City Council Agenda Packet 03-26-1979AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
March 26, 1979 - 7:30 P.M.
Mayor: Arve Grimsmo
Councilmembers: Dan Blonigen, Fran Fair, Ken Maus, Philip White.
Meeting to be taped. - d(J) e_
Citizens Comments. Mw 'r Lot V__
1. Public Hearing onConsideration of Variance Requests - Electro Ipdustries.
2. Public Hearing on Consideration of a Variance Request from Pylon Sign
Ordinance Requirements - Rosewood Corporation.
at (C -leg
3. Review of Assessment Policy.
4. Review of Updated Feasibility Report on Improvements to Lauring Hills de
Terrace and Consideration of Calling for a Public Hearing. A�
;t
to Ar:J9, ►9'19
5. Consider do of Setting ::caring Date for the 1979-1 Improvement Project.
ta xp. ;11579
6. Consideration of SubQiviaion of Parcel - James Refrigeration.
19 Qt per/ V „-L VALC Qa.l .
7. Consideration of Authorization to Purchase Cube -Master Icemaker for
Highway Liquor.
is AtV-1 P.otcw
B. Consideratio of Appointment of Street Supervisor.
9. Approval o+f Bills - March 1979.
10. Approval Minutes - March B, 1979 y`t�7R��isl Mooting s March 12, 1979
Regular Mcetjngg.-
tA
Unfiniahad Business - k
\� s4aw- Swe-fW,. 0
New 0ainoso -
Remindar - Council Meeting at Oakwood School on
Library Inoue - 3/27/79 - 8e00 P.M.
l�
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
March 26, 1979 - 7:30 P.M.
Members Present, Arve Grimsmo, Dan Blonigen, Fran Fair, Ken Haus, Phil White.
Members Absent: None
Citizens Comments:
Mr. Ron Peters, speaking for himself and a number of property owners in
the neighborhood of Block 10, asked that the Council consider the possi-
ble rezoning of this block and other areas in this neighborhood from
R-3 (Multiple Family Residential) to a single-family classification.
Mr. Peters indicated that the reason for the request was that rumors have
been heard that an apartment complex is planned for Block 10, and the
neighborhood group felt that there was enough multiple -family units in
the area with Ridgemont Apartments and other duplexes or fourplexce
already in existence. He indicated that the majority of the hores in
the area are single-family and they would like to sea it remain single-
family in nature and asked that the Council look into the issue of lasai-
bly restricting future multiple -family zoning in the area.
It was noted by the Council that a public hearing would have to be told
on any rezoning issues, and therefore, a motion was made by Ken Maus,
seconded by Dan Blonigan and unanimously carried to have a moratorium
on the issuance of any multiple -family building permits for this arca
until a Public Hearing on the rezoning request could be hold.
1. Public Hearing on Consideration of Variance Request by Electro Industries.
Mr. William Seefeldt, of Electro Industries, requested a sidayard setback
variance and a waiver from the hardsurfaced parking requirements for a
4,800 square foot cold storage warehouse building he was planning t2 build
at his plant. Mr. 8eefeldt asked that the variance be granted to build
the new facility 16' from the property line rather than 40' as required
in an I-1 zone, ■ince this will align the new building with the present
office building which is currently on the site. In addition, a variance
from the hardeurface parking requirements and curb barrier provisions
was asked by Mr. Geefeldt because he felt that the area was rural in
nature, and that the only business in the area was his own. He also
indicated that the road leading to his business is a gravel road and that
since NSP owns property to the west of his building, future development
would not be likely to occur.
Motion was made by Phil White, seconded by Fran fair and unaniscusly
carried to approve a 16' setback variance for the building addition
at Electro Industries.
7
Council Minutts - 3/2G/75
After a lengthy discussion on the hardsurfacing requirements, it was noted
that since Electro Industries only required approximately eighteen spaces
for parking, a motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Phil 11iite and
unanimously carried to allow a variance requiring only 25 parking spaces
to be blacktopped, instead of the entire parking area. It was noted
that these 25 spaces would not have to be in one area, and could be
provided in different places around the existing buildings.
2. Public Hearinq on Consideration of a Variance Request from Pylon Siun
Ordinance Requirements - Rosewood Corporation.
Rosewood Corporation, owner of the Monticello Mall, requested a variance
to allow the expansion of an existing pylon sign from 108 square fe-�t to
approximately 160 square feet.
The variance was necessary in that, the current ordinances allow enl-. one
pylon sign per business, and the shopping center already has two pylon
signs. Provisions in the ordinance also indicate that any non -conforming
sign cannot be expanded or enlarged without a variance. Monticello's
ordinances do allow a 200 square foot sign for this location, and if the
variance was approved, the sign with the addition would still meet the
height and square footage requirements of a single pylon sign.
Since the sign with the addition would meet the square footage require-
ments of the current ordinances, a motion was made by Phil White, seconded
by Dan Blonigen and unanimously carried to approve the variance request
for the additional expansion of the pylon sign at the Monticello Mall.
3. Review of Assessment Policy.
Requests have been made previously by developers and other property owners
within the City to have the Council reconsider the recently -adopted assoss-
ment policy regarding special assessments.
King Forness, of Springated, Inc., bonding consultants for the City,
reviewed with the Council arena of the assessment policy which have been
questionned. The major areas of concern werei
1. That assessmento be spread over a longer period of time to possibly
ten years rather than five.
That assessments Lxe paid when a building is completed or occupied
rathor than at the time a building permit is taken out.
3. Whether the frontend money on improvements to now subdivisions would
still bo required.
Mr. Forness indicated that a ten year assessment would probably not hurt
tho bond rating for the City of Monticello, but strongly indicated that
tho City should not be in the financing business and that is why a ten
year or less anaensment payoff was recommonded. in rogards to the asseas-
monto being paid at the time of a building permit application, Mr. Forness
indicated that the main concern was that tho City bo asourred of getting
tho assessment balance and ho felt that this was tho only time that the
City had control over collecting the assessments was at the building
permit stage. Mr. Forness also pointed out that if a now suhlivision
Council ?:inutes - 3/2G/79
or developer requested improvements, by requiring at least 25q fron tend
money for the project, a developer is not likely to speculate on th,2 improve-
ments and leave the City with delinquent assessments. It was also :voted
that if property that has existing homes is served by improvements requested
by a developer down the road, these existing homes could he assessed over
twenty years with the developer requesting improvements still Icing assessed
at five or ten years.
Comments from developers and builders from Monticello indicated that their
concerns were over whether the assessments could be paid after a building
is constructed, rather than at the time of building permit appliCa Loon.
These individuals also indicated that a ten year assessment payoff period
would be much more favorable for development and would encourage incustry,
etc. to come to Monticello.
After discussion on the three major issues was completed, motion was mado
by Ken Maus, seconded by Fran Fair and unanimously carried to amend the
assessment policies as follows:
1. Change the assessment policy spreading future assessments over
ten years rather than five years.
2. Requiring assessments on undeveloped lots to be paid at the Lima
a building is constructed and occupied, or 160 days from the time
a building permit is taken out, whichever comes first.
3. It should he noted that in regards to the fronts-nd money requir-d from
developers on new subdivisions, the policy was left as is requirinq
a minimum of 25% up to LOO%, depending upon Council action.
(See Ordinance Amendment N
4. Review of Updated Feasibility Report on Improvements to Laurinq Ilillside
Terrace and the Consideration of callinq a Public Hearinq.
At the last Council Meeting, Mr. Roy Lauring petitioned for various improve-
ments to Lauring Ilillside addition based upon certain contingencies, such as
the assessments be spread over ten years if rural streets were put in, or
fifteen years if permanent streets with curb and gutter were installed. In
addition, his petition was contingent upon assessments not being paid in
full at the time of an application for a building permit. Mr. John Dadalieh,
consulting engineer, reviewed with the Council the ulAated feasibility
report on the proposed improvements.
Mr. Dadalich indicated that sewer, rural type streets and storm sewer type
facilities of a rural typo nature could lx) installed in this area at an
estimated cost of $230,100. if the area were served with sewer, storm sewer
and permanent typo streets, the estimated cost was $389,100.
Mr. louring and Mr. Bob Johnson, who intends to purchase some of the lots
in louring Hillside addition for development, indicated that if rural type
streets were constructed with a ten year assessment payoff, the project
would seem favorable to them.
- 3 -
Council %:inutes - 3/.'.G/79
Motion was made by Phil white, seconded by Fran Fair and unanimously carried
to adopt a resolution receiving the updated feasibility report and calling
for a public hearing for this improvement on April 9, 1979. (See Resolution
1979 N6).
S. Consideration of Setting Hearina Date for the 1979-1 Improvement Project.
At the last Council meeting, a resolution was passed accepting the feasibility
report for improvements noted as 1979-1 improvement project, and calling for
a public hearing. No specific date was set at that time for the hearing
since it was determined to wait until any revisions regarding the assessment
policy might be made.
Since Agenda Item 4 regarding improvements to lauring Hillside Addition
will be considered as part of the 1979 improvement project, a motion was
made by Phil White, seconded by Fran Fair and unanimously carried to
set the public hearing for April 9, 1979 for the areas petitioned for
under the 1979-1 Improvement Project.
6. Consideration of Subdivision of Parcel of Land by James Refriqeration.
James Refrigeration Company has applied to subdivide the lot they own on
south Highway 25 where the Tom Thumb store is presently being built. Their
proposal was to make two Sots of approximately 39,465 square feet, and
32,670 square feet.
The Planning Commission, at their last meeting, approved the subdivision
contingent upon the changing of a lot line in order that one lot would
not need an easement from the other to got onto County Road 117 or Oakwooal
Drive. A representative of the James Refrigeration Company indicated to
the Council that the lot line would be changed accordingly, and a motion
was made by Phil White, seconded by Dan Blonigen and unanimously carried
to approve the subdivision as presented provided a 10% of the valuation
of the land would be paid in park dedication foes.
7. Consideration of Authorization to purchase Cute -Master Ice Maker for
Hi -way Liquor Store.
Since the Municipal off -Bala liquor store has an icemaker that is not
adequate to handle the volume that is necessary, the store is currently
buying its ice from an ice manufacturer and reselling it to the customers.
It is estimated that if the liquor store tied its own ice machine largo
enough to supply the demand, the cost of tho now equipment should tc
recovered in approximately a year and a half.
Motion was made by Ken 14au5, seconded by Fran Fair and unanimously carried
to authorize the liquor store manager to purchase a new Cube -master lcemaker
with storage bins and a display case in the amount of $2,430.
A. Consideration of Aopointmillt of Street Supervisor.
As part of reorganization within the Public Works Department, a motion was
mado by Phil White, soeondod by Dan Dlonigan and unantmounly carried to
appoint Rogor Mack as the now Gtroot Supervisor at a salary of $1,250 per
month. It was also noted that Dick Brooks, the present Street Supervisor,
will remain at a salary of $1,250 as a maintonanco worker.
Council :!inures - 3/2b/7.
r 9. Approval of Bills and Minutes.
`•�' Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Phil white and unanimously
carried to approve the bilis for March 1979, as presented, and also to
approve the Minutes of March B, 1979 special meeting and X.arch 12, 1979
regular meeting, as presented.
10. Discussion on Purchase of New Street Sweeper.
The Council discussed with the new Public works Director, John Simola,
and Street Supervisor, Roger Mack, about the purchasing of a new• street
sweeper this spring. It was noted that specs have been prepared for a
new street sweeper and comments from Mr. Mack and Mr. Simola indicated that
an Elgin street sweeper appears to be the best on the market.
Motion was made by Phil White, seconded by Fran Fair and unanimously carried
to authorize the advertising for bids for a new street sweeper per specifi-
cations with bids returnable for both a diesel and gasoline engines, by
April 9, 1979, and should also include an estimated cost for a year's •worth
of maintenance and repair. These costs on maintenance would not Lo
included in the bid, but only be presented for comparison on maintenance
for a year.
Motion was also made by Fran Fair, seconded by Ken Maus and unanimously
carried to rent a new Elgin street sweeper for one month on a trial basis
with the cost of the rr_n1 bring applied to the purchase price should
( the City buy an Elgin street sweeper. The estimated cost of the rent
would be apprroximatuly 10% of the purchase price for one month.
Meeting adjourned.
l/
�1Z Rick(WoYfsteVor
G Assi!i nc ) ministrator
i
AGENDA SUPPLEMENT
1. Public Hearing on Consideration of Variance Requests - Electro Industries.
Mr. William Seefeldt, of Electro Industries, has applied for the follow-
ing variances:
A. Setback of 16' rather than 40' as required in an I-1 zone for a
4,800 square foot cold -storage warehouse building at the present
Electro Industries site.
B. Waiver from the hardsurfaced parking requirement and only be required
to have portions of the concrete curbing provided.
Mr. Seefeldt is asking that he be granted a variance to build the new
facility 16' from the property line since this will align up with the
present office building that is currently on the site. Please refer
to enclosed plat plan which indicates site of present buildings and
new warehouse.
Mr. Seefeldt is also requesting a waiver from the hard surfaced require-
ments and the curb barrier provisions for the entire parking areas
duo to the following factors:
,I A. Area is currently rural in nature except for Electro Industries.
B. Road to Electro Industries is a gravel road.
C. There will be no development of the NSP property (former Dick Brooks
farm across the street).
D. By adding the warehouse along the road, it will actually conceal
a good portion of the existing parking lot from view.
It should be noted that a portion of the parking area to the west of
the office building hos portions of it that do have the required curb
barrier, however, the antiro parking areas within the complex are not
all curb borriered.
Enclosed, pleaso find a latter from Mr. Seefoldt which addresses the
request indicated.
At their last meeting, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval
of the setback, but voted to recommend denial of the request for a variance
on the hardourface and curb barrier requirements. They felt that the
request for the variance on the setback was legitimate since it did
line up with the adjoining office building. However, they did fool that
the request on the parking hardourfaco requiremento and the curb barrier
should be denied duo to the following reasons,
C
Council Agenda - 3/26/79
A. Since the area is zoned as Industrial and the particular business
in question is Industrial, they felt that similar to requests
���� �. for Oakwood Industrial Park, hardburfacing requirements should be
Nk_adhered to.
�1F i ti�
B. Additionally, they felt that although the road leading to Electro
Industries building is not hardsurfaced, this should not be the
reason for approving of a variance. It was felt that if a variance
were granted and at a later time the road were hardsurfaced, it would
be pretty hard to require Mr. Seefeldt to put in hardsurface.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval of denial of variance request
Q for setback, hardsurface requirements, and curb barrier
Jp requirements.
X4.1 ` REFERENCES: Enclosed March 15, 1979 letter from Bill Seefeldt, and
QP fj plat plan.
2. Public Hearinq on Consideration of a Variance Request from Pylon Siqn
Ordinance Requirements - Rosewood Corporation.
C
Rosewood Corporation, owner of the Monticello Mall, is requesting a
variance to allow the expansion of an existing pylon (freestanding) sign
from 108 sq. ft. to approximately 160 sq. ft.
A variance is necessary in that the Monticello Ordinance only allows one
pylon sign per business, and a shopping center already has two pylon
signs. It should be noted, of course, that the two pylon signs that
currently exist would be grandfathered in, but the provisions of the
ordinance provide that any non -conforming use cannot be expanded or
enlarged without a variance. Furthermore, it should be pointed out that
a shopping center in allowed to advertise all of the individual businesses
within the center complex itself with the means of wall signs, but the
provision that only one pylon sign in allowed is the same as for any
other business. Enclosed, please find a schematic drawing which indi-
cates 0n existing sign and the expansion and the expansion of that
sign which is being planned. It should be pointed out that the sign
is currently located between Country Kitchen and Kentucky Fricd Chicken.
In talking with representatives from the shopping center, I did inquire
whether they would consider taking down the second pylon sign that now
exists, which is just to the southeast of the shopping center complex
and visible from I-94. It was felt by the shopping center repre-
sentatives they would rather ask for a variance since the cost of taking
this sign down is estimated to run into the thousands of dollars.
Monticello ordinances do allow a 200 sq. ft. sign which is 32' high in
this area, and if approved, the sign plus tha addition would still meet
the provisions of the Monticello City Ordinance relative to the height and
square fuotago requirements of a pylon sign.
- 2 -
Council Agenda - 3/26/79
At their last meeting, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to
recommend approval of the variance request.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval or denial of variance
request.
REFERENCES: Enclosed schematic drawing of sign showing existing sign
plus addition.
3. Review of Assessment Policy.
As you may recall, at our last meeting the City Council decided to
contact Springsted, Inc., our bond consultants, to review possible
changes in the assessment policy that was formulated by Springstod,
Inc. and adopted by the City Council in 1978. This decision came
after the City Council received the request to waive the new requirement
that upon building permit application all assessments be paid in full,
and in addition, that assessments be sprearl over ton to fifteen years,
rather than five years. (See Agenda Item 04).
King Forness, with Springsted, Inc., will be at Monday night's meeting
to review the matter with the City Council. Mr. Farness was the repre-
sentative from Springsted, Inc. who worked with the City Council in
formulating the policy that is now a part of the Monticello City
Ordinances. For your reference, I have enclosed a copy of the ordinances
that have bean adopted in 1978. Major provisions or changes in these
ordinances are as follows:
A. Assessments to be spread over five years.
B. Upon application for a building permit, assessments would be paid
in full.
C. On new subdivisions, the developer has to provide at least 259
frontend money upon approval of an improvement to a new subdivision.
Prior to Monday night's meeting, I will be reviewing in more detail the
Council's request with Mr. Farness so that he will come to the meeting
somewhat informed on the issue which he is being requested to address.
First of all, 1 believe that the assessment policy adopted by the Council
in 1978 certainly was a good onoi however, nothing is cast in concrete
and I think the comments that have bean made by the developers aro
legitimate and possibly name revisions are necessary. For example,
since the City now does require frontand money on nuw subdivisions, it
could probably justify going to a longer payoff period on assossmento,
that is, from five years to ton years, since the developer will not
likely abandon a project. This was one of the concerns that the Council
had is that the developer may request sower and water to an area, and
if the assessments were spread out over twenty years, the project could
possibly fold. It was felt by going to a shorter payoff period, that
the developer would do some souleoarching to determine if he could
actually make the projoct go within a five year period of time. However,
a ton year period of time would still be half of what the previous twenty
year requirement was and otill could be reasonable.
- 3 -
Council Agenda - 3/26/79
Additionally, the requirement that assessments be paid in full at the
time of building permit application may be somewhat stringent, especially
in the case of commercial and industrial property when cash flow is
very important. Residential loans often require that assessments be
paid in full at time of building permit application; however, there are
cases where a conventional loan could allow the resident to use a lower
interest rate of assessments rather than going through a financing
agency. In briefly talking about this issue with Mr. Forness, he was
a little concerned that the City doesn't get involved in the banking or
financing business and felt that paying the assessments in full at the
time of building permit application would not be a real hardship since
financing would have to be arranged anyway for the building itself.
In addition to some of the factors mentioned previously, the City Council
also felt that it would be better to go to a shorter payoff period on
assessments and also on the City's portion, the ad valorem portion, of
improvements, since the City could take greater advantage of the
industrial tax base it now enjoys because of the NSP plant. Because
of the uncertainty of side issues such as gross earnings tax, or tax
court rulings which have exempted certain portions of NSP property from
the tax role, the value of the NSP plant has been declining in recent
years. Another factor that was taken into consideration when the Council
went to five years was that a developer does have the option to let
taxes and assessments go delinquent for five years prior to the County
requiring payment, otherwise the land will be put up for tax forfeiture.
G
Mr. Forneae will address the issue of the bond rating and how this may
affect future bonds of the City of Monticello should the City decide
to go to a longer period of payoff for assessments. It was felt at
the time of the adoption of the assessment policy, that a twenty-year
payoff on bonds was much too long on a growing area. If the twenty-
year assessment policy was still retained, it would mean that Councils
in the future may have their hands tied when it came to requests for
Improvements since there would be quite an accumulation of dobt from
provioua projects.
Ono other item that has boon mentioned is the frontend requirement of
25% minimum for improvements to a now aubdivioion. One individual had
mentioned that possibly this could be based on a escalating basis.
•d' In other words, possibly a leaser percentage than 25% could be required
p� on may the first $500,000, but this could be an increasing percentage
�6 after a certain figure of may $500,000 to 25%. The theory boing that
the greater the amount of the improvement, the greater the gamble of
O the City in extending improvements to the area. It should be pointed
\fy out, however, that the City's policy relative to the 25% frontand money
\OVA was a minimum, and that this could go up to am much as 100% depending
upon the nature of the request for improvement and the Council doci-
�� aion at that time.
�yr
POSSIBLE ACTIOt7s After review of the assessment policy, consideration of
any revisions.
REFERE11CPSi Enclosed copies of Mont leollo's existing ordinance on asmoma-
` montm which were adopted in 1978, and Memorandum from myself
1 regarding conversation with Mr. Fornean of Springsted subsequent
to preparing this Agenda Supplement.
Xv— .10)V V - 4
Council Agenda - 3/26/79
4. Review of Updated Feasibility Report on Improvements to Laurinq Hillside
Terrace and Consideration of Callinq for a Public Hearinq.
As you may recall, at the Council's last meeting Mr. Roy Lauring petitioned
for various improvements based upon certain contingencies as they related
to the City's assessment policy. These contingencies were that the City
assess the improvement project over ten years if rural streets were put
in, or fifteen years if permanent streets with curb and gutter were
installed. Additionally, their petition was contingent upon assessments
not to be paid in full on Lauring Hillside Terrace upon application for
a building permit.
John Badalich has updated the feasibility of extension of sewer and street
to this area based upon a 1978 report. In 1978, this project was denied
since the cost at that time included permanent streets, storm sewer, etc.
and the payoff period would have been five years.
Copy of this agenda is going to Mr. Roy Lauring, the petitioner for the
improvements to the area, and possibly he can convey to the Council his
feelings after decisions have been made relative to Agenda Item 43, and
whether he still wants to pursue the petition.
If the Council decides to pursue this improvement, it appears it would be
necessary at this time to still hold a public hearing since petitions
have not been received from 100% of the property owners. Mr. Roy Lauring
was going to try to contact Mr. Earl Malone to see if he would agree
to sign the petition. If Mr. Malone signs the petition, then 100% of
the property owners affected would have agreed to the project and the
necessity of a public hearing is not required by State Statutes.
If a public hearing is considered, this could be combined with the public
hearing that the Council may consider in the next agenda relative to the
feasibility report previously received.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of calling for a public hearing on the
q� extensionof sower and street improvements to Louring
` Hillside Terrace. (NOTEi If the petition is in fact now
signed by 100% of the affected property owners, the
action would be to consider ordering tho improvement of
the project and requesting plans and speco to be pre-
pared by the engineer).
5. Consideration of Sottinq Itearinq Date for the 1979-1 Improvement Project.
As you may recall, at our last mooting the City Council docidod to hold
a public hearing on the 1979-1 Improvement Project areas 2, 3 s 4.
A specific hearing date was not act at that time since it wan determined to
wait until any revisions might be made in the assessment policy. It wan
felt that any revisions that may be made in the assessment policy could
be very instrumental and have a groat offoct on the property owners
that aro being proposed to be assessed.
- 5 -
Council Agenda - 3/26/79
POSSIBLE ACCIO14: Consideration of setting date for public hearing on
1979-1 improvement project.
6. Consideration of Subdivision of Parcel - James Refriqeration.
James Refrigeration Company had made an application to subdivide the
lot they own on South Highway 25 where the Tom Thumb store is being
built.
Their proposal is to make two lots of the following sized - Parcel "A"
39,465 square feet, and Parcel "B" 32,670 square feet. Both lots would
exceed the 100' front width requirement and minimum lot sizes.
One item which should receive particular attention is that which Js shown
on the enclosed plat plan. In the Northeast corner of Parcel "A" the
proposed driveway would require an easement to get off from Parcel "A"
onto County Road 117. At this point, without an easement from Parcel "B",
Parcel "A" would be landlocked. Possibly consideration should be made
to change the lot line to be as shown on the suggested proposed reference
map.
At their last meeting, the Planning Commission approved of the subdivi-
sion contingent upon changing the lot line as indicated in order that
Parcel "A" would not need an easement from Parcel "B" to get onto
County Road 117.
It should be further pointed out that a 10% park dedication fee is
required, and James Refrigeration is aware of this provision.
POSSIBLE ACTIO14: Consideration of recommending approval or denial of
subdivision request, with any provisions considered
relative to the driveway easement.
REFERENCES: See enclosed plat plan and map.
7. Consideration of Authorization to Purchase Cube -Master Icemaker for
Hiqhway Liquor.
Currently, the City of Monticello has an icemaker at its Municipal Liquor
Store that is not adequate to handle tho volume that is necessary, and
as a result, we currently have a unit that is installed at the liquor
store that is owned by a company and we merely purchase the ice from that
company and sell it to the customers.
This type of arrangement is working fine since it does meet the volume
demands of the liquor store's customers. However, since the liquor
store has opened, the demand has increased to ouch a point whore the
City can now purchase a larger icemaker and roalizo a greater profit
since it can product its own ice. Currently, the City makes 250 on a
bag of ice, and producing our own ice with an icemaker would produce
a profit of approximately 55C par tag, which would include the coat of
the bag and our labor costa for tagging the ice. With our present
volume, it is possible to rocover the coot of a now icemaker, which is
$2,430 , in approximately one and one-half yoars.
- 6 -
Council Agenda - 3/26/79
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of authorization to purchase Cube -Master
Cicemaker.
8. Consideration of ADpointment of Street Supervisor.
In reviewing the Public Works Department personnel with our previous
Public Works Director, and also employee evaluations done on the staff
of the Public Works Department, recommendation is hereby made to appoint
Roger Mack - street Supervisor - at a salary of $1,250 per month.
Additionally, it is also the recommendation to retain Dick Brooks,
present Street Supervisor, at a salary of $1,250 as maintenance worker.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of appointments as indicated.
2150 RIVER STREET i MONTICELLO, MN 55362 S (612) 295.2500
March 15, 1979
Monricollo Planning Cummissiun
Munticullo, MN 5536,2
Gentlemen:
Reeause of ❑ previous commitment I am at oh Energy Storage Ftate:ial
Conference in San Antonin, Texas and I can rat be witr Vou tonirl-v. L'r:-
fortunately an April 17th I am also out of town as 1 am un the r-rogram
nt a National PEA Load Management Conference., I will be at the March 2&Lh
city council meeting,
1 believe thn Justification or roasun for the raCueaLod vari5nce on
hard sul,racu p6'rking 3'o so follows:
1._ TI•e ourrounding area is boslcoliy undovalcPt;d.
2. The strust is grnvale
3. The new proposed building ie o watahoue0 and, basically riot
involved with ❑driJ.tionol porkingc
4. We do riot havo o walk-in or general public uuaineso.
5. Parking and curbing around the existing office and manufactur—
inrj building has a very soled B r 10 yoor Ola bone.
IUI p,. The drainage and soil candTtions aro such that wo have nc
rain or mud prebluni3:
7. Bard surface,porkind where naL required is, not a good use
I� of our ❑norgV pntrol'cum resourceo.
The vorlanre an eetbuck lnvulvas :is in with the existing huildinp.
1. Th,; full 411i, ootanck would rrnuira_mo}ar mcelflcation tc
DAU: tintl bu?lriinr, urrl inLurl'ncn with our 11 !,r:cd flow of
mnLarlal LI -rough chs twu buildin(;d.
2. We would like to line up with nxiating huiJcino for up+irum
uno of nroiu;rtV.
3. 17aet+usa of the imfirnvud app❑orm!cc of tee crueni;cu
it coulri curve uo o viGunl blocl! to the eainting steel buJld-
ing and umployan perking lot. if the new building is not
aligned with the corner of the existing building, the unot-
trcictivo otool building will stick out like n caro thlmih.
Aerovent EOulpmpnt - Hillstrom At8068M . ftsw Eh-,rtr,r - frn-rrod .its mvi
-�j
U
The oncicsoEl drawing and Polaroid pictures are an attempt to
demonstrate Point number 3.
Thank you For your conoldcration.
WJS/ml.s
Sincerely,
P'. //-,
William J. Se2feldt
(3
Ch
0
i..
r ,
I
Oji,!//,�4',
' � -t{��✓�'�` � / _ _ ' � �r�—�.— 1� ��y ~ I� '� �' •r ill' r, r, ��"� ��t{ '} ^ � •tic,{
'�� ;�,�„ ~' .' ��Me itevR : '""'` ;A;3.. • '.s'%kms
�{ . ' � � ' i. _ .. --•r • , �`, .� ..\ . \ �..., .-- � ;�! o , ° � , of r!+, ^'ro
1F � �; ,1•. � `, r. i . � � � � ,rte v� ; :SSS
_ . �, •. � a d� . tri°�...:::
a
11-T-1
CHAPTER T
NE,UIRED PASIC 11+ACIVEMENi;;
I 1-T-1
11-,-I VIC "IAL
DTNC'T InPAOV9NCNT3
11-I- rAIIITARV SEVER AND WATER DISTRIBUTION IMPROVEMENTS
PUBLIC UTILITIES '
11-T-1: GENERAL:
(A) BCrou A FINAL PLAT 19 APPROVEO OT THE CITY COUNCIL. TNL OVMCR OR
SUBo1V10CR Or THE LAND COVERED BY TML SAID PLAT SMALL EY[CUTC AND
Sun NIT TO or
COUNCIL'AM AOR[LN[NT. WHICH SMALL Be BINDING ON MIS OR
TNCIR HCIRB. lCMSONAL RLPRCBLMTAT111L1 AND ASSIGNS. THAT ME WILL CAUSC
NO •RIVATS CONSTRUCTION TO OL MADE ON SAID KAT OR FILL OR CAUSE TO
S[ T .0 ANY YPLICATION FOR SUILDINS PERMITS FOR SUCH CONSIRUCT1ON
UNTIL ALL INPROVENENTS REQUIRED UNDER THIS ORDINANCE NAVE SEEN
MARL OR ARRAMOLD FOR IN THE MAIM FOLLOWING AS RLG►CCTS THE STRCLTS
TO WHICH THE
LOTS SOUGHT TO 09 CONSTRUCTED HAVE SCC[SS.
(B) PRIOR TO THE HARING O► wCH MCOUIRED INPROVLIRNTS. THE CITY COUNCIL
SMALL R[QUI Sc TH[ DVNER OR SYSOIVIOCR TO PAT TO THE CITY AN AMOUNT
[OUAI TO A MINIMUM Or 25% AND M TO 100% 01 THE LOTIMAT[D TOTAL COST
Or SUCH IMPgOVLNLRTI. INCLUDING NOT ONLY CONSTRUCTION OUT All INDIRECT
COSTS. INC ACTUAL PCRCCNTAGL TO SC O91IRMINED BY THE CITY IN EACH
CASE DASCO ON ITS RCV19W OF$
1. iHt FINANCIAL BACKO40UND OF INS DCVCLOIEN.
i TH[ NORMALCY OF INC UNIT CHANCE FOR PUTTING IN TML IMPROVEMENT.
j. AN EVALUATION Or TML COOT RECOVERY POTENTIAL THROUGH THL SALE
Or THE LAND.
L, TMC LINCLINOOD Or SUCC[U Or THE DCVELO►MLN1.
5. NAS THL DCVCLO►EI( OCFAULTCD ON ANY OUTSTANDING ASSESSMENT
PAYMENTS IN TME PAST r.MLVE (12) MDMTMS.
TRIS PAYMENT MOOT It MADE TO TNL CITY PRIOR TO THE CITY COUNCIL
ADO""a TML RESOLUTION ONOCRON* rNL 140JCCT. THL GALANCL Or TMC
TOTAL PROJECT COST WILL SE ASSCSSED 100% AGAINST TNL O[NtrITtD rao.
rt ATY. PATAGLC IM NOT .ORE IMAM FIWL (5) ANNUAL IMSTALLNENIS WITH
INTEREST AT • RATC 001 AT LEAST 1.5% (NOUNDED UP 10 INC MCARE4I .25%)
OVER TML NAIL PAID ON
SOROS ISWEO TO FINANCE TNL IMPNOVCMiM►B. OR, 1I
r IMANCto INTCRMALLVP OVCA THE "90 EQUIVALENT RATE INC CITY DCTCRMIN[B
ITWOULD MAVC TO PAY ON BONDS IGwCO AT THAT TIMCI PROVIDED. HOVCVEA,
THAT TML CUTIN[ ASSESSMENT BALANCE OUTSTANDING AGAINST A OIVL11 PARCEL
IS TO Bc IA1O IM FULL PRIOR To TRIC 1SwANCL Or A OUILDINO PL1O11T FOR
NLW COMSIRUCr10N OM THAT PARCEL. IM TML EVENT A BUILDING 10141411 IS
APPLIED FOR IoIOR TO COMPLCTION Or INSTALLATION OF THE IMPROVCmENTO.
fHL PAYMENT TO
THE
CITY SHALL at IN AM AMOUNT [QUAL TO 125% OF THE
[011NATL0 TOTAL ASSESSMENT. UPON COMPLEIIOM OF THE PROJECT AND
O[T[RNINATION OF TML ACTUAL COST TO SC ASSESSES. ANY OVINCMAROC WILL
at
Nt"NOto AND ANY ADDITIONAL COST WILL 09 DUE TS[ CITY WITHIN 3D
CAVA 01 MDT./.CATION O► SUCH ADDITIONAL COST. IF. FOR ANY REASON.
SUSSEOUCNI TO LIS No
MAOE SUCH ADVANCE PAYMENT TO INC CIrV. INC
0[VLLOPER SMDULO WITHDRAW room TML PIIOJCCT, THE CIIV IS CNTITLCD TO
RC TAI. AM ANOu11T CGUAL TO TML CITYIS COST BeLATC0 10 TMC PROJECT
10 THAT TIME. AND THE 0 LANCE SMALL 0t 4LFIIUDCO TO THE CCVCLOPCR.
110 rINAL PLAT SHALL Be APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL WITHOUT FINST
ACCCIVIMO A R[POST IRON ME CITY CNGINECA C[RTIrTIMO THAT TNL IH-
PR[1V[NCN1! OC lCRIS[D NERtIM. TOO[TMEA VITM TMC AGR[C.c"Ts AND
OCCUN[NIS
aEQUIRCO M[NCIN. NEEP THC MINIMUM RLOu1RtNENTG or ALL A►PLICASLL
OROINA.CCS. DRAWINGS SHOWING ALL IMPROVCM[MTS Al GUILT SMALL Be
FILED VI IN
TMC CITY CLLRM.
F
I I- I.I
(0) NO FINAL PLAT SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON LAND SUBJECT
TO FLOODING ON CONTAINING POOR DRAINAGE fACILITICS AMD ON LAND
d41CN WOULD MAK[ ADEQUATE DRAINAGE Of THE STREETS AND LOTS IMPOSSIBLE.
IIDW[VCR, If THE SUROIVIOCR AGRC[S TO MAKE IMPROVCMCNTS WHICH WILL.
IN THE OPINION OF THE CITY ENGINCCR, MARL THE AREA COWPLLTLLY SAF[
FOR FCSIDCNTIAL OCCUPANCY AND PROVIDE ADEQUATE STREET AND LOTOPAIIIAGE.
AND CONFORM TO APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Of OTHER AGENCIES SUCH A! THE
U. 5. CORPS O• E1+GINEERS OR TNC DEPARTMENT Of NATURAL RESOURCE! THE
FINAL PLAT OF TM[ SUBDIVISION MAY B[ APPROVED. IN •DOITION. SUCH
PLATS MAT NOT BC APPROVED If TN[ COST Of PA011... O MUNICIPAL ![RVICC!
10 PROTECT TNC FLOOD PLAIN MEA WOULD IMPOSE AN UNREA7OUABLC ECONOMIC
UUPDCN UPON THE CITY.
(E) ALL OF THE REQUIRED IMPROV[MCNT! TO BE INSTALLED LINDEN THE PPOv1410N5
pf THIS OROINANCC SMALL BE INlPCCTCD DURING THE COURSE Of THEIR CON.
5TRUC TION BY TMC CITY ENGINEER• All OF INC INSPECTION COST! PURSUANT
T ER
!MALL BE PAID OV THE
OWNER OR SLD DTVI OCR IN THE MANNER PRE -
CAI ED
IN ARA R.011 (B) ABOVE.
(i) :AT,::. SANITARY SCWCR AND GTOPM SEWCR. LATERAL LINES :"ALL B[ ASSESlCO
100; AGAINST INC BENEFITED PROPERTY WITM:M THE
PROPOSED SUBDIVISION.
iNESE AS5E 0SMCNTS !HALL DC MADE ON A RL BI OEM VIAL MOUSING UN11 BASIS.
(C) 'W^111. SANITARY AMD STORM 8CWCR. TRUNK LINES BNALL OC ASSESlLD 100:
AG •IN9i TH[ BCN[fITCO PROPERTY, WMLTHCR OR MOT TMC 9[PVICC! •R[ .10E
IMN[DIAICLY AVAILABLE TO TNC PROPERTY, OM A NET PLATTED AAE. BASIS.
IMC ASSCSSHCMTS WILL UTILIZE A PLA ACPL UNIT FOR LANCE UNDCVLLOVCO
ANEAS AND A PER SOUARC FOOT UNIT ►OR PLAY TEO PROPER
}ICS.
C0
S1 O.' CONSTRUCT IMG PCAMAN[MT BTA[[TL, INCLUDING CURB AMO GUTIER,
WILL OC IDG/ AS7CS$ED AGAINST B[XCf IT[D PROPER TT D.lCU OM FRONT
FOOTAGE. CORNEA LOTS SMALL B[ ASSESSED FOR fPON TAGC ONLY WITH ND
CNAACC HADC FON TML LONG BID[ LOT FOO TAG[. CO'+TS RC SUL75AG FPO.
I NTCROECTIONS AND SID[ LOT fOOTAGC SMALL OL INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL
AMOUNT TO BL AlOCOBEO AND APPORTIOM[D OVER THE MET A03[9SABL[ FOOT W[.
IN INC CASE Of ODD -SHAPED LOTS• TML FOOTAOC SMALL BC AS r[ASUPCD AT
THE BUIL DII+G SCT -BACK LINC1 NOW[VCR. IM NO [VONT SMALL TML ASlESSALBC
FOOTAGE UC LCOS 7HAN TNC MINIMUM LOT WIDTH AS RLOUIRIO S`! THE CITY.
(I) :T INC R[OUEST Of THE
OWM[P OR SUBDIVIDER, THE CITY .AY AGR[[ f0
SP Rf AD ALL Of THC ASD[8SMLNTO AOA 7 TM[ IUSDIVI SIGN ON A PEP LOT
011 R.510
010[NT IAL HOUSING UXIT DAB/S. AATHCR THAN ON THE VARIOUS METH005
5 a 1'ORT+1 IN (F). ( G ) AN (H) ASDVC.
(J) 1+1 ALL CASED. THE PROCEOURC FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS PPE5CP18E0 IN
MINNESOT• :TATUTES C14APTCR 429. SMALL UL FOLLOWEO.
,5) HERCQYIR[M[XTO Of TNI! OPOINANCE ARE INYEX.1. TO UE COMPATIBLE WITH
TNC •SOLS 5MCNi POLICT pRDIM.NC[ 1 rl.I TM ROUGH 13-3- (6.1i•)({ I%j)
3
13-1-1 13-1-1
CHAPTER I
ASSESSWNTS
j[ -i ION:
I3 -I-1: GENERAL
11-1-2: 'LATER. SANITARY SEVER AND STORM SEVER
13-1-3: STREETS. INCLUDING CURB AMO GUTTER
I3-1-1: GENERAL:
(A) THE PROJECT COSTS. WHICH SMALL BE COMPUTCD 10. ANT ~TIOVEMENT TO BE
WHOLLY OR PARTIALLY ASSCSSCD, SMALL CONSIST Or THE rOLLOYINO COMPONCNI
COST.:
I. CONSTRUCTION
EMGINECAING
3• INSPECTION
Y. LEGAL
5• FISCAL
�. 4pMIN1ATRTTIVC
%. ASSCSSNCMT AOLL PREPARATION
LAND ACWISITIO.
9, EASLHCHTS
10. COHDCMNATION
11. CAPITALIACO INTEREST AS DLTLAMINEO PROM TM[ SAL[ Or BONDS OR START
OrCO NSTRVCTIOM, WMICHEV[R IS [AALICST. TO THE GAVE Or THE ASSESSMENT
MEA1 1MG,
Il. MISCELLANEOUS
(B) ALL IMPNOVEMEHT PROJECTS, WHICH WILL BE TOTALLY OR PARTIALLY ASSCSSLO,
.ILL BC MAMDLED IN rULL COM/ORMAMCE WIT. TML PROVIBIDM. Of MINNESOTA
ST A 'UTC. CRAPTCR, 1129.
(C) ALL A[BCSSMENTS AGAINST. eENLrITLO PROPCOTT MAY SL PAID IN rULL WITHIN
THIRTY 1301 DAYS POLLOWING THC AS BElSNCMT HEAPING WITHOUT IMTCR[ST OR
PENALTY.
IDI ABSLSSMCYTB HAT B[ PAID O. AN ..."LLN[NT OAS10 OV[a • VARYING ...I -
Or YEARS. MOT TO ERC[[. TWCMTV (20) INSTALLMENTS. A/ OLTERMINEO BY TWO COUMCIL IO■ EACH SPLCIIIC PROJECT BASCO OM TME TYPE Or IMP ROv[M[MT TWO
THE STATUS Or THE SCAIE/ITCO PROP901".
(E) ANNUAL INSTALLMENTS MAY B[ CALCULATED ON THE BASIS Or CVL. PRINCIPAL
IAT MC.TA ►LYS INTO PEST OM TM[ UX►Alp OTLAMCL. OR OM TML OAST. Or LYER
ANNVAL IXA/ALIr[MTS. I..LVOI MO PAIMCIP.L AMD IMTE a[OT. AS TM[ COUNCIL
MAY DL T[RMINC.
(F) NTLaEST SMALL O[ CM Aao[0 OM TME VX►A10 SALAMI,[ IM ALL CASES •t • a•lC
Or AT LEAST 1.5f (AOVND[o U/ TO TIME X. ARLSIT .2511, CIVIL THL RT TE PAID
ON TMC OOMDO ISAUEO TO r111TMCL TIM[ IINaOVCMEMTS. 0A. 11 INTERNALLY
IIMAMCLO OYER GAPE TMLN [OVIVAL[MT RA TC TML CI TV 0[T[RMIY[A IT MOULD
MAYC TD IAT OM OONOS ISSUED AT THAT TIN[.
M1
(G) FOR ALL V AUSOIVIBIOMA. TM[ PAY"'
MT PRpWISIOHB IM TH[ CITY A SUB -
10 M ORDINANCE 11-�-1 THROUGH 11.7-11 SMALL •//L t.
13- 1.2
(H) IN ANY [VENT. THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT BALANCE OUTSTANDING ASAIIST
GIVCN IARCCL, OTHER THAN ASSESSH[NTS MAO[ FOR THE SPCC.IIC I-PROVEMCNI
PROJECTS LISTED IOLLOVI NO THIS PARAO R•►X. MUST B[ PAID IN 1.111::
RC OUIRC ML MT FOR 007 AIMING A OUILDING PERMIT FOR PRINCIPAL U,C
GEARED IN THE CI TVI] ZONING ON OINANC[ IO -2-2( NCV CO MST RUCTION ON
THAT P.RCCL.
EXEMPT PROJECT IDEN TIFICATION NUMBER!:
1977-1 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, 1977.2 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT,
1977-3 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND ALL PAOJCC TS •OA WNICM
•SSE7SMENTS WERE LEVIED PRIOR TO 1973.
(I( 'HIS ASSCSSMENT POLICY IS NOT INTENDED TO ACPLACL OR GRANGE IN ANY r•♦
TwC CI1TI] CVORE Ni POLI CT WIT CORARD TO 7E VER AND V•1[R. ![AV ANY
AND
COI—CTION CHARGES.
13-I-2 TATER, SANITARY SEAR AND STORM SEVER
(A( LATERALS
I. INC CITY ENGINEER SMALL DETERMINE. SUBJCCT TO CONFIRMATON BY TNL
,ITT COUNCIL. WHEN A SCWLA OR "ATLR LI M[ IB O[BIONCO FOR OVMLR
TN •M LAIC R AL IS NLIIT VI TH TML FOLLOWING DEFINITION 0/ • LAT[E.L
ASSUMED TO at
TYPIC AL:
•. VA7L R. RL 7I DENTIAL - • 6� OI•M[TEA LTM(
p. V•l[A. MALT IPL[ DVCLU NO . AN O° DO
ANCTLR LINE '
C. WATER. COMMERCIAL/INOUBTRIAL - A IO" 01—TLA LIMO
D. SE V[R. RESIDENTIAL - AN 8m DIAMC TER LINE AT • O[P TM OP UP TO 1?I
C. SEVEN. MYLTI/LC DWE LLI MO/COIM[RCIAL/IMWBTAI.L A IO" DIAMETER
L 1 N[ AT • DEPTH OF UP TO 121
(CURRENT ZONING OR LAND USE $MALL BE APPLIED)
?. IN R[SID[NTIAL AREAD. LATERALS "ILL O[ IOO11 ASBLBf EO AGAINST BLM[FITED
PR01[ATY UlINO A UMI7 ON PARCEL Me "a D• A VXIT OA PA:CLL IS [QUAL
10 ON1 (1) D[VILOPCO TINGLE FAMILY A[L10[MTIAL LOT ON • Y•CANi
PLATTED LOT MACH MELTS THE CITY'/ MINIMUM LOT REQUIREMENTS FOR A
SINGLE FAMILY OWCLLINGI WITH A WIDYN OF AT LCADT 9011 OR, IM THE
CASE OF AN UNPL A TIED AREA. THE MVMSLA OP UMITB SMALL Be OC TLAMIN(0
0Y THC MUMpLP 01 MIN INTIM SII[D LOTS. [ACM WAVING 80- FRO.ITAQE OM
INC •ARTICULAR U71LSfV SIN( BLIMQ CONSTRUCTED THAT COULD BE OBTAINED
BY OUB DIY I BINO TM[ PROPL R T Y.
3. FOR COMMERCIAL AMD LNDUSTRIAL PAOP[RTV. TMC LATERAL •SSLBSrC MTS
ON ALL OC DABLD ON f., FAONl ►OOT M(TMOD. TNL FRONT FOOTAQL •L O[SM
TIENT •OAXT CD2111CIAL AND INOV/TRIAL PROPCATY SMALL Be OLT[RMIN[D
ON THE BASIS or THE CQVIVALCNI OF 80 IROMT rt 9T PER UNIT. E■AMVL[I
• COMMEQCIALVINOUSTQ IAL PROPEATV WITH A IAO1 FRBNT•GL
8pDD�UL0 ACOULT IN AN AB/[/ANENT •B IOlLOV/t 500 01VIDEO BY
8D
/ 6.213 UNITS IINLB TMC UNIT AOBLBSMCMT FOR THAT PROJCCI.
4. L•TLR•L AB BL OIMEMTB AOAINBI PROPERTY EONCD AMD/O■ CURRENT LY USED
•T TML TIME OF IMI' LLATIOM. TOA MULTIPLE IOTMER THAN /.-"GLC(
FAMILY RL[IOLNTIAL CONSTRUCTION SMALL DL DLT LRM INED ON
TML BASIS
01 .79 SINGLE FAMILY RLB 10[MllAl [QUIVAL[MT VMIT ILP LRCM PRDPO S[D
DWELLING VMIT. ON OM A FRONT FOOT RABID. AS YM[ COUNCIL MAY OCICOMIML.
�. IM TN[[YCMT 01 L.RGE PLAIT CD !OTO. CONTAINING ONE (1( DWELLING
UHITAT TML PRESENT TIMI. ADDITIONAL UNIT CNAROLB BM.LL BE MADE 11
TNL PR[B[MT BUILDINGS ON THE LOT APC LOCATEO BO AB TO /[RMIT
BUBDIYIB.0 01 TML LOT, PROVIDING ADDITIONAL BUILDING OI iC/ w[[TI NL
THE CITV'1! MIMI MUM WIDTH AND LOT SIFI • •..11 RULE NEB.
Q.1.2 13-1.2
Jr. ON TN[ FUTURE. TOOK CITY SHOULD GRANT A VA/VCR Of MINIMUM Rt.
GVIRCKEMTS AND PERMIT SPLITTING Or A PLATTED LOT 04101NALLY
ASSt SS[O AS ONE UNIT. A CONNECTION CHARGE SMALL BE MADE IM AN
AHpUNT COUAL TO TNf .'MUMT WNIC$4 VOYlO MAVE SEEN ORIGINALLY
ASSCSSt0 MIAINST TNR PROP[RTV SR/ORE THE PROPER" DIVISION IA
ORANTCO. 1
18) TRUMR OR IN7{ry ATgR
1. IH: CITY ENo11K[R SMALL DETERMINE. OuDJ[CT TO CON{IRMAT wN OT THC
C1rY COVMCIL, WHEN A SCW[R OR WATER LIN[ 10 DESIGNED WHOLLY OR
PARTIALLY TO A[RVE AS A TRUNK OR INTERCEPTOR WITH THE FOLLOWING
OCFIN/TION Of TRUNK OR INTCRCIPTOR LINES RUN TO at "Plc" -
A. WATER. RCSIOCNTIAL - LIMES OVtR 6" IN QQIANETER
G. WATCH. M LTiPL[ DWELLING . LINES OYER i1" iN OtAN.TtR
C, WATER. COISa RC1AL/IMDUSTMIAL LAiN[S OVER IO" IN DIAMtTRA
D, SEVER. Rta#OENT/AL — LIIKD OVER O" IN DIAM[T[S
C. SCWCR. HULTIPLE/COMMtRCIAL/104CUSTRIA1. • LINES OVER 10" IM
DIAMETER
ALSO INCLUDED IN THIS CATEGORY FOR ASSESSMENT PURPOStO AMC MOST
LIFT STATIONS AND OYMCR UNUSUAL COSTS WHICH MAY S[ ASSOCI&TCO
VI TN A LATERAL OR DUAL PURPOSE LIN[. OLOCH AS THE COOTS INCURRED
IN SMSTALLING SCVER LINES AT A COUNT" OF SDRC THAN 121,
2, I0CJ% OF THE COSY OF TRUNI/IMT[RCEPTOR LINES SMALL GI A111196810
AGAINST THE MCT PLATTED AREA. ~IN&R OR NOT SERVICE WILL OCCOME
OHM DoAYCLT AVAILMLR TO TNR PRO►[R4 A" A RROULf or TN[ PRD.
JECT. THE TRUNK COST SMALL S[ COMPUTED AS THE TOTAL PADA CT
COST. LESS TOOK LATERAL OCN[FIT ALONG TIS TRUNK LIENS AS 0919"116110OT THC COUIVA.CNT COST OF INSTALLING LATERAL LINED IN THE SAME
PROJECT AREA.• LATERAL AGSEGSNENTO ON THE AFOR[HI'VTIRN o UNIT OR
GR FRONT POST $ASID WILL St NAGE FOR THAT PORTION OF THE PROJECT
COST. AMD TM[ DALANED
CE ASG[S"OM AN AREA 049111 TO TNI 01048
0[NRII TIED AMC 1.
j, FOR PURPOSCS OF MSASDWOT. "MET PLATTRO ARCA"%WALL Ot Ot TCRM111[O
TO 0[1
OF TN[GROSS AREA 10 UIMLATTCD RCSIDENTIAL AREAS.
D. JDf OP TME *405"
AREA IN UHPLATTtO WR{.TIPl[ DW[LLIAO. COMMERCIAL
Co- INDUSTRIAL AREAS. -
5., FOR LARGE UND[VRLOP[D ARCM. ASSEOSNRNT LIMITS VILL SR ACRE q AND
IH $."Lax 09 PLATTED PMMRTIEN. IN UARE FOOT 1AIITA WILL BE USED.
j.
Yost COUNCIL WILL DRT[IDIIMt. IN RACK CASE. WHRTKCR A NtCC$SAOY
Li FT [TAT to" SMALL GE COM"/SEOEO AS St1iFIT IMG A O/YRN AREA ANO
ASSCUSRO MOLLY OR PARTIALLY IM THE GANG HANM[O AN A TRUNM LIN[.
CR WH[TMtR M[ NPT GTATIOM IS OF GENES" OR PARTIAL 0[KtFI, TO
TIC CITY AMO. AD A. RESULT. MWLILD St PAID FOR HOLLY OO PARTt ALLY
THROUGH SEVER DEPANTMEAIfI RRVEMIO.
6. TME COUNCIL SMALL Dt TEIMINR. IN EACH CAS[. WM[TN[R A TRUNK WATCH
LIPSON RELATED FACILITY WALL 09 COXII09RCO AA ORN[PMTING A OiV[N
ARIA AND WHOLLY OR PARTIALLY AMUSED. OR WHITMEO TNR LINE IS GP
G."COAL S[NCFIT TO INE CETT, AND AN A RESULT. SWULD OE PAID ►OR
WHOLLY OR PARTIALLY THROUGH OEVtMUtS OF TME.WAY90 O[►AO,MKNT.
7. Rt NC[ A TOTAL TRUMP "Y"TRN HAT at COMSTSUCTCO /N SIVCRAL STABC&.
THEMAY 0[ WOR THAN COME TeyNK ASOLGOM[NT ASAI NST • OIYKN PARCEL
Or 'No
Pe STY. IH MO LV[NT SMALL TH[ TOTAL AGOEADMEN ALAI MDT
QIVCN PARCEL OP PROPERTY RMCEEIM THE TOTAL COOT (MCURRID IN
,URMUNIto TRUNK SERYIC[D TO TMA, PRNRSTY.
9
13.1-a
13-1-3
4.
WHEN NATER AND SEN[R TRUNK AND/OR OTMCR COR[ r4CILITIC/ ARE
CONSTRUCTED WHICH 8ENCf LT AREAS LYING OUTSIDE THE CORPORATE
L IMlT9, A TRUNK COMNCCTION CHARGE SMALL BE [STAOLIOMED FOR T141
BCM[P ITCD PROPCRTY WHICH IS LOCATCD oUT31DC INC COAPOAATC LIMITS
NNIC" SNALL OC PAID UPON CONNECT/ON TO THE SYSTEM. 'Nti CON.
NCCTION CMAAOC SMALL BC IN AN ARGUNT COUAL TO THE TAUNR ASSCS3-CRI,
OA ASSESSMENTS, LCVICO AGAINST COwLLT SCNCF{TCO PROPERTY WITHIN
IMC CORPORATC LIMITS AT INC TIME THE PA04CC7, OR PROJECTS, ARE
C dNPLCT,
O, lNCBCASiD ANNUALLY BY THE C1101NCER)NQ NsN� R[CQRO
i NUEA foA LAC" YC AR BE TI,CEM TNC DAT[ Of INSTALLATION Of TNT
LILAC AND TNC DATC Of CONNECTION. ANY PARTIAL TC •A SMALL BE
CON3NOE4Cc, A FULL YCAR 1% O[TCANINI"G THEINCREASE.
(C) STORK sec.
1. STORM OC MCA COSTS .ILL UC 100% A36CSSCO TO DENO IICO PROPERTY ON
A NLT PLATTED ARCA OASIS.
,. FOR PURPOSES Of ASSESSMENT, -NET PLATTCD AREA SHALL DC DCTCRMINCO i:I
OT:
AOI' ILII '+.:o L- .11EA In uNPLAIT[D nCJlDctln Al ARc ea.
OI' . t GI;o US ARCA Ill URPLATTCD MJL
,.—LIKIAl ON INDUST814L ARC".
3. sioRH 2EAf9R ASSESSMC"TS POR OTHER THAN SINGLE TANILT RCSiDCNIIAL
P NOPC 141 SMALL UC DCTCNNIN[D BY MULTIPLYING TMC RESIDENTIAL ARCA
A3 SEoUMLNT PER DOU.RC FOOT, OR ACRE, TIMES TMC fOLLO.IMG FACTOR:
A. UPON SPACC -35U. MULTIPL( DN9LL/NQ /.f}
C. COMNCRCIAL/INDUSTRIAL 2.0
13-1-3 STREETS, lKLU)INI CURB AND GUTTER
(A) ALL STREET IMPRDVCMCNTS. INCLUDING CURB AND GUTTCA..SMALL OC 100%
ASSCSS[O AGAINST THE ABUTTING PROPERTY ON A FRONT POSTAGE OA[IS,
(D) TMC ASSCSSABLC I'OOTAOC ON A 4YR99T PROJCCI CONSISTS Of ALL FRONT
foo, SOC, NOT IHCLUOMO IMC LOMO SID[ TOOT. Be CORNER iOTI. :MD,.'".
N0 /M THE
CAS[ Of GOD-SNAPCD LOTS. 1M[ LOOT AOC SNALL OC D[TCRMIMC0 IO 0C TN[
FODTAG. AT INS SU/LOONS OCT"ACA LEN[. BUT SMALL IN NO [VONT SC LESS
THAM THE
M1111 MOM L01 WI AS R[OUTA[0 OT THL CITr, COSTS ATTAIBUfAa LC
TO INTERG(C1/ONS AND 61D[ LOT FOOTAGE SMALL SC INCLUDED IN TMC TOTAL
AHOONT TO Be A6AC SSE
Q AND A►POR710NED OV92 THE N[I A32C12►B6E roovao C.
(:}-ITY•O.MCO PROPCATV SMALL O[ ISICLUOCO AS ASSCISASLC FOOTAGE ANO PAID
FOA UY IM[ CITY.
IDI IN INC EVENT 814111 RCPLACCMCN7 IS "CCC88AAT AS A RESULT OF U4090.
O RDUND UTlLI IT CONSTRUCTION, INC CITY AT DCT9RM/NC TO 486926 50t
OI INC STREET 2E►LLENCNT COST.
(E) II lot COUNCIL OCT9AN!"98 TMA, TM9 OTRC9T. WHICH MUST 8E RCPLACCD
AS A RESULT OF TNC UND[11)IROUMO UTILITY CONSTRUCTION, NAS OF SCM
DCTCR/CAAICD C0 of TION AB TO MAY[ BCE* i" NC90 OF A9PLAC[N[MT
N M(TNLa OA MO1 UM D940 ROUND NORM WAS MCCCBIARV, TMCN IOaG OF INE
nIACCTRCPLACCNCNT COOT SMALL DC ASREIISCD AGAINST THE
OCIRFITID
PNOPC DIT ON A fNp t4 roof OC OASIS.
0
13-1-3
13-1-3
(F) IN INC CVCMT STRCCTS ARC RCOTORCD TO TMCIR CONDITION PRIOR TO TMC
UNDCRORDUND UTILITY CON3TRUCTIONg TMC STRICT CO3T SMALL SC A33COSED
ON A UNIT OASIS AS A PART Of TNC UTILITY CONSTRUCTION CO3T. IP TNt
3TRCCT l3 UPORADCO. TMC DIPPLRLNCt OCTVCCH TMI CO3T 01 RC3TORATION
TO ITS PA/OR CONDITION AND TMC Ota/RCO UPORAOINO SMALL OC ASSCSOCD
A4A#NST TMC OCNC►ITCD PROPCRTY ON A PRORT PODIAOC SASISA WIT" TMt
RCSTORATION CO3T OCIND INCLUDCD IN TMC UTILITY CONSTRUCTION A3SCSS-
NCMT ON A UNIT BASI3.
( ;}itl r.O CYCNT ^.ii.LL a9b:.55 'C NTS rQ% STRICT CO�i3TAVCTiON SC SPREAD
O VCF A PCRIOD Of PC THAN TCN (IO) YCAR3.
(7_14-78 058)
3
7o!.u1u ,, 7957711 M-. L• 3335739
CifY o� /onfic¢[lo
250 East Broadway
MONTICELLO, MN 55362
MEMORANDUM
TO: Monticello City Council
FROM: Gary Wieber, City Administrator
DATE: March 22, 1979
SUBJECT: Additional Information on Agenda Item 03 Regardinq Review
of Assessment Policy
On Thursday, March 22, 1979, after the Agenda was completed, I met with
King Forness, with Springsted, Inc., relative to the City's Assessment Policy.
As indicated in the regular agenda supplement, Mr. Forness is aware of some
of the concerns the City of Monticello has, and it was thought the best way
to handle the matter at Monday night's meeting would be for King Forness
to briefly review the City's current policy, and then respond to specific
questions from the City Council regarding the present concerns. The City
Council may want to ask for input from the audience after the Council has
boon given an opportunity to discuss their concerns with Springsted, Inc.
It should be noted that I did have the Monticello Times put a special notice
in the paper that the meeting on Monday night would include the review of
the City's assessment policy.
During our conversation, Mr. Forness indicated that there would be some
leverage within the City's current assessment policy and felt that the
possibility of going to a ten year payoff would not neccesarily jeopardize
that greatly the City's bond rating or any future bonding capacity. Ilow-
over, he did again express a concern relative to waiving the requirement
that assessments be paid in full upon application for a building permit.
Ito stressed that the City of Monticello should not be in the financing
business, and that certainly assessments are a small part of a total building
project. Since the building project would have to be financed anyway, the
assessments could to included in the loan. One other thought expressed was
that a lending agency prefers to have the assessments also financed by them
since assessments have a priority lion on a piece of property. That is to
say, that if the developer does not pay off the assessments and does not pay
off the loan for the building, that the landing agency loan is secondary
to the City's lion against the property for assessments.
Additionally, Mr. Fornoso indicated that the five year assessment provision
in actuality allows a developer as many as nine to ton years to pay off
the assessment since property is not tax -forfeited until five years of
delinquent taxes and assessments haven't boon paid. For example, an indi-
vidual could wait for four years of assessments to pass and than during
each of the next five years, pay 1/5th of the remaining balance duo.
r
1110mo to Th/on/rco[10 fill mountain •-�5Y ••lI
3
k—
Memo to City Council
Page #2
March 22, 1979
Obviously this would entail some penalties and interest, but some developers
do take advantage of this particular provision.
It should also be pointed out that the present assessment policy would allow
areas other than new subdivisions to be assessed over a period up to twenty
years. For example, if Commercial Plaza 25 were to be served with sewer
and water, the Council could levy assessments over a five year period for
Commercial Plaza 25, but acscan the remaining portion against residential
property over a twenty year period. This provision was put in the ordinance
to allow existing structures, including residences, a longer payoff period
since they may subsequently get served by sewer and water when it's really a
developer that is petitioning for the improvement.
GW/no
3
1
Ate
i �. ` /ter• � .' ,' � 4 ; .(i ' ire '- ' • •.,,":.• ..- _ �"'^'►,,,'_' -
;HIGHWAYTVT5T0
veep��T�OtI
N0. 9A
1 t JA1�8S
,, 6
t
s Refrigeration Systems, Inc.
519 North Cleveland Avenue St. Paul, Minnesota 55114 . 646.7165
a4 -,r
March 2, 1979
Hi47ay Liquor
c/o City of Monticello
Monticello, Mn 55362
Attn: 'lark
Dear Eark,
Thank, you for the opportunity to quote Cubemaster
Ice Systems for your store.
The following is the special price available to
you presently for the FD450L (see attached spec sheet).
1 fD450L Cubemaster Ice Maker, water cooled,
larF',c cube, ?O8/230v $1150.00 + tax. V
Add Alternate:
1 LCL'?50SL [lin Storage sleeve. 195 additional tJ
lb. storage $ 2^0.00 + tax.
prices are 1'.O.0. Si: Paul, Mn, and include 5 y".
compressor, 5 yr. evaporator, 1 yr. parts warrant-oo.
For your additional consideration, please allow me
to quo:..our 575 lb. stor lrc Lin:
1 LCHb00 [lin $ ?E5.CC -.ax.
Should ,,cu ehou:e to purchase the riachinc head,
and bin, you would then be free to use your old mach -ink,
for a back. -up unit or to sell it: outright as a unit
(i.n. Bead and matching bin).
Feel free to contact me for any further information
needed. I'm looking forward to doing business with vou.
Sincerelv,
REFRIGERATION SYSTrMS 1;7C.
_f.
TG : n Terry%Griot}:e'
• The big, hig11-outpat unit Effnt wttertooled
desi�r for use in dead areas. Ezcellonitmit when
you here adequate water supply.
• Grows with your future needs. het add "stack -on"
modules as required to increase production.
• Reliable. Automatically produces up to 4001bL
1181 kg) per day of solid, crystal clear its cubes.
positive thermostatic ice storage level control.
• produces ampte quantities of handy -site cubelets
3/4" (19mm) square.
• Can be used With any CUBEMASTERaStorige Bin
end Sleeve for up to 075 ths. (307 kg! storage.
• Reliable full 1 h.p. (.75 kw) compracor. For,
Efficient freezing cycle.
• Machine and parts warranted 1 year. Compressor,
evaporates warranted 5 years undar temp of
manufacturers; limited warranty.
• "Dual Central" operation onsures contact dmpiicity
• Tough attractive finish is baked -on Chameleon
green enamel. Reflects surrounding colon to blend
selth any decor.
ICE PRODUCTION CHAR
POUNOS PER 24 HOURS
tAotluctim In Kilperymr aAonal M tra(k11
•C "F
7
410 400 am 283 370
WJ7 rresl 11811 (1771 (171) (real
w 77 ad 415 408 300 2" 375
IIB81 trdlrl 11781 (178) (1101
Lr 11 70 421 412 401 a8D 380
a (l61/ all 11871 rill 11711
w to on %�/ �W11 r gal trOa01 Z,
so a a 70 90 V
10 eta21 117 21 C
INCOMING WATER TEMPERATURE
I I.
large and hall cubes availablo in this model on spoclal
order only.
a UL
CIP
• \1uKWl t�Own
Two F0450
— LCB500 on
NSFtl•wle.a
8" 1157 -1
t� 5 vl, Y.J SLI•-..�.
Molal shown. _ �`.-,,, -.��y ,�•yua.. �.w
F D450 "n
LCB750SI
S1.nv..M
LCa500
NSI
fi' 115: I
1•,it nalo.Mtt
LIQUID CARBONIC
fwana•an o• ,..w.rw+Voss G. Gow,•,.,n,..•
,aSS C- -Lk % St "I I1(KO-OU A",- '♦',
�• +. .'. dla lllli
IOU) A1AAA a)T)E)R�
Madufaetwaeed by UQUW CARSOARC
Model FD -450 Cuber JWMer Cooled)
Two model F0450 tuber shown in typical installation with
LCB500 bin. LC8250 and LC0325 bins and LCO350SL
sleeve an also be used.
T .
All standard modular ice cube sections (FO series 300, 400 and 500) can also be Used with this combination of ice maker
SPECIFICATIONS
a OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENT the lea makert are daugned
Minimum plamhrgute,
lw ,oda. use Arataani err terrrpmaturaa should not he helot,
3,$" (0 mint copper tube to the — mater
507: I,=, or sums 9011F1320).
112" 113 mm) —pee, Iube to the Condense,
Th. "nutirw mull not he located In an anelotad area Where the
3/4" 110 .-1 0.00 for the drainl
re,
�( art np—ado n,d1 —leas trandµ.anpY
Drams mutt be lepetdt;-
't TM fait ode et the mKh ne Should be a minimum of 12 orches
A rru anon water r w,"enn
1305 mml Irons the all lo, "Sy dran mpallalion and svWCe
4 4a.Ons 1151rtm11 per hour for tea maMar
Alton, 3 inns. 170 mml behind the machine
4$ pahont it87 htrvd fn, no., to, IMM -sir
Th, moehine Icruid he located l lots to elml,ice) and vestal lup
• REFRIGERANT R12.64 or 09fitlas)
pl Rs, a/ ..It to dome,
• COMPRESSOR I In p 175 krill
• ICE PRODUCTION tN pr4duc.cm chart. Ice maChmet tatted
It CONDENSER vette, cooled.
Wdh Wram under controlled a ,omal art and rnepmma viola,
• INSULATION slmaps nin . th" 1311 mint loomed wethane.
conditions Production rain should be accurate within + 5%
Machine 174" 10 mm) ctagd call to—.
• POWERSUPPLY 220?230or20a VAC,00HT,ung4Cdida,
• FINISH a.,,,.*, u.Lodon ChamNeun G,eenen"el Inflator
I I amf„ separate circuit and (utuar, or lune, mull he wopbed
stlbnlan {IMI bin finer $re,nlell ltfal a+retic, JotrCnN
to, each nwhme War—at Cniwr an ecov 1 F.37 Maavrwm
• MACHINE FRAME 'i IO tori alum tum,.ye,
March circus 1." 15 amp Ute NJ AWG copper MTW 00C
• SERVICE ACCESS for grate• iamu.a cm fart on1 than the
wee Machines ars shrppad 230'6011
ado oenats
• PLUMBING ..commanad titrmmum 454 MCI water to the
• ACCESSORIES pack,N Il,t (CG6017 fD} res_ rah for
rca maker For Coldat ware, t..toll the feelo,Y
stacking mae ib- ono reehrne am tJntrol ;CR 71571 required
Minimum"a ., praltune 35 of lo. 12 40 kelem &CIA
on too and when nar,Luig 3 macnenn
NL+imum andar praswr• 75 pug 15 27 astern 141
fou, panel woo pas age ICO 11715 p+ ntM7 re. r... an t.n tip
Ina make, Intel • 1/4" 18 mm) FPT. Midriff - (2). 3/4" 110 mm)
machine vena. Sl v s�ny These panel x :I n,:• 3 -11I r fj.4
FPT. Concorde, Inlet and outlet 3/8" f9 mm) copper tube.
P.Inu d1 earuilet on buff" burh—
MODEL STORAGE CAPAC TV
DIMENSIONS NET IT. SNIP Vt.
Hien
WI b Ibm
ou fl au an lb. ks Ineh
gin Ina. mm Idea mm I'mks nn as
Masi) —__ ___ _-- --- INS
Jaz 42% 1073 211% 841 2gµ lie 275 125'
LCO250 65 .24 220100 20%
514 42% 1073 25% 841 105 47 , to 504
LC0315 13.3 .311 340 /M n
aM 4216 1073 31 787 105 41% 12! 56%
LC8500 22.5.64 975 2 111 38
014 42% 1073 33 11ISO 77', tall 81%
38
( LC62WSL 7.3 .2t 1115 44 15
Sol 42% 1073 s on µll 22% so 27
f 13"&L 11.7 .33 300 136 24
are 421L 1072 21 435 70 34 w 41
-c E- a,.G P S �i�J 1, CJ.C6-CIe S l S71 !
t1�/s bn�s GG
9/7
9(,3
7s
2SJ
3Go
—o-
3 <T
4//62.-
x
i6i..x . YO t
d /66Y,
L/
y.szc
x ('s
b
)?ol.30
COS t /6�yIko
FaoFr'f *I / o Yo, , -v
Tun'L
Rldr [ C Iry y� 9
/oV.��
121 o 5-
4[ r 1
L�5 T.a �o . ,�.tc 7v
[ ,. u. �•, �/ . a� f� b RDg
I -led, 4�
Gs�
V r 7
a 7S- •
� 2 S� - ^ 0o y' soup J o /, sQ�
�
Oo . w mwu. :/ we A Ae .4�.[
:1tF+
_ +, ft � /
1101!x'. vo n
•'K"� L��`3- �t+4.ti... ..t.�-ro^*-��'
Gob-' ��/�O U — Z Oo r, , ._-
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICCLI,O CITY COUNCIL
(March 27, 1979 - 8:00 P. M.
Oakwood School District Board Room
:Members Present: Arve Grimsmo, Dan Blenigon, Fran Fair,
Ken Maus, Phil White.
Purpose of meeting was to review with Monticello School District
Board members various alLernatives for providing a public librar;.
Currently, the public library operates out of the worth Brasic
Memorial Library, which was built in conjunction with an addition
to the Oakwood School in 1928. At that time, iho Village of
Monticello transferred the principal sum of $10,000, along with
interest of approximately $4,000 which had accumulated from a
memorial established by worth Brasic_ in 1920.
Currently,the Monticello school district is contemplating the
futuru use of the ontiru Oakwood Complex, including the library
facilities. various altornatives are being contemplated by the
School Baord which included the possibility of refurbishing the
-' present building, or also the possibility of having the present
facility removed and selling the land. It is the intention of the
School Board to contact the City of Monticello to make them aware
that they are considering various alternatives at thin time.
Consensus of School Board me_mlera and the City Council was to eo-
oporatu to any extent possiblu for the future development of library
facilities in Monticello. Currently, the School Board of Monticello
in seeking legal advice through their attorney, and the Attorney
General's office as to Lhe possible procedures to be taken.
Meeting with School Board was adjourned at approximately 9:15 P.?1.
Gary wiebcr
City Adminintrator
Gw/ns
C