Total Cost Point of Sale/Inventory Mgmt System Software 7,207.55 System Setup 5,000.00 Licenses: security, gift card, antivirus 1,133.00 Training - included with setup (5 days)0.00 Label Printer - Lexmark E260d 224.10 Other:$13,564.65 SERVER HARDWARE (Office/Backroom)Unit Cost Total Cost Computer Server 1,165.50 Components (backup, monitor, keyboard, UPS, etc)376.25 $1,541.75 CASH REGISTER STATIONS (quantity 3)Unit Cost (3)Total Cost PC Station 895.50 2,686.50 Product scanner (inset in counter and/or handheld)256.75 770.25 Pole display 275.50 826.50 cash drawer/insert ?? touch screen monitor 660.25 1,980.75 UPS 223.65 670.95 USB receipt printer - TMU 88 IV 445.50 1,336.50 USB Credit Card scanner/reader**74.75 224.25 Integrated credit card software interface 153.00 459.00 $8,954.70 MAINTENANCE (annual agreement)Unit Cost Total Cost software support - Help Desk ($595) - SMS ($652)1,247.00 hardware support ? other: database conversion - not listed ? credit card software support - not listed ?$1,247.00 GRAND TOTAL $25,308.10 **substitute: Signature Capture MX850 - $722 X 3 = $2166 optional: Dolphin wireless scanner system = $2984 LIQUOR STORE POS/IMS SYSTEM CHECKLIST Hardware/Software COMPANY: Doug's Computer Service SOFTWARE NAME: (hardware only) CONTACT PERSON: Doug Lyseng SOFTWARE Unit Cost (3)Total Cost Point of Sale/Inventory Mgmt System Software NA System Setup NA Licenses NA Training NA Label Printer - brand: Zebra LP2844 400.14 400.14 Other:$400.14 SERVER HARDWARE (Office/Backroom)Unit Cost Total Cost Computer Server 1,166.00 1,166.00 Components (backup, monitor, keyboard, UPS, etc)0.00 0.00 $1,166.00 CASH REGISTER STATIONS (quantity 3)Unit Cost (3)Total Cost PC Station All-in-one POS System 1,765.19 5,295.57 Product scanner (inset in counter and/or handheld)199.36 598.08 Pole display 205.33 615.99 cash drawer/insert 217.00 651.00 touch screen monitor Included with All-in-one 0.00 0.00 UPS / backup Will use the current disk-to-disk system 132.00 396.00 USB receipt printer - brand: Star 293.00 879.00 USB Credit Card scanner/reader**90.00 270.00 Integrated credit card software interface NA $8,705.64 MAINTENANCE (annual agreement)Unit Cost Total Cost software support - NA hardware support - Would this be under the normal fees we pay now? other: database conversion - not needed NA credit card software support - 8 months NA $0.00 GRAND TOTAL $10,271.78 LIQUOR STORE POS/IMS SYSTEM CHECKLIST Hardware/Software CityCouncilAgenda:04/25/2011 1 5K.Considerationofapprovingvehiclespecificationsandauthorizingpurchaseofa HookTruckbasedonstatecontractpricing (TM,BP) A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND: Councilisaskedtoconsiderapprovingvehicleandcomponentspecificationsand authorizingpurchaseofsaidvehicleandcomponents.AttheFebruary29th Special CouncilMeetingheldatthePublicWorksfacility,CouncilauthorizedthePublicWorks stafftomoveforwardwithspecificationsandbidsforanewheavydutytruckequipped withashuttlehooksystemandplowequipmentnottoexceed$248,250. Onceayear,theStateofMinnesotaopensabidprocesstoallvendersacrossthestateto bidonvehicles,equipment,andmanyothersuppliestooperatethestate.TheEquipment Sectionisresponsiblefordepartmentequipmentpurchasing,whichincludesdevelopment ofdetailedtechnicalspecifications.Procurementcontractsarepreparedtonotonlyserve Mn/DOTinternalcustomersbutalsootherunitsoflocalgovernmentthroughout Minnesota.Thissimplifiestheprocessforusandsavesthecitymoney. PublicWorksisnowrequestingauthorizationtoreplacethe1992FordL8000plowtruck witha2012MackGU812singleaxlecombinationpushertagaxletruck.Thiswillgive usthecapabilityofusingthetruckasasingleaxletruckforlightloads,conservingon fuelandtirewear,orallowingustolowerthepusheraxleonheavierloads.Thistruck willalsobeequippedwithaStellar138-18-34shuttlehookhoistwiththecapabilityof lifting34,000pounds.Thisallowsustorollonandoffmultiplebodies.Wewillhavesix differentbodytypesthatwillbeinterchangeable:dump-body,flatbed,construction dumpster-body,asphalthotbox,anti-icingtankapplicatorandaV-boxsander.Thetruck willalsobeequippedwithFallsplowequipment,whichconsistsofa12’frontreversible hydraulicplow,an11’underbodyscraperanda10’rearmountedwing.Itwillalso includeTowmasterdumpbodyandaSwensenV-BoxSanderequippedwithapre-wet brinesystem.Thepotentialforthistruckisunlimited;itcouldalsobeusedtohaul compressedsludgefromtheWWTPtoalandfillsiteinthefuture. Thetruckandallcomponents,exceptthepusheraxle,willbepurchasedthroughthestate purchasingcontract.Pusheraxlesarenotlistedonthestatepurchasingcontract;thiswas adirectquotefromMackandisinstalledbyMack.ThetruckwillcomefromNuss Truck&Equipment,thedealerforMacktrucksoutofRosevilleandSt.Cloud,MN.The Stellar138-18-34shuttlehookhoistwillbepurchasedfromCrysteelTruckEquipment outofFridley,MN.TheFallsplowequipment,Towmasterdump-bodyandtheSwensen V-BoxSanderwillbepurchasedfromTowmasterTruckEquipmentoutofLitchfield, MN.InstallationofallcomponentsandequipmentwillbeinstalledbyTowmasterof Litchfield;theyarethedealerforFallsandSwensenEquipment. NessTruckandEquipmenthasagreedtotakethe1992SterlingL8000asatrade-in allowanceat$10,000.Wewillalsobeadvertisingthetrucktothepubliconsealedbids priortothetradeindateasthisusuallygivesustheopportunityforabetterprice.We CityCouncilAgenda:04/25/2011 2 alwayshavetheoptiontotradeinthetruck.Aminimumbidof$11,000willhavetobe bidinordertojustifysellingthetruckbypublicbid. ThepricefromNessTruck&EquipmentfortheMackcabandchassiswithtrade-inis $105,058.44,thepricefromCrysteelTruckandEquipmentfortheStellarshuttlehook hoistis$24,910.73,andthepricefromTowmasterfortheFallsplowequipmentand SwensenV-BoxSanderwithallinstallationsis$114,685.42.Totalpriceforthecomplete packagewithtaxincludedis$244,654.59.Thesepurchasesfallwithinthestate purchasingcontractpricing. A1.BudgetImpact:Inpreparationforthispurchase,theStreetDepartmenthas budgetedappropriatefundsoverafour-yearperiodtotaling$248,250.00.The budgetbreakdownisasfollows: 2008~$75,000 2009~$81,250 2010~$42,000 2011~$50,000 A2.StaffWorkloadImpact:Thestaffworkloadimpactofthisnewunitwillbevery positive.Whatweareaccomplishingbypurchasingthisvehicleissixvehiclesin one.Wewillhaveatruckthatwillbeveryversatileinourdailyoperationsand willbeusedbyalldepartmentsinthePublicWorks. B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS: 1.MotiontoapprovethespecificationsandauthorizethepurchaseofanewMack GU812truckfromNessTruck&Equipmentfor$105,058.44andtradeinthe 1992FordL8000,withtheoptiontoadvertiseonsealedbidspriortothetradein datefortheopportunityforabetterprice;authorizethepurchaseofaStellar shuttlehookhoistfromCrysteelTruckEquipmentfor$24,910.73;authorizethe purchaseofFallsplowequipment,Towmasterdumpbody,Swensenv-boxsander andallhydrauliccomponentsfromTowmasterTruckEquipment;andauthorize allcomponentstobeinstalledbyTowmasterTruckEquipmentfor$114,685.42. Thegrandtotalforthecompletepackagewouldbe$244,654.59. 2.Motiontodenythereplacementofthe1992FordL8000atthistime. C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION: CitystaffrecommendsAlternative#1fortheCityCounciltoauthorizethereplacement ofthe1992FordL8000truck,asoutlined,atatotalcosttotheCityofMonticelloof $244,654.59.Aspreviouslyindicated,wehaveplacedanamountof$248,250inthe budgetoverafouryearperiodforthispurchase.Thistruckequipmentisessentialtothe serviceofalldepartmentsinthePublicWorks.Thecapabilitiesofthistruckwillbe significantlymorethanthetruckwearereplacingandwilldefinitelyincreasethe efficiencyofthePublicWorks. CityCouncilAgenda:04/25/2011 3 D.SUPPORTINGDATA: CopyofStatebidsforMackGU812Truck,StellarShuttleHook,andTowmaster Equipment 6500 US HWY 63 S, PO BOX 6699 ROCHESTER, MN 55903 507-288-9488 507-424-4156 (FAX) NEW USED TRAILER ORDER OUT IN STOCK DATE: ___________________________ PURCHASER CONTACT/TITLE ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE COUNTY E-MAIL ADDRESS The Undersigned Purchaser hereby agrees to purchase from NUSS TRUCK GROUP INC. or SUBSIDIARY, hereinafter referred to as the Dealer, ______ new or used vehicle(s) together with the equipment below set forth (which vehicle(s) and equipment are called "said vehicle(s)”) to be delivered on or about _______________________ according to the following specifications, terms, and conditions: YEAR MAKE VIN MODEL STOCK NO. MILEAGE WARRANTIES and/or REPRESENTATIONS Manufacturer’s Warranty Applies AS-IS: NO DEALER WARRANTY. DEALER DISCLAIMS ANY & ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES. Other: ______________________________________________ PURCHASER INITIAL HERE: BASE PRICE OF VEHICLE SOLD 1. Total of Options/Accessories (carried over from Addendum) 2. Dealer Retail Price 3. Discount 4. Total Cash Price (2 less 3) 5. Trade-in Allowance 6. Trade Difference (4 less 5) 7. MN Sales Tax on Trade Difference _______ 8. Federal Excise Tax 9. License / Registration Fees 10. City/County Excise Tax 11. Document Fee 12. Warranty 13. Balance Due to ___________________ on trade-in 14. Sub Total (Sum 6 through 13) 15. Less Cash Down Payment on Order 16. Sub Total (14 less 15) DUE ON DELIVERY 17. Less Additional Cash Due ________________ GVWR/GCWR: The Gross Vehicle Weight (GVWR), or Gross Combi- nation Weight Rating (GCWR), of the vehicle subject to this order is ________________ lbs. Seller disclaims any and all liability for dam- ages resulting from operation of the vehicle in excess of the above stated GVWR or GCWR. PURCHASER INITIAL HERE: TYPE OF TRANSACTION Financed. Finance Company: ___________________________ Cash (including customer based financing). PURCHASER INITIAL HERE: DRIVER/INSURANCE INFORMATION (for 2000 form) Insurance Agent: ________________________________________ Insurance Company: _____________________________________ Policy #: _______________________________________________ Driver’s License #: _________________ Date of Birth: _________ Lien Holder: ______________________________ Phone #: ________________________________ DELIVERY INFORMATION DELIVER TO: _____________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL ITEMS OR CONDITIONS OF SALE: ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2195 W CTY RD C2, PO BOX 130820 ROSEVILLE, MN 55113 651-633-4810 651-635-0928 (FAX) 2625 QUAIL RD NE SAUK RAPIDS, MN 56379 320-253-6941 320-253-0176 (FAX) 53976 208TH LN, PO BOX 969 MANKATO, MN 56002 507-345-6225 507-387-5886 (FAX) 3028 TRUCK CENTER DR DULUTH, MN 55806 218-628-0333 218-628-1822 (FAX) 12540 DUPONT AVE S BURNSVILLE, MN 55337 952-894-9595 952-894-1619 (FAX) VEHICLE PURCHASE AGREEMENT SALESPERSON: ___________________ PHONE NUMBER FAX NUMBER YEAR MAKE VIN MODEL STOCK NO. MILEAGE EQUIPMENT TO BE TRADED www.nussgrp.com YEAR MAKE VIN MODEL STOCK NO. MILEAGE DEALER COPY REV11-09A 6500 US HWY 63 S, PO BOX 6699 ROCHESTER, MN 55903 507-288-9488 507-424-4156 (FAX) NEW USED TRAILER ORDER OUT IN STOCK DATE: ___________________________ PURCHASER CONTACT/TITLE ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE COUNTY E-MAIL ADDRESS The Undersigned Purchaser hereby agrees to purchase from NUSS TRUCK GROUP INC. or SUBSIDIARY, hereinafter referred to as the Dealer, ______ new or used vehicle(s) together with the equipment below set forth (which vehicle(s) and equipment are called "said vehicle(s)”) to be delivered on or about _______________________ according to the following specifications, terms, and conditions: YEAR MAKE VIN MODEL STOCK NO. MILEAGE WARRANTIES and/or REPRESENTATIONS Manufacturer’s Warranty Applies AS-IS: NO DEALER WARRANTY. DEALER DISCLAIMS ANY & ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES. Other: ______________________________________________ PURCHASER INITIAL HERE: BASE PRICE OF VEHICLE SOLD 1. Total of Options/Accessories (carried over from Addendum) 2. Dealer Retail Price 3. Discount 4. Total Cash Price (2 less 3) 5. Trade-in Allowance 6. Trade Difference (4 less 5) 7. MN Sales Tax on Trade Difference _______ 8. Federal Excise Tax 9. License / Registration Fees 10. City/County Excise Tax 11. Document Fee 12. Warranty 13. Balance Due to ___________________ on trade-in 14. Sub Total (Sum 6 through 13) 15. Less Cash Down Payment on Order 16. Sub Total (14 less 15) DUE ON DELIVERY 17. Less Additional Cash Due ________________ GVWR/GCWR: The Gross Vehicle Weight (GVWR), or Gross Combi- nation Weight Rating (GCWR), of the vehicle subject to this order is ________________ lbs. Seller disclaims any and all liability for dam- ages resulting from operation of the vehicle in excess of the above stated GVWR or GCWR. PURCHASER INITIAL HERE: TYPE OF TRANSACTION Financed. Finance Company: ___________________________ Cash (including customer based financing). PURCHASER INITIAL HERE: DRIVER/INSURANCE INFORMATION (for 2000 form) Insurance Agent: ________________________________________ Insurance Company: _____________________________________ Policy #: _______________________________________________ Driver’s License #: _________________ Date of Birth: _________ Lien Holder: ______________________________ Phone #: ________________________________ DELIVERY INFORMATION DELIVER TO: _____________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL ITEMS OR CONDITIONS OF SALE: ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2195 W CTY RD C2, PO BOX 130820 ROSEVILLE, MN 55113 651-633-4810 651-635-0928 (FAX) 2625 QUAIL RD NE SAUK RAPIDS, MN 56379 320-253-6941 320-253-0176 (FAX) 53976 208TH LN, PO BOX 969 MANKATO, MN 56002 507-345-6225 507-387-5886 (FAX) 3028 TRUCK CENTER DR DULUTH, MN 55806 218-628-0333 218-628-1822 (FAX) 12540 DUPONT AVE S BURNSVILLE, MN 55337 952-894-9595 952-894-1619 (FAX) VEHICLE PURCHASE AGREEMENT SALESPERSON: ___________________ PHONE NUMBER FAX NUMBER YEAR MAKE VIN MODEL STOCK NO. MILEAGE EQUIPMENT TO BE TRADED www.nussgrp.com YEAR MAKE VIN MODEL STOCK NO. MILEAGE DEALER COPY REV11-09A 61381 US Hwy. 12, Litchfield, MN 55355 Phone: 888-805-5971 / 320-693-7900 Towmaster, Inc. Contact:Tom MooresContact: FAX: 320-693-7921 QUOTE State Contract #444042 Parts Dept. FAX: 320-693-5703 Other Charge: Ship To: 763-271-3272 3249 MONTICELLO, CITY OF 909 GOLF COURSE ROAD MONTICELLO, MN 55362 763-271-3277763-271-3277 763-295-4404 Cust#: FAX: Phone:Phone: FAX: Bill To: MONTICELLO, CITY OF 505 WALNUT STREET, SUITE 1 MONTICELLO, MN 55362 11095-TME CO #Trk VIN MO # Other Credit: Carbon Steel Dump w/V-BOX unit REVISED Build Instructions:Freight Instructions: F.O.B. Litchfield, MN Reference No.Terms Appx. Ship Date Salesman PO# NET 30 DAYS Tim Erickson 04/18/2011 Order DateDate Created 04/06/2011 612-685-1098 ATTENTION:444042 Net AmtQty Tom Moores 0.00%DescriptionPart No.Discount Rate:Price Each 9,186.00Body 140EDGE-RC/CS-56-36-46-RAW9900056 9,186.001 1,958.00Painting of Box, including media blasting of entire exterior & understructure, Urethane Primed, & Urethane Top Coat. Understructure seam sealed, and painted Gloss Black 9901704 1,958.001 1,003.00Installation of Dump Body to hoist9901701 1,003.001 214.00Body acc Air trip kit, w/solenoid valve,9900145 214.001 259.00Installation of air operated tailgate latch kit9901702 259.001 411.00Body acc Frame End cap w/OEM Stop-Tail-Turn Light mounts Installed9900144 411.001 1,439.00Cabshield, 1/2 type Stationary Free-Standing style, w/ painted carbon steel canopy, shovel holders, & reservior mounts, Installed. 9900155 1,439.001 3,765.00Light Warning TMTE-1-3-HOOK PKG Frame Mt: (2) 23H 3-light LED Micro-Edge, (2) 5M-400 Super-LED, (2) Side TIR3 LED, (2) 400 Max B- T-T LED, & (2) 400 LED BU Lights, in Stainless M Housings, (1) TIR3 LED Wing light, and (2) 4" LED work lights Installed. 9900216 3,765.001 1,426.00Light Warning Rear warning lights & 5M housings (removable w/body) for hooklift system Installed - - V-Box Sander only 9900222 1,426.001 446.00Light Mirror mt HID plow light pkg INSTALLED9900244 446.001 385.00Road-Watch Force America Interface MODULE & CABLE for 5100 installed 9900264 385.001 1,036.00Fender set Minimizer M400 Tdm Axle black Poly, Installed9900267 1,036.001 3,322.00A-FRAME for Hook lift complete w/rollers SGL or TDM9900293 1,661.002 1,505.00Installation of Hook Lift hoist9901835 1,505.001 6,091.00Scraper Falls IB-11A 1" MB dual lift cylinders - - NOTE: 17" moldboard, short stroke cylinder model 9900341 6,091.001 2,250.00Installation of underbody plow w/dual lift cylinders9901706 2,250.001 380.00Scraper reverse/Auto-Lift system, ADD-A-FOLD valve, installed9900351 380.001 Page 1 61381 US Hwy. 12, Litchfield, MN 55355 Phone: 888-805-5971 / 320-693-7900 Towmaster, Inc. 9,182.00Wing Falls RHSDL10A-HYDPB-TRPEDG Primed9900371 9,182.001 3,282.00Installation Falls SDL Series Wing - Standard9900387 3,282.001 500.00WING Falls RL (REAR LIFT) up charge SDL WING ONLY9901431 500.001 242.00Wing Falls Hwy Orange - Paint Moldboard9900477 242.001 1,815.00Plow Hitch Falls 46XB2/STD/STD/SA/SPR-RET/HITCH9900567 1,815.001 1,237.00Installation Falls Plow Hitch - 40 SERIES-STD9900588 1,237.001 660.00Plow Falls Push Unit 20/26/40/46 Series Std9900619 660.001 73.00Plow Falls High Visibility Marker Set9900637 73.001 269.00Plow Falls Rubber Belt Deflector Kit - Installed9900639 269.001 7,446.00Plow Falls PTE-1248/TRPEDG/NOPSHU/POLY-BLK9901363 7,446.001 25,034.00Sander Swenson EV200-14-82-56-9.5 W/90 gal pre wet Sander9900846 25,034.001 516.00Install V-Box on A-FRAME for Hooklift application9901734 516.001 9,061.00Valve Force MCV-ISO HOOKLIFT 10 FUNCTIONS INSTALLED9900858 9,061.001 8,673.00Control Force ULTRA-4-5100 Commander control installed9900870 8,673.001 372.00Filter Force IN-TANK mounted filter installed9900874 372.001 1,649.00Reservoir TMTE Cabshield mt (stainless steel) w/intank filter provision, installed 9900882 1,649.001 1,796.00Pump Force FASD45L LS (6 ci) installed9900888 1,796.001 194.00Switch BODY UP Installed (electric controls only)9900871 194.001 231.00Sensor Force Low oil indicator system, SLIM-LINE AND CABSHIELD MOUNTED w/light mounted in cab installed 9900884 231.001 Date:Accepted By: $0.00Freight Other Credit (see above): $7,377.42Visit us online at www.towmaster.com $0.00Discount: $0.00 Sales Tax: Net Cost:$107,308.00 NOTE: If changes are made to an order after a P.O. has been issued, a FEE may be assessed and a revised or new P.O. MUST BE submitted to reflect changes. $114,685.42 $0.00 $107,308.00Price: Total: Other Charge (see Page 2 763-571-1902 1130 73rd Avenue NE 1-800-795-1280 Fridley, MN 55432 Fax 763-571-5091 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER April 20, 2011 Tom Moores City of Monticello 909 Golf Course Road Monticello, MN 55362 Reference: Quote for Stellar Hook Less Hydraulics Per State Contract Number 444179 Release Number S-863(5) Dear Tom: Per your request we are pleased to quote the following equipment manufactured to current standards to include the following: One (1) Stellar Hook System Less Hydraulic Part Number 138-18-34 Cab to Trunnion 130” – 144” Hook height 54” Lifting capacity 34,000#’s Dump angle 52 degrees Hook length 188” Accommodate bodies from 15’ to 17.5 foot Patented dump/load interface Hydraulic locks to prevent cylinder collapse Hook latches to fit K-Pac bodies Mechanical rear body tie-down latches Resettable dump/tilt tabs Hydraulic Rotary valve to prevent front tilt when in raise dump Permanently lubricated and greaseable bushing Grease Zerks at all pin points Carbon Steel and zinc plated or type 17-4 stainless steel pins Min Truck GVW 43,000 lbs Weight 4100 lbs Less hydraulics Equipment $22468.29 Adder to set hold downs to match K-Pac Unit $ 495.00 Freight Charges to ship to customer install location $ 345.00 Note: All applicable taxes will be applied at time of invoicing. Please look over this quote and if you have any questions, please give me a call at any time. Sincerely, Bob Brandenburg Crysteel Truck Equipment CityCouncilAgenda:04/25/11 1 5L.Considerationof approvingsubmittalofapplication toachieveETC(Eligible TelecommunicationsCarrier)statusenablingfundingofimprovementsnecessaryto providetelecommunicationservicestounderservedpopulation (JO) A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND: CityCouncilisaskedtoauthorizesubmittalofanapplicationtobeestablishedasanETC (EligibleTelecommunicationsCarrier)whichwillenableaccesstotheUniversalServices Fund.Thisfund,authorizedbyCongress,wasestablishedforthespecificpurposeof supportingthedevelopmentoftelephoneservicetoareaswherehighcostmadeit difficulttoprovideservicetoeveryoneintheexchange.Alltelecommunication companiesarerequiredtocontributetowarddevelopmentoftheUniversalServicesFund. (USF).AccordingtoWikepedia:“The UniversalServiceFund (USF)wascreatedby theUnitedStatesFederalCommunicationsCommission(FCC)in1997tomeet CongressionaluniversalservicegoalsasmandatedbytheTelecommunicationsActof 1996.The1996Actstatesthatallprovidersoftelecommunicationsservicesshould contributetofederaluniversalserviceinsomeequitableandnondiscriminatorymanner; thereshouldbespecific,predictable,andsufficientFederalandStatemechanismsto preserveandadvanceuniversalservice;allschools,classrooms,healthcareproviders, andlibrariesshould,generally,haveaccesstoadvancedtelecommunicationsservices; andfinally,thattheFederal-StateJointBoardandtheFCCshoulddeterminethoseother principlesthat,consistentwiththe1996Act,arenecessarytoprotectthepublicinterest. Asofthefirstquarterof2011,theUSFfee,whichchangesquarterly,equals15.5percent ofatelecomcompany'sinterstateandend-userrevenues.Attachedisanexcerptfromthe WikepediaarticleandinformationfromUniversalServicesAdministrationCompany (USAC)thatmorefullyexplainstheorigin,purposeandadministrationoftheUSF. InconjunctionwithapplyingforbecominganETC,theapplicationmustincludeatwo yearplanforuseoffunds.CityCouncilisaskedatthistimetoreviewtheattacheddraft planandconsidergrantingapproval.Insummary,thetwoyearplancallsforworking withapartmentandmobilehomeparkownerstoupgradeinternalwiringsystemsina fashionthatwillenablefullutilizationofthefiberopticsignalandassociatedtripleplay services.Thefundwillbeusedtopayforthisexpense.Inadditionitisproposedtouse USFmoniestounderwritethecosttoprovidereducedtelephoneandinternetratesto qualifyinglowandmoderateincomefamilies.Thisisakeystepinbridgingthedigital divideforfamilieswithchildrenthatwouldotherwisebeunabletogainthebenefitfrom accesstotheinternet.SchoolSuperindentJimJohnsonisverysupportiveofthis initiativeandhasnotedthatthereisasignificantnumberofstudentsthatdonothave accesstointernetathomewhichputsthematasignificancedisadvantage.Henotedthat 30%ofMonticellofamiliesareeligibleforlunchsubsidyandmanyinthisgrouparenot likelytohaveinternetaccessathomeduetocost. A1.BudgetImpact:Theapplicationmaterialsdonotrequiredevelopmentofa specificbudgetassociatedwiththeplan.Oncetheapplicationisapproved,FNM willbeeligibletoreceivefundsfromtheUSFonamonthlybasis.Theamountof moneyisbasedonthenumberofphonecustomerstimesasetrateof$20per CityCouncilAgenda:04/25/11 2 customer.PleasenotethatFNMwillbecarefultoutilizethesefundsina responsiblefashioninamannerachievingtheintendedpurposewhichistoextend servicestotheunderserved.Additionally,therewillbecarenottospendmoreon thismissionthanisreceivedinUSFaid. Pleasenotethatthereisanauditprocessdowntheroadthatwillevaluatethe extentthatFNMhassuccessfullyimplementeditstwoyearplan. A2.StaffWorkloadImpact:Thisinitiativeisintendedtobecompletedovera periodoftwoyears.Themethodorapproachforcompletingtheworkhasyetto beestablished.Itcouldoccurviacontractwithaprivatecompanyorcompleted byFNMstaff.CityStaffwillbeginlookingatstrategiesforcompletingtheplan onceETCstatushadbeengranted. B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS: 1.MotiontoapprovethesubmittalofanapplicationtoachieveETCstatusand approvethedrafttwoyearplan. 2.MotiontotableordenythesubmittalofanapplicationtoachieveETCstatusand notapprovethedrafttwoyearplanatthistime. C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION: CitystaffrecommendsAlternative#1. D.SUPPORTINGDATA: InformationabouttheFCC WebsitepagesfromUSAC (Councilreceivedcopyofdraft2-yearplan) 1 The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent agency of the United States government, created, Congressional statute (see 47 U.S.C. § 151 and 47 U.S.C. § 154), and with the majority of its commissioners appointed by the current President. The FCC works towards six goals in the areas of broadband, competition, the spectrum, the media, public safety and homeland security, and modernizing the FCC.[2] The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 as the successor to the Federal Radio Commission and is charged with regulating all non-federal government use of the radio spectrum (including radio and television broadcasting), and all interstate telecommunications (wire, satellite and cable) as well as all international communications that originate or terminate in the United States. It is an important factor in U.S. telecommunication policy. The FCC took over wire communication regulation from the Interstate Commerce Commission. The FCC's mandated jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. possessions. However, the FCC also provides varied degrees of cooperation, oversight, and leadership for similar communications bodies in other countries of North America. The FCC has an estimated 2011 budget of US$335.8 million which is entirely funded by regulatory fees, and has a proposed budget of US$354.2 million for 2012, which will also be fully derived from regulatory fees. It has 1,898 "full-time equivalent" federal employees.[3] Mission and strategy As specified in section one of the Communications Act and as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (amendment to 47 U.S.C. §151) it is the FCC's mission to "make available so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication services with adequate facilities at reasonable charges."[sic] The Act furthermore provides that the FCC was created "for the purpose of the national defense" and "for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communications."[2] Consistent with the objectives of the Act as well as the 1993 Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), the FCC has identified six goals in its 2006-2011 Strategic Plan. These are:  Broadband: "All Americans should have affordable access to robust and reliable broadband products and services. Regulatory policies must promote technological neutrality, competition, investment, and innovation to ensure that broadband service providers have sufficient incentives to develop and offer such products and services."  Competition: "Competition in the provision of communication services, both domestically and overseas, supports the Nation's economy. The competitive framework for communications services should foster innovation and offer consumers reliable, meaningful choice in affordable services." 2  Spectrum: "Efficient and effective use of non-federal spectrum domestically and internationally promotes the growth and rapid development of innovative and efficient communication technologies and services."  Media: "The Nation's media regulations must promote competition and diversity and facilitate the transition to digital modes of delivery."  Public Safety and Homeland Security: "Communications during emergencies and crisis must be available for public safety, health, defense, and emergency personnel, as well as all consumers in need. The Nation's critical communications infrastructure must be reliable, interoperable, redundant, and rapidly restorable."  Modernize the FCC: "The Commission shall strive to be highly productive, adaptive, and innovative organization that maximizes the benefits to stakeholders, staff, and management from effective systems, processes, resources, and organizational culture."[2] History Communications Act of 1934 In 1934 Congress passed the Communications Act, which abolished the Federal Radio Commission and transferred jurisdiction over radio licensing to a new Federal Communications Commission, including in it also the telecommunications jurisdiction previously handled by the Interstate Commerce Commission. Title II of the Communications Act focused on telecommunications using many concepts borrowed from railroad legislation and Title III contained provisions very similar to the Radio Act of 1927. Report on Chain Broadcasting In 1940 the Federal Communications Commission issued the "Report on Chain Broadcasting" which was led by new FCC Chairman James Lawrence Fly. The major point in the report was the breakup of NBC (National Broadcasting Company), which ultimately led to the creation of ABC (American Broadcasting Company), but there were two other important points. One was network option time, the culprit here being CBS. The report limited the amount of time during the day, and what times the networks may broadcast. Previously a network could demand any time it wanted from an affiliate. The second concerned artist bureaus. The networks served as both agents and employees of artists, which was a conflict of interest the report rectified. The "Freeze" of 1948 In assigning television stations to various cities after World War II, the FCC found that it placed many stations too close to each other, resulting in interference. At the same time, it became clear that the designated VHF channels, 2 through 13, were inadequate for nationwide television service. As a result, the FCC stopped giving out construction permits for new licenses in October 1948. Most expected this "Freeze" to last six months, but as the allocation of channels to the 3 emerging UHF technology and the eagerly-awaited possibilities of color television were debated, the FCC's re-allocation map of stations did not come until April 1952, with July 1, 1952 as the official beginning of licensing new stations. The FCC's "Sixth Report & Order" ended the Freeze. It would take five years for the U.S. to grow from 108 stations to more than 550. New stations came on line slowly, only five by the end of November 1952. The Sixth Report and Order required some existing TV stations to change channels, but only a few existing VHF stations were required to move to UHF, and a handful of VHF channels were deleted altogether in smaller media markets like Peoria, Fresno, and Bakersfield to create markets which were UHF "islands." The report also set aside a number of channels for the newly emerging field of educational television, which hindered struggling ABC and DuMont's quest for affiliates in the more desirable markets where VHF channels were reserved for non-commercial use. The Sixth Report and Order also provided for the "intermixture" of VHF and UHF channels in most markets; UHF transmitters in the 1950s were not yet powerful enough, nor receivers sensitive enough (if they included UHF tuners at all - they were not formally required until the 1960s All-Channel Receiver Act), to make UHF viable against entrenched VHF stations. In markets where there were no VHF stations and UHF was the only TV service available, UHF survived. In other markets, which were too small to financially support a television station, too close to VHF outlets in nearby cities, or where UHF was forced to compete with more than one well-established VHF station, UHF had little chance for success. Denver had been the largest U.S. city without a TV station by 1952. Senator Edwin Johnson (D- Colorado), chair of the Senate's Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, had made getting Denver the first post-Freeze station his personal mission. He had pressured the FCC, and proved ultimately successful as the first new station (a VHF station) came on-line a remarkable ten days after the Commission formally announced the first post-Freeze construction permits. KFEL (now KWGN-TV)'s first regular telecast was on July 21, 1952.[8][9] Telephone monopoly to competition The important relationship of the FCC and the American Telephone and Telegraph (AT&T) Company has evolved over several years. For many years, the FCC and state officials agreed to regulate the telephone systems as a natural monopoly. The FCC controlled telephone rates to limit the profits of AT&T and ensure nondiscriminatory pricing. In the 1960s, the FCC began allowing other long-distance companies, namely MCI, to offer specialized services. In the 1970s, the FCC allowed other companies to expand offerings to the public. A lawsuit in 1982 led by the Justice Department after AT&T underpriced other companies, resulted in the split of the Bells from AT&T. Beginning in 1984, the FCC implemented a new goal that all long-distance companies had equal access to the local phone companies' customers. Telecommunications Act of 1996 In 1996 Congress enacted the Telecommunications Act of 1996, in the wake of the break-up of AT&T resulting from the U.S. Justice Department's antitrust suit against AT&T. In part, the 1996 4 legislation attempted to create more competition in local telephone service by requiring Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers to provide access to their facilities for Competitive Local Exchange Carriers. This policy has thus far had limited success and much criticism. See. e.g. Robert Crandall The development of the Internet, cable services and wireless services has raised questions whether new legislative initiates are needed as to competition in what has come to be called 'broadband' services. Congress has monitored developments but as of 2009 has not undertaken a major revision of applicable regulation. The Local Community Radio Act in the 111th Congress has gotten out of committee and will go before the house floor with bi-partisan support,[10] and unanimous support of the FCC.[11] Connection permissivity, indecency crackdowns The inauguration of Ronald Reagan as President of the United States in 1981 accelerated an already ongoing shift in the FCC towards a decidedly more market-oriented stance. A number of regulations felt to be outdated were removed, most controversially the Fairness Doctrine in 1987. The FCC also took steps to increase competition to broadcasters, fostering broadcast alternatives such as cable television. It's worth also noting that in terms of indecency fines, there was not action taken by the FCC from FCC v. Pacifica until 1987, about ten years later. In the early 2000s, the FCC began stepping up censorship and enforcement of indecency regulations again, most notably following the Janet Jackson "wardrobe malfunction" that occurred during the halftime show of Super Bowl XXXVIII. However, the FCC's regulatory domain with respect to indecency remains restricted to the public airwaves, notably VHF and UHF television and AM/FM radio. On June 15, 2006, President George W. Bush signed into law the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005 sponsored by Senator Sam Brownback, a former broadcaster himself, and endorsed by Congressman Fred Upton of Michigan who authored a similar bill in the United States House of Representatives. The new law stiffens the penalties for each violation of the Act. The Federal Communications Commission will be able to impose fines in the amount of $325,000 for each violation by each station that violates decency standards. The legislation raised the fine tenfold over the previous maximum of $32,500 per violation.[12][13] HighCostsupportensures thatconsumersinallregions oftheNationhaveaccessto andpayratesfortelecom servicesthatarereasonably comparabletothoseinurban areas. RuralHealthCaresupport providesreducedratesto ruralhealthcareprovidersfor telecomandInternetservices sotheypaynomorethantheir urbancounterpartsforthe sameorsimilarservices. LowIncomesupport, commonlyknownasLifeline andLinkUp,provides discountsthatmakebasic, localtelephoneservice affordableformorethan7 millionAmericans. SchoolsandLibrariessupport goestoserviceprovidersthat providediscountsoneligible servicestoeligibleschools, schooldistricts,libraries,and consortiaoftheseentities. Thefundismaintainedthroughcontributionsmadebytelecommunicationsprovidersacross thecountryandisdisbursedbasedonfourprimarysupportprograms. ©1997-2011,UniversalServiceAdministrativeCompany,AllRightsReserved Home |PrivacyPolicy |Sitemap |WebsiteFeedback |WebsiteTour |ContactUs NeedHelp?Search AboutHighCost: OverviewoftheProgram OverviewoftheProcess USACFCCFilings HCLITrainingEvents IndividualOutreach VideoTutorials FilingAppeals RedLightStatus(FCCsite) RequestingConfidential Information UnderstandingAudits Understanding Disaggregation HighCostTools: RequiredForms FilingRequirementsand Deadlines Form525Online WireCenter–UNEZone Mapping IASMaps HCMCLLITool DisaggregationMaps DisaggregationChecklist DisbursementDataSearch CertificationSearch LatestNews WhistleblowerAlert SubmitaComplaint IncumbentCarriers Ruralandnon-ruralincumbent localexchangecarriers(ILECs) servingpeopleinhigh-costareas, sparselypopulatedareas,or areaswithdenseorroughterrain arethemajorparticipantsinthe HighCostProgram.Alocal exchangecarrierisdefinedas "anypersonthatisengagedinthe provisionoftelephoneexchange serviceorexchangeaccess." CompetitiveCarriers Competitivecarriersinclude competitivelocalexchange carriersandwirelessproviders, amongothers,thatserve customersintheareasofrural andnon-ruralincumbents. Competitorsmaybeeligibleto receiveHighCostsupportifthey aredesignatedasacompetitive eligibletelecommunications (CETCs)carrierbytheirstate utilityregulatorortheFCC. StateCommissions Stateshavetheprimary responsibilityfordesignating carriersaseligible telecommunicationscarriers (ETCs).TheHighCostProgram workswithstateutilityregulators todetermineETCstatusandETC serviceareas,toensurethat carriercertificationsarereceived ontime,andtorespondto questionsfromstateregulatory staffmembers. TrainingUpdate:HighCostandLowIncometraininginAtlanta,GAonMay11. RegisterToday!(4/11/11) Reminder:CMTRevenuesandUNELoops&LinePortRates&Boundary InformationdueApril18,2011(2/28/11) ImportantNotice:March2008CETCBaselineforInterimCaponCETCSupport Corrected(2/09/11) LatestNews:USACLaunchesitsPaymentQualityAssurance(PQA)Program (8/11/10) Reminder:UpdateyourForm498withelectronicbankinginformationto ensurecontinuedtimelyUSFdisbursements!(8/9/10) FCCUpdates:FCCReleasesRevised2009FCCForm498andInstructions (11/05/09) FCCUpdates:FCCAnnouncesMandatoryElectronicDisbursementofUSF SupportPayments(10/8/09) ImportantNotice:NewMailingAddressForHighCost&LowIncomeFilings EffectiveOctober1,2009(9/15/09) ImportantTips:GuidanceforCETCsServing"CoveredLocations"(6/17/09) NewtoHighCost?EligibleTelecommunicationsCarrierWelcomePacket LatestNews,ImportantNotices,andReminders Lastmodifiedon4/19/2011 SuccessStory ©1997-2011,UniversalServiceAdministrativeCompany,AllRightsReserved. Home |PrivacyPolicy |Sitemap |WebsiteFeedback |WebsiteTour |ContactUs Home NeedHelp?Search AboutHighCost: OverviewoftheProgram OverviewoftheProcess USACFCCFilings HCLITrainingEvents IndividualOutreach VideoTutorials FilingAppeals RedLightStatus(FCCsite) RequestingConfidential Information UnderstandingAudits Understanding Disaggregation HighCostTools: RequiredForms FilingRequirementsand Deadlines Form525Online WireCenter–UNEZone Mapping IASMaps HCMCLLITool DisaggregationMaps DisaggregationChecklist DisbursementDataSearch CertificationSearch LatestNews WhistleblowerAlert SubmitaComplaint OverviewoftheHighCostProgram TheHighCostProgramoftheUniversalServiceFund,whichisadministeredbytheUniversal ServiceAdministrativeCompany(USAC),ensuresthatconsumersinallregionsofthenation haveaccesstoandpayratesfortelecommunicationsservicesthatarereasonablycomparableto thoseservicesprovidedandratespaidinurbanareas. USACiscommittedtoensuring programintegrity,whichisfundamentaltoUSAC'sstewardship oftheUSF.OneofthemanyactivitiesUSACconductstoensureprogramintegrityisthe Payment QualityAssurance(PQA)program ,whichisdesignedtogeneratereliable,comprehensivedata aboutratesofimproperpayments. WithoutHighCostsupport,residentsofsomeareasofthecountrywouldhavetopaysignificantly morefortelephoneservicesthanthoselivinginotherareasbecauseoffactorssuchasdense terrain,lowpopulations,orthehighfixedcostsofbuildingatelecomnetwork. USACisresponsiblefordatacollectionandmaintenance,supportcalculation,anddisbursement forthefivecomponentsofHighCostProgramsupportthatprovidesover$4billionperyearto telecommunicationscarriersthroughoutallstatesandU.S.territories.Currently,over1,700 eligibletelecommunicationscarriersreceiveHighCostsupport. TheprimaryparticipantsintheHighCostProgramareruralandnon-ruralincumbentlocal exchangecarriersandcompetitorsthatservecustomerlinesintheserviceareasofincumbent carriers.Otherkeystakeholdersincludestateregulators,telecomconsultants,legislators,and federalagencies. InordertoparticipateintheHighCostProgram,awirelineorwirelesstelephonecompanymust beaneligibletelecommunicationscarrier(ETC).AtelephonecompanycanbecomeanETCby designationofitsstateutilityregulator,orinsomecases,theFederalCommunications Commission. ETC-designatedcarriershaveongoingrequirements,usuallyonaquarterlybasis,tofulfillsuch assubmittingcertificationsforuseofHighCostsupport,updatinglinecountinformation,andfor incumbentlocalexchangecarriers,filingcertaincostandrevenueinformationinordertoreceive propersupport. Lastmodifiedon7/14/2010 SuccessStory ©1997-2011,UniversalServiceAdministrativeCompany,AllRightsReserved. Home |PrivacyPolicy |Sitemap |WebsiteFeedback |WebsiteTour |ContactUs Home NeedHelp?Search AboutHighCost: OverviewoftheProgram OverviewoftheProcess USACFCCFilings HCLITrainingEvents IndividualOutreach VideoTutorials FilingAppeals RedLightStatus(FCCsite) RequestingConfidential Information UnderstandingAudits Understanding Disaggregation HighCostTools: RequiredForms FilingRequirementsand Deadlines Form525Online WireCenter–UNEZone Mapping IASMaps HCMCLLITool DisaggregationMaps DisaggregationChecklist DisbursementDataSearch CertificationSearch LatestNews WhistleblowerAlert SubmitaComplaint OverviewoftheProcess Wirelineandwirelesstelephonecompaniesseekingtoparticipateinanyofthe HighCostProgramsupportcomponentsmustbedesignatedaseligible telecommunicationscarriers(ETCs)andfollowthestepsbelowaswellasmeet ongoingrequirementsforeachcomponent. ApplyingforHighCostProgramSupport Incumbentlocalexchangecarriers(ILECs)canbeacombinationofeitherruralornon-rural companies,and"pricecap"or"rate-of-return"companies.Applyingforthesecategories determinethetypeofHighCostsupportforwhichanILECiseligible.Acompetitiveeligible telecommunicationscarrier(CETC)receivesHighCostsupportbasedonthestatusoftheILEC inwhoseserviceareatheCETCoperates. Step1:UnderstandWhatisSupported Step2:DetermineEligibility Step3:ObtainaUSACServiceProviderIDNumber Step4:FilingRequirements Step5:FileLineCountData Step6:FileCertifications Step7:ReportRevenue(Form499) Lastmodifiedon1/11/2008 SuccessStory ©1997-2011,UniversalServiceAdministrativeCompany,AllRightsReserved. Home |PrivacyPolicy |Sitemap |WebsiteFeedback |WebsiteTour |ContactUs Home NeedHelp?Search AboutHighCost: OverviewoftheProgram OverviewoftheProcess USACFCCFilings HCLITrainingEvents IndividualOutreach VideoTutorials FilingAppeals RedLightStatus(FCCsite) RequestingConfidential Information UnderstandingAudits Understanding Disaggregation HighCostTools: RequiredForms FilingRequirementsand Deadlines Form525Online WireCenter–UNEZone Mapping IASMaps HCMCLLITool DisaggregationMaps DisaggregationChecklist DisbursementDataSearch CertificationSearch LatestNews WhistleblowerAlert SubmitaComplaint DetermineEligibility OfferingSupportedServices BecomeanETC BecomeETCviaFCC AdvertiseLifeline SubmitETCorder Step1 UnderstandWhatis Supported Step3 ObtainaUSACSPIN Step2:DetermineEligibility ToparticipateintheHighCostProgram,ruraland non-ruralincumbentlocalexchangecarriers (ILECs)andcompetitivewirelineandwireless telephonecompaniesmustbedesignatedas eligibletelecommunicationscarriers(ETCs)by theirstatecommissionsortheFederal CommunicationsCommission(FCC). Wirelineandwirelesstelephonecompaniesthatwanttobe designatedasETCsmustofferthe telecommunications servicesorfunctions thataredesignatedforUniversal ServiceFundsupportbytheFCCinSection54.101ofitsrules.ETCsmustalsoadvertisethe availabilityofLifelineservice,whichisacomponentoftheLowIncomeProgramoftheUniversal ServiceFund. WhilemostILECsarealreadydesignatedasETCs,theremaybenewcarriersthatreceiveILEC statusthroughtheFCCwaiverprocess.CompetitiveETCsaredesignatedonanongoingbasis. Lastmodifiedon1/11/2008 SuccessStory ©1997-2011,UniversalServiceAdministrativeCompany,AllRightsReserved. Home |PrivacyPolicy |Sitemap |WebsiteFeedback |WebsiteTour |ContactUs Home NeedHelp?Search AboutHighCost: OverviewoftheProgram OverviewoftheProcess USACFCCFilings HCLITrainingEvents IndividualOutreach VideoTutorials FilingAppeals RedLightStatus(FCCsite) RequestingConfidential Information UnderstandingAudits Understanding Disaggregation HighCostTools: RequiredForms FilingRequirementsand Deadlines Form525Online WireCenter–UNEZone Mapping IASMaps HCMCLLITool DisaggregationMaps DisaggregationChecklist DisbursementDataSearch CertificationSearch LatestNews WhistleblowerAlert SubmitaComplaint DetermineEligibility OfferingSupportedServices BecomeanETC BecomeETCviaFCC AdvertiseLifeline SubmitETCorder Step2:OfferingSupportedServices Wirelineandwirelesstelephonecompaniesthat wanttobedesignatedaseligible telecommunicationscarriers(ETCs)mustofferthe telecommunicationsservicesorfunctionsthatare designatedforsupportbytheFederal CommunicationsCommissioninSection54.101of itsrules. TheFCC,inconjunctionwiththeFederal-StateJointBoardon UniversalService,periodicallyreviewstheservicesthatareto besupportedthroughtheUniversalServiceFund. Currently,wirelineandwirelesstelephonecompaniesseekingtoreceiveHighCostandLow Incomesupportmustofferthefollowingservicesorfunctions: Voicegradeaccesstothepublicswitchednetwork."Voicegradeaccess"isdefined asafunctionthatenablesauseroftelecommunicationsservicestotransmitvoice communications,includingsignalingthenetworkthatthecallerwishestoplaceacall, andtoreceivevoicecommunications,includingreceivingasignalindicatingthereisan incomingcall.Bandwidthforvoicegradeaccessshouldbe,ataminimum,300to 3,000Hertz; 1. Localusage."Localusage"meansanamountofminutesofuseofexchangeservice, prescribedbytheCommission,providedfreeofchargetoendusers; 2. Dualtonemulti-frequencysignalingoritsfunctionalequivalent."Dualtonemulti- frequency"(DTMF)isamethodofsignalingthatfacilitatesthetransportationof signalingthroughthenetwork,shorteningcallset-uptime; 3. Single-partyserviceoritsfunctionalequivalent."Single-partyservice"is telecommunicationsservicethatpermitsuserstohaveexclusiveuseofawireline subscriberlooporaccesslineforeachcallplaced,or,inthecaseofwireless telecommunicationscarriers,whichusespectrumsharedamonguserstoprovide service,adedicatedmessagepathforthelengthofauser'sparticulartransmission; 4. Accesstoemergencyservices."Accesstoemergencyservices"includesaccessto services,suchas911andenhanced911,providedbylocalgovernmentsorother publicsafetyorganizations.911isdefinedasaservicethatpermitsa telecommunicationsuser,bydialingthethree-digitcode"911,"tocallemergency servicesthroughaPublicServiceAccessPoint(PSAP)operatedbythelocal government."Enhanced911"isdefinedas911servicethatincludes theabilityto 5. SuccessStory Home NeedHelp?Search Step1 UnderstandWhatis Supported Step3 ObtainaUSACSPIN provideautomaticnumberinginformation(ANI),whichenablesthe PSAPtocallbackif thecallisdisconnected,andautomaticlocationinformation(ALI),whichpermits emergencyserviceproviderstoidentifythegeographiclocationofthecallingparty. "Accesstoemergencyservices"includesaccessto911andenhanced911servicesto theextentthelocalgovernmentinaneligiblecarrier'sserviceareahasimplemented 911orenhanced911systems; Accesstooperatorservices."Accesstooperatorservices"isdefinedasaccessto anyautomaticorliveassistancetoaconsumertoarrangeforbillingorcompletion,or both,ofatelephonecall; 6. Accesstointerexchangeservice."Accesstointerexchangeservice"isdefinedasthe useoftheloop,aswellasthatportionoftheswitchthatispaidforbytheenduser,or thefunctionalequivalentofthesenetworkelementsinthecaseofawirelesscarrier, necessarytoaccessaninterexchangecarrier'snetwork; 7. Accesstodirectoryassistance."Accesstodirectoryassistance"isdefinedas accesstoaservicethatincludes,butisnotlimitedto,makingavailabletocustomers, uponrequest,informationcontainedindirectorylistings;and 8. Tolllimitationforqualifyinglow-incomeconsumers."Tolllimitation"denoteseither tollblockingortollcontrolforeligibletelecommunicationscarriersthatare incapableof providingbothservices.ForETCsthatarecapableofprovidingbothservices,"toll limitation"denotesbothtollblockingandtollcontrol. 9. Lastmodifiedon1/11/2008 ©1997-2011,UniversalServiceAdministrativeCompany,AllRightsReserved. Home |PrivacyPolicy |Sitemap |WebsiteFeedback |WebsiteTour |ContactUs CityCouncilAgenda:04/25/11 1 7.PublicHearing–ConsiderationofadoptingResolutionNo.2011-31vacatinga portionofdrainageandutilityeasementsforLot19,Block3,Groveland2nd Addition(9960WestonDrive);Applicant,KennethHutchinson (BW/AS) A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND: OnApril11th,theCityCouncilcalledforapublichearingconcerningthevacationofa portionofthedrainageandutilityeasementsaspetitionedbyKenHutchinson.Noticeof tonight’shearingwaspublishedintheMonticelloTimesonApril7th,andallproperty ownersdirectlyimpactedbytheproposedvacationreceivednoticesofthehearing, mailedonApril13th,2011. Theeasementvacationisrequiredtoaccommodatearequestmadebythepropertyowner at9960WestonDrive,legallydescribedasLot19,Block3,Groveland2nd Addition,who wantstoconstructafour-seasonporchadditionintheirrearyard. Whilereviewingtherequest,itwasdiscoveredthattheadditionwouldencroachintothe existingdrainageandutilityeasementsuchthatthepropertyownerwouldnotablebeto constructtheadditionasrequested. Staffthenresearchedavailablerecords,includingtherecordedplat,anddeterminedthat theCity’sdrainageandutilityeasementwaslocatedconsistentwithaprivateutility easementforaGreatRiverEnergy(GRE)150-footwideUPAeasement. Thepropertyownerwasadvisedthattheirfirststepinproceedingwithapossible vacationofthedrainageandutilityeasementwastocontactGRE.Iftheprivateutility waswillingtovacateorreleaseaportionoftheireasement,theCitycouldthenconsider acommensuratevacationofthepublicdrainageandutilityeasement. TheapplicantmadecontactwithGreatRiverEnergyandhasreceivedconfirmationthat theutilitywillreleaseaportionoftheirprivateutilityeasementsufficientforthe addition,whichwouldextendapproximately24’fromtherearoftheprincipalstructure. Inresponsetothisreleaseofprivateeasementarea,theCityhasreviewedthepropertyat 9960WestonDriveusingbothCityGISandtherecordedplatonWrightCounty’sweb site.Thisreviewrevealednoevidenceofanypublicorprivateutilitiesexistinginthe areathatGREisproposingtovacatebehindtheexistingstructure. Therearenocurrentplanstoconstructanypublicimprovementsintheareaofthe proposedeasementvacationinthenearfuture,andthereforethereisnoneedtomaintain theentireeasementareafordrainageorutilitypurposes.Therefore,theCouncilisasked toconsidervacatinganidenticalareaofCityD&Ueasement,withtheexceptionof maintainingastandard6-footD&Ueasementalongbothsidelotlines. Itshouldalsobenotedthatsinceprivateutilitiesdonotreadilysharetheirdatastaff wouldstronglyrecommendthattheCityfirstrequirethepropertyownertoenterintoan CityCouncilAgenda:04/25/11 2 agreementholdingtheCityharmlessintheeventthereareanyexistingprivateutilities thatarenegativelyimpactedbyvacationofthisD&Ueasement. A1.BudgetImpact:Budgetimpactsrelatedtothevacationoftheunneededdrainage andutilityeasementsarenegligible,consistingofcostsassociatedwith preparationofrevisedlegaldescriptionoftheareatobevacated,publishingand mailingnoticesforthispublichearing,aswellasothercustomaryadministrative andrecordingcosts. A2.StaffWorkloadImpact:Staffimpactswereminimal,consistingofasmall amountoftimeneededtopreparetherequireddocumentsforpublicnoticeand recording. B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS: 1.MotiontoadoptResolutionNo.2011-31vacatingaportionofdrainageandutility easementsforLot19,Block3,Groveland2nd Additionaspetitionedbythe propertyowneranddescribedinattachedexhibits,subjecttoexecutionofahold harmlessagreementbetweentheCityandtheapplicant. 2.MotiontodenytheeasementvacationaspetitionedbythepropertyownerofLot 19,Block3,Groveland2nd Additionatthistime. Underthisoption,Councilshouldstatefindingsfordenyingtheeasement vacation,andstaffwillbringbackaresolutionofdenialforCouncilactionatthe nextmeeting. C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION: StaffrecommendsapprovingAlternative#1. D.SUPPORTINGDATA: Resolution#2011-31 Petition&ApplicationforVacation EasementVacationDrawings GreatRiverEnergyEasementReleaseLetter CITYOFMONTICELLO WRIGHTCOUNTYMINNESOTA RESOLUTIONNO.2011-31 APPROVEVACATIONOFAPORTIONOFDRAINAGEANDUTILITYEASEMENTS, UPONPETITIONOFTHEPROPERTYOWNER, FORLOT19,BLOCK3,GROVELAND2ND ADDITION WHEREAS,onMarch25,2011,anapplicationandpetition,signedbythepropertyownerof saidproperty,toconsidervacationofdrainageandutilityeasementsasdescribedbelow,was receivedintheofficeoftheCityClerk;and WHEREAS,anoticeofPublicHearingwaspublishedonApril7and14,2011,pursuantto MinnesotaStateStatutes412.851;and WHEREAS,anoticeofPublicHearingwasmailedonApril13,2011,toallpropertyowners thatcouldbeaffectedbysaideasementvacation;and WHEREAS,theCityofMonticelloreceivednoticethatGreatRiverEnergygrantedavacation oftheirutilityeasementtothepropertyowneronMarch29,2011;and WHEREAS,aPublicHearingonthevacationofdrainageandutilityeasementsoverandacross thefollowingdescribedpropertywasheldonApril25,2011at7p.m.attheMonticelloCity CouncilChambers: Parcel#1: ThatpartofLot19,Block3,Groveland2ndAddition,accordingtotherecordedplat thereof,WrightCounty,Minnesota,lyingnortheasterlyofthesouthwesterlylineofthe 150footUnitedPowerAssociationEasement,asshownonsaidplat,andlying southwesterlyofthefollowingdescribedline: CommencingatthesouthwestcornerofsaidLot19,thenceontheplatbearingofNorth 40degrees24minutes48secondsEast,alongthewestlineofsaidLot19,adistanceof 99.6feettothepointofbeginningofthelinetobedescribed,thenceSouth49degrees57 minutes50secondsEastadistanceof92.6feettoapointontheeastlineofsaidLot19, saidpointbeing57.0feetsouthwestofthenortheastcornerofsaidLot19,asmeasured alongsaideastlinethereofandsaidlinethereterminating,exceptthosepartsthereof lyingwithinthenorthwesterly6.00feetofsaidLot19andlyingwithinthesoutheasterly 6.00feetofsaidLot19. WHEREAS,anyperson,corporationorpublicbodyowningorcontrollingeasementscontained uponthepropertyvacated,reservestherighttocontinuemaintainingthesameortoenterupon suchwayorportionthereofvacatedtomaintain,repair,replaceorotherwiseattendthereto; NOWTHEREFORE,BEITHEREBYRESOLVED,thattheCityCounciloftheCityof Monticelloordainsthattheabovedescribeddrainageandutilityeasementsarevacated. ADOPTEDBY theMonticelloCityCouncilthis25th dayofApril,2011. CITYOFMONTICELLO ________________________________ ClintHerbst,Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________________ JeffO’Neill,CityAdministrator CERTIFICATION STATEOFMINNESOTA COUNTYOFWRIGHT Iherebycertifythattheforegoingisatrueandcorrectcopyofaresolutiondulypassed, adoptedandapprovedbytheMonticelloCityCouncilattheirscheduledmeetingonApril25, 2011,andrecordedinminutesofsaidmeeting. ____________________________________ JeffO’Neill,CityAdministrator NotaryPublic:_______________________________ Date:___________________________ (STAMP) CityCouncilAgenda:04/25/11 1 8.PublicHearing-ConsiderationofadoptingResolution#2011-32vacatingaportion ofdrainageandutilityeasementsaspetitionedforLot6,Block1,MonticelloTravel Center2nd Addition(SWcornerofOakwoodDrive&CedarStreet);Applicant, IRETProperties (AS/BW) A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND: OnApril11th,theCityCouncilcalledforapublichearingconcerningthevacationofa portionofthedrainageandutilityeasementsaspetitionedbyIRETProperties.IRET PropertieshaspetitionedforCounciltoconsidergrantingvacationofutilityanddrainage easementslocatedonpartoftheirpropertyatMonticelloTravelCenter2ndAddition. IRETPropertiesisworkingwithapotentialbuyeronaproposeddevelopmentofLot6, Block1andthatbuyerwouldneedtheproposedeasementareavacatedinorderto proceedwiththeproject. TheCityEngineerhasreviewedtheapplicationanddrawingsandfindsthattheCitydoes nothaveaneedforthepubliceasementforutilitiesanddrainageintheproposedareato bevacated.Theexistingdrainageandutilityeasementinthisareaismuchlargerthanis neededtomaintaindrainageandexistingpublicutilitiesasitisaremnanteasementfrom theoldOakwoodDrivealignment.TheCityEngineerhasrecommendedaspecifiedarea ofdrainageandutilityeasementtobemaintained,whichhasbeenillustratedaccordingly ontheattachedvacationofeasementsketch. InconsultationwiththeCityAttorney,ithasbeendeterminedthatinsituationswherea publicdrainageandutilityeasement(orportionthereof)isvacatedforaprivate developmentorredevelopmentproject,anyprivateutilitieswithintheeasementmustbe relocatedatthepropertyowner’sexpense.Thereareprivateutilitiesintheeasement area.Assuch,shouldtheCityCouncilapprovethevacation,IRETPropertiesortheir buyer,willberesponsibleforrelocatingprivateutilitiesintheareapriortotheCity vacatingourdrainageandutilityeasement. Inthatregard,IRETPropertieshasconsentedtothevacationrequestonbehalfofthe buyerwiththestipulationthatthevacationberecordedonlyatsuchtimeastheproperty saleoccurs.Inthatway,thebuyer,notIRETProperties,wouldbecometheresponsible partyfortherelocationoftheprivateutilities. A1.BudgetImpact:Budgetimpactsrelatedtothevacationoftheunneededdrainage andutilityeasementsarenegligible,consistingofcostsassociatedwithpublishing andmailingnoticesforthispublichearing,aswellasothercustomary administrativeandrecordingcosts. A2.StaffWorkloadImpact:Somestafftimewasconsumedinresearchingand preparingthisrequestforCouncil. CityCouncilAgenda:04/25/11 2 B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS: 1.MotiontoadoptResolution#2011-32vacatingaportionofdrainageandutility easementsforLot6,Block1,MonticelloTravelCenter2nd Additionaspetitioned bythepropertyowners;contingentuponclosingofthesaleofthepropertyand thebuyershallberesponsibleforrelocationofprivateutilities. 2.MotiontodenytheeasementvacationaspetitionedbyIRETProperties,ownerof Lot6,Block1,MonticelloTravelCenter2nd Additionatthistime. Underthisoption,Councilshouldstatefindingsfordenyingtheeasement vacation,andstaffwillbringbackaresolutionofdenialforCouncilactionatthe nextmeeting. C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION: CitystaffrecommendsAlternative#1. D.SUPPORTINGDATA: Resolution#2011-32 EasementVacationDrawings Petition&ApplicationforVacation LetterfromIRETProperties CITYOFMONTICELLO WRIGHTCOUNTYMINNESOTA RESOLUTIONNO.2011-32 APPROVEVACATIONOFAPORTIONOFDRAINAGEANDUTILITYEASEMENTS, UPONPETITIONOFTHEPROPERTYOWNERS, FORLOT6,BLOCK1,MONTICELLOTRAVELCENTER2ND ADDITION WHEREAS,onMarch31,2011,anapplicationandpetition,signedbythepropertyownersof saidproperty,toconsidervacationofdrainageandutilityeasementsasdescribedbelow,was receivedintheofficeoftheCityClerk;and WHEREAS,anoticeofPublicHearingwaspublishedonApril7and14,2011,pursuantto MinnesotaStateStatutes412.851;and WHEREAS,anoticeofPublicHearingwasmailedonApril13,2011,toallpropertyowners thatcouldbeaffectedbysaideasementvacation;and WHEREAS,aPublicHearingonthevacationofdrainageandutilityeasementsoverandacross thefollowingdescribedpropertywasheldonApril25,2011at7p.m.attheMonticelloCity CouncilChambers: Parcel#1: ThatportionofLot6,Block1,MonticelloTravelCenterSecondAddition,Wright CountyMinnesota,describedasfollows: CommencingatthemostsoutherlycornerofsaidLot6;thenceNorth62degrees38 minutes15secondsWest,platbearing,alongthesoutherlylineofsaidLot6adistanceof 14.99feet;thenceNorth13degrees08minutes31secondsEastadistanceof6.19feetto alineparallelwithand6.00feetnortherlyofsaidsoutherlyline;thenceSouth62degrees 38minutes15secondsEast,alongsaidparallelline,adistanceof4.44feettoaline parallelwithand12.00feetwesterlyoftheeasterlylineofsaidLot6andthepointof beginningofthelandtobedescribed;thencereturnNorth62degrees38minutes15 secondsWestadistanceof4.44feet;thenceNorth13degrees08minutes31seconds Eastadistanceof153.09feet;thenceNorth34degrees02minutes46secondsWesta distanceof65.12feettoalineparallelwithand12.00feetsouthwesterlyofthe northeasterlylineofsaidLot6;thenceSouth47degrees56minutes00secondsEast, alongsaidparallelline,adistanceof49.84feet;thenceSouth03degrees51minutes50 secondsWestadistanceof10.55feet;thenceSouth35degrees59minutes35seconds Eastadistanceof8.27feet;thenceSouth62degrees48minutes41secondsEasta distanceof12.49feet;thenceSouth13degrees51minutes29secondsWestadistanceof 115.30feettoalineparallelwithand12.00feetwesterlyoftheeasterlylineofsaidLot 6;thencesoutherlyalongsaidparallellineadistanceof41.45feettothepointof beginning. WHEREAS,anyperson,corporationorpublicbodyowningorcontrollingeasementscontained uponthepropertyvacated,reservestherighttocontinuemaintainingthesameortoenterupon suchwayorportionthereofvacatedtomaintain,repair,replaceorotherwiseattendthereto; NOWTHEREFORE,BEITHEREBYRESOLVED,thattheCityCounciloftheCityof Monticelloordainsthattheabovedescribeddrainageandutilityeasementsarevacated. BEITFURTHERRESOLVED,thatthevacationofabovedescribeddrainageandutility easementsiscontingentuponthesaleandclosingoftheproperty;and BEITFURTHERRESOLVED,thatthepropertyowner,ortheirbuyeruponclosingofthe property,shallberesponsibleforrelocationofprivateutilitiesintheeasementarea. ADOPTEDBY theMonticelloCityCouncilthis25th dayofApril,2011. CITYOFMONTICELLO ________________________________ ClintHerbst,Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________________ JeffO’Neill,CityAdministrator CERTIFICATION STATEOFMINNESOTA COUNTYOFWRIGHT Iherebycertifythattheforegoingisatrueandcorrectcopyofaresolutiondulypassed, adoptedandapprovedbytheMonticelloCityCouncilattheirscheduledmeetingonApril25, 2011,andrecordedinminutesofsaidmeeting. ____________________________________ JeffO’Neill,CityAdministrator NotaryPublic:_______________________________ Date:___________________________ (STAMP) CityCouncilAgenda:4/25/11 1 9.PublicHearing-ConsiderationofadoptingResolution#2011-33approving proposedassessmentrollfordelinquentutilitybillsandcertificationtoCounty Auditorfor2012payabletaxyear (TK) A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND: TheCityCouncilisagainaskedtoadoptanassessmentrollforutilitybillingaccounts whicharedelinquentmorethan60daysandtocertifytheassessmentrolltotheCounty Auditorforcollectiononnextyear'srealestatetaxes. Thedelinquentutilityaccountsthatareincludedwiththeagendaareaccountswhich includeQuarter3and4of2010,thatareatleast60dayspastdueandincludeallnew delinquentsfromthelasttimewecertifiedthem.Inadditiontothedelinquentamount, theCouncilalsopreviouslyapprovedtheestablishmentofanadministrativefeeof$50 peraccountthatisaddedtoeachdelinquentassessment.Theamountsshownonthe encloseddelinquentutilitieslistdonotincludetheadditional$50administrationfeefor thepreparationoftheassessmentroll. Thedelinquentutilityamountsbeingcertifiednowarebelowpreviouscertificationsfor thistimeperiod,andthenumberofpropertiesbeingcertifiedisalsolowerthanpast delinquentutilitycertifications. Itisrecommendedthatthedelinquentaccountsbeputonanassessmentrollfor certificationataninterestrateof6%asallowedbystatestatute.Asinthepast,ifany accountsarepaidwithin30daysaftertheadoptionoftheassessmentroll,theycanbe paidwithouttheadditionalinterest.After30days,paymentswillbechargedinterest. A1.BudgetImpact:Certificationofdelinquentutilityaccountsiscollectionof revenuetheCityshouldhavereceivedin2010and2011butbecauseofthenon- paymentthesemonieswillnotbecollecteduntil2012whenitwillappearonthe taxrolls. A2.StaffWorkload:Theprocessforcollectingdelinquentutilityamountsistime consumingwithpreparingandmailingdelinquentnotices;preparingandmailing noticesofthepublichearingontheassessmentofdelinquentnoticesaswellas otherclericalworkinpreparingtheamountsforcertification.Themosttime consumingstepoftheprocessisverifyingthedelinquentaccountdataagainst WrightCountypropertytaxrecords.The$50feethatisaddedtothedelinquent accountshelpsdefraythecostofstafftimeandpublicationexpenses. B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS: 1.MotiontoadoptResolution#2011-33approvingtheassessmentrollforthe delinquentchargesaspresentedandcertifytotheCountyAuditorforthe2012 payabletaxyear. CityCouncilAgenda:4/25/11 2 2.MotiontoadoptResolution#2011-33withadjustmentstotheassessmentroll, basedoninputatthepublichearing. C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION: StaffrecommendsAlternative#1,thattheCounciladopttheassessmentrollaspresented. Alloftheaccountsareatleast60dayspastdueandhavebeengivenpropernoticeofthis assessmenthearingandampleopportunitytopaytheaccountsinfull.Allutility accountswerenotifiedthattherewouldbeanadditional$50administrativefeeattached toeachoutstandingbalanceiftheaccountwasnotpaidbytheendofbusinessonApril 22,2011. D.SUPPORTINGDATA: Resolution#2011-33 Completelistingofdelinquentaccountstobecertified CITYOFMONTICELLO WRIGHTCOUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTIONNO.2011-33 ADOPTINGASSESSMENTROLLFORDELINQUENTUTILITIES THROUGHQUARTER3AND4,2010 WHEREAS,theCitydidmailonMarch4,2011,topropertyownersofrecord,requirednotice ofpublichearingtoheartestimonyandconsideradoptionofassessmentsofdelinquentutilities remainingunpaidonthoseproperties;and WHEREAS,pursuanttopropernoticedulypublishedonApril7,2011,asrequiredbylaw,the Councilhasmetandheardandpasseduponallobjectionstotheproposedassessmentfor delinquentutilityaccountcharges; NOW,THEREFORE,BEITRESOLVEDBYTHECITYCOUNCILOFMONTICELLO, MINNESOTA: 1.Suchproposedassessments,acopyofwhichisattachedheretoandmadeaparthereof,is herebyaccepted,fortheamountshownplusanadditional$50certificationfee,andshall constitutethespecialassessmentsagainsttheparcelsnamedherein,andeachtractofland thereinincludedisherebyfoundtobebenefittedbytheassessmentleviedagainstit. 2.Suchassessmentsshallbepayableinone(1)annualinstallmentpayableinthetaxyearof thefirstMondayinJanuary2012,andshallbearinterestattherateof6percentper annumfromthedateoftheadoptionofthisassessmentresolution.Tothefirst installmentshallbeaddedinterestontheentireassessmentfromthedateofthis resolutionuntilDecember31,2012. 3.Theownerofthepropertysoassessedmay,atanytimeuptoNovember30,2011,pay thewholeoftheassessmentonsuchpropertytotheCityTreasurer,withinterestaccrued tothedateofpayment,exceptthatnointerestshallbechargediftheentireassessmentis paidwithin30daysfromtheadoptionofthisresolution. 4.Theclerkshallforthwithtransmitacertificationofthisassessmenttothecountyauditor tobeextendedonthepropertytaxlistofthecounty.Suchassessmentshallbecollected andpaidoverinthesamemannerasothermunicipaltaxes. ADOPTEDBY theMonticelloCityCouncilthis25thdayofApril,2011. CITYOFMONTICELLO ___________________________ ClintHerbst,Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ JeffO’Neill,CityAdministrator City CouncilAgenda:04/25/11 1 10.ConsiderationofadoptingResolution#2011-34approvingfinalplansand specificationsandauthorizingadvertisementforbids;andadoptingResolution #2011-35restrictingparkingonMSASsegmentsforthe2011StreetReconstruction andWalnutStreet/7th StreetWestIntersectionImprovements,CityProjectNo. 11C001 (WSB/BW) A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND: OnFebruary28,2011,Councilauthorizedthepreparationoffinalplansand specificationsfortheproposed2011StreetReconstructionProject,CityProjectNo. 11C001,whichincludesArea4B(EastRiverStreet)andWestRiverStreet(fromCSAH 75totheCityballfields).Theseroadwayswereidentifiedforreconstructioninthe City’sOverallStreetReconstructionProgramasadoptedbytheCityCouncilonFebruary 9,2004.OnMarch14,2011,theCouncilalsoauthorizedthepreparationoffinalplans andspecificationsforimprovementstotheintersectionofWest7th StreetandWalnut StreettobeaddedtoCityProjectNo.11C001. Thestreetsproposedforreconstructionareasfollows: Area4B(EastRiverStreet) EastRiverStreet–CedarStreetto+/-1,100’eastofWashingtonStreet CedarStreet–EastBroadway(CSAH75)toEastRiverStreetandsidewalk extension PalmStreet–EastBroadway(CSAH75)toEastRiverStreet NewStreet–EastBroadway(CSAH75)toEastRiverStreet WrightStreet–EastBroadway(CSAH75)toEastRiverStreet RamseyStreet–EastBroadway(CSAH75)toEastRiverStreet HennepinStreet–EastBroadway(CSAH75)toEastRiverStreet WashingtonStreet–EastBroadway(CSAH75)topublicaccess/parkentrance EllisonPark–Parkinglot,internaldrive,andboatlaunchaccessdrive,sewerand waterservicetobebidasanAlternate EastBridgePark–parkinglotreconstructiontobebidasanAlternate WestRiverStreet WestRiverStreet–WestBroadway(CSAH75)toCityballfieldsentrance 7th StreetWest&WalnutStreetIntersectionImprovements Turnlaneandpedestriancrossingimprovements,includingwidening7th Street WestbetweenthetwoCubFoodsdriveways. Millandoverlay7th StreetWestfromwestofTH25toapproximately100feet westofLocustStreet Toutilizestateaidfundsontheproject,on-streetparkingneedstoberestrictedtoone sideofthestreetonEastRiverStreetbetweenPalmandWashingtonStreets(parking proposedonsouthside),onthenorthhalfofPalmStreetbetweenEastBroadwayand EastRiverStreet(parkingproposedonwestside),andonWashingtonStreetbetween City CouncilAgenda:04/25/11 2 EastBroadwayandEastRiverStreet(parkingproposedonwestside).On-streetparking wouldnotbeallowedalong7th StreetoneithersideofthestreetbetweenTH25andwest ofLocustStreet,withintheprojectlimits.Anoparkingresolutionisrequiredtobe adoptedonthesestreetsastheyaredesignatedonourMunicipalStateAidStreet(MSAS) systemandassuchareeligibletoreceivestateaidfundsifdesignedandconstructedto stateaidstandards.Accordingtostateaidstandards,parkingisonlyallowedononeside ofstreetsthatareaminimumof32-feetwide,andonbothsidesofstreetsthatarea minimumof38-feetwide. Thecontractorwhoisawardedtheprojectwouldnotbeallowedtostartconstruction operationsinArea4B,eastoftheintersectionofRiverStreetandNewStreet,untilJuly 11th orlatertoavoidimpactingRiverfestactivitiesinEllisonPark. WestRiverStreetisproposedtobereconstructedatawidthof35-feetwhichincludes two14-footdrivinglanes,one5-footwidebikelane,and1-footwidegravelshoulderson bothsides. Thetotalestimatedprojectcostforcompletingtheworkis$2,267,000whichincludes 22%indirectcostsand10%constructioncontingencies.Thisprojectisproposedtobe fundedusingstreetreconstructionfunds,Citycontributions,utilityoperatingfunds,state aidfunds,andassessmentstobenefittingproperties. BasedonCouncilinputreceivedduringtheJanuary24th workshop,staffisnotproposing toenhanceexistingstreetlightingwiththisproject. A1.BudgetImpact:Theestimatedprojectcosts,whichinclude10%construction contingenciesand22%indirectcostsforlegal,engineering,administrativeand financingitems,areasfollows: $1,700,000–Area4B $366,000–WestRiverStreet $89,000–7th/WalnutStreetIntersection $15,000–AlternateBid#1-EastBridgeParkparkinglotimprovements $91,000–AlternateBid#2-EllisonParksurfaceimprovements $6,000–AlternateBid#3-EllisonParksewerandwaterservices $2,267,000–Total Duetothelowbondrateswearecurrentlyexperiencing,staffrecommendsthe useofbondstofundtheproject.Bondpaymentswouldthenbemadeusingthe appropriatefunds. Thebiddingenvironmentforstreetimprovementprojectshasbeenveryfavorable recentlyduetotheeconomywithbidpricescominginat10%-20%lessthan similarprojectsconstructedseveralyearsago.Allindicationsarethatthis favorablebiddingenvironmentwillcontinuethisyearwhichwilllikelyresultin significantsavingsfortheCityifwemoveaheadwiththisprojectin2011. City CouncilAgenda:04/25/11 3 A2.StaffWorkloadImpact:StafffromtheEngineeringandPublicWorks DepartmentsspentaconsiderableamountoftimeworkingwithWSB& Associatestopreparetheplansandspecificationsforthisprojectandwill continuetodosoduringtheconstructionphaseoftheproject.Itshouldbenoted thatEngineeringDepartmentstaffwouldberesponsibleforprovidingfull-time constructioninspectionandthatPublicWorksDepartmentstaffwouldspenda considerableamountoftimeinspectingutilitiesconstruction. B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS: 1.MotiontoadoptResolution#2011-34approvingfinalplansandspecificationsand authorizingadvertisementforbids;andtoadoptResolution#2011-35restricting parkingonMSASsegmentsforthe2011StreetReconstructionandWalnut Street/7th StreetWestIntersectionImprovements,CityProjectNo.11C001. 2.MotiontodenyadoptionofResolutionNo.2011-34and2011-35atthistime. C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION: CitystaffrecommendsapprovingAlternative#1. D.SUPPORTINGDATA: Resolution#2011-34and#2011-35 CITYOFMONTICELLO WRIGHTCOUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTIONNO.2011-34 APPROVINGPLANSANDSPECIFICATIONSANDAUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENTFORBIDSFOR2011STREETRECONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENTS–AREA4B,WESTRIVERSTREET,AND WEST7TH STREET&WALNUTSTREETINTERSECTION CITYPROJECTNO.11C001 WHEREAS,pursuanttoresolutionsapprovedbytheCityCouncilonFebruary28,2011and March14,2011,theCityEngineerhaspreparedplansandspecificationsforthe2011Street ReconstructionProjectdescribedasfollows: Area4BincludingEastRiverStreetbetweenCedarStreetandapointapproximately 1,100feeteastofWashingtonStreet,andadjoiningstreetsbetweenEastBroadwayand EastRiverStreet;WestRiverStreetbetweentheCityballfieldsandWrightCounty Highway75;andWest7th Street&WalnutStreetintersectionimprovements. Improvementsincludereconstructionofurbanandruralsectionroadways,curbandgutter replacement,sidewalkandstormsewerconstruction,utilityimprovementsandother appurtenantwork.OptionalimprovementsincludeEastBridgeParkparkinglot reconstruction,EllisonParksurfaceimprovements,andEllisonParkutilityservice improvements. WHEREAS,theCityEngineerhaspresentedsuchplansandspecificationstotheCouncilfor approval; NOWTHEREFORE,BEITRESOLVEDBYTHECITYCOUNCILOFMONTICELLO, MINNESOTA: 1.Suchplansandspecifications,acopyofwhichisonfileintheofficeoftheCityClerk, areherebyapproved. 2.TheCityClerkshallprepareandcausetobeinsertedintheofficialpaperandintheStar Tribuneand/orConstructionBulletinanadvertisementforbiduponthemakingofsuch improvementundersuchapprovedplansandspecifications.Theadvertisementshallbe publishednolessthanthreeweeksbeforethelastdayforsubmissionofbids,onceinthe City’slegalpublicationandatleastonceineitheranewspaperpublishedinacityofthe firstclassoratradepaper.Tobeeligibleasatradepaper,apublicationshallhaveallthe qualificationsofalegalnewspaperexceptthat,insteadoftherequirementthatitshall containgeneralandlocalnews,suchtradepapershallcontainbuildingandconstruction newsofinteresttocontractorsinthisstate,amongwhomitshallhaveageneral circulation. Theadvertisementshallspecifytheworktobedone,andshallstatethatbidswillbe openedat10a.m.onMay26,2011andthattheawardofthebidandtheresponsibilityof thebidderswillbeconsideredbytheCityCouncilat7p.m.onJune13,2011inthe CouncilChambersofCityHall.Anybidderwhoseresponsibilityisquestionedduring considerationofthebidwillbegivenanopportunitytoaddresstheCouncilontheissue ofresponsibility.NobidswillbeconsideredunlesssealedandfiledwiththeClerkand accompaniedbyacashdeposit,cashier’scheck,bidbondorcertifiedcheckpayableto theCityfor5%oftheamountofsuchbid. ADOPTEDBY theMonticelloCityCouncilthis25th dayofApril,2011. CITYOFMONTICELLO _________________________________ ClintHerbst,Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ JeffO’Neill,CityAdministrator CITYOFMONTICELLO WRIGHTCOUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTIONNO.2011-35 RESTRICTINGPARKINGONONESIDEOFEASTRIVERSTREET, PALMSTREETANDWASHINGTONSTREET;AND RESTRICTINGPARKINGONBOTHSIDESOFWEST7TH STREET CITYPROJECTNO.11C001 WHEREAS,theCityofMonticellohasplannedimprovementstoEastRiverStreet,StateAid RouteNo.222-112-020,betweenPalmStreetandWashingtonStreet;and WHEREAS,theCityofMonticellohasplannedimprovementstoPalmStreet,StateAidRoute No.222-121-020,betweenEastBroadway/CSAH75andEastRiverStreet;and WHEREAS,theCityofMonticellohasplannedimprovementstoWashingtonStreet,StateAid RouteNo.222-113-010,betweenEastBroadway/CSAH75andEastRiverStreet;and WHEREAS,theCityofMonticellohasplannedimprovementstoWest7thStreet,StateAid RouteNo.222-101-040,betweenTH25andapproximately100feetwestofLocustStreet;and WHEREAS,theCityofMonticellohasorderedtheprojectforthe2011StreetReconstruction Improvements,CityProjectNo.11C001;and WHEREAS,theCityofMonticellowillbeexpendingMunicipalStateAidSystemfundson improvementstoEastRiverStreet,PalmStreet,andWashingtonStreet,includingreconditioning attheircurrentwidthsof36feet;and WHEREAS,theCityofMonticellowillbeexpendingMunicipalStateAidSystemfundson improvementstoWest7thStreet,includingaddingturnlanesandreconditioningthestreet. NOWTHEREFORE,BEITRESOLVED,thattheCityofMonticelloshallprohibittheparking ofmotorvehiclesonthenorthsideofEastRiverStreetfromPalmStreettoWashingtonStreet; and BEITFURTHERRESOLVED,thattheCityofMonticelloshallprohibittheparkingofmotor vehiclesontheeastsideofPalmStreetoverthenorthhalfoftheblockbetweenEast Broadway/CSAH75andEastRiverStreet;and BEITFURTHERRESOLVED,thattheCityofMonticelloshallprohibittheparkingofmotor vehiclesontheeastsideofWashingtonStreetfromEastBroadway/CSAH75toEastRiver Street;and BEITFURTHERRESOLVED,thattheCityofMonticelloshallprohibittheparkingofmotor vehiclesonbothsidesofWest7thStreetfromTH25toapproximately100feetwestofLocust Street. ADOPTEDBY theMonticelloCityCouncilthis25th dayofApril,2011. CITYOFMONTICELLO ClintHerbst,Mayor ATTEST: JeffO’Neill,CityAdministrator CERTIFICATION STATEOFMINNESOTA COUNTYOFWRIGHT Iherebycertifythattheforegoingisatrueandcorrectcopyofaresolutiondulypassed, adoptedandapprovedbytheMonticelloCityCouncilattheirscheduledmeetingonApril25, 2011,andrecordedinminutesofsaidmeeting. ____________________________________ JeffO’Neill,CityAdministrator NotaryPublic:_______________________________ Date:___________________________ (STAMP) CityCouncilAgenda:04/25/11 1 11.ConsiderationofadoptingResolution#2011-24andOrdinance#528amendingthe MonticelloZoningOrdinancerelatingtoAdult-OrientedLandUsesandamending theofficialMonticelloZoningMap;Applicant,CityofMonticello (NAC) A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND: AtitsApril5th,2011meeting,theMonticelloPlanningCommissioncontinuedits examinationoftheCity’sadult-orienteduseregulationsinthezoningordinance. TheCommission’sinitialdiscussionsprecedingtheAprilmeetingincludedan extensivestudyofoptionsforregulatingtheseuses,andhowtheCity’sregulations– originallyadoptedinthemid-1990s–werenolongeradequatetoprotecttheCity fromalegalchallenge. Asidentifiedinthatstudy,theCity’scurrentregulationsrestrictadult-oriented landusestotheI-2zoningdistrict.AstheCityhasgrownovertheyears,combined withchangestothelandusesaroundandwithintheI-2district,theremainingland availabletosuchusesfallsshortofwhatiscommonlyconsideredanacceptablelevel toavoidinterferingwithfreeexpressionopportunities. TheCityAttorney’shasofficeprovidedanupdatedsummaryofcasesdecidedsince theWashington (CityofRentonv.PlaytimeTheatres)SupremeCourtcase,which establishedtheoriginalbasisforregulation. Outofthatsummary,thePlanningCommissionconsideredtwooptionsfor updatingitsordinance: (1)“Buffer-PercentageApproach”:increasingtheavailableareathroughachange tothebufferdistancesinboththeI-1andI-2District (2)“OverlayDistrictApproach”:establishmentofanoverlaydistrictthatwould applytospecificparcelsinaquantityadequatetoprovideareasonablysound balancebetweenregulationandopportunityforthelocationofadultuses. Therewasnopubliccommentmadeduringthepublichearing. Afterconsideration,thePlanningCommissionvoted4-1torecommendan amendmenttotheZoningOrdinancefollowingthe“OverlayDistrictApproach”, option(2)above. Staffsupportsthisoptionasbeingtheeasiesttoadministerandmonitoroverthe longterm,theleastintrusivetoexistingpropertyowners,andlikelythemoststable astheCitygrowsoutwardinpopulationandarea. Attachedtothisreportisaproposedmapidentifyingtheparcelsthatwouldbe subjecttotheoverlaydistrict,alongwithanordinanceestablishingthe CityCouncilAgenda:04/25/11 2 amendments,andfinally,aresolutionthatproposesfindingsoffactinsupportof theordinance. TheIEDCandtheEDAhavebothhadanopportunitytoreviewandcommenton thedraftamendmentsasproposed.Bothsupportapprovalaswritten. Onlyafewchangeshavebeenmadetothisfinaldraftoftheoverlaydistrict, reflectingthePlanningCommission’sinterestinmaximizingtheprotectionofthe varioussensitiveuses,andreflectingafinalresolutionofthepropertylinesand ownershippatterns.Thesechangesareasfollows: (1)Areductioninthenumberoftotalavailableparcelsfrom43inthematerial firstconsideredbythePlanningCommissiontoamappedtotalof39parcels –stillwithinthereasonableopportunityidentifiedinthecourtdecisions providedbytheCityAttorney. (2)Thereductionof4parcelsreducestheoverallsupplyoflandfrom164acres to159acres. (3)Aresultingreductioninthepercentageofavailablelandfrom3.5%to3.4%. TheCityCouncilhasalsobeenprovidedwithamendmentlanguageandamapfor the“Buffer-PercentageApproach”forreference,althoughthisamendmentoptionis nottherecommendedalternative. Tofollowisastaffreportreviewingthetwoapproaches,whichwaspresentedtothe PlanningCommissiononApril5th,2011. TheCityhasbeenexaminingthepotentialforupdatingandamendingitsadult-oriented useregulations.Asapartofpreviousreview,thePlanningCommissionhasconsidered howsuchregulationsareviewedfrombothalanduseandlegalperspective,andthe typesofchangesthatshouldbeconsideredtobringMonticello’sregulationsinto conformancewithgenerallyacceptedrequirementsforregulationsofthiskind. Tohighlightthecurrentcondition,theCity’sexistingregulationslimitadult-oriented usestotheI-2District,andmaintaina700footbufferfromsensitiveuses.Asappliedto theCity’sI-2areas,theseusesareexclusivelyschools,parks,andresidentialzones.The codeprovidesforothersensitiveuses,buttherearenoneofthoseotherusesneartheI-2 districtproperties.ThislimitationhaslefttheCitywithan“opportunityarea”inthe rangeofjustonepercentoftheCity’susablelandarea,andjustafeweligibleparcels–a rangethatraisessignificantconcernsoverthelegalityoftheregulations. Forreference,theusablelandareaoftheCityhasbeencalculatedasthetotalgross acreage,subtractingallFederal,State,andCountyhighwayright-of-way,andsubtracting alsothelandownedbytheXcelEnergypowerplant,sinceitislargelycoveredbya bufferzonethatwouldmakeitineligibleforprivatedevelopment. CityCouncilAgenda:04/25/11 3 Fortrackingpurposes,staffhascalculatedtheusableacreagecurrentlyzonedfor commercialand/orindustrialpurposes–atotalofabout2,190acres,approximately48% oftheusabletotal.ManyofthecitiescitedbytheCityAttorneythathadpercentage areassignificantlylessthanfivepercentalsowereidentifiedashavingparticularlylow percentagesofcommercialandindustriallandusesoverall.Thisisnotnecessarilythe caseforMonticello. TheapproachtakenbymostcommunitiessubsequenttotheU.S.SupremeCourt’s1986 rulingin CityofRenton[Washington]v.PlaytimeTheatres wastodeviseregulationsthat separatedadult-orientedusesfromthoseareaswheresensitivepopulationsmightbe present(mostnotablyresidential,schools,libraries,parks,andsimilaruses).Citieshave endeavoredtomaximizetheseparationdistancefromtheseuses,whileretainingan opportunityforadult-orientedusestolocateinthecommunity,byprovidingan opportunityareaofapproximately5%ofthecity’slandarea. The Renton Court ruledthatsuchregulationsdidnotdirectlyregulatespeech(which wouldbeprotectedunderFirstAmendmentlimitations),butinsteadregulatedthe secondaryeffectsoftheadult-orienteduseonothersensitivelanduses.Inthisanalysis, solongastheCity’sregulationsprovidedareasonableopportunityforsuchusestolocate inthecommunity,theregulationscouldbeconsideredlegitimate. IntheCityAttorney’sanalysis,itisnotedthatthe5%informalthresholdhasvirtually alwaysservedasadequateevidenceof“reasonableopportunity”.Belowthislevel,a numberofcommunitieshavebeenabletodefendtheconstitutionalityoftheirregulations byshowingthatareasonableopportunitywasavailable,eventhoughtheinformally recognized5%thresholdmightnotbemet.Inmostofthosecases,thecity’sregulations providedtheopportunityforseveralparcelstobeusedforsuchbusinesses,relyingonthe numberofactualparcels,ratherthanthepercentageoftotalarea. TheCityAttorneynotesthateachofthesecasessucceededonspecificfactualscenarios. TheAttorneyfurthernotesthatwhenthecity’sregulationslimitedtheopportunityareato lessthan1%,thecasestendedtoturnoutunfavorablyforthecity. ThePlanningCommissionhasdirectedstafftoexamineopportunitiestomaximizethe separationdistancewithintheparameterssupportedbytheCity’slegalrepresentatives. Asapartofthisstudy,staffexaminedanumberofoptionsaimedatmeetingthe objectivesofthePlanningCommission,aswellasmaximizingthe“defensibility”ofthe proposedregulations. Thisreportforwardstwoofthoseoptionsasthemosteffectivechoicesforconsideration. Thesearesummarizedbelow,andadraftsetofregulationsisattached. “Buffer-PercentageApproach”-PercentageThreshold Thefirstoptionutilizesthetraditional5%thresholdapproach.Whilethisapproach createsapotentialformoreeligiblelandthanthesecondoption,theAttorney’sreport CityCouncilAgenda:04/25/11 4 highlightsthatitislikelythe“safest”approach,inregardtobeingabletodefendthe City’sordinancefromalegalchallenge.Witha275footbufferfromsensitiveuses,the currentlandusepatternwouldyieldabout236acres,or5.07%oftheCity’snetusable landareatothepotentialforadultuses.Tofollowthisapproach,theCitywouldneedto makethefollowingchanges: 1.AmendtheI-1,LightIndustrialDistricttoaddadult-orientedusesasapermitted use,withthesameconditionsintheI-2district. 2.AmendtheregulationstoprovidethatnoparcelwithfrontageonI-94wouldbe eligibleforanadult-orienteduse.Thisamendmentisintendedtoavoidthe highestprofilepropertiesadvertisingsuchactivitiestothepassingpublic. 3.Changetheregulationstoprovideforabufferdistanceof275linearfeet,reduced fromthecurrent700feet. 4.Retainallotherregulationsascurrentlyadopted. OnedifficultyhereisthatwehaveassumedthattheCitywillnotwantadult-oriented usesabuttingthefreeway,andhavecalculatedtheopportunityareawiththisassumption. Theissueisthatthefreewayisnotreallya“sensitiveuse”thatwouldbesubjecttothe negativesecondaryeffectsofadult-orienteduses.Asaresult,applyingthenormal “buffer”distanceisnotappropriate.Toresolvethisproblem,anadditionalrestriction wouldneedtobeaddedtotheI-1Districtentryrelatedtoadult-orientedusesthat specificallyprohibitstheirlocationonfreeway-abuttingparcelsasabasiczoning restriction,separatefromthe“buffering”approach. Further,toaccomplishthis,theCityAttorney’spreferredapproachwouldbetoactually createseparatezoningdistricts,ratherthantryandexcludecertainuseswithinthelimits ofazoningdistrict.Essentially,theCitywouldneedtorestructureitscurrenttwo IndustrialDistrictsintothreedistricts.Inshort,task2abovewouldbedividedintothe followingsubtasks: a.Createanew“I-3,FreewayIndustrialDistrict”whichmirrorstheusesinthe originalI-1,withnoadult-orienteduses. b.RezonepropertieswithfreewayexposuretotheI-3District(whichhastheeffect ofleafingtheminthesamepositiontheyarenow). ThisisthepreferredapproachoftheCityAttorney’soffice.Staffwasconcernedthatthe creationofanewbasezoningdistrict,changestothecurrentbasedistrict,andrezoning ofseveralparcelswouldbeconfusingtothepropertyowners,andcumbersometo administer.Asaresult,asecondoptionwasdevelopedthatreliesonthe“numberof eligibleadult-orientedparcels”approachwhichhasbeenupheldinsomeofthecases citedbytheAttorney.Thatoptionisdescribedbelow. “OverlayDistrictApproach”-NumberofParcels Thisapproachessentiallycreatesabufferofvariabledistancebyestablishingan ordinancethatallowsadult-orientedusesonlyonparcelsthat don’tabut sensitiveuse CityCouncilAgenda:04/25/11 5 parcels,overlayingportionsofboththeI-1andI-2Districts.Thus,theI-1andI-2 Districtswouldprovidefortheopportunityforadult-orienteduseonparcelsthatdonot shareacommonpropertylinewithparcelszonedorusedforresidential,school,orpark Inaddition,theoverlaydistrictwouldbeappliedonlytothoseparcelsthatrelyon internalstreetaccess,anddonothaveexposuretotheinterstatefreeway.Thenetresult ofthisapproachwouldbeapercentageofabout3.5%oftheCity’stotalarea,atotalofas manyas43separateparcelsavailable,andabout164acresofavailablelandarea.This wouldbeoutofabout4,680buildableacresintheCity,ofwhichabout2,560acresofare currentlyzonedcommercialorindustrial. Theneteffectofthisapproachisaslightreductioninthepercentagearea,althoughstill about3.5%.Italsohastheeffectofincreasingthebufferinmostareas,sinceitfollows propertylinesratherthanafixeddistance.Itisstaff’sopinionthatwhilethepercentage dropsbelowthe5%targetthreshold,thenumberofavailableparcelsprovidesfora reasonableopportunityforadult-orienteduseswhilebalancingtheCity’sinterestin protectingthesensitivelandusesfromthesecondaryeffectsofthoseuses. Asnoted,theseparationdistancesvary,sincetheyaredependentonlocationofproperty lines.Thefollowingtableshowstheleastseparationdistancetovariouslandusetypes: LandUse Distance Location SingleFamilyResidential394ft.GrovelandSubdivisionatChelseaRoad MultipleFamilyResidential271ft.GoldenEagleLane(340ft.tobldg.) PublicPark493ft.BertramLakesnearChelseaRoad PublicSchool698ft.NWcornerofLittleMountainatFallon TheCityAttorney’sofficeendorsesthisapproachasbeingconsistentwithcaseswhere restrictionshavebeensuccessfullydefended.Theprimaryconcerninthisregardisthat theparcelschosenforinclusiondonotcreateaconcernover“spotzoning”.Thismeans thattheCitymustbecarefultocreateregulationsthatpermitsuchusesinlargerblocksof landarea,ratherthanaseriesofscattered,detachedparcelsthatmaysuggest incompatiblelandusepatterns. Stepstoaccomplishthisapproacharesomewhatproblematic,sincetheCitywouldhave tomapaspecificarea,ratherthanjustrelyonabufferdistancetodefinethepotential area.Moreover,thisapproachwouldnotchangeovertime–abenefitinthatitismore predictable,butpotentiallynegativeiftheCitydoesnotmonitortheintroductionofnew uses–suchasacommercialdaycareoperation–intothedistrict. Toimplementthisapproach,theCitywouldneedtodothefollowing: 1.Removeadult-orientedusesasapermittedusefromtheI-2basedistrictlanguage. CityCouncilAgenda:04/25/11 6 2.Amendthecurrentadultuseregulationstostandaloneasaseparateoverlay zoningdistrict,withthechosenoverlaydistricttitle. 3.Mapandadopttheoverlaydistrictforthedesignatedarea. Whilethechangestothecurrentordinancearesomewhatmoreextensive(duetothe creationoftheoverlaydistrict,andtransferoftheadult-orienteduselanguageintothat sectionfromitscurrentlocations),thisapproachendsupbeingleastdisruptivetocurrent propertyowners.Thepermittedusesofthebasedistrictdonotchangesignificantly,and propertieswouldnotneedtoberezonedtoreflectdistrictlanguagechanges. Itshouldbenotedthatwithadoptionofeitherordinanceamendmentalternative, InterimOrdinance#524willbeautomaticallyrepealed. B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS: 1.MotiontoapproveResolution#2011-24andtoapproveOrdinance#528,an amendmenttotheMonticelloZoningOrdinanceforAdult-OrientedLandUses andanamendmenttotheOfficialMonticelloZoningMapbasedonthe“Overlay District”-NumberofParcelsapproachwithamendmentstocreatea“SpecialUse” overlayzoningdistrictandchangestotheOfficialMonticelloZoningMapas notedinthisreport. 2.Motiontoapprovethe“Buffer-PercentageThreshold”approachwitha275foot bufferzone,additionofadult-orientedusestotheI-1District,andother amendmentsasnotedinthisreport. Amotiontoapprovethe“percentagethreshold”approachwillrequirethe preparationofanewresolutionwithfindingsoffacttosupportsuchapproval. ThisresolutionwouldthenbepresentedforapprovalatasubsequentCouncil meeting. 3.MotiontodenyResolution#2011-24andOrdinance#528atthistime. C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION: ThePlanningCommissionrecommendsAlternative#1above.Staffrecommends amendmentstotheCity’sadult-orienteduseregulations,duetotheconcernsthatthe currentregulations,includingthe700footbufferlimitationofadultusestotheI-2 Districtonly,andthechangestotheCity’slandusepatternovertime,haveresultedin overlyrestrictiveregulationsofsuchuses,leadingtothepossibilitythattherestrictions mightbesubjecttolegalchallenge. ConsistentwiththePlanningCommission,staffrecommendsthesecond“Overlay District”approach–effectivelycreatingabufferbymappingaspecificsetofparcelsthat ensuresnoadult-orientedusecouldbelocatedonaparcelthatabutsasensitiveusearea, andalsoensuringthatnofreewayfrontagewouldbeusedforsuchbusinesses.This CityCouncilAgenda:04/25/11 7 optionprovidesformorethan40individualparcels,approximately3.5%oftheCity’s landarea.Itrequiresthecreationofanoverlaydistricttomaptheallowablearea. Staffprefersthe“overlaydistrict”approachforthefollowingreasons: Itavoidsreconfiguringandrezoningbasedistrictsforexistingindustrial properties. Itmaintainsareasonableamountofopportunity(3.5%ofarea,andmorethan40 individualparcels). Itavoidsfreewayexposure,preservingthatforhigheruses,consistentwiththe City’seconomicdevelopmentinterests. Itmaintainsabetterseparationfromnearlyallexistingsensitiveuselocations. Theoverlayapproachcanbemoreeasilymanipulatedinthefuturetomaintain reasonableopportunityandadjustforchanginglandusepatterns. EitherapproachissupportedbytheCityAttorney’soffice. Undereitheramendmentoption,staffwouldrecommendroutinemonitoringoftheadult- orienteduseopportunityarea.Changesinlandusepattern,businesslocation,andmany otherfactorscanaffecttheenforceabilityoftheCity’sregulationsovertime. D.SUPPORTINGDATA: Ordinance#528–Recommendedamendment:“OverlayDistrict”approach Ordinance#528–Alternativeamendment:“Buffer-Percentage”approach Resolution#2011-24–FindingsofFact ExhibitA-PlanningCommissionReport,dated2/1/11 ExhibitB-February1,2011PlanningCommissionMinutes ExhibitC-PlanningCommissionReport,dated3/1/11 ExhibitD-March1,2011PlanningCommissionMinutes ExhibitE-NorthwestAssociatedConsultantsOpportunityAreaAnalysis,dated1/26/11 ExhibitF-CityAttorney’sMemo,dated2/23/11 ExhibitG-Map–“OverlayDistrictApproach” ExhibitH-Map–“Buffer-PercentageApproach” ExhibitI-InterimOrdinance#524 ORDINANCENO.528 (OverlayDistrictOption) CITYOFMONTICELLO WRIGHTCOUNTY,MINNESOTA ANORDINANCEAMENDINGSECTIONCHAPTER3ANDCHAPTER5,SECTION 3.2(B),TABLE3-2,OVERLAYZONINGDISTRICTS;SECTION3.7,OVERLAY ZONINGDISRICTS;SECTION5.1,TABLE5-1,USESBYDISTRICT;AND DELETINGSECTION5.2(F)(1),ADULTUSES;OFTHEMONTICELLOCITYCODE, KNOWNASTHEZONINGORDINANCE,BYPROVIDINGFORTHE ESTABLISHMENTOFANOVERLAYZONINGDISTRICTFORTHEPROVISION ANDREGULATIONOFADULT-ORIENTEDLANDUSES,ANDAMENDMENTSTO THEOFFICIALZONINGMAPREFLECTINGTHEAPPLICATIONOFSUCH OVERLAYDISTRICTTOSPECIFICPROPERTIESASDESIGNATEDHEREIN. THECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFMONTICELLOHEREBYORDAINS: Section1.Section3.2(B),Table3-2isherebyamendedtoreadasfollows: TABLE3-2:OVERLAYZONINGDISTRICTS TABLE3-2:OVERLAYZONINGDISTRICTS Abbreviation DistrictName FP FloodPlainDistrict W WetlandDistrict SH ShorelandDistrict FBS FreewayBonusSignDistrict DW DrinkingWaterSupplyManagementAreaDistrict PB PerformanceBasedEnhancementDistrict SU SpecialUseOverlayDistrict CCD-R CCDResidentialOverlayDistrict Section2.Section3.7isherebyamendedtoaddthefollowing: (J)SpecialUseOverlayDistrict (1)RestrictionsonAdultUses Withtheadoptionofthisordinance,theCityofMonticelloexercisesitsauthorityunder Minn.Stat.617.242Subd.7anddeclaresthattheseregulationssupercedetheprovisions ofMinn.Stat.617.242.Assuch,adultusesasdefinedinthisordinanceshallbesubject tothefollowinggeneralprovisions: (a)AdultUse–PrincipalactivitiesshallbepermittedonlyinthoseareaswiththeBOTH requiredbasezoningdesignationandtheSpecialUseOverlayDistrictdesignation. (b)ActivitiesclassifiedasobsceneasdefinedbyMinnesotaStatute617.241arenot permittedandareprohibited. (c)Anadultusewhichdoesnotqualifyasanaccessoryuseshallbeclassifiedasanadult use/principal. ORDINANCENO.528 (OverlayDistrictOption) (d)Adultuse/principalactivitiesshallbeprohibitedfromlocatinginanybuildingwhich isalsoutilizedforresidentialpurposes. (e)Adultuse/principalactivitiesshallnotbelocatedonanyparcelthatabutsorsharesa propertylinewithanyofthefollowingparcelsorlanduses: 1.Residentiallyzonedproperty; 2.AgriculturallandlocatedintheneighboringtownshiporintheCitythatis designatedinthecomprehensiveplanforresidentialuse; 3.Alicenseddaycarecenter; 4.Apublicorprivateeducationalfacilityclassifiedasanelementary,middle,junior high,orseniorhighschool; 5.Apubliclibrary; 6.Apublicpark; 7.Achurch; 8.Amusementplacessuchasrollerrinks,dancehalls,andbowlingalleys; 9.Liquorsales; (f)Adultuse/principalactivitiesshallbelocatedatleastfourhundred(400)radialfeet apartasmeasuredfromoneanother. (g)Adultuse/principalactivityisaseparateuseandnotwoadultuse/principalactivities shallbelocatedinthesamebuildingoruponthesamepropertyandeachuseshallbe subjecttoalloftherequirementsofthissection. (h)Adultuse/principalactivitiesshalladheretothefollowingsigningregulations: 1.Signmessagesshallbegenericinnatureandshallonlyidentifythetypeof businesswhichisbeingconducted; 2.Signmessagesshallnotcontainmaterialclassifiedasadvertising; 3.Signmessagesshallcomplywiththerequirementsofsizeandnumberforthe districtinwhichtheyarelocated (i)Adultuse/principalactivitiesshallbeprohibitedinestablishmentswhereliquoris served. (j)Adultuse/principalactivitiesshallbeprohibitedatanyplaceoreventwhereminors arepermitted. (2)Adult-OrientedUses–Accessory (a)Adultuse/accessoryactivitiesshallallowedonlyasregulatedbySection5.3(D)(4). ORDINANCENO.528 (OverlayDistrictOption) Section3.Section5.1,Table5-1isherebyamendedtoreadasfollows: TABLE5-1:USESBYDISTRICT UseTypes “P”=Permitted “C”=ConditionallyPermitted “I”=InterimPermitted BaseZoningDistricts Additional RequirementsA O R A R 1 R 2 T N R 3 M H B 1 B 2 B 3 B 4 C C D I B C I 1 I 2 I 3 AgriculturalUses Agriculture P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 5.2(B)(1) AgriculturalSales P 5.2(B)(2) CommunityGardens P P P P P P P P P 5.2(B)(3) Stables C 5.2(B)(4) ResidentialUses 5.2(C)(1) AttachedDwellingTypes 5.2(C)(2)(a) -Duplex P 5.2(C)(2)(b) -Townhouse C P 5.2(C)(2)(c) -Multiple-Family C P C P 5.2(C)(2)(d) DetachedDwelling P P P P P P None GroupResidentialFacility, SingleFamily P P P P P 5.2(C)(3) GroupResidentialFacility, Multi-family P P 5.2(C)(3) Mobile&ManufacturedHome/ HomePark C C P C C 5.2(C)(4) Civic&InstitutionalUses ActiveParkFacilities(public)P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P None ActiveParkFacilities(private)P P P P P P P 5.2(D)(1) AssistedLivingFacilities C P C P C 5.2(D)(2) Cemeteries C C C C C C 5.2(D)(3) Clinics C P P P C None EssentialServices P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P None Hospitals C P P P C 5.2(D)(4) Nursing/ConvalescentHome C C C C C C C C P P P 5.2(D)(5) PassengerTerminal C C C C C None PassiveParksandOpenSpace P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P None PublicBuildingsorUses C C C C C C P C C P P P C P P P 5.2(D)(6) Schools,K-12 C C C C P C I I I 5.2(D)(7) Schools,HigherEducation C C None PlaceofPublicAssembly C C C C P C 5.2(D)(8) Utilities(major)C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C 5.2(D)(9) ORDINANCENO.528 (OverlayDistrictOption) TABLE5-1:USESBYDISTRICT UseTypes “P”=Permitted “C”=ConditionallyPermitted “I”=InterimPermitted BaseZoningDistricts Additional RequirementsA O R A R 1 R 2 T N R 3 M H B 1 B 2 B 3 B 4 C C D I B C I 1 I 2 I 3 OfficeUses Offices P P P P P P P P 5.2(E) CommercialUses AdultUses P P 3.7(J) AuctionHouse C C 5.2(F)(2) AutoRepair –Minor C C C P P P 5.2(F)(3) AutomotiveWashFacilities P C C 5.2(F)(4) Bed&Breakfasts C C C C C 5.2(F)(5) BoardingHouse C 5.2(F)(6) BusinessSupportServices P P P P P P none Communications/Broadcasting P P P P P 5.2(F)(7) ConvenienceStores C P P P 5.2(F)(8) CountryClub C 5.2(F)(9) DayCareCenters C C P P P C C 5.2(F)(10) Entertainment/Recreation, IndoorCommercial P P C C C none Entertainment/Recreation, OutdoorCommercial C C C C 5.2(F)(11) FinancialInstitution P P P 5.2(F)(12) FuneralHomes P P P 5.2(F)(13) HotelsorMotels C P C P 5.2(F)(14) Kennels(commercial)C 5.2(F)(15) Landscaping/NurseryBusiness P 5.2(F)(16) PersonalServices C P P P 5.2(F)(17) RecreationalVehicleCampSite C 5.2(F)(18) RepairEstablishment C P P P P P P 5.2(F)(19) Restaurants C P P C 5.2(F)(20) RetailCommercialUses(other)P P P 5.2(F)(21) SpecialtyEatingEstablishments C P P P none VehicleFuelSales C C C C 5.2(F)(22) VehicleSalesandRental C C 5.2(F)(23) VeterinaryFacilities(Rural)C 5.2(F)(24) VeterinaryFacilities (Neighborhood)C C C C 5.2(F)(24) WholesaleSales P P P P None ORDINANCENO.528 (OverlayDistrictOption) TABLE5-1:USESBYDISTRICT UseTypes “P”=Permitted “C”=ConditionallyPermitted “I”=InterimPermitted BaseZoningDistricts Additional Requiremen tsA O R A R 1 R 2 T N R 3 M H B 1 B 2 B 3 B 4 C C D I B C I 1 I 2 I 3 IndustrialUses AutoRepair –Major C P P P 5.2(G)(1) BulkFuelSalesandStorage P P P 5.2(G)(2) ExtractionofMaterials I I I I 5.2(G)(3) GeneralWarehousing C C P P P 5.2(G)(4) HeavyManufacturing C 5.2(G)(5) IndustrialServices C P C 5.2(G)(9) LandReclamation C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C 5.2(G)(6) LightManufacturing C P P P P 5.2(G)(7) Machinery/TruckRepair&Sales P P P 5.2(G)(9) RecyclingandSalvageCenter C C C 5.2(G)(10) SelfStorageFacilities P C P P 5.2(G)(11) TruckorFreightTerminal C P P P 5.2(G)(12) WasteDisposal&Incineration C 5.2(G)(13) WreckerServices C P 5.2(G)(14) Section4.Section5.2(F)(1)isherebydeletedandshallbemarked“Reserved”. Section5.TheOfficialZoningMapoftheCityofMonticelloisherebyamendedby applyingtheSP-U,SpecialUsesOverlayDistricttothefollowingdescribed parcels.Thebasezoningdistrictsofthesubjectparcelsshallnotbeaffectedby thisOrdinance.TheCityClerkisherebydirectedtomarktheOfficialZoning Mapandrepublishitinitsentirety. ORDINANCENO.528 (OverlayDistrictOption) ADULTLANDUSEPARCELS Parcel Count PINAcreage 11550180010112.45 21550180010122.64 31550180010202.47 41550180010212.47 51550180010302.43 61550180010312.43 71550180020207.16 81550180020305.58 91550180020311.90 101550180020407.58 111550180020504.21 121550180020603.08 131550180020612.22 141550180020703.00 151550180020807.46 161550380010100.74 171550380010200.69 181550380010300.69 191550600010101.21 201550600010201.37 211550600010301.93 221550600010402.33 231550600010503.27 241550920020102.00 251551310010103.15 261551310010202.00 271551310010302.00 2815517100005034.12 291551910010103.75 301551940000206.67 311551940000305.00 321551810010108.65 331551880010102.14 341551880010201.28 351551910000101.19 361551910000201.83 3715519100003012.25 381551940000405.01 391555001412000.17 ORDINANCENO.528 (OverlayDistrictOption) Section6.ThisOrdinanceshalltakeeffectandbeinfullforcefromandafteritspassageand publication.RevisionswillbemadeonlineafteradoptionbyCouncil. ADOPTEDBY theMonticelloCityCouncilthis25th dayofApril,2011. CITYOFMONTICELLO ______________________________ ClintHerbst,Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ JeffO’Neill,CityAdministrator VOTINGINFAVOR: VOTINGINOPPOSITION: ORDINANCENO.528 (Buffer-PercentageOption) CITYOFMONTICELLO WRIGHTCOUNTY,MINNESOTA ANORDINANCEAMENDINGCHAPTERS3AND5,SECTION3.2,BASEZONING DISTRICTS;SECTION3.6INDUSTRIALBASEZONINGDISTRICTS;SECTION5.1, USETABLE;SECTION5.2(F)(1)ADULTUSES;OFTHEMONTICELLOCITY CODE,KNOWNASTHEZONINGORDINANCE,BYPROVIDINGFOR AMENDMENTSESTABLISHINGAFREEWAYINDUSTRIALDISTRICTAND AMENDINGTHECITY’SREGULATIONOFADULT-ORIENTEDLANDUSESAND AMENDINGTHEOFFICIALZONINGMAPREZONINGCERTAINPROPERTIESAS DESIGNATEDHEREIN. THECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFMONTICELLOHEREBYORDAINS: Section1.Section3.2isherebyamendedtoreadasfollows: Table3-1:BASEZONINGDISTRICTS TABLE3-1:BASEZONINGDISTRICTS Abbreviation DistrictName ResidentialDistricts A-O AgriculturalOpenDistrict R-A ResidentialAmenitiesDistrict R-1 SingleFamilyResidentialDistrict R-2 SingleandTwoFamilyResidentialDistrict T-N TraditionalNeighborhoodDistrict R-3 MediumDensityResidentialDistrict M-H Mobile&ManufacturedHomeParkDistrict BusinessDistricts B-1 NeighborhoodBusinessDistrict B-2 LimitedBusinessDistrict B-3 HighwayBusinessDistrict B-4 RegionalBusinessDistrict CCD CentralCommunityDistrict IndustrialDistricts IBC IndustrialandBusinessCampusDistrict I-1 LightIndustrialDistrict I-2 HeavyIndustrialDistrict I-3 FreewayLightIndustrialDistrict Section2.Chapter3isherebyamendedtoaddthefollowing: Section3.6(F)FreewayLightIndustrialDistrict ORDINANCENO.528 Section3.6(F) I-3 FreewayLightIndustrialDistrict Thepurposeofthe"I-3,"Freewaylight industrial,districtistoprovideforthe establishmentofwarehousingandlight industrialdevelopment. BaseLotArea Minimum=20,000square BaseLotWidth Minimum=100feet Typical I-3 LotConfiguration ORDINANCENO.528 (Buffer-PercentageOption) FreewayLightIndustrialDistrict 3,"Freewaylight industrial,districtistoprovideforthe establishmentofwarehousingandlight Minimum=20,000square feet Typical I-1 BuildingTypes ) FreewayLightIndustrialDistrict BuildingTypes ORDINANCENO.528 TABLE3 REQUIREDYARDS(infeet)[1] Front Interior Side AllUses 3015 [1]:Whenanyyardabutsaz be50feet. [2]:Multi-storybuildingsmaybeallowedasaconditionalusepursuantto strictadherencetofiresafetycodeprovisionsasspecifiedbytheInternationalBuildingCodeasadopted in Title4,Chapter1 Accessory Structures See Section5.3(B) Other Regulations toConsult (notall inclusive) Section3.3,CommonDistrictRequirements Section3.6(B),StandardsApplicabletoAllIndustrialBaseZoningDistricts Section4.1,LandscapingandScreeningStandards Section4.5,Signs Section4.8,Off Section4.9,Off Section4.11,BuildingMaterials ORDINANCENO.528 (Buffer-PercentageOption) TABLE3-16:I-3 DEVELOPMENTSTANDARDS REQUIREDYARDS(infeet)[1]MaxHeight(stories /feet) MaxFloorArea Ratio(FAR)Street Side Rear 30 15 2stories 30feet[2](Reserved) WhenanyyardabutsazoningdistrictotherthanI-1,I-2,orI-3,thesetbacksfortheabuttingyardmust storybuildingsmaybeallowedasaconditionalusepursuantto Section2.4(D) strictadherencetofiresafetycodeprovisionsasspecifiedbytheInternationalBuildingCodeasadopted Title4,Chapter1 oftheMonticelloCityCode. Section5.3(B)forallgeneralstandardsandlimitationsonaccessorystructures. Section3.3,CommonDistrictRequirements Section3.6(B),StandardsApplicabletoAllIndustrialBaseZoningDistricts Section4.1,LandscapingandScreeningStandards Section4.5,Signs Section4.8,Off-StreetParking Section4.9,Off-StreetLoading Section4.11,BuildingMaterials ) DEVELOPMENTSTANDARDS MaxFloorArea Ratio(FAR) MaxImpervious(% ofgrosslotarea) (Reserved)(Reserved) ,thesetbacksfortheabuttingyardmust Section2.4(D)contingentupon strictadherencetofiresafetycodeprovisionsasspecifiedbytheInternationalBuildingCodeasadopted forallgeneralstandardsandlimitationsonaccessorystructures. Section3.6(B),StandardsApplicabletoAllIndustrialBaseZoningDistricts ORDINANCENO.528 (Buffer-PercentageOption) Section3.Section5.1,Table5-1isherebyamendedtoreadasfollows: TABLE5-1:USESBYDISTRICT UseTypes “P”=Permitted “C”=ConditionallyPermitted “I”=InterimPermitted BaseZoningDistricts Additional RequirementsA O R A R 1 R 2 T N R 3 M H B 1 B 2 B 3 B 4 C C D I B C I 1 I 2 I 3 AgriculturalUses Agriculture P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 5.2(B)(1) AgriculturalSales P 5.2(B)(2) CommunityGardens P P P P P P P P P 5.2(B)(3) Stables C 5.2(B)(4) ResidentialUses 5.2(C)(1) AttachedDwellingTypes 5.2(C)(2)(a) -Duplex P 5.2(C)(2)(b) -Townhouse C P 5.2(C)(2)(c) -Multiple-Family C P C P 5.2(C)(2)(d) DetachedDwelling P P P P P P None GroupResidentialFacility, SingleFamily P P P P P 5.2(C)(3) GroupResidentialFacility, Multi-family P P 5.2(C)(3) Mobile&ManufacturedHome/ HomePark C C P C C 5.2(C)(4) Civic&InstitutionalUses ActiveParkFacilities(public)P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P None ActiveParkFacilities(private)P P P P P P P 5.2(D)(1) AssistedLivingFacilities C P C P C 5.2(D)(2) Cemeteries C C C C C C 5.2(D)(3) Clinics C P P P C None EssentialServices P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P None Hospitals C P P P C 5.2(D)(4) Nursing/ConvalescentHome C C C C C C C C P P P 5.2(D)(5) PassengerTerminal C C C C C None PassiveParksandOpenSpace P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P None PublicBuildingsorUses C C C C C C P C C P P P C P P P 5.2(D)(6) Schools,K-12 C C C C P C I I I 5.2(D)(7) Schools,HigherEducation C C None PlaceofPublicAssembly C C C C P C 5.2(D)(8) Utilities(major)C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C 5.2(D)(9) ORDINANCENO.528 (Buffer-PercentageOption) TABLE5-1:USESBYDISTRICT UseTypes “P”=Permitted “C”=ConditionallyPermitted “I”=InterimPermitted BaseZoningDistricts Additional RequirementsA O R A R 1 R 2 T N R 3 M H B 1 B 2 B 3 B 4 C C D I B C I 1 I 2 I 3 OfficeUses Offices P P P P P P P P 5.2(E) CommercialUses AdultUses P P 5.2(F)(1) AuctionHouse C C 5.2(F)(2) AutoRepair –Minor C C C P P P 5.2(F)(3) AutomotiveWashFacilities P C C 5.2(F)(4) Bed&Breakfasts C C C C C 5.2(F)(5) BoardingHouse C 5.2(F)(6) BusinessSupportServices P P P P P P none Communications/Broadcasting P P P P P 5.2(F)(7) ConvenienceStores C P P P 5.2(F)(8) CountryClub C 5.2(F)(9) DayCareCenters C C P P P C C 5.2(F)(10) Entertainment/Recreation, IndoorCommercial P P C C C none Entertainment/Recreation, OutdoorCommercial C C C C 5.2(F)(11) FinancialInstitution P P P 5.2(F)(12) FuneralHomes P P P 5.2(F)(13) HotelsorMotels C P C P 5.2(F)(14) Kennels(commercial)C 5.2(F)(15) Landscaping/NurseryBusiness P 5.2(F)(16) PersonalServices C P P P 5.2(F)(17) RecreationalVehicleCampSite C 5.2(F)(18) RepairEstablishment C P P P P P P 5.2(F)(19) Restaurants C P P C 5.2(F)(20) RetailCommercialUses(other)P P P 5.2(F)(21) SpecialtyEatingEstablishments C P P P none VehicleFuelSales C C C C 5.2(F)(22) VehicleSalesandRental C C 5.2(F)(23) VeterinaryFacilities(Rural)C 5.2(F)(24) VeterinaryFacilities (Neighborhood)C C C C 5.2(F)(24) WholesaleSales P P P P none ORDINANCENO.528 (Buffer-PercentageOption) TABLE5-1:USESBYDISTRICT UseTypes “P”=Permitted “C”=ConditionallyPermitted “I”=InterimPermitted BaseZoningDistricts Additional Requiremen tsA O R A R 1 R 2 T N R 3 M H B 1 B 2 B 3 B 4 C C D I B C I 1 I 2 I 3 IndustrialUses AutoRepair –Major C P P P 5.2(G)(1) BulkFuelSalesandStorage P P P 5.2(G)(2) ExtractionofMaterials I I I I 5.2(G)(3) GeneralWarehousing C C P P P 5.2(G)(4) HeavyManufacturing C 5.2(G)(5) IndustrialServices C P C 5.2(G)(9) LandReclamation C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C 5.2(G)(6) LightManufacturing C P P P P 5.2(G)(7) Machinery/TruckRepair&Sales P P P 5.2(G)(9) RecyclingandSalvageCenter C C C 5.2(G)(10) SelfStorageFacilities P C P P 5.2(G)(11) TruckorFreightTerminal C P P P 5.2(G)(12) WasteDisposal&Incineration C 5.2(G)(13) WreckerServices C P 5.2(G)(14) Section4.Section5.2(F)(1)isherebyamendedtoreadasfollows: (1)AdultUses (a)Purpose The“AdultUses”classificationwasestablishedtoprovide providesfor theopportunity foroperationand establishmentandoperation ofadult-oriented landusesasdefinedand regulatedbythisCode.Thepurposeoftheseregulationsistolimitthepotentialfor negativesecondaryimpactsontheneighborhoodinwhichanadult-orienteduseistobe located.whileprovidingcontrolsthatlimitnegativeimpactsofadultusesonresidential andcommercialareas.Alladultusesshalladheretothefollowingregulations: (b)AnalysisofAppropriateness (i)SoastoprovidespecificopportunityforadultusestoexistwithintheCityof Monticello,ananalysisoftheexistingCityordinancetextandmaphasbeen conducted.ItwasdeterminedthattheI-2zoneddistrictsprovidedthemost appropriatezonestoaccommodateadultusesclassifiedasprincipalactivity.Only amendmentstotheI-2textare,therefore,proposedtoaccommodateadult uses/principal.PrincipaladultusesarepermittedonlyintheI-2zoneddistricts. ORDINANCENO.528 (Buffer-PercentageOption) (ii)Table5-3providesaninitialbasisfordeterminingadultprincipal useopportunity withintheCityofMonticello. TABLE5-3:AVAILABLEACRESFORALLOWABLEADULTUSES WITHINTHECITY TotalDevelopableAcres[1]I-2ZonedAcres PercentofCity 2,511 137 5% [1]:AreacalculationsdonotincludeundevelopablepropertyownedbyNSP(XcelEnergy),City,GolfClub,or SchoolDistrict (iii)Table5-4providesananalysisofallowedopportunityforadultusesarea withintheidentifiedI-2zonedacres. TABLE 5-4:AVAILABLEACRESFORALLOWABLEADULTUSES WITHINIDENTIFIEDI-2ZONEDACRES RequiredSeparationfrom ResidentialandCommercialAreas I-2ZonedAcresoutsideofthe Residential andCommercialbuffer PercentofCity 700feet 59 2.35%[1] [1]:Ingeneralterms,theI-2zoneddistrictprovidesadequatepotentialforadultuseswithintheCity.Adultuses arethereforerestrictedtotheI-2district. (c)(b)RestrictionsonAdultUses Withtheadoptionofthisordinance,theCityofMonticelloexercisesitsauthorityunder Minn.Stat.617.242Subd.7anddeclaresthattheseregulationssupercedetheprovisions ofMinn.Stat.617.242.Assuch,adultusesasdefinedinthisordinanceshallbesubject tothefollowinggeneralprovisions: (i)ActivitiesclassifiedasobsceneasdefinedbyMinnesotaStatute617.241arenot permittedandareprohibited. (ii)Anadultusewhichdoesnotqualifyasanaccessoryuseshallbeclassifiedasanadult use/principal. (iii)Adultuse/principalactivitiesshallbeprohibitedfromlocatinginanybuildingwhich isalsoutilizedforresidentialpurposes. (iv)Adultuse/principalactivitiesshallbelocatedatleastseven two hundredseventyfive (700)(275)radialfeet,asmeasuredinastraightlinefromthebuildinguponwhich theadultuse/principalislocatedtothepropertylineofthefollowing: 1.Residentiallyzonedproperty; 2.AgriculturallandlocatedintheneighboringtownshiporintheCitythatis designatedinthecomprehensiveplanforresidentialuse; 3.Alicenseddaycarecenter; 4.Apublicorprivateeducationalfacilityclassifiedasanelementary,middle,junior high,orseniorhighschool; 5.Apubliclibrary; ORDINANCENO.528 (Buffer-PercentageOption) 6.Apublicpark; 7.Achurch; 8.Amusementplacessuchasrollerrinks,dancehalls,andbowlingalleys; 9.Liquorsales; (v)Adultuse/principalactivitiesshallbelocatedatleastfourhundred(400)radialfeet apartasmeasuredfromoneanother. (vi)Adultuse/principalactivityisaseparateuseandnotwoadultuse/principalactivities shallbelocatedinthesamebuildingoruponthesamepropertyandeachuseshallbe subjecttotheabove. (vii)Adultuse/principalactivitiesshalladheretothefollowingsigningregulations: 1.Signmessagesshallbegenericinnatureandshallonlyidentifythetypeof businesswhichisbeingconducted; 2.Signmessagesshallnotcontainmaterialclassifiedasadvertising; 3.Signmessagesshallcomplywiththerequirementsofsizeandnumberforthe districtinwhichtheyarelocated (viii)Adultuse/principalactivitiesshallbeprohibitedinestablishmentswhereliquoris served. (ix)Adultuse/principalactivitiesshallbeprohibitedatanyplaceoreventwhereminors arepermitted. (c)Adult-OrientedUses–Accessory (i)Adultuse/accessoryactivitiesshallbeallowedonlyasregulatedinSection5.3(D)(4). Section5.TheOfficialZoningMapoftheCityofMonticelloisherebyamendedby rezoningthefollowingdescribedparcelsfromI-1,LightIndustrialtoI-3, FreewayLightIndustrial.TheCityClerkisherebydirectedtomarktheOfficial ZoningMapandrepublishitinitsentirety. ORDINANCENO.528 (Buffer-PercentageOption) ADULTLANDUSEPARCELS Parcel Count PINAcreage 11550180010112.45 21550180010122.64 31550180010202.47 41550180010212.47 51550180010302.43 61550180010312.43 71550180020207.16 81550180020305.58 91550180020311.90 101550180020407.58 111550180020504.21 121550180020603.08 131550180020612.22 141550180020703.00 151550180020807.46 161550380010100.74 171550380010200.69 181550380010300.69 191550600010101.21 201550600010201.37 211550600010301.93 221550600010402.33 231550600010503.27 241550920020102.00 251551310010103.15 261551310010202.00 271551310010302.00 2815517100005034.12 291551910010103.75 301551940000206.67 311551940000305.00 321551810010108.65 331551880010102.14 341551880010201.28 351551910000101.19 361551910000201.83 3715519100003012.25 381551940000405.01 391555001412000.17 ORDINANCENO.528 (Buffer-PercentageOption) Section6.ThisOrdinanceshalltakeeffectandbeinfullforcefromandafteritspassageand publication.RevisionswillbemadeonlineafteradoptionbyCouncil. ADOPTEDBY theMonticelloCityCouncilthis25th dayofApril,2011. CITYOFMONTICELLO ______________________________ ClintHerbst,Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ JeffO’Neill,CityAdministrator VOTINGINFAVOR: VOTINGINOPPOSITION: CITYOFMONTICELLO WRIGHTCOUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTIONNO.2011-24 ADOPTINGFINDINGSOFFACTINSUPPORTOFANORDINANCEREGULATING THELOCATIONANDOPERATIONOFADULT-ORIENTEDLANDUSESINTHE CITYOFMONTICELLOTHROUGHTHECREATIONANDAPPLICATIONOFAN OVERLAYZONINGDISTRICTTOBEKNOWNASTHE “SPECIALUSEOVERLAYDISTRICT.” WHEREAS,theCityofMonticellohaspreviouslyconsideredstudiesofthepotentialimpactsof adult-orientedbusinessesonvariouslandusesinacommunity;and WHEREAS,saidstudiesconcludedthatadult-orientedbusinesseshavebeenassociatedwith increasedcrimeratesanddepressionofpropertyvaluesinthesurroundingarea;and WHEREAS,theCityfindsthatadult-orientedlanduseshavebeenshowntohavethepotentialto havenegativesecondaryimpactsoncertainsensitivelanduses,distinctfromothercommercial uses;and WHEREAS,thosesensitivelandusesincludeparklands,schools,religiousinstitutions, residentialneighborhoods,libraries,andsimilaruseswherechildrenmaycommonlycongregate; and WHEREAS,saidstudieshaveconcludedthattheincidenceofthesenegativeimpactsdecreases asthedistancefromtheadult-orienteduseincreases;and WHEREAS,inaccordancewiththesestudies,andwiththeCity’spreviousregulationofadult- orienteduses,thatitisappropriatetoreviewsaidpreviousregulations;and WHEREAS,sincetheregulationswereoriginallyadopted,theCity’slandusepatternshave changed,andtheCityhasgrowninbothareaandpopulation;and WHEREAS,withsuchgrowth,theoriginalregulationsrequireamendmenttoremaincurrent withtheCity’sexistingconditions;and WHEREAS,itisnecessarytoensurethattheCity’sregulationscontinuetoprotectthe communityfromthenegativesecondaryimpactsidentifiedinthestudies,whilemaintaininga reasonableopportunityforadult-orientedbusinessestolocateintheCityinaccordancewiththe ConstitutionsoftheUnitedStatesandoftheStateofMinnesota;and WHEREAS,theCityhasundertakenanexaminationofthehistoryofcourtinterpretations relatedtotheprovisionofreasonableopportunityforadult-orientedbusinesses;and WHEREAS,theCityCounciloftheCityofMonticellofindsthatproperplanningforthesiting andlocationofadult-orientedbusinessesisnecessarytoprotecttheCity’splanningprocessand thehealth,safety,andwelfareofthecitizensoftheCity;and WHEREAS,theCityCounciloftheCityofMonticellomakesthefollowingadditionalFindings ofFactinrelationtotheneedforadoptionofanamendmenttoitszoningordinance: A.Theregulationofadult-orientedbusinessintheCityofMonticelloisintendedand necessarytoprovideforareasonableopportunityforsuchbusinessestolocateinthe City. B.Theregulationofadult-orientedbusinessintheCityofMonticelloisfurtherintended andnecessarytominimizethenegativesecondaryimpactsofsuchusesonadjoining neighborhoods,asidentifiedinthemanystudiesofsuchuses. C.TheCity’soriginalregulations,allowances,andrestrictionsrelatingtoadult-oriented usescontinuetobevalid,ifcombinedwithanappropriateamendmenttotheareaand parcelssubjecttotheregulations. D.TheCityofMonticello’slandusepatternrequiresacarefulselectionofpropertiesto ensurebothreasonableopportunityandadequateprotectionforexisting neighborhoodsandlanduses,inaccordancewiththerelevantlawandcourtdecisions relatingtotheregulationofadult-orientedbusinesses. E.Anordinancewhichprovidesforbothopportunityandprotectionofneighborhoodsis mosteffectivelydesigned,giventheexistinglandusepattern,asanoverlayzoning districtapplyingexpresslytothoseparcelsidentifiedwithinspecificboundariesofthe overlaydistrictasadopted. F.Anoverlaydistrictprovidestheopportunitytoallowadult-orientedlandusesinany appropriatelocation,irrespectiveoftheunderlyingzoningdistrictrequirements. G.AnoverlaydistrictprovidestheCityanopportunitytomonitortheimpactsofthe ordinanceovertime,soastomonitorthenumberofavailableparcelsinacontinuing efforttoensurereasonableopportunityforthelocationofadult-orienteduses. NOW,THEREFORE,BEITRESOLVED,bytheCityCounciloftheCityofMonticello, MinnesotathattheaboveFindingsofFactandstatementsarerelativetothefollowingordinance amendmentsanddulyrepresentthefindingsofthisCouncil: 1.PursuanttoMinn.Stat.§462.357,theZoningOrdinanceisherebyamendedbyadopting OrdinanceNo.528,establishinganoverlayzoningdistrictentitled“SpecialUseOverlay District;”and 2.AmendingvarioussectionsoftheZoningOrdinanceincorporatingtheSpecialUse OverlayDistrict;and 3.AmendingvarioussectionsoftheZoningOrdinancetomovetheregulationsfrom existingsectionstothenewoverlaydistrictsection;and 4.AmendingthezoningmaptoapplytheSpecialUseOverlayDistricttospecificparcels. ADOPTEDBY theCityCounciloftheCityofMonticello,Minnesotathis25thdayofApril,2011. CITYOFMONTICELLO _______________________________ ClintHerbst,Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________ JeffO’Neill,CityAdministrator Planning Commission Agenda: 02/01/11 1 6. Consideration of amendment options related to Chapter 5.3 of the Monticello Zoning Code relating to Adult Uses. (NAC) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Attached to this report is a memorandum examining the impacts of the City’s growth over time, combined with updates to its zoning ordinance as they relate to the regulation of adult oriented uses. In summary, these changes have raised the need to adjust zoning allowances and buffer distances to ensure that the ordinance continues to meet legal standards in this area. Since it has been some time since the City conducted this type of analysis, staff has provided a brief “Question and Answer” format for City official review. The regulation of adult uses is often misunderstood, and due to first amendment issues, requires special attention. QUESTION & ANSWER: ADULT USE ORDINANCE Q.1. Why does the City have an ordinance that allows these uses? A.1. In a long series of legal cases, entertainment and arts-related activities have come under the protection of the “Free Speech” clause of the first amendment – perhaps more descriptively thought of as “Free Expression”. As a form of expression with First Amendment protection, the City has limited ability to regulate adult-oriented uses. Q.2. Doesn’t creating an ordinance allowing adult uses encourage their location in the community? A.2. Probably not. Purveyors of adult entertainment base their location decisions like any other business. These types of uses are allowed by nature of their first amendment protection – not having regulations would diminish the City’s ability to manage where they go in the community. Q.3. Why don’t we create an ordinance that prohibits these uses? A.3. The courts have made it clear that such ordinances are unconstitutional as an illegal constraint on expression. If a City is found to have such an ordinance under a legal challenge, a court would throw out the City’s code, and the adult use would have free rein to locate where they wish, without the City’s ability to manage the impacts of the use. Q.4. Can we create an ordinance that includes these uses as potentially allowed, but limits their location in such a way that effectively zones them out of the City? A.4. No. This would be called a “pretextual” ban – the City may regulate certain aspects of these uses, but may NOT have an ordinance that effectively bans them under the guise of “regulation”. A court would treat this type of ordinance the same as an outright prohibition. Q.5. Well then, what kinds of regulations can we adopt? Planning Commission Agenda: 02/01/11 2 A.5. In the area of speech regulation, the City typically has the ability create what are commonly called “time, place, and manner” regulations. As a general rule, the City may not discriminate by the content of the speech, nor may it discriminate by the identity of the speaker. However, the City can place non-discriminatory restrictions based on location, or on the style of delivery of a message, or on the duration or timing of a message in the protection of public health, safety, and welfare. In addition, the City may prohibit “obscene” speech. Thus, an adult use establishment which is otherwise properly located may be prohibited from displaying messages that are judged to be obscene. Q.6. What do you mean by “properly located”? A.6. A number of US Supreme Court cases have addressed this issue. The most relevant is City of Renton, WA v. Playtime Theatres, a case that arose in Renton, Washington over a challenge to the City’s ordinance regulating the location of adult theatres. In Renton, the Court majority established that the City’s regulations were not regulating the content of the speech, but rather, regulating the “secondary effects” of that speech which might be imposed on the public, especially populations judged to be sensitive to these effects. Renton’s ordinance, and the court opinion validating it, established a number of standards for the regulation of adult-oriented uses. Cities were granted the ability to regulate the location of these establishments to mitigate the potential secondary effects of such uses. Q.7. What kinds of regulations can the City adopt? A.7. Essentially, the City can create restrictions by zoning district that limit the ability of the establishments, or the patrons of the establishments, to have an impact on defined sensitive populations. These usually take the form of defining the uses, specifying which zoning district such uses can be located in, and then creating a buffer zone from sensitive land uses that the City wishes to protect from the secondary effects of the establishment. It is critical to note, however, that the zones and the buffers need to be placed in such a way that adult use have a “reasonable” opportunity to locate in the community (see the comment on “pretextual” prohibitions above). Q.8. How much “opportunity” does our ordinance have to provide to avoid being considered a “pretextual” prohibition? One lot? An entire shopping center? A.8. Unfortunately, this is where the requirements are a little murky. The court’s standard in Renton was a “reasonable” opportunity, a preciously minimal guide. In Renton, Washington, evidence was introduced that the ordinance regulating adult uses created an opportunity area of 5% of the City. The courts found this area to be meet its’ standard of reasonableness. In the years since, many communities have confused the 5% threshold as some sort of silver bullet standard. It is not. However, it is the only real guidance we have, so we think of it as a good target to show evidence of reasonableness. Coming to far short of that threshold should raise some questions about the effect of the ordinance in illegally regulating expression. Q.9. What are these sensitive uses we can protect? Planning Commission Agenda: 02/01/11 3 A.9. Monticello’s ordinance is typical, listing the following: Residentially zoned property. Agricultural land located in the neighboring township or in the City that is guided for residential use. A licensed daycare center. A public or private educational facility (elementary, middle, junior high or senior high school). A public library. A church. Amusement places such as roller rinks, dance hall and bowling alleys. Liquor sales (establishments) Q.10. How much buffer can we leave from these uses? A.10. Monticello’s current ordinance provides a 700 foot buffer. Others rely only on the zoning district boundaries, and several ordinances use 100 feet or some increment as their buffer zone. The balancing act is to provide some separation, while continuing to provide a reasonable opportunity area. Q.11. What if all of the land we provide is taken up by buildings and current uses? A.11. The courts have been clear that it is not the City’s responsibility to play realtor for the adult use establishment – they must fend for themselves in the real estate market and if all properly zoned and located parcels are full, that’s the market working, not the ordinance, just as it would be for any other business looking to locate in a particular zoning district. Q.12. What do we need to do? A.12. The attached memorandum provides an outline of the City’s zoning districts, and a summary of the eligible area under the current regulations. Because staff, including the City Attorney, believe that the Xcel Energy property is not likely to be considered “eligible” due to Nuclear Regulatory Commission requirements, not to mention its proximity to large areas of parkland, the remaining I-2 zoned land provides less than 3 percent opportunity area, and just over 1 percent when the current 700 foot buffer is applied. The challenge will be to find some combination of buffer distance and increase in the area of properly zoned parcels to get to “reasonable” – in general, something closer to 5%. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Decision 1: No decision is requested at this time. The purpose of this report is to permit discussion of the options at the Planning Commission level, in preparation for ordinance amendments to be considered at a future public hearing. Planning Commission Agenda: 02/01/11 4 C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: No recommendation is offered at this time. This reference information is being presented to the Planning Commission for discussion purposes and to generate a Commission-directed course of action for future amendment, which staff will be prepared to bring forward in March. D. SUPPORTING DATA: 1. Background Memorandum 2. Preliminary maps Planning Commission Agenda: 03/01/11 1 6. Consideration of amendment options related to Chapter 5.3 of the Monticello Zoning Code relating to Adult Uses. (NAC) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Previously, the Planning Commission reviewed a summary of issues related to the regulation of adult ent studies that suggested: (1) that a dispersal of such uses would be the best method to avoid negative impacts on the community overall, and (2) that the creation of a buffer zone would be important between such uses and land uses that might be sensitive to the negative secondary effects of adult entertainment (such as parks, residential areas, schools, etc.). Council enacted a moratorium on such establishments until a more complete study can be made of the issues. The focus of the current study was intended to re- adult entertainment due to the significant increases in land area, population, and commercial/industrial zoning, as well as changes to the land use planning and zoning that have taken place since the adoption of the original ordinance. industrial park area (Oakwood) has seen the seen the construction of schools both adjacent to and within the district, the amount of opportunity area anticipated by the original study has shrunk significantly. the eligible zoning districts and buffer zones would be necessary to re-establish an opportunity validated this type of regulation. As noted in the staff analysis provided in February, the ortunity on a case by case basis. The Planning Commission asked staff to reopen this analysis in an attempt to determine whether some lower percentage would provide adequate opportunity to meet a legal challenge, while permitting greater protection for th opinions in an effort to uncover any trends or newer approaches. A memo from the City report. Planning Commission Agenda: 03/01/11 2 In her general comments, the City Attorney reiterates that while the 5% threshold is not a - been uniformly upheld. She also notes that a number of ordinances with opportunity areas below 5% have been upheld, particularly when community was able to argue other factors in ordinances have fallen below the 1% opportunity area level, communities have had difficulty supporting their regulations against challenges. makes available more than 5% of its total land area for the potential for adult uses is likely to be upheld, whereas an ordinance that makes available less than 1% of its land area is at extreme risk of being thrown out. Between those two marks, the City would need to meet a relatively murky definition of reasonable opp risk in this area of land use regulation. To defend an ordinance that falls below the 5% threshold, the City Attorney identifies a -by- aspect of these situations, and various courts have used a wide variety of factual situations to analyze whether a parti As noted above, the City Attorney states that there is no bright line test, and this is particularly that ordinances that fall below the 5% threshold, in combination with other factors, have been regulations (closer to the 5% threshold); safer in the context that the City has utilized these types of regulations for some time, and that Court decisions have upheld ordinances in the category without resort to more extensive analysis. In the comments below, we have provided a brief summary of the factors highlighted by the cases and how they might apply to Monticello. Percentage of Commercial/Industrial Area. This factor was used in some cases to show that while the overall city percentage was below 5%, the City had provided a reasonable percentage of its commercial or industrial land. Some of these cases relied on the fact that the City had a smaller percentage of commercial or industrial land anyway, and that it was not unreasonable to thus have a corresponding smaller percentage of adult use area when compared to the City overall. In a few examples, the city was not permitted to count industrial land that was occupied by uses that made an adult use establishment impossible (such as an airport or a large manufacturing plant). Thus, under that reasoning, the city needs to be sure that land being counted is truly available or adaptable to this use. Planning Commission Agenda: 03/01/11 3 Number of Available Parcels. A few of the cases relied on an ordinance defense that identified the number of available parcels for adult uses. A specific example upheld included with just 10-12 parcels, but in much larger communities than Monticello. In summary, with these factors, the City Attorney suggests that the City may be able to create a limitation that provides for less than the commonly used 5% threshold if these other factors requirement. Because there is no certain standard, the City risks having its ordinance struck down and rendered invalid if a successful challenge finds that the ordinance does not make a reasonable area available for adult uses. f available parcels will be available for Planning Commission consideration at the meeting. Other City Thresholds. nearby cities to find what standards for adult use regulations are being used in those regulations, it was considered to be valuable information for context as Monticello considers its own ordinance. Information on surrounding communities will be provided in summary format with Tuesday s presentation. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: With further discussion and direction to be provided by the Planning Commission, staff will work toward the development of a draft ordinance in anticipation of the April Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission should call for a public hearing on April 5th, 2011 for the purpose of reviewing amendments to the adult-oriented land use components of the zoning code. 1. Motion to call for a public hearing to consider an amendment to Title 10, Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 5 as related to Adult-Oriented Land Uses. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: No recommendation at this time. D. SUPPORTING DATA: A. B. Interim Ordinance 524 - AN INTERIM ORDINANCE TEMPORARILY PROHIBITING ADULT-ORIENTED LAND USES ON CERTAIN PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF MONTICELLO C. Staff report, February 1st, 2010 D. Monticello Zoning Ordinance - Chapter 5 and Chapter 8: Adult Use Regulations E. Official Zoning Map F. Aerial Map Target opportunity area 4.5%: 222.0 acres 4.0%: 198.0 acres City Industrial Park, I-1 and I-2 areas southwest of gas line easement: 33.1 acres Oakwood Industrial Park area, N/S of Chelsea, E/W of Fallon Ave.: 138.2 acres Subtotal 171.3 acres MEMORANDUM TO: Steve Grittman FROM: Bob Kirmis DATE: January 26, 2011 RE: Monticello - Adult Use Opportunity Area Analysis NAC FILE: 191.07 - 10.20 At your request, I have conducted a review of the City’s adult use requirements in specific regard to provided opportunity area. In this regard, the following comments are offered: Purpose. As noted in the Zoning Ordinance, the purpose of the City’s adult use regulations is to provide for the establishment and operation of adult uses within the City while providing controls which limit negative impacts upon residential and commercial areas. Legal Requirements. As a general rule, the City seeks to meet a threshold of approximately five percent of its land as area potentially available for adult entertainment uses. While this threshold is not an explicit legal requirement, it was a level upheld by the United States Supreme Court in a Renton, Washington case that established a right to regulate adult uses. In Renton, the City had adopted an ordinance that created a dispersal requirement for adult entertainment uses, based on a finding that such land uses had the potential to create negative “secondary” effects. In most zoning theory, the City regulates the “primary” effects of land uses – noise, traffic, light, odors, building mass, etc. However, entertainment is a form of expression protected by First Amendment free speech principles. As such, the City may not create a zoning regulation that prohibits, or has the effect of prohibiting, this form of expression. In the Renton decision, the Supreme Court upheld the City’s restrictions on adult entertainment uses since they regulated the “secondary effects” of the land use, such as the potential for corruption of minors, but still made provision for such uses to locate within the City. Renton’s ordinance provided an area of about five percent of the City’s land area for these uses, and as such, five percent has become the common 2 numerical target for many of these types of regulations. It should be noted that the Court’s standard is “a reasonable amount”, and they found five percent in Renton to meet that “reasonableness” standard. It is important to note that the City is not required to ensure that any of the land is actually available for which a potential adult-oriented establishment would be eligible. It has been said that the City is “not required to play real estate agent” for such uses. Thus, if all eligible land is occupied and/or not for sale, that is the problem for the prospective business operator, not the city. As a result, the analysis is basely simply on a raw land area calculation, and any study of actually available real estate is unnecessary. When these ordinances are being considered or reviewed, a concern is often raised that the City is somehow encouraging adult entertainment uses to locate within the community. However, based on free speech jurisprudence, there is a presumption that such uses are allowed. As such, the City’s regulation is an attempt to restrict where those uses could go and protect sensitive land uses or individuals from their impacts. Existing Regulations District Allowance. Presently, principal adult uses are only allowed within the City’s I-2, Heavy Industrial Districts. There are five areas of the City which hold I-2 zoning designations as described below. The largest is the Xcel Energy power plant site located on the extreme west end of the City between Interstate 94 and the Mississippi River. The site overlays 549 acres of land. While the site is considered eligible for a principal adult use from a zoning standpoint, the land cannot be considered potentially available from a practical standpoint. Thus, the site shall not be considered “developable” for the purposes of this analysis. The second area is located south of Chelsea Road East and east of County Road 117. This area is characterized by typical industrial uses upon lots averaging approximately five acres in size. The area is bordered by light industrial uses on the north and east, by commercial uses on the west and by residential uses on the south. The area consists of approximately 111 acres of land. The third area is a single a single lot located south of Chelsea Road West and west of Dalton Avenue. The lot is currently occupied by Apple Valley Ready Mix and measures 14.7 acres in size. Finally, a triangular-shaped lot (having an I-2 zoning designation) is located east of Riverview Drive between Interstate 94 and the BN rail line. The lot measures 1.7 acres in size. 3 Not including the power plant site, 127.6 acres of I -2-zoned land exists in the City. This equates to 2.6 percent of the City’s total “developable” acreage. Opportunity Area. The City of Monticello covers 5,774 gross acres of land. However, not all of this is considered “developable”. To provide a realistic representation of actual “developable” land for principal adult uses, the following have been subtracted from the referenced total land area of the City: Xcel Energy power plant site (549 acres) Federal, State and County roads (240 acres) Subtracting the aforementioned property leaves 4,985 acres of “developable” land within the City. Of this “developable” total, approximately 128 acres are zoned I-2, Heavy Industrial (not including the power plant site). This equates to 2.6 percent of the City’s total developable land area. To mitigate possible adverse impacts upon sensitive uses, the Zoning Ordinance states that principal adult uses may not be located within 700 feet of the following: Residentially zoned property. Agricultural land located in the neighboring township or in the City that is guided for residential use. A licensed daycare center. A public or private educational facility (elementary, middle, junior high or senior high school). A public library. A church. Amusement places such as roller rinks, dance hall and bowling alleys. Liquor sales (establishments) When the 700 foot separation requirement (from sensitive uses) is applied to the eligible1-2 areas within the City, the opportunity area is reduced from 128 acres to 58 acres. On a percentage basis, this reduces the opportunity area from 2.6 percent (of the City’s total “developable” acreage) to just 1.2 percent. Thus, the City’s present opportunity area is significantly less than that suggested by the courts. Alternative Regulations. To address the noted opportunity area deficit, the following alternative regulations may be considered: A. Reduction of Separation Distance Requirement (in I-2 Districts). One alternative may be to reduce the 700 foot separation requirement applied to I-2 zoning 4 districts. As previously noted, the City’s present opportunity area totals 1.2 percent of the City’s developable area. The following is a summary of varied separation distances upon eligible I-2- zoned areas of the City: BUFFER DISTANCE ACRES PERCENT OF TOTAL 700 feet 57.7 1.2 500 feet 81.1 1.6 300 feet 99.1 2.0 100 feet 119.6 2.4 B. Allowance of Use within I-1 Districts and I-2 Districts. A second alternative is to make a further allowance for principal adult uses in the City’s I-1, Light Industrial Districts. Presently 251 acres of I-1-zoned property exist within the City There are two areas of the City in which hold I-1 zoning designations, each consuming approximately half of the total I-1-zoned property in the City. One area is located south of Interstate 94 and east of County Road 117 and borders the industrial park. A second area is located on the west end of the City south of Chelsea Road West, east and west of Dalton Avenue. If a 700 foot separation distance (from sensitive uses) were to be similarly applied to the City’s I-1 Districts, an additional 173.7 acres would be available for principal adult uses. This would increase the total opportunity area from 57.7 acres and 1.2 percent to 231.4 acres and 4.6 percent. C. Rezoning of Parcels from I-1 to I-2. A third alternative is to rezone some I-1 parcels to I-2 thereby making such properties eligible for principal adult uses. In review of the City’s zoning map and Land Use Plan, two alternatives have been examined. Option 1 - Fallon Avenue Area In this option, the I-1 zoned parcels located south of Chelsea Road East and east of Fallon Avenue have been considered for rezoning. If such parcels were rezoned from I-1 to I-2, the following opportunity areas would be provided according to separation distance requirement: BUFFER DISTANCE ACRES PERCENT OF TOTAL 700 feet 71.5 1.4 5 500 feet 86.2 1.7 300 feet 117.5 2.4 100 feet 136.9 2.8 Option 2 - Fallon Avenue and Dalton Avenue Areas Recognizing that the rezoning of the noted Fallon Avenue parcels (to I-2) would fall significantly short of the 5 percent opportunity area threshold suggested by the courts, additional I-1 properties which flank Dalton Avenue have also been considered for rezoning (to I-2). Specifically, lands located approximately 700 feet south of Chelsea Road West have been considered . If the Dalton Avenue parcels were also rezoned from I-1 to I-2 (in addition to the referenced Fallon Avenue parcels), the following opportunity areas would be provided according to separation distance requirement: BUFFER DISTANCE ACRES PERCENT OF TOTAL 700 feet 129.3 2.6 500 feet 146.3 2.9 300 feet 177.6 3.7 100 feet 197.0 4.0 Conclusion At 1.2 percent of the City’s total “developable acreage, the City’s existing adult use opportunity area is clearly less than the 5 percent opportunity area suggested by the courts. There are a variety of options available to the City to address this opportunity area deficit. The options examined as part of this analysis are as follows: A. Reduce the separation distance requirement in I-2, Heavy Industrial zoning districts. B. Allow principal adult uses within both I-1 and I-2 zoning districts. C. Rezone selected I-1, Light Industrial parcels to I-2, Heavy Industrial. A reduction to 700 foot separation distance currently applied in I-2 Districts will not approach the recommended 5 percent opportunity area. In this regard, it is important to note that no separation distance at all would equate to an opportunity area of only 2.6 percent. 6 If the City were to allow principal adult uses in both I-1 and I-2 zoning districts with the current 700 foot separation distance requirement, an opportunity area of 4.6 percent would result. Lesser separation distances were not evaluated as the 5 percent opportunity area would be achieved with the 700 foot requirement (lesser separation distances would likely result in opportunity areas greater than 5 percent). Rezoning selected I-1 parcels to I-2 would provide for greater opportunity areas, the degree of which would be influenced by the applied separation distance requirement. Summary As can be seen on the “Target Opportunity Area Map”, we would need to get to about 198 acres to be at 4.0%, and 222 acres to be at 4.5%. The two main areas of I-2 and I-1 shown on the map total 171.3 acres, leaving a deficit of 27-51 acres respectively, with a 100 foot buffer. There are a total of 54.5 additional acres available by maximizing the areas south of Chelsea on the west side, and including all lots without freeway frontage on the east side. Obviously, increasing the buffer would change the calculus by reducing the opportunity area throughout. If you have any questions regarding this material, please advise. 156187v1 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Angela Schumann CC: Steve Grittman FROM: Andrea McDowell Poehler DATE: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 RE: Monticello – Adult Businesses and Zoning Staff has asked this firm to review whether recent case law has addressed the issue of City zoning ordinances limiting the areas in which adult businesses can lawfully operate. Unfortunately there is no “bright line” test or clear answer to this question. A review of recent cases is important to gather general information on how courts are analyzing the zoning question. I. General Rule The United States Supreme Court in the City of Renton v. Playtime Theaters, Inc. case in 1986 stated that the standard for determining what the proper zoning is for adult businesses is whether an ordinance allows for reasonable alternative avenues of communication. In applying this standard, the Supreme Court determined that, under the specific facts of the City of Renton, the ordinance provided reasonable alternative avenues of communication where “five percent of the entire land area” of the city was available for adult theater sites. Although cities have used the 5% figure from the Renton case as a benchmark, neither the United States Supreme Court, nor the Constitution mandates communities make a minimum of 5% percentage of land available for the operation of adult businesses or any specific percentage at all. Thus, it is important for cities to review case law to understand the factors that a court may consider when determining when reasonable alternative avenues of communication are made available under an ordinance. Most cases look beyond a mere percentage to other factors, such as the suitability of the areas purported to be available for commercial development, to determine whether a reasonable alternative channel for adult communication exists in the community. II. Total Land Available to Adult Uses Exceeds 5 percent. A. Ordinance Found Constitutional. Most of the authority since Renton has addressed factual scenarios where more than five percent of the city’s land is available for adult uses. Where more than five percent is available for adult uses courts have seemed generally willing to find the sexually oriented business ordinance constitutional. 156187v1 2 In the 1991 case of Alexander v. Minneapolis, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a zoning ordinance limiting adult uses to 6.6% of commercial land. In 2006, the Minnesota Court of Appeals similarly addressed the percentage of land available for adult-use businesses under a county zoning ordinance in County of Morrison v. Wheeler, and found the ordinance constitutional. The adult-use business owners argued only five percent of the total land in the county was available for adult uses. The county responded by arguing 64 percent of all commercial property in the county was available for adult-use businesses. Id. In finding the area to represent a constitutional alternative source for operating of an adult use business, the court stated “[t]he law requires at least some chance of an alternative source; it does not require that it be immediately available and cheap.” Quite a bit of the case law addresses zoning ordinances where more than five percent of a city’s land area is available for an adult business. See e.g., D.H.L., 6 F. Supp. at 78-79 (finding 10.4 percent reasonable where additional factors indicated an adult business had a reasonable opportunity to operate); Alexander v. Minneapolis, 928 F.2d 278, 284 (8th Cir. 1991) (finding 6.6 percent reasonable); Buzzetti v. City of New York, 140 F.3d 134 (2d Cir. 1997) (finding 11 percent reasonable); Specialty Malls v. City of Tampa, 916 F. Supp. 1222, 1231 (M.D. Fla. 1996) (finding 7.5 percent adequate because the ordinance “not only [met], but exceed[ed] the First Amendment protection required by Renton); Centerfold Club, Inc. v. St. Petersburg, 969 F. Supp. 1288, 1303 (M.D. Fla. 1997) (finding 6.3 percent adequate). II. Total Land Available to Adult Uses is Less Than 5 percent. A. Upheld as Constitutional Some courts have upheld ordinances that had the practical effect of allowing adult uses on less than five percent of total land or of land zoned for businesses use. In Schneider v. Ramsey, the District Court for the District of Minnesota found an ordinance provided reasonable alternative channels for communication where 2.5 percent of the total land in the rural community was available for adult uses. Approximately 88 percent of the city was zoned for residential use, meaning that approximately 35 percent of the land zoned for commercial use and 9.7 percent of the general urban area was available for adult uses. In City of Crystal v. Fantasy House, Inc., the Minnesota Court of Appeals evaluated a permanent zoning ordinance allowing for adult use businesses in “.9 [percent] of the land in [the city] and 15 [percent] of the city’s industrial and commercial zones.” In overruling the district court’s finding that the available land for adult uses was insufficient, the Court of Appeals noted “the limited area available [for adult uses] in [the city] is a result of the city’s overwhelmingly residential character and conservative planning practices.” Specifically, only six percent of the entire city was zoned for commercial or industrial uses. The city’s conservative planning practices meant that “any difficulty that [the business] has in locating in [the city] stems from difficulties faced by all prospective real estate purchasers [and that] the permanent ordinance provides reasonable alternative avenues of communication and is constitutional.” 156187v1 3 Following the United States Supreme Court’s holding in Renton, courts across the United States have found that ordinances restricting adult use to less than five percent of the area covered by the ordinance are reasonable and pass constitutional muster. See e.g., Casanova Entm’t Group, Inc. v. City of New Rochelle, 165 Fed. Appx. 72, 73-74 (2d Cir. 2006) (upholding an ordinance that had the effect of limiting adult uses to 2.77 percent of the city); Z.J. Gifts D-4, L.L.C. v. City of Littleton, 311 F.3d 1220, 1240 (10th Cir. 2002), vacated on other grounds by 124 S. Ct. 2219, 541 U.S. 774 (holding availability of approximately one percent of city land was sufficient where over 20 sites were available for adult businesses and given the small population of the city and that only one adult business was located in the city)1; North Ave. Novelties, 88 F.3d at 445 (holding the plaintiff business’s reliance on the fact that less than one to three percent of land within the city’s limits was available was insuffici ent to find alternative locations were unavailable); Lakeland Lounge v. City of Jackson, Michigan, 973 F.2d 1255 (5th Cir. 1992) (holding availability of 1.2 percent of the city was sufficient); Allno Enters. v. Baltimore County, 10 Fed. Appx. 197 (4th Cir. 1991) (upholding zoning ordinance leaving .16 percent of total acres in county available); M.J. Entm’t Enters. v. City of Mt. Vernon, 328 F. Supp. 2d 480 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (granting summary judgment in favor of defendant city where .67 percent of city was available for adult uses); S & G News, Inc. v. City of Southgate, 638 F. Supp. 1060 (E.D. Mich. 1986) (holding 2.3 percent of the county’s land area was sufficient); Stringfellow’s of New York v. City of New York, 91 N.Y.2d 382, 403, 694 N.E.2d 407, 419 (1998) (holding 4 percent of total land zoned for business in a city was sufficient). In Casanova Entertainment Group v. City of New Rochelle, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of a topless dancing nightclub’s request for a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of local ordinances barring topless dancing at its current location. In holding the appellant nightclub did not show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, the court noted that while only 0.04 percent of the city’s total land area was available for adult-entertainment businesses, the “statistic [could] not be viewed in isolation [because the city was] a highly developed residential suburb with less than 5 [percent] of its total land area available for any commercial use. Six lots, representing 2.77 percent of land zoned for “[l]ight [i]ndustrial development,” however, were available for adult-entertainment purposes. In holding that the nightclub was unlikely to succeed on the merits, the court impliedly held 2.77 percent is a sufficient alternative area where zoning ordinances restrict adult uses. In Stringfellow’s of New York v. City of New York, 91 N.Y.2d 382, 403, 694 N.E.2d 407, 419 (1998), New York’s highest state court found a zoning ordinance limiting adult entertainment establishments in certain zoning districts was constitutionally permissible where “about 4 [percent of the total commercial land was available] when reduced by land encumbered by properties that are unlikely to be developed for commercial use.” 156187v1 4 B. Struck Down as Unconstitutional Some of the case law addressing a zoning ordinance where less than five percent of a city’s land area is available has held the ordinance unconstitutional. See e.g., Franklin Jefferson, Ltd. v. City of Columbus, 244 F. Supp. 2d 83 (S.D. Ohio 2003) (finding ordinance with effect of limiting adult uses to 0.047 percent of the city’s land and allowing 11 sites for adult use violated the United States Constitution); International Eateries of Am., Inc. v. Broward County, 726 F. Supp. 1556, 1567 (S.C. Fla. 1987) (finding 0.03 percent of the county’s land available to be inadequate). These examples, however, seem particularly extreme in that the cities attempted to limit adult uses to the extent that less than one half of one percent was available (0.047 percent and 0.03 percent). In 1990 in the Brookpark News & Books v. Cleveland case, the Ohio Court of Appeals found that a city’s zoning ordinance unconstitutional where only 3.6 acres of 48,384 acres, or seven one-hundred-thousandths of one percent (.00007 percent) of acres, in the city were available for adult uses. The court held that “[t]his percentage of available adult usage in a city the size of Cleveland on its face is unduly restrictive and significantly curtails freedom of expression and access to protected speech.” In 2002, the Federal District Court for the Western District of Michigan noted in Exec. Arts Studio, Inc. v. City of Grand Rapids, that it was generally wary of finding an ordinance limiting adult uses to less than one percent of the city’s acreage or to fewer than a dozen sites constitutional. The court concluded by finding a zoning ordinance limiting adult uses to less than one-half of one percent of the city’s commercial property unconstitutional. In 2006, the Federal District Court for the District of Minnesota weighed in the question of adult uses in Northshor Experience, Inc. v. City of Duluth, Minn. On the city’s motion for summary judgment, the court concluded that an ordinance making 4.34% of the city available for adult uses was not per se reasonable or constitutional because it did not provide a reasonable alternative avenue for communication. The court evaluated photographs provided by the plaintiff adult business and found the “available land” was occupied by the airport or “heavily industrial, either lacking infrastructure and inaccessible or occupied by an existing heavy industrial use, such as a manufacturing plant or mineral piles.” As such, the court stated that its evaluation of the reasonableness of available alternative locations and the constitutionality of allowing adult uses in 4.24% of the city had to come further in the litigation. Ultimately, this authority cannot be taken to mean that ordinances restricting adult uses to less than five percent of a city’s land are per se unreasonable. Instead, the authority is better taken to mean that there is no bright line separating reasonableness from unreasonableness and additional factors necessarily inform a finding of reasonableness. 156187v1 5 III. No Bright Line Test. Some Courts have been reticent to find that five percent represents a generally-applicable guidepost. As such, the courts have found that additional inquiry into a particular zoning ordinance and its affect on availability is necessary. In PAO Xiong v. City of Moorhead, Minn. the District Court for the District of Minnesota held in 2009 that it was unable to determine whether an available area of 6.25% of the City’s total land area and 29% of the city’s commercial and industrial areas was sufficient to constitute a reasonable alternative avenue for communication. On the city’s motion for summary judgment, the court found it had insufficient information because the parties disputed whether the sites were platted and accessible by road, the character of the areas had not been established, and the court could not determine whether the space available was sufficient to leave the “quantity and accessibility of speech substantially intact.” The plaintiff business owner in North Ave. Novelties v. City of Chicago relied on expert testimony to find that less than one percent of the land within the city limits was available for adult use. In relying on Renton and other adult use zoning cases, the plaintiff business owner argued the city’s availability represented a smaller acreage than other approved areas. The city’s expert alternatively testified that between one and three percent of the city was available for adult uses. In rejecting the plaintiff business owner’s comparisons to other cases, the court held “that the amount of acreage, standing alone, is largely irrelevant.” The court noted that the constitutional requirement of a reasonable opportunity to do business “can, and most likely does, result in vastly different acreage percentages [between regions].” These differences, however, “in no way imply that the regions with lower percentages are acting unconstitutionally.” In M.J. Entertainment Enterprises v. City of Mt. Vernon, the District Court for the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment to the defendant city where a zoning ordinance made only .67 percent of a city available for adult uses. The court noted that the constitution does not mandate a minimum percentage of land be made available for certain types of speech and that the constitution only requires a location provide “a reasonable opportunity to disseminate the speech at issue.” The district court judge then noted that at the time alternative avenues of communication were only found constitutionally insufficient in one of two circumstances. First, where there were no sites available. Alternatively, the judge wrote that alternatives are found insufficient where the zoning scheme requires an existing adult business to relocate to a particular area, prohibits an adult business’s establishment within 1,000 feet of a school or religious institution, and the ordinance is specifically enacted to create a buffer between the existing business and a school. IV. Factors Considered in Determining Reasonable Alternative Avenues of Communication are Available. Some courts have looked to a variety of factors in determining whether reasonable alternative avenues of communication have been made available. 156187v1 6 A. Number of Sites Available As an alternative to evaluating the percentage of land area available for adult businesses, some courts have found that the question of constitutionally reasonable alternative locations can be answered by the number of locations available that could accommodate additional locations. See e.g., Diamond v. City of Taft, 215 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding where seven sites were available, and three of those sites could house adult uses simultaneously, based on the commercial real estate market in the city, the three sites created a constitutionally acceptable alternative); R.V.S., LLC v. City of Rockford, 266 F. Supp. 2d 798 (N.D. Ill. 2003), rev’d on other grounds by 361 F.3d 402 (7th Cir. 2004) (holding 11 or 12 sites were available which provided a reasonable opportunity to disseminate the adult speech in this particular community); 3570 East Foothill Blvd., Inc. v. Pasadena, 912 F. Supp. 1257, 1265 (C.D. Cal. 1995), aff’d, 99 F.3d 1147 (holding an ordinance allowing for the opening of eleven additional adult businesses was a reasonable opportunity where only one adult business currently existed). Conversely, however, this parcel availability approach may indicate that a zoning ordinance unconstitutionally limits the ability of a sexually oriented business to operate. See e.g., Janra Enters. v. Reno, 818 F. Supp. 1361, 1364 (D. Nev. 1993) (finding three parcels insufficient). B. Whether Proposed Sites are Physically and Legally Available As in PAO Xiong, the Federal Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in TJS of N.Y. v. Town of Smithtown evaluated in 2010 “whether proposed sites are physically and legally available, and whether they are part of an actual commercial real estate market in the municipality.” Noting that “[s]everal factual considerations underlie the question of whether sites are part of an actual real estate market[,]” the court evaluated the likelihood of the sites becoming available, the physical characteristics of the sites such as accessibility to the public, infrastructure, and suitability to “some generic commercial enterprise.” Where these criteria are met, the sites “can qualify as available, even if they are in industrial or manufacturing zones.” Requiring the proposed adult business to develop the site does not render the site unsuitable; however, “[w]here the physical features of a site or the manner in which it has been developed are totally incompatible with any average commercial business” or there is a dearth of basic infrastructure critical to private development. It is important to note, that the failure of a particular site to meet the sizing, pricing, or logistical needs of an adult business is irrelevant in determining the overall geographic availability for adult uses. See e.g., TJS, 598 F.3d at 31-32 (citing Renton, 475 U.S. at 54; Topanga Press, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 989 F.2d 1524, 1532 (9th Cir. 1993)) (stating availability of a particular site is not limited by the site’s best suitability to a “big box” enterprise); Z.J. Gifts D-4, L.L.C., 311 F.3d at 1240 (holding only industrial, warehouse, office, and shopping centers were not part of relevant commercial real estate market); Isbell v. City of San Diego, 258 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2001) (rejecting argument that relevant alternative real estate market must exclude parcels occupied by businesses like car dealership because potential profits, overhead costs, and infeasibility of use were not appropriate factors in evaluating the availability of alternative channels); Allno Enters., 10 Fed. Appx. 197 (4th Cir. 1991) (holding 156187v1 7 the unsupported assertion of an adult business operator that the owners of land would lease only to industrial operations were not an appropriate consideration in determining overall availability). CONCLUSION The authority from Minnesota case law and case law outside of Minnesota indicates that multiple factors need to be taken into consideration in addition to a mere percentage of availability. Courts review the specific facts of a particular city to determine whether alternative avenues of communication have been made available to adult businesses, such as the percentage of total land area devoted to commercial/industrial and whether a reasonable portion of the commercial/industrial land available, whether a reasonable number of sites have been made available, and whether sites are physically and legally available. As is evident in the court cases noted above, there is no clear bright line test regarding what is “reasonable.” Courts have the hardest time finding ordinances allowing adult uses on less than one percent of land constitutional. Clearly, the “safest” area for a zoning ordinance, however, appears to be above the five percent of total land area available as approved in Renton. Below the five percent, courts seem to approve ordinances allowing adult uses on more than two to 2.5 percent of the land more often than not, but courts will make a detailed analysis of the factors noted above. Sources: MFRA, WSB, NAC, City of Monticello, and Wright County.Map Date: April 15, 2011.¯2011 Adult Land Use Study Zoning Map with "Special Use Overlay District"Special Use Overlay District Zoning Districts (2011)A-O, Agricultural Open R-1, Single Family Residential R-2, Single & Two Family Residential R-3, Medium Density Residential M-H, Mobile & Manufactured Home Park R-A, Residential Amenities T-N,Traditional Neighborhood R-PUD B-1, Neighborhood Business B-2, Limited Business B-3, Highway Business B-4, Regional Business CCD, Central Community IBC, Industrial & Business I-1, Light Industrial I-2, Heavy Industrial Water Island ROW City Boundary Parcels Sources: MFRA, WSB, NAC, City of Monticello, and Wright County.Map Date: March 31, 2011.¯2011 Adult Land Use Study 275 Foot Buffer from Sensitive Land Uses Sensitive Land Uses Freeway Schools Parks Residential Parcels Industrial Parcels 275 Ft Buffer Parcels City Boundary 13 7 . 8 2 A c r e s A v a i l a b l e 98 . 8 2 A c r e s A v a i l a b l e 23 6 . 6 4 A c r e s A v a i l a b l e / 5. 0 7 % o f B u i l d a b l e L a n d