City Council Agenda Packet 05-12-1980AGENDA
L REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
May 12, 1980 - 7:30 P.M.
Mayor: Arve Grimsmo
Council Members: Dan Blonigen, Fran Fair, Ken Maus, Philip White.
Meeting to be taped.
Citizens Comments.
V.
Consideration of Final Resolution Approving the Issuance of $975,000 infra
Industrial Development Revenue Bonds - Clow Stamping Company,,inc.
.
2. Consideration of an Ordinance for Electric Distribution and Transmission
Franchise Rights - Northern States Power Company. at 0&96.460 1. o..
3. Consideration of a Rezoning Request from R-1 to R-3 - Harold Ruff. (y 1,Wpw r
p` o ��Q� �aaa•s•
04 Continuation of Public Hearing on 1980-1 improvement Project tC Serve
Macarlund Plaza and Land Owned by Maurice Hoglund. )
Consideration of Holding Public Hearing on Extension of Sewer. Water and
Street improvements - Prairie Road.
w6. Consideration of Utilization of Historical Museum.
7. Consideration of a Variance for the Temporary Display of a Banner by
np` the A.F.S. on Broadway Street.
1'\ �8. Consideration of Proposed Garbage Disposal Contract and Authorization
(�,, to Advertise for Bids.
V�Q 9. Review of First Quarter of 1980 Financial Statements for Municipal Liquor
Store.
10. Consideration of Having our Engineer Prepare Plans and Specifications to
Bid Right Turn Lane - Sandberg South.
11. Consideration of Having Plans and Specifications Prepared for Commuter
Parking Lot Southwest of I-94/Highway 25 inter% Sange.Q
�12. Approval of Minutes - Specia?Joint Meeting of April 24,1980 and Regular
Meeting of April 28, 1980.
Unfinished Business-
S! New Business - `r
41
Board of Review - 7:00 P.M. May 13, 1980 (Tuesday night)
Next Regular Council Meeting - May 21, 1980 (Tuesday night)
AGENDA SUPPLEMENT
L
1. Consideration of Final Resolution Approvinq the Issuance of $975,000 in
Industrial Development Revenue Bonds - Clow Stamping Company, Inc.
PURPOSE: Clow Stamping Company, Inc. is requesting approval of a final
resolution for the issuance of $975,000 in Industrial Development Revenue
Bonds. This item was given preliminary approval at the City Council's
January 14, 1980 meeting. Procedure for Industrial Development Revenue
Bonds is to receive preliminary approval from the municipality, approval
from the Commissioner of Securities for the State of Minnesota, and
adoption of a final resolution by the city council. Approval has been
received in writing from the Commissioner of Securities, State of Minnesota.
Clow Leasing is a partnership formed between Everett L. Clow and Gladyce
E. Clow, principal officers of Clow Stamping Co., Inc., and its controlling
shareholders. This partnership was formed primarily for the purpose of
acquiring the land, equipment, etc. in Monticello for purpose of acquiring
the land, equipment, etc. in Monticello for purposes of leasing it to
Clow Stamping Co., Inc. Clow Stamping Co., Inc. unconditionally guarantees
the bonds.
Use of the funds, in the amount of $975,000, is as follows:
Land S 73,400
Building 406,700
Equipment Acquisition 8
Installation 269,000
Capitalized interest 37,275
Reserve Fund 100,000
Cost of issuance 35,000
Underwriters Discount 53.625
TOTAL $975,000
As indicated in the preliminary approval of this project, the bonds are not
a general obligation of the City of Monticello, and will not be a charge
against the general credit or taxing power of Monticello. There is no direct
or indirect financial obligation on the City of Monticello to pay off any
portion of the bonds or incur any cost whatsoever in the event of default
or other event.
it should be noted that our City Attorney, Gary Pringle, has received all
documents relative to the issuance of these industrial Development Revenue
Bonds and will either be at our meeting Monday night to review the matter
with the City Council or have given his written opinion in advance of this
meeting.
- 1 -
COUNCIL AGENDA - May 12, 1980
The maturity schedule
is as
follows:
8 55,000
11%
term bonds
Due May 1, 1990
$ 85,000
llu,%
term bonds
Due May 1, 1995
$835,000
12%
term bonds
Due May 1, 2010
v interest on these bonds are exempt from Federal and State income taxes.
`y It should be noted that although the preliminary resolution for the issuance
Nr of this issue was adopted prior to the City of Monticello formulating guide-
lines for the issuance of these bonds, that I have applied the test contained
within the resolution for information purposes, and Clow Stamping meets the
criteria.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of adoption of final resolution for the
approval of $975,000 in Industrial Development Revenue
Bonds for Clow Leasing (Clow Stamping Co., inc.).
REFERENCES: Official statement regarding bond issue. Plus, i have many
more documents on file at City Hall that contain over 100
pages, but they are available for review.
2. Consideration of an Ordinance for Electric Distribution and Transmission
Franchise Rights - Northern States Power Company.
a PURPOSE: NSP's current franchise is scheduled to expire September 5, 1980;
however, the new franchise repeals all existing franchise rights and the
20 years starts effective the date of the ordinance, if adopted.
Copy of the proposed ordinance is enclosed, and is essentially the same as
the existing franchise provision in effect. The only exceptions are found
in section 2 which refers to the Public Service Commission, and the
insertion of a new section 4 which refers to the rights of NSP in the vaca-
tion of any street, alley, public way, etc. This clause is consistent with
the City of Monticello's present method of handling vacated streets .
For your information, in the past the City of Monticello has not charged
any fee for the franchise rights. However, some cities, such as St. Cloud,
do add a franchise fee based on the earnings of NSP; however, the property
owners still pay this as it appears on part of their billing. As a result,
1 would recommend that the City of Monticello, like most communities throughout
the state, not charge NSP a franchise rate fee. Currently, the City does
not charge franchise rate fees to the other franchise holders - that is,
North Central Public Service and Bridgewater Telephone Company.
Ward King, the area Public Relations Representative for NSP's St. Cloud
office, will be at Monday night's meeting to review any questions the
Council may have.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of adoption of ordinance granting franchise
{ �l right to NSP for the period from the date of adoption of
the ordinance and continuous for the next twenty years.
LREFERENCES: Copy of proposed ordinance enclosed.
- 2 -
COUNCIL AGENDA - 5/12/80
3. Consideration of a Rezoning Request from R-1 to R-3 - Harold Ruff.
+ PURPOSE: Harold Ruff is requesting rezoning of a certain parcel of land from
RSR -3 to allow for the development of multiple dwellings by Tom Maxwell.
This parcel of land lies east of Kampa Estates and west of the NSP maintenance
building and encompasses the area between the railroad tracks and County Road
39. The entire parcel is approximately 3.94 acres.
\ Mr. Jack Maxwell, of Maxwell Realty, representing both Mr. Harold Ruff and
1r ,b Tom Maxwell, indicated that a purchase agreement for the parcel is contin-
gent upon the rezoning, and he feel that the property should be rezoned
.4 for the following reasons:
/� ►�
A.
MVV
IA"'
hf
/ PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: At their last meeting, the Planning Commission
�r voted to recommend approval of the rezoning request. It should be pointed
out that, as of yet, no objections have been received on the rezolning from
any property owners.
Subject property is located in a neighborhood that does not lend
itself to a single family residential zoning, because of the
proximity of the NSP shop and the Bridgewater Telephone Co. yard.
An apartment complex would act as a buffer between the industrial
property located to the east and south and the residential property
to the west of the subject property. The railroad tracks and Pinewood
Elementary School lies to the north.
There is a gnnd demand for apartments in the City, and this demand is
expected to be increased in the future with the interest rates rising
to a point whereby it is impossible for many potential buyers of single
family homes to qualify for mortgages, thereby forcing them into the
rental market.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval or denial of rezoning request.*
REFERENCES: Map depicting area and Planning Commission Minutes on this
item from 4/8/80 meeting.
P+i4. Continuation of Public Hearing on 1980-1 Improvement Project to Serve
Macarlund Plaza and Land Owned by Maurice Hoqlund.
�X PURPOSE: Consideration of a resolution ordering the preparation of plans
a specifications for improvements planned for Macarlund Plaza and land
owned by Maurice Hoglund.
This hearing is being continued from the April 14, 1980 hearing relative
to this matter. r' f //e;
a,
�J �v
• Note: Rezonings require 4/5's vote of Council for approval.
- 3 -
COUNCIL AGENDA - 5/12/80
As you may recall, at the April 14, 1980 meeting, the City Council decided
ff to defer action for 45 days to give the developers and the consulting engineer
y, time to work out the proposed improvement. One concern expressed at the
April 14th meeting was how Maurice Hoglund wished to develop his property
just north of his present residence along East County Road 75.
Recently, John Badalich, John Simola and I met with representatives of
Macarlund Plaza, Mrs. Curtis Hoglund and Maurice Hoglund relative to the
proposed improvement. Consensus of the developers at that time was as
fol lows:
A. Reduce improvement just to serve Macarlund Plaza area and land owned
by Maurice Hoglund to the east of Macarlund Plaza.
B. Obtain services for sewer, water and storm sewer from Mississippi
Drive between Lots 14 (owned by Curtis Hoglund) and Lot 15 (owned by
Maurice Hoglund).
C. Extension of road to service Macarl and Plaza would still come off of
East County Road 39.
Jolin Badalich will be revising the feasibility report on this project
and formulating a new proposed assessment allocation. Procedure at this
point would be to have a resolution authorizing our engineer to
begin the preparation of plans and spec ifications for the improvement.
Developers will also be proceeding with a final plat of the Macarlund
Plaza area.Mr. Maurice Hoglund indicated that in the near future, not
ne eessariIy in 1980, he will be prepari ng a plat for the area just north
of his residence, and the tentative plans for improving this particular
area would allow the extension of sewer and water into any proposed plat
he develops.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of adoption of a resolution authorizing
our engineer to prepare plans and specifications for this
project.
RE FERENCES: Enclosed map indicating general concept layout of the area
and John Badalich will ei ther have available at Monday night's
meeting or send out in advance, an updated feasibility report
on the project.
5. Consideration of Holding Public Hearin q on Extension of Sewer, Water and
Street improvements - Prairie Road.
At the City Council's April 28, 1980 meeting, a petition was acknowledged
from Mel Wolters to extend sewer and water approximately 330 - 360' west
of Its existing termination point on Prairie Road.
COUNCIL AGENDA - 5/12/80
Our engineer, John Badalich, is in the process of preparing the feasibility
report outlining the proposed improvement along with estimated assessments.
This report will either be sent with the Council Agenda Supplement or be
available for review at Monday night's meeting.
It should be mentioned that I have talked with Mrs. Betty Christopher, who
along with her husband, own 650' of frontage property along Prairie Road, of
which approximately 207' could possibly be assessed on this project.
Mrs. Christopher indicated that she and her husband would be opposed to
the project since they have no desires for the extension at this time. I
did inform Mrs. Christopher that she would be notified of any public
hearings relative to this matter.
Y
/.9 Procedure at this point would be to have the Council review the feasibility
report and consider holding a public hearing on this matter.
^v \y �h POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of resolution receiving feasibility report
1VY �vnd calling
ntsfor
public
hearing
on the extension of sewer, water and street
impng
Q REFERENCES: Enclosed map depicting improvements.
6. Consideration of Utilization of Historical Museum.
A meeting was recently held by the Monticello Historical Society, and one of
the topics was the utilization of the Monticello Historical Museum at the
corner of Highway 25 and Broadway Street in Monticello.
Currently, the Historical Museum has very limited usage and now contains the
antique fire truck along with a few photographs of the Monticello area.
Wright County Historian, Marion Jamison, who was appointed to the local
Historical Society by the City Council in January of 1980, recently called
a meeting of the Historical Society to discuss the future of this committee.
Of the five members that were currently listed, including Ms. Jamison, only
one additional member did attend the meeting, Isabel Holker. Mr. Jim Herbst
did recently notify me of his resignation due to his other time commitments
with serving on the School Board. Other members still listed are Gary Pringle
and John Mitchell.
Ms. Jamison indicated that she would like to present some suggestions at
Monday night's meeting on the utilization of the historical building. One
of the suggestions she mentioned would be to display more photographs on the
walls of the museum. in addition, she would like to see the Historical Museum
open for regular hours. Currently, there are no regular hours of the Historical
Museum since there is a very limited display. One of the problems in estab-
lishing regular hours of the museum would be to find sufficient manpower.
- 5 -
COUNCIL AGENDA - 5/12/80
i Currently, the Senior Citizens Center provides manpower during the summer
hours to operate the Information Center. However, it would almost take
additional personnel to operate the Historical Museum since, from a logistics
standpoint, it would be almost impossible to handle both at the same time.
One possibility would be to have the person that is handling the information
function to be housed right inside the Historical Museum building.
One additional concern with any intended expansion in the utilization of
the Historical Museum is the problem of adequate parking. Because of the
intersection of Highway 25 and Broadway, there are very few spots that are
available and have easy access for parking. Since most of the people that
would stop in both at the existing information center and expanded use of the
historical museum would be travelers, parking would continue to be a problem.
Ideally, the information center and historical museum should probably have
at least a half-dozen off-street parking spaces; however, this would require
the establishment of a historical museum and information center at a completely
new site. Obviously, any consideration of this magnitude would be hard to
justify at this point in time, and it might be better to proceed more slowly
to see if there is a genuine interest in the development of a historical
museum at the present site.
For your information, at one time the City Council of Monticello did
authorize the Historical Museum to purchase some display cases; however,
the Committee did not go any further on this idea.
Your thoughts, ideas and suggestions on this matter would be welcomed by
Ms. Jamison, and you also might give some further thought on the future
and function of the Historical Society itself. One idea may be to deter-
mine the interest in the community first before any further monies are
spent. One possibility would be to announce the fact that the historical
society is looking for new members and input to determine that there is
an interest within the community.
POSSIBLE ACTION: This item is primarily for the creation of ideas and
suggestions for the further usage of the historical society building.
7. Consideration of a Variance for the Temporary Display of a Banner by
the A.F.S. on Broadway Street.
Ms. Darlene Anderson, with the American Field Service (A.F.S.) is requesting
a variance to allow the temporary display of a banner across Broadway Street
by the Lutheran Church for a spAetti dinner to be held at the Church on
May 22, 1980. This banner would be displayed no longer than one week in
advance of the festivity and would he taken down the next day.
Although the Council did allow St. Henry's Catholic Church to display a
banner across 4th Street, in light of the Monticello City restrictive
ordinance relative to signs, this time of variance may be inconsistent
with the philosophy of the City's present sign ordinance. In the past,
the City has also allowed the use of banners across Broadway Street to
. 6 -
COUNCIL AGENDA - 5/12/80
promote some festivities. However, in the case of the Downtown area,
the adjacent property abutting the street is zoned as commercial, and there
may be some consideration for this aspect. Additionally, there might be
some consideration for a community -wide event such as the 4th of July,
as opposed to a particular event held by a particular church or organization.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of a variance to allow the A.F.S. to display
a banner across Broadway Street by the Lutheran Church for a period of
one week beginning May 16, 1980 through May 22, 1980. Note: it should be
pointed out that the Monticello City Ordinances do allow for the temporary
display of banners which require a permit, but do not make any provision
for allowing banners to be strung across a right-of-way, and this is the
reason for a variance.*
8. Consideration of Proposed Garbage Disposal Contract and Authorization to
Advertise for Bids.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this item is to review the proposed garbage
disposal contract and advertisement for bids.
As you are aware, the current garbage haulers for the City of Monticello
have served their written notice that they do intend to terminate their
contract as of August 1, 1980.
New contract proposals have been prepare for your review prior to the
actual bid letting, scheduled for May 2V, 1980. The proposals call for bids
for either a (1) year contract or a (3) year contract, and both contain the
options of either once or twice weekly pickups.
The bid proposals call for a lump sum price per month with additional homes
being added to the contract on the anniversary date if the contract is for
more than one (1) year.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval of proposed garbage contract
band authorization to advertise for bids returnable May 27, 1980.
REFERENCES: Copy of proposed (1) and (3) year contracts, specifications and
Nr notice of advertisement for bids.
V�
C
*Note: 4/5's vote of Council is required for
approval of variances. - 7 -
COUNCIL AGENDA - 5/12/80
9. Review of First Quarter of 1980 Financial Statements for Municipal Liquor
(f Store.
4J PURPOSE: Enclosed with the Agenda, please find the 1st quarter financial
statements for the Municipal Liquor Store operations. Mark Irmiter, Manager,
will be at Monday night's meeting to review the financial statements with
the Council.
114
C
As you will note, sales have increased approximately 17.6% over the 1st
quarter of 1979, with the gross profit up approximately 28%. Traditionally,
the 1st quarter of each year is the slow period, but it appears that the
operation is holding its own with neighboring competition.
Beer sales have increased the most (27%) over last year. which appears to be
the trend with inflation as more sales occur in the lower priced items.
Total operating expenses have remained close to last year's 1st quarter
percentages, which resulted in operating income increasing over 50% due to
the increase in gross profit.
POSSIBLE ACTION: No action necessary other than review with Mr. Irmiter.
REFERENCES: Enclosed 1st Quarter Financial Statements.
. 8.
COUNCIL AGENDA - 5/12/80
10. Consideration of Having our Engineer Prepare Plans and Specifications to
�- Bid Right Turn Lane - Sandberg South.
PURPOSE: As a result of the April 30, 1980 letter from the Minnesota
Department of Transportation, copy enclosed, it appears that the City of
Monticello will now have to install the right turn lane into Sandberg
South at its own expense.
You may recall the City Council originally took this item up in September and
October of 1979, and it was decided to appeal the requirement of a right
turn lane into Sandberg South to the Minnesota Department of Transportation.
At the time the hearing was held on improvements into Sandberg South, it
was decided that if, in fact, the right turn lane was required, that the
City would pick up the cost on ad valorem, or general property taxes, as
�L opposed to assessing any cost to the Sandberg South area.
AL
According to Mr. Durgin's letter, he indicates that the necessity is consistent
with the regulations of the MN/DOT, which indicates that an entrance permit
application would have been necessary for access to the plat because of the
change in land use. Mr. Durgin further indicates that the cost is not the
responsibility of the MN/DOT and cites examples in the case of the clinic
and hospital in Buffalo on Trunk Highway 25.
Previous estimate received from our engineer for this project was $4,741.80
for construction. Procedure at this point would be to consider the prepara-
tion of plans and specifications for this project. There 1s the possibility
that our Public Works Director could have these prepared, but the Council,
if it does approve of the preparation of plans and specifications for the
ComnuterParking Lot, may want to have this considered as part of the same
project and done by our city engineer.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of preparation of plans and specifications
to bid right turn lane to Sandberg South.
REFERENCES: April 30, 1980 letter from Darryl Durgin with the MN/DOT.
11. Consideration of Having Plans and Specifications Prepared for Commuter
Parking Lot Southwest of I-94/Highway 25 interchange.
PURPOSE: Consideration of the development of plans and specifications to
To prepared for the development of a commuter parking lot on the land
scheduled to be deeded to the City of Monticello through Wright County by
the State of Minnesota.
- 9 -
COUNCIL AGENDA - 5/12/80
Enclosed, please find a preliminary site layout for the commuter parking
1 lot just southwest of the I-94/Hwy. 25 interchange. This preliminary
design layout was prepared by our Building Inspector, and would accommodate
approximately 220 cars, with some spaces being designed for compacts.
Total estimated cost for the completion of the entire site for the develop-
ment of the 220 spaces may be in the $50 - $60,000 range, which would include
grading, landscaping, paving along with curb and gutter. in light of the
current estimated need for approximately 70 to 80 spaces, the Council may
want to consider the development of the parking lot in two stages. Addi-
tional consideration might be given to the development of parking lot without
the necessity of meeting the City's landscaping requirements, curb and gutter
requirements, or possibly blacktopping requirements. Any of these require-
ments excluded would require the necessity of the City going through the
variance process.
According to a survey taken by our Building Inspector in the fall of 1979,
there was a need for approximately 70 cars for commuter parking. This was
based on the number of cars that currently use the downtown parking lots,
plus an additional allowance for commuters that may be parking currently
elsewhere.
At one time, it appeared that the State of Minnesota might make grants
available for commuter parking lots; however, with the cutback in appro-
priations in the past legislative session, the particular bill to allow
funding for projects of this nature did not pass! As a result, the City
could appropriate funds out of its capital outlay revolving fund,
budget for this item in 1981, or charge an annual fee to commuters for
use of the facility. In addition to the immediate capital outlay cost
for the development of the parking lot, there would be annual maintenance
costs associated with the lot itself. Possibly an annual fee in the range
of $25.00 per year could recover the maintenance cost and some portion, but
not all, of the capital outlay costs.
If the City Council decided to charge a fee for commuter parking, the details
of this could be worked out but probably would include limiting the parking
in the downtown area from 4 - 6 hours to encourage people to use the commuter
parking lot. Additionally, commuters could possibly have their choice of
either a bumper sticker or sticker they could place right in their windshield
in case of commuters that pool together with other individuals. Of course, if
the City were going to charge a fee for commuters, there would be a certain
amount of commuters who may avoid this cost by parking in other areas such as
a shopping center, etc., but it would be up to those particular areas to
moniter their own private parking lots. One possible way to proceed if the
City were going to consider charging a fee would be to actually survey the
commuters.
i believe the situation with the current burden in the downtown parking area
is approaching the critical stage and some plans for the commuters should be
developed by fall of 1980.
*(Note: Since the writing of this agenda supplement. I came across an
t article in the current issue of Nation's Cities Meekly, copy of
which is enclosed, which provides information on a current bill
introduced for federal grant assistance by Rep. Bob Edgar.)
- 10 -
COUNCIL AGENDA - 5112/80
If the City Council were going to go ahead on this project, it probably
It could generally discuss the scope of the project at Monday night's meeting,
that is, the extent of the development of the number of spaces, and design
specifications including pavement, landscaping, etc. After this was
determined, it could direct our City Engineer to prepare plans and specifi-
cations for this project, and this could possibly be included with plans
and specifications for the right turn lane into Sandberg South to get a
better bid on the total package.
One possible idea down the line would be to consider the relocation of the
current Historical Museum and Information Center and incorporate this
into the commuter parking lot. This would allow an easy access from the
I-94 interchange to travelers, and a certain portion of the parking could
be specifically set up for the information center and historical museum.
Approval of this idea would have to be received from Wright County since
they originally intended to convey the area in question to the City for
use as a commuter parking lot only.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of developing the area southwest of the
I-94/Highway 25 interchange for commuter parking lot and the scope of the
particular project along with the authorization to our engineer to prepare
plans and specifications if approved.
REFERENCES: Enclosed preliminary site layout for commuter parking lot.
Article in Nation's Cities Weekly.
I
g4 41/
IRA
REQUESI
to Ruf f
I
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 4/8/80
in their proposal for development, McOonalds have requested that landscaping,
at least not 100% of the landscaping, or $1,500 which is required by ordinance,
be considered not necessary by the granting of a variance.
A couple of additional items which were addressed were signs for directing
traffic flow and lighting on the new parking facility. Al Inde, a repre-
sentative of the McDonald's company, said that definitely signs would be
installed to direct traffic flow and lighting would be installed in the new
parking lot which would be consistent with that which is presently used at
the McDonald's facility. Mr. Inde indicated that if the variance on the
landscaping were granted now, that only sod would be put in and that land-
scaping would still be coming, but at a later date. Mr. Inde was asked if
he would be willing to bond for the landscaping that would be put in at a
later date, and he indicated that he would be willing to post the $2,250 bond.
On a motion by Dick Martie and seconded by Ed Schaffer, it was unanimously
approved to recommend approval of the conditional use permit and approval
of the variance for the landscaping as requested.
4. Public Hearinq - Consideration of a Rezoninq Request - Harold Ruff.
Harold Ruff has requested that rezoning of a certain parcel of land be made
from R-1 to R-3. The parcel of land is that which lies between County Road 39
and the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks, lying east of Kampa Estates and
west of the existing NSP maintenance building. That parcel contains approxi-
mately 3.94 acres. Mr. Jack Maxwell, of Maxwell Realty, representing the
purchaser of that property who has a purchase agreement contingent upon
rezoning, stated that he had the following reasons why he felt that property
should be rezoned:
A. Subject property is located in a neighborhood that does not lend
itself to a single family residential zoning, because of the
proximity of the NSP shop and the Bridgewater Telephone Company yard.
B. An apartment complex would act as a buffer between the industrial
property located to the east and south and the residential property
to the west of the subject. The railroad tracks and Pinewood Elementary
School lies to the north.
C. There is a good demand for apartments in the City, and this demand is
expected to be increased in the future with the interest rates rising
to a point whereby it is impossible for many potential buyers of single
family homes to qualify for mortgages, thereby forcing them into the
rental market.
A motion by Dave Bauer, seconded by Ed Schaffer to recommend rezoning was
unanimously approved.
. W .
3
Nji
/J
aus• `. r.
o o } o i •; ,N:-•s '::vd. ..npr-mat;••.. '-
Lam, .....-,�..�..�.-...... � ` .�z •'"�h' T;"�!;rv;;a,'-rti`-�*l�a'�...���L� � •",,,�%
r
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS
FOR
RESIDENTIAL GARBAGE REMOVAL SERVICE
Notice is hereby given that the City of Monticello, Minnesota will receive
sealed bids for the service of providing garbage and refuse pickup and hauling
for its residents on a contract at a monthly rate in accordance with the applica-
ble specifications.
Bids will be received until 2:00 P.M., Tuesday, May 27, 1980, at the Monti-
cello City Hall, Monticello, Minnesota, at which time they will be publicly opened
and read.
All bids shall be directed to the City Administrator, City of Monticello,
250 East Broadway, Monticello, M11. 55362, and shall be submitted on a proposal
form included in the specifications.
Copies of the specifications and other proposal contract documents are
on file with the City Administrator.
All bids shall be accompanied by a cashier's check, certified check, or bid
bond payable to the City of Monticello for 5% of the bids. The City of Monticello
reserves the right to reject any and all bids, to waive any informalities in
the bidding and to accept any bidding to be in the best interest of the City of
Monticello. No bid may be withdrawn within thirty (30) days of the bid
openi ng.
By Order of the City Council
Gary Wieber, City Administrator
S
( BID PROPOSAL
TO BE OPENED MAY 27, 1980, 2:00 P.M.
MONTICELLO CITY HALL
250 EAST BROADWAY
MONTiCELLO, MINNESOTA 55362
PROPOSAL OF:
ADDRESS:
PHONE NUMBER:
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE:
For furnishing pickup and disposal of residential refuse and garbage within the
City of Monticello, Minnesota, in accordance with the specifications, fact sheet
and Agreement which are attached:
BID ALTERNATIVES LUMP SUM PRICE
(1) Year Contract:
A*. Once -a -Week Pickup E per month
B. Twice -a -Week Pickup E per month
(3) Year Contract:
A. Once -a -Week Pickup S per month
B. Twice -a -Meek Pickup E per month
PROPOSAL MUST BE SUBMITTED IN TRIPLICATE ON THIS FORM ONLY!
Include Certified Check or Bid Bond, payable to: City of Monticello, in
the amount of 5% of the Bid.
Signature of Authorized Representative
u
FACT SHEET
FOR GARBAGE CONTRACT - CITY OF MONTICELLO
The following information is provided for Bidding purposes:
NUMBER OF CURRENT RESIDENTIAL PICKUPS 840
NUMBER OF CURRENT APARTMENT UNITS 110
Ridgemont - 48
Cedarcrest - 38
3rd Street - 16
West of Bridge Park - 8
`-%u S41Laa4
foM CA*&,IL (1 aP„)
'B�d KI:.w QP.i
INA
y A l, 1,
(Sample - one-year contract)
AGREEMENT
This AGREEMENT is between the CITY OF MONTICELLO. a governmental subdivision
of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as CITY, and
hereinafter referred to as HAULER.
WHEREAS, the CITY wants garbage and refuse pick-up and hauling for its
residents on a contract at a monthly rate for orderly and reliable pick-up service
and disposal of refuse, etc.. thereof, without the responsibility of the CiTY
maintaining equipment for said purpose and a dump for said disposal; and
WHEREAS, the HAULER is organized to and desirous of, carrying out such
CITY wants and desires, and has adequate equipment, assistance and know-how to
carry out said project;
NOW THEREFORE. IT IS AGREED, in consideration of the mutual promises of
the CITY and HAULER:
1. PAYMENT
A. That CITY shall pay HAULER the sum of
starting on the first day of August, 1980,
and each and every month thereafter, on the same day of each
Csaid month, said sum for the term of this AGREEMENT, unless the
AGREEMENT is terminated by either party as set forth in this
AGREEMENT.
B. Any additional residences picked up by the HAULER upon the request
of the CITY will be added to monthly payment at $3.50 per residence
1 s with apartment units added at the rate of $1.50 per unit. Additional
residences and apartments will be added to the monthly payment on
ilk
o.+i sp.1
the anniversary date of the AGREEMENT, August 1st of each year,
LLay _IQPr and will be determined by the number of building permits issued
1� t'160 during each year.
2. TERM OF AGREEMENT
This AGREEMENT shall remain in force for a period of one (1) year
beginning on the first day of August.1980, and ending on the 31st day
of July. 1981, unless otherwise terminated in accordance with this
AGREEMENT. This AGREEMENT may be renewed at any time before its natural
termination, by the written mutual consent of both parties and
(- resolution by the CITY.
3. TERMINATIONS
This AGREEMENT may be terminated by either party with or without cause,
upon a six -months written notice to the other party.
(Sample - three-year contract)
AGREEMENT
J
This AGREEMENT is between the CITY OF MONTICELLO. a governmental subdivision
of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as CITY, and
, hereinafter referred to as HAULER.
WHEREAS, the CITY wants garbage and refuse pick-up and hauling for its
residents on a contract at a monthly rate for orderly and reliable pick-up service
and disposal of refuse, etc., thereof, without the responsibility of the CITY
maintaining equipment for said purpose and a dump for said disposal; and
WHEREAS, the HAULER is organized to and desirous of, carrying out such
CITY wants and desires. and has adequate equipment, assistance and know-how to
carry out said project;
NOW THEREFORE. IT IS AGREED, in consideration of the mutual promises of
the CITY and HAULER:
1. PAYMENT
A. That CITY shall pay HAULER the sum of
starting on the first day of August, 1980,
and each and every month thereafter, on the same day of each
said month, said sum for the term of this AGREEMENT, unless the
AGREEMENT is terminated by either party as set forth to this
AGREEMENT.
B. Any additional residences picked up by the HAULER upon the request
of the CITY will be added to monthly payment at $3.50 per residence
with apartment units added at the rate of $1.50 per unit. Additional
residences and apartments will be added to the monthly payment on
the anniversary date of the AGREEMENT. August 1st of each year,
and will be determined by the number of building permits issu ed -
d uring each year.
2. TERM OF AGREEMENT
This AGREEMENT shall remain in force for a period of three (3) years
beginning on the first day of August,1980. and ending on the 31st day
of July, 1983, unless otherwise terminated in accordance with this
AGREEMENT. This AGREEMENT may be renewed at any time before its natural
termination. by the written mutual consent of both parties and
resolution by the CITY.
3. TERMINATIONS
This AGREEMENT may be terminated by either party with or without cause,
upon a six -months written notice to the other party.
4. INSURANCE
That
HAULER shall carry public liability insurance with a recognized
insurance
carrier and keep in force at all times during this AGREEMENT
the
following minimum of coverage:
A.
$100,000 per person.
B.
$300,000 per accident.
C.
$10,000 property damage
5. SCOPE OF WORK
A.
That HAULER shall not be required to pick up and dispose of any
refuse or garbage that is not placed in a container by the resi-
dent and that HAULER shall not be required to use shovels in the
loading thereof. Further, the service herein contemplated and
provided for, shall be furnished only to the residents within
the present corporate limits of the CITY.
B.
That HAULER agrees to a _ weekly pick-up of all garbage,
refuse and leaves at curbside for each residence in said CITY,
including branches if cut into dimensions of not longer than
six feet (6') and tied securely in bundles weighing not in
excess of 50 pounds and to dispose of same at a dump. This service
extends only to residential property and not to commercial or
industrial enterprise, except for City property listed in
Paragraph 5(D). if the HAULER is providing twice weekly
pick-ups, the days of service shall be Monday and Thursday. The
HAULER can negotiate with any resident with regards to the placement
of the garbage and number of pickups per week.
C.
Garbage containers must not exceed 30 gallon capacity and should
be equipped with handles for ease of handling. Plastic garbage
bags are ideal for use of storing garbage. Paper bags are not
permissible. Sturdy cardboard disposable cartons may be used for
non -garbage refuse.
D.
That HAULER shall be required to provide and maintain 11, cubic
yard garbage containers at the following locations:
1) City Maintenance Building - W. County Road 39 - Year Round
2) 4th Street Park - November 1st thru May 1st
3) West Bridge Park - May 1st thru November lst
4) East Bridge Park - May 1st thru November 1st
5) Ellison Park - May lst thru November 1st
6) Sewage Disposal Plant - Year Round
HAULER shall provide a garbage dumpster container for East and West
Bridge Parks on the 4th of July each year that is at least
5 cubic yards.
The HAULER shall also provide weekly garbage pickup at the City
Hall and also empty the litter containers at various sidewalk
locations in the downtown area, as needed.
- 2 -
5. E. That the following Legal Holidays will be exempt from pick-up
if the HAULER is providing twice weekly service and one (1)
pick-up day falls on:
New Years Day
Memorial Day
Independence Day
Labor Day
Thanksgiving Day
Christmas Day
If HAULER is providing once -a -week pick-up which falls on one
of the above Holidays, arrangements shall be made by the HAULER
for pick-up on another date that week.
6. PERFORMANCE BOND
HAULER shall furnish CITY as a condition to his receiving considera-
tion under this contract as set out in Article 1, a Performance Bond;
said Bond shall remain in force during the term of the AGREEMENT
and shall be placed with a Bonding Company, acceptable to CITY. Said
Bond shall be payable to the CITY of MONTICELLO, and shall be in the
amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00).
7. DUMP J
It is the obligation of the HAULER to obtain proper dumping grounds
for the refuse, garbage, etc., and pick-up matter and there is no
responsibility of any kind upon the CITY to furnish said dumping
facilities to HAULER.
8. ASSIGNMENT
This AGREEMENT may not be assigned in whole or in part without the
written consent of the CITY.
9. GENERAL
This AGREE14Ei1T contains the entire AGREEMENT between the HAULER
and the CITY and may be amended only by the mutual consent of
CITY and HAULER, in writing.
10. WAIVER
A waiver of, one part of rights of either party is not a waiver of all
the rights that may accrue to either party.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this AGREEMENT on
the date of 1
CITY OF MONTICELLO
By:
CITY SEAL) Q #**wpMayor
C)
By:
�'iWESOTq '
Minnesota Department of Transportation
District 3
OF
301 Laurel St., Box H 218-629-2463
April 30, 1980 Brainerd, Minnesota 56401 1aIEEsaaux
Orr-Schelon-Mayeron and Associates, Inc.
2021 East Hennepin Avenue
Suite 239
Mirmespolie, MN 55413
ATTNi John S. Sadalich, City Engineer
In reply refer to:
C.S. x605 (T.H. 25)
Sandberg Addition - Turn Lane
Dent Mr. Sadelicht
I have reviewed the circumstances related to the Sandberg Addition
entrance on Trunk Highway 25 in Monticello, and concur in the
actions taken and conditions imposed by Roger Busch of our St.
Cloud Maintenance Office. Our basis for those actions and
r conditions are explained so followat
Mn/DOT Agency Rule 14 MCAR 1.5036, Section L (copy enclosed),
contains the basic language from which our policy an entrance
permits wee developed. you will note that paragraph I explains
the need for a permit when land use conditions change, and paragraph
2 provides our Commissioner with authority to revoke access permits
If hazardous conditions exist.
As for ae paragraph 1 to concerned, a search of our records
indicates that the Sandberg South Addition woo plotted sometime
after May or 197a. We have no record of an entrance permit
application having boon submitted for access to the plot which to
necessary duo to the change In land use. Furthermore. I believe
you may be aware that no work shall be performed on Trunk Highway
right of way without feral obtaining s permit to do so - the
Improvements made to the existing access are in violation of the
law.
The turn tans requirement is in accordance With Mn/DOT and District
Policy. and to based on the Commissioner's authority identified in
paragraph 2 of Section L of the enclosed rule, and hie general
authority allowing him to establish conditions for issuance of
access permits. In that regard, we have bean quite consistent
in recant Veers in our review of access permit requests in terms
An 6"S n,yi<vtw,:+, E:apd.o-
S,tt
Mr. John S. Badullch
April 30, 1980
Page 2
of requiring appropriate safeguards for the traveling public as a
condition of granting permits if our own standards indicate the need
for such safeguards (turn lanes, by -pees lanes, channelization,
traffic signals or other control devices, etc.). An example in close
proximity to your site Would be at the hospital and clinic locations
on Trunk Highway 25 near Buffalo - the turn lane construction being
performed at those sites to being done at their expense as a condition
of the access permits. We have numerous examples of similar situations
which Roger Busch would be glad to share with you if you wish to
contact him. To date, we have not been formally challenged on our
authority to impose such conditions, but that to your (city's)
prerogative to do no through the judicial system if you don't agree
with our requirement.
Our reasons for requiring the turn large in this case is based on
our (Mn/DOT) design policy which indicates that, on 2 -lane highways,
right turn lanes shall be provided when the projected Average Daily
Traffic (ADT) to over 1500 and the design speed to in excess of 45
MPH:
a. At all public road access pointe
b. If an industrial, commercial or subotantial trip generating
lend use to to be served.
The 1978 traffic count for Trunk Highway 25 was 3400 vehicles per day
fwith a speed limit of 55 MPH. The occeoB to to in public road for e
commercial development, thereby meeting all the warrants for inclusion
r of a right turn lona. Furthermore, development along Trunk Highway
rr° 25 in the Monticello areata , and to exppr.ted to continue, occurring
at a fairly brink rate. `.t la our concern that appropriate measures
be taken by ournelvae and local governments to preserve the oafety
and mobility of that rou tto to the maximum extent possible)
► The Federal Safety Funda you refer to are mode available for use on
the Federal Aid Highway Systeme to correct documented high hazard
situations. The funds are limited in amount and are expended on
projects determined to be 'high priority" an the basis of a rather
sophisticated prioritization process involving accident enslyate.
The funds would not be considered for use on projects of thin nature
because the safety hazard is a potential one, not octuul at this
time (no accidents to analyze). If we were to allow the entrance
without turn lanes and a significant number of accidents organ to
occur, a project for construction of a turn lone might well qualify
for Safety Fundo. However, we (Mn/D00 would be remise in our
professional and legal reeponotbility to the public if we knowingly
allowed ouch a condition to be created when the means e■iated to
provide the proper safeguards. And since, in this cone, the City In
causing the potential hazardous situation to occur by allowing the
traffic generating development, and can or will benefit from the
taxeo on the proportion, it to our policy to avoid placing the
Mr. John S. 8adelich
April 30. 1980
Page 3
financial burden of corrective action on the traveling public (i.e.
the Trunk Highway Fund).
I hope that this rather lengthy explanation will help you and the
City of Monticello to better understand and accept our actions in
this matter. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate
to let me know.
Sincerely.
Darryl E. Durgin. P.E.
District Engineer
Enclosures
Agency Rule
epp
v6ariy Wieber, City Adm.
W. N. yoerg, P.E./Roger Busch . St. Cloud
OED/aes
la MCAR 11 J036 pepanxaratof Tvasq-tathi
roadways. at hear; traffic generators warrants pester corner clearances. Such
determination shall be subject to review by the Commissioner of Transport►
tion.
1. Orarway slight, thkrwoy angle "Y" shall nut be kit than tasty (601
dealers where two-way vehicular traffic is aaUcipated. Angles between dolly
(60) degrees and forty -fire (45) degrrea are acceptable for oro.wry vehicular
traffic where no pedestrian conflict raids
K. Edge eccentrics. The minimum dimensions for edge cleanraecs are listed
in Table I. All portions of the driveway should be within the frontage bound•
ary liar.
L. General.
I. In the event of a change in land use or major cheap in the traffic
'�-- pattern of the existing facility, existing driveways see not automatically per.
t patuaud and new driveway access applications shall be submitted.
•�/ :, If the terms of the penitis are violated, or if the Gommitsirvner of
Transportation determines that continuance of a driveway access it particu-
_.—.--=� tuty hasardous, he may unites the authority veiled in him by law revoke the
guess.
I. No part of the right of way of a trunk highway or or a &steel tomer
Which a trunk highway Is touted may be usid fat Wtvicins of vehicles or INC
cunduct of private business.
4. The arca between driveways shalt be so con&sructtd or improved that
trafficon the highway and os the property will in fact he separated. In platted
area there a sidtwstk extends to lire prn"Ily line• a cutb is required at least
far c4j irichq wide and four (4) inches high stove the tidewalk #tong the
inside edge of the tot line and Wending fav at tests the full distance in (tang
of the gasoline pump bland at rending &land. Whet* no digesters esbts, this
traffic separation may be obtained by the planting of a hedse or the curtstruc.
lion of an island. Such on island or planting can only be placed an the tight
of way under ptnnll Oom the Depatpural of T'nmpurtaliun,
S. A variance from the standards a•a hath in this icaulalian may he
Jallowed by she Commissioner when the variance will tacJitate the safe, eh•
fuient use of Ibe property fat s lawful purpose and will not interfere wlth the
construction, maintenasee or safe and efficient use all the highway and da
appurtenances by the public.
� '� • �NNESpt9
Z° Minnesota Department of Transportation
('4(, yDistrict 3
ov Tai'
301 Lawel St., 8— t i 218-828-2463
Brainerd, Minnesota 56401 xxxUlw m
September 8. 1978
Mr. Gary Wieber
City Administrator
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
Monticello, Minnesota 55362
In reply refer to:
S.P. 1104- (T.ii. 25)
Traffic Problems on Trunk Highway 25
Dear Mr. Wieber:
I apologize for letting the press of other business delay my
response to your letters of June 23rd and August 8th. This
has been a very hectic summer and It has been very difficult
to keep up with all of the inquiries we have been receiving.
Tho District is aware of the concerns you wrote about. 1
have discussed them with members of my staff on several
occasions and have concluded the following: the basic prob-
lem in the area of the River Inn Supper Club is one of geo-
metric design. {lttyga}i-at
edr.,i{t ouletr
ake -possible-solutione?r a'� :obl� in-
tp
effeci lie:rithout''sop' en�i►�gbea`e=i�e:.EOs jpS of
t�a;.inte`xaoction.:t� 'S, �.orilatw, cusyr RhTl,ri'ithttltgr
Sitos}aurne,County_Ea�inetoe t=U bn'`T'wi'11
notr#y`y* 'ou-of.•the.resuI'>Ur-oiirrc
In your lottor you also mentioned the possibility of an
additional signal light on Trunk Highway 25. However, you
did not mention the intersection you felt neadod signalize -
tion. so 1 can give you no definite answer in this regard.
If you wish to request a signal light on a specific inter-
section, we aro agreeable to making turning movement corm is
and accident analysis to see if a signal light is actually
warranted. if it is, we will work from there.
-^^—
tBab-:!!F.
--
71te poeeibllity'of •euiy: wjo:� Bab-:!!F.tiuildlny�Truttk;Hlghway;2S�to 'Jfasu' e� daslgn=upM► very'
iretiasetat-tpfs-tis>e:� to our funding capabilities it
appears that any major expenditures on Trunk highway 25 will
A,. Opp,Y)un. ti'
-"-a
Mr. Gary Mieber—
September 8, 1978
Page 2
be geared mainly toward preservation of the existing roadway,
such as bituminous overlays, etc.
Based on traffic volumes on the ramps and crossroad at the
I-90/Trunk Highway 2S interchange, signals are not warranted
at this time. Accident experience is not severe enough to
warrant them either. On this basis, I would have a great
deal of difficulty recommending installation of signals at
these locations.
In closing I once again would like to apologize for the delay
in my response. We will review the CSAII 11/Trunk Highway 25
situation with Russ Machinski, Sherburne County Engineer as
soon as time pewits and discuss the results of that meeting
with you.
Sincerely,
Darryl E. Durgin, P.E.
District Director
cc:
E. W. McCulloch, P.E. - Brainerd
DED/rjn
r /'• r
t�if� o� r!Y/onfrcelty
250 East Broadwav
MONTICELLO, MN 55382
June 23, 1978
Mr. Darryl E. Durgin
Minnesota Department of Transportation
District 113
301 Laurel Street
Box H
Brainerd, Minnesota 56401
RE: Traffic Problems on State HinhwRv N25.
Dear Mr. Durgin
This letter is a result of two meetings held on June 16, 1973 and June 20, 1978
with Minnesota Department of Transportation officials, including Mr. Fd Mcflalloc`:,
along with Sherburne Cow,ty Commissioner, Lyle Smith, representative from the
Sherburne County F}igineer's office, the Mayor of Monticello, members of the p
City Council of Monticello, Chairman of the Monticello Planning Commission,
and myself. These meetings were held to review a traffic problem at the Inter-
section of Sherburne County Road N11 with State Highway N25 (area 1 on the
enclosed map).
There is concern with the traffic problem in arca 1 since it poses a rather
dangerous situation with the intersection of the two roads indicated above
along with another road coming out of a residential aubdivision and two other
access points from the River Inn Supper Club. There is concern with both pedestrian
and the vehicular traffic in this area and is accented by visibility problems with
the bridge over the Mississippi River on State Highway 25. With as many access
points onto this State Highway 25 and also the amount of traffic on State Highway 25
and Sherburno County 11 and also the traffic movements from the other access points,
it createa quite a problem for pedestrians, bike traffic and other vehicular '
traffic, and it is hoped that this area could be reviewed for possible safety
improvements.) During the course of the post two meetings that were held on this
Issue. it would appear that there are no simple answers that could be made at
first glance. However, various items were mentioned that could possibly
alleviate the congestion, such as a pedestrian crosswalk over State Highway a25,
a warning signal indicating that a pedestrian crosswalk is ahead, lineation of
a bike path and/or walk path along Highway N:'5, possible closing of an access
point onto State Highway W5 from the River Inn Supper Club to the fast. The
Monticello City Council asked that I write you in order that the situation be
surveyed and studied by the Mianemota Departamt of Transportation end the
necessary action be taken to improve the traffic problem in this nrea.
it should be pointed out that this area is outside the corporate limits of the
City of Monticello. and is in actuality within the Township of Big Lake. However,
with the amount of traffic and the use of State Highway e-5 in this area by the
citizens of Monticello and individuals passing through the Monticello area. It
is of vital concern to the City.
I f : j r.,,,.• l„ �ti/:,n/irtllai title ascan/u i„ 'j
Mr. Darryl E. Durgin
Jure 23, 1978
Page #Q
While reviewing this area, another potential problem was brought to light. and
that is the amount of traffic on State Highway Ar25 within the City Limits of
Monticello, and the City Council also asked that I write to the Department of
Transportation and request the area be studied for ossibie future improvements.
This area (designated as area 2 on the enclosed map is between area 1 and the
southern boundary of State Highway hQ5 within the corporate limits of Monticello.
With the growth rate of the Monticello area and the entire areas of Sherburne and
Wright Counties, the traffic congestion along this strip of highway is continuing
at an ever rapidly increasing rate. The problem has been increased, of course,
due to the closing of the Clearwater Bridge during the sumer of 1978. However,
we feel that the amount of congestion and traffic problems on Highway 25 existed
before the closing of the Clearwater Bridge, and with the Clearwater Bridge closing,
it is just accenting those particular problems. Some of the possible solutions
to the problems that were mentioned was the possibility of an additional signal
light on State Highway 425 and also the possibility of making State Highway 025
a four -lane highway through the City of Monticello, along with future upgrading
of the Monticello Bridge to a four -lane bridge. Possibly of further considera-
tion would be the improvement of State Highway 025 to four lanes from Big Lake
to the southern boundary of State Highway P5 within the corporate limits
of Monticello. It is understood, of course, this would be quite a major capital
improvement, and some of the solutions would be more of a long; -range than a
short-range nature. Again, as within area 1, it in hoped that the State Highway
Department could review thia area and come back to the City Council with possi-
ble recommendations. One possible short -tens solution that may merit some
consideration would be signal devices for the salt ramps from Interstate. 94
similar to the signal devices that exist in Plymouth at the Intersection of
Interstate 494 with Minnesota State Highway #55.
I am sending a copy of this letter to Paul McAlpine, who is the Chairman of
the Wright County Board of Commissioners, and who also is the Chairman of the
Region 7-W Transportation Committee, for information and review.
In order that I may report back to the City Council of Monticello as soon as
possible, I would appreciate your coasstvtts and the procedures as you ace them
rn A1 1AVIOCe the traffic probl=a that io daL lit the two areas outlined above.
Should you need any further information, or I can be of arxy assistance, please
contact me at your convenience.
51 rlcercly,
Lary Wir
CI"ty A iatrator
Gw/ns
VICIDWRE
cc; Jim Ridgeway
Paul McAlpine
Ed Edman
JI -110 C-21,-26
dt;e m 09
Mr. Wallerstein was one of the
eight persons who organized the
League, then known as the American
Municipal Association, in 1937. He
served as its president twice, and was
also the executive secretary and
general counsel of the Virginia
league from 1921 to 1941.
A native of Richmond, Mr. Waller -
stein graduated from the University
of Virginia and earned a law degree at
Harvard Law School in 1914. Before
joining the Virginia league, he served
as an assistant attorney general in
Virginia and as an ensign in the Navy
during World War 1.
Due to his dedication to municipal
T
Marta" Waffirstrin
government, he encouraged others to
study In the field by setting up with
his wife, Mrs. Ruth C.. Wallerstein,
graduate scholarships in municipal
planning at the University of
Virginia.
Besides his wife, Mr. Wallerstein is
survived by two daughters, Mrs.
Catherine White and Mrs. Elizabeth
Bingham, andhis son, Morton L.
Wallerstein Jr. D
,.�.... ta.a. vli.'dr3b. db
the first year of NLC's design
program drew to a close.
They were joined by the recipients
of the 1980HUDUrban Environmen-
tal Design Award,, which were
presented by HUD Secretary Moon
Landrieu at the awards banquet April
13.
r
The conference provided a forum
t
for all thecitiesparticipatinginNLC's
t
Urban Environmental Design Project
F
to meet and exchange informationon
the work they have been doing in the
h
first year of the project.
C
"It has been proved over and over
o
again that people are Is,and
p
healthier, more understanding, more
ci
productive and more inspired when
V-.,79-10 AiN IVA/SQi-r)6S at
Bills would encoura- ride sharing, transit passes T
by Barbara Marsha "
Increasing congressional interest in
public transportation has been
retlected in two recently introduced
bills concerning ride sharing and
employee transit passes that seek to
reduce energy consumption by en-
couraging high -occupancy forms of
transportation.
Rep. Bob Edgar's ride sharing bill
would authorize a separate dis-
.retionary grant program within the
federal -aid highway program for ride
sharing prules:M and establish a
National Office of Ridesharing
vii hin the Department of Transpor-
tatinn,
Under the Pennsylvania
of
local
avar a e as we for survey analysis,
planning and program coordination
with local governments and private
organizations. No grants and loans
could be made for preferential lanes
or preferential parking or for
purchasing constructing leasing
vehicles, however.
The federal government woul
provide 75 percent of the cost o
ellaibleproleelst with stir le
lojd!
ttiwerninents Providing the rema
int; 25 ercent. All projects develoiqq
ped
for urban areas of 50,000 or more
population would have to conform
with the planning proccess outlined
in Section 134 of the Federal -Aid
Highway Act.
The proposed legislation would
authorize $9 million this year, S20
million in fiscal 1981 and $20 million
in fiscal 198Z for ride sharing grants
and loans. In addition, it would
authorize $5 million in fiscal 1981 and
$10 million In fiscal t982 in windfall
profits tax revenues for ride sharing
projects. in effect, the proposed
program would supplement existing
ride aharing activities that can be
funded under the federal-ald
highway program, but locoI
governments would be allowed to
apply directly to the federal govern.
ment for discretionary ride sharing
funds.
A second legislative proposal
Rep, Richard Gephardt £D -Mo I (H.R
6859) would treat transit passes as it
ri
nontaxable fringe benefit to de
employees and would provide cc
employers with a tax credit equal to 5 Si
percent of the cc:.t of the passes. m
Under the proposed legislatiu:i, a do
local transit authority would develop
a program with the assistance of the th
Department of Transpurtation to a
encourage employers to purchase Se
transit passes. Interested employers 13t
would purchase a block of passes on mi
behalf of their employees and would mr
receive a receipt from the transit iss
authority.
Em layers receiving the asset,
1'
r wou ave to verify, either through
stamped transit passes or a written
agreement, that the passes were used i
8o percent of the time The following t
month's yass would be conditioned i
upon such an employee verification, 4
The pass would be usable on all I
public transportation systems, in.
eluding intra -city and commuter I
buses, subways, commuter nil, 4
ferries and streetcars. It would not be r
transferable between twoemployees, t
htnvev er. i
y Cephardt's bill would apply to
transit passes purchased after the.
31, logo, and before Jan. 1, 1487,
Under current law, the value of a
transit pass providedat a reduced rate
or no cost to considered taxable
Income for employees. This creates
an administrative burden to the
employer who must keep track of
each pass and withhold taxes accur-
dingly, Current law allows the
employer to deduct the cost of the
pisses as a business expense, but the
S percent refundable tax credit In the
proposal would offer an incentive. In
offett, H R, 6859 would put transit
passes and employyer-subsidised park-
ing on an equal ftsotrnit,
Existing NLL policy generally
supports ride sharing and strategies
which encourage public transit use Q
MINUTES
JOINT i4EETING - CiTY COUNCIL 6 PLANNING COMMiSSION
April 24, 1980 - 7:00 P.M.
Members Present: Arve Grinsmo, Dan Blonigen, Fran Fair, Ken Maus, Phil White,
Jim Ridgeway, Dave Bauer, John Bondhus, Dick Martie, Ed Schaffer.
Also in Attendance: Gary Pringle, City Attorney; John Uban, City Planner.
Purpose of this special meeting was to have a workshop session between the
City Council and the Planning Commission to discuss and review Monticello's
sign ordinance, which requires all non -conforming signs in the City of
Monticello to be brought into compliance by August 21, 1980, which was the
end of the 5 -year amortization period.
Discussion at the meeting centered around the ordinance provisions which
prohibits billboards after August 21, 1980. Consensus for the most part
seemed to be that the City of Monticello should not amend the ordinance to
merely grandfather in all existing non -conforming billboards. John Uban,
with Howard Dahlgren Associates, will be reviewing the ordinance relative
to possible amendments to possibly allow billboards as a conditional use
provided that certain size and space standards are met. For example, many
of the billboards that currently exist are much larger than the City of
Monticello ordinance, as it applies to on -premise signs, which on a freeway
allows a sign of 200 square feet and 32 feet high. Mr. Uban was going to
prepare his recommendations for further review by the Planning Commission.
Meeting adjourned.
Gary, eber��/
City AdminYstrator
GW/ns
1.11 NUT ES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
April 28, 1980 - 7:30 P. M.
Members Present: Arve Grimsmo, Dan Blonigen, Fran Fair, Ken Maus, Phil White.
Members Absent: None.
1. Public Nearing - Consideration of a Variance Request from Parking Ordinance
Requirements - Kelly Driscoll.
Mr. Kelly Driscoll, who is considering opening a bicycle sales and service
store on Lot 10. Block 16, along Highway 25, requested a variance from
Monticello's curbing and hardsurface parking requirements along with a
variance to have a residential use and a commercial use on the same parcel.
Currently, the ordinances allow only one principal use per parcel without
a variance, and in addition, the parking area provided on the parcel is
not hardsurfaced.
Mr. Driscoll requested the variance for one year from the hardsurfaced
parking requirements, in that he is only leasing the property from
the owner, Mr. Clifford Olson, and felt that at the end of one year
he would be in a better position to determine if there was a market in
the Monticello area for his bicycle sales and service business.
Mr. Clifford Olson indicated to the Council that the property, although
not aesthetically pleasing, would not be economically feasible for
him to tear the building down at the present time or do extensive
remodeling.
Although the Council noted that the area in question could use improve-
ments appearance -wise, a motion was mdde by Phil White, seconded by Fran
Fair to approve the variance request from parking lot hardsurface and
curbing requirements along with a variance to allow two principal uses
per parcel for a period of one year contingent upon a bond in the amount
of 150% of the estimated cost to complete the parking requirements is
posted. Voting in favor: Fran Fair, Dan Blonigen, Phil White, Ken Maus.
Opposed: Arve Grimsmo.
2. Public Hearinq - Consideration of a Variance from the Sideyard Setback
Requirements and Minimum Lot Size Requirements, and Request for Subdlvi-_
sion of Property - David itunson.
fir. David Munson, who has recently purchased Lot 2, Block 11, Townsite of
itonticello, requested the following variances:
A. Variance to build an extension onto existing home on south half of
Lot 2, Block 11, within 8' of the sideyard property line. (20' setback
is required in an R-3 zone.)
- 1 -
A;,—
COUNCIL MINUTES - 4/28/80
B. Subdivision of lot into two parcels - one being 6,634 square feet and
the other parcel being 3,596 square feet.
C. Variance from the minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet in an R-3
zone for both of the newly created parcels.
Mr. Munson's intent was to add to the existing home that is currently
situated on the lot, and also build an additional duplex on the newly
created lot, which would be on the northerly portion of the existing parcel.
The duplex, as proposed, would be on the lot which would be 6,634 square
feet in area.
The Planning Commission, at their last meeting, recommended denial of all
three variances requested since the lot sizes in question were not even
close to approaching the City ordinance requirements of 10,000 square feet
each.
Motion was made by Dan Blonigen, seconded by Phil White and unanimously
carried to deny the subdivision request.
3. Public Nearing - Variance to Allow Parking in the sideyard in an R-2
Zone and a Conditional Use Permit Request for an Administrative Office
Addition - independent School District 0882.
Superintendent Shelly Johnson, for the ISO 0882, requested a conditional
use permit to allow a 5,916 square foot addition to the administrative
wing on the west end of the existing Junior/Senior High School, Since
the school is located in an R-2 zone, any additions to the school come -
under a conditional use permit. As part of the proposed office addition,
ten (10) parking spaces would be provided which would be located in the
sideyard, which also needs a variance request. According to City ordinances,
103 parking spaces are required for the school and currently, the
property has sufficient space for 250 cars, not counting the proposed ten
additional spaces for the administrative office building.
Mr. Johnson indicated that, although at times there are parking problems
along Washington Street next to the high school with kids parking along
streets rather than in the parking lots provided, the item is being
addressed by the student council to hopefully work out a solution amongst
the students where they will park on school grounds rather than on City
St.reet.s.
Area resident, Art Dorn, felt that education is needed to get people to
use the school parking lots rather than the City streets, but also, the
City should enforce the no -parking regulations along Washington Street
on an equal basis If that is the intent of the City.
The Planning Commission at their last meeting recommended granting the
conditional use permit for the administrative office building and also
the variance to allow parking for the administrative offices to be
completed in the sideyard.
Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Dan Blonigen and unanimously
carried to approve the conditional use permit for the administrative office
building and also the varia -e request for parking in a sideyard.
2-
COUNCIL MINUTES - 4/28/80
4. Public Hearing - Consideration of Rear Yard Setback Variance - Mel Wolter's
Proposed Office Building.
Mr. Mel Wolters, who is proposing to build a 5,600 square foot office
building on Lots 9 8 10, Block 5, Original Plat of Monticello, requested
a variance to build the new building within 10' of the rear property
line instead of the 30' setback as required by City Ordinances.
Mr. Wolters indicated the reason for the request was to allow him to
meet the parking requirements and to better utilize his property by
using part of the building as a retaining wall rather than building a
separate retaining wall to fit the property.
The abutting property owner to the south of the proposed office building,
Holiday Gas Station, expressed concern in a letter as to what affect
lir. Wolters variance request may have on their obtaining a similar variance
should the necessity ever arise. Other than this concern, Holiday Gas
Station representative did not oppose the variance requested.
Motion was made by Phil White, seconded by Ken Maus and unanimously carried
to approve the requested variance for a 10' rear yard setback.
5. Public Hearing - Variance on Off -Street Parking Requirements and Conditional
Ilse Permit to Allow a Loading nock in a Front and Side Yard - Clow
Stamping Company.
Clow Stamping Company requested variances to allow three driveway open-
ings of 30' rather than 24' as allowed by the ordinance, and additionally,
to develop 61 parking spaces rather than the required 64 spaces, along
with a conditional use permit to allow loading docks for their business
in both the side and front yard of a corner lot. The proposed location of
the 30,625 square foot building is in Lot 5, Block 2, Oakwood Industrial
Park.
Reason for the request is that Clow Stamping feels it is necessary to have
30' driveway openings instead of 24' openings because of the large amount
of truck deliveries that they will be having.
City ordinances require loading docks that are not in a rear yard to
be a conditional use permit and should be hdsed on the following factors:
A. Loading dock shall not conflict with pedestrian movement.
B. Loading berths shall not obstruct the view ur tie pu61.1C right-of-way
from off- street parking access.
C. Loading dock shall comply with all other requirements of this section.
The Planning Commission met prior to the Council Meeting on April 28, 1980,
and recommended that the conditional use permits for the loading docks
along with the driveway openings and 61 parking spaces be approved.
i•lotion was made by Ken Maus. seconded by Fran Fair and unanimously carried
to approve the 30' width driveway openings, loading docks in the front and
sideyard and 61 parking spaces rather than 64 as required by ordinance.
- 3 -
1,2
COUilCIL MINUTES - 4/28/80
6. Consideration of Rezoning Request from R-1 to R-3 - Harold Ruff.
Property owner Harold Ruff requested rezoning of a certain parcel of land
located east of Kampa Estates and west of the NSP maintenance building
along County Road 39 from R-1 to R-3 for the development of multiple
family dwellings by Tom Maxwell.
Due to the request of the developer and property owner, this item was
postponed until a future Council meeting.
7. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for a Parkinq Lot in a Planned
Unit Development - iicDonald's.
McDonald's requested a conditional use permit for the development stage of
the third parcel of land in the I-94 Tri -Plaza, referred to as Parcel "A".
McDonald's intention was to develop this parcel into an overflow area for
their present restaurant facility located on Parcel "B" of the I-94 Tri-
Piaza. Because this lot is within a Planned Unit Development (PUD), a
conditional use permit is necessary whenever any development occurs on any
of the specific parcels.
As part of the development of this lot for parking, McDonald's requested
a temporary variance from the landscaping provisions since it was the
intention of McDonald's to coordinate the development of their landscaping
on this parcel with the Freeway Standard Station landscaping on the adjacent
parcel, which would be completed shortly. In addition, McDonald's repre-
sentatives have indicated that traffic signs to direct traffic flow will
be installed along with lighting that is similar to the present lighting
at the McDonald's facility.
Motion was made by Phil White, seconded by Dan Blonigen and unanimously
carried to approve the conditional use permit for McDonald's to develop
Parcel "A" of the 1-94 Tri -Plaza into a parking lot.
8. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for a Tire Shop - Jay Morrell.
Jay Morrell, owner of the Stor-A-Nay building on south Highway 25,requested
a conditional use permit to lease a portion of the building for a tire
shop. In a B-3 commercial zone, a conditional use permit is necessary
for a tire shop.
In addition, Mr. Morrell requested two variances on the parking lot
driveway area. Mr. Morrell pruposed to hardsurfacc a ".C' arc= on the
south side of the building which would allow access from the south side
for the tire shop, and requested that the additional area to the south
and west of this new concrete parking area only require Class 5 or gravel
for overflow parking. As part of this request, a variance would be needed
to eliminate the perimeter curb on the south side of this area since he
may one day plan to hardsurface the additional overflow parking area.
- 4 -
COUNCIL MINUTES - 4/28/80
The Planning Commission, at their last meeting, recommended approval of the
two variances allowing the overflow parking area to be graveled, and also
eliminate the curb barrier around the newly proposed hardsurfaced parking.
Motion was made by Dan Blonigen, seconded by Phil White to approve the
conditional use permit for a tire shop at the Stor-A-Way building, along
with the variance from the hardsurface and curbing requirements, provided
a bond is submitted for 1501. of the estimated cost of completing the
improvements for a period of three years.
Voting in favor: Dan Blonigen, Phil White, Arve Grimsmo, Fran Fair.
Abstaining: Ken Maus.
9. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Loading Dock in the
Sideyard of a Corner Lot in an 1-1 lone - Best -in -Webb Printing.
Best -In -Webb Printing Company requested a conditional use permit similar
to that of Clow Stamping Company to allow a loading dock in the sideyard
of a corner lot in the Oakwood Industrial Park. The loading dock is part
of their plans on their current addition being completed at their existing
building site.
The Planning Commission reviewed this item prior to the Council Meeting,
and recommended approval of the conditional use permit for the loading
dock facility.
Motion was made by Phil White, seconded by Fran Fair and unanimously
carried to approve the conditional use permit for the loading dock in a
side yard.
10. Consideration of a Resolution Orderinq Feasibility Report on the Extension
of Improvements Alonq Prairie [toad.
A petition was filed by Mel Wolters, owner of Lots 20, 21, 22, 23, 24,
Block 4, of The Meadows Subdivision plat, requesting that the City extend
sewer, water and bituminous street surfacing from its present termination
point at the intersection of Prairie Road and Hedman Lane, to a point
approximately 330' west along Prairie Road.
This improvement will allow Mr. Wolters to develop all lots along Prairie
Road, with the exception of Lot 11, Block 2, and the reason for not
requesting services and improvements all the way to the last lot 1s that
it is the intention of the developer to eventually go down Hedman Lane
within the Meadows Plat ttselt, to service Lot 11, rdLher Lhdn Lu wine orf
directly from Prairie Road.
Although Mr. Wolters has more than 30% of the affected property proposed
to be served by these improvements, the Council questionned whether the
abutting property owner on the other side of Prairie Road has been con-
tacted regarding possible assessments he may receive. Mr. Wolters indicated
that he will be contacting Mr. Christopher, abutting property owner, in
regards to his intentions for future development of his property.
- 5 -
COUNCIL MINUTES - 4/28/80
Motion was made by Phil White, seconded by Dan Blonigen and unanimously
carried to adopt a resolution ordering the preparation of a feasibility
report by the City consulting engineer, Orr-Schelen-Mayeron b Associates,
on the requested improvements along Prairie Road. The feasibility report
will study alternatives in regards to the extension and the proposed assess-
ments for all abutting property owners. (Resolution 4/28/80 N8)(Exhibit ki).
11. Consideration of Resolution Adoptinq Guidelines for Bonds Issued Under the
Authority of the Municipal Industrial Development Act.
The purpose of this item was to consider adopting guidelines to be used
by the City Council in determining whether to issue industrial revenue
bonds for any particular applicant.
Guidelines and the application form were formulated after the City Council,
at its previous March 24, 1980 meeting, recommended that this item be
reviewed. If adopted, the resolution would serve as guidelines and the
City would have the right to reject any applicant or waive any of the
guideline requirements as it felt was necessary and in the best interest
of the City.
Although the Council discussed whether strict guidelines may be a hindrance
to development in the City of Monticello, it was felt that guidelines
were necessary and they would always have the authority to reject or waive
any of the requirements as they felt necessary.
fiction was made by Ken Maus, seconded by Phil White and unanimously carried
to adopt the resolution adopting guidelines for bonds issued under the
authority of the Municipal Industrial Development Act. (Resolution 4/28/80 N9)
(Exhibit p2)
12. Consideration of Certifyinq Water Hook -Up Charge and Service Line as Part
of the 1977-3 Street Assessment - Vera Diedrich.
As part of the 1977-3 Street Improvement Project, water service was
installed to the property of Vera Diedrich, located at 612 West 6th Street.
This new water service, along with approximately 63 other water services,
were installed as part of the street project to empty lots and existing
homes which did not have a water service prior to the street improvement
project. The $526 cost for each service was originally picked up by the
City as part of the ad valorem portion of the project and would be charged
to the property owner only if and when the service was used.
Mrs. Diedrich received an information letter at the time of the project
infnry ing hor that. rPplar.PmPntS of old galvanized lines would be done
at no cost, and Mrs. Diedrich misunderstood the letter and thought she
was receiving a water service at no cost. She recently hooked up to
City Water, and as a result, was quite upset at a billing in the amount
of $526 for the service since she thought it would be at no cost.
- 6 -
COUNCIL MINUTES - 4/28/80
q Because of the apparent misunderstanding created by her receiving a letter
intended for only people who had galvanized water line replacements,
motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Dan Blonigen and unanimously
carried to approve certifying the $608 charge for the new water service
as an addition to Vera Diedrich's 77-3 street assessment over the remaining
19 years.
13. Annual Leaque of Cities Conference - June 11 thru 13, 1980.
Motion was made by Ken Maus, seconded by Phil White and unanimously carried
to approve authorization of City Council members and the City Administrator
to attend the annual league of cities conference to be held June 11 - 13th
1n Duluth, Minnesota.
14. Approval of Bills for April, 1980 and Minutes of April 14, 1980 Renular
Meetinq.
Mutton was made by Phil White, seconded by Ken Maus and unanimously
carried to approve the bills for April as presented, along with the
Council minutes of the meeting of April 14, 1980. (See Exhibit M3).
15. Ratification of Union Contract.
The existing labor agreement between the City of Monticello and the Inter-
national Union of Operating Engineers Local 49, which some of the employees
of the City of Monticello belong to, expired April 1, 1980. A new labor
agreement, after negotiating sessions, has been reached with the union,
establishing new wage scales calling for a 504 per hour raise effective
April 1, 1980 and an additional 50t per hour raise effective October 1,
1980. The new two-year contract also provides for an additional 40¢ per
hour raise in the second year of the contract starting April 1, 1981,
putting the top rate for the union employee at $7.70 per hour in 1981.
The combined increase over the two years amounts to $1.40 per hour for
the top rate.
Motion was made by Phil White, seconded by Yen Maus and unanimously carried
to approve the new two-year labor agreement with the International Union
of Operating Engineers Local 49 as presented.
16. Miscellaneous.
The second meeting in May, scheduled for the Council on May 26, 1980,
was rescheduled to May 27, 1980, Tuesday, because of Memorial Day.
Meeting aajour/named.
Rick Wolfste;ller
Assistant Administrator
RW/ns
_7_
SNERIFF.'S (OFFICE,
- _'si •� '--:&qurl Houre_— WAghl Coue11
UFPAL0,- MINNESOTA 55717 -'
• - - r James F. Powers, Chief Deputy
_ •' Telphone,6M1tA
Wil. iy`' _ac • -- _ '_-y'_t., 1. , - 20 Hour Emerawmy Tdephenea
_ • -'�� 'i flenEmaraency Bui No. 6923900 .. Mevo 4734573
JARRfiLL L' WOLFF 'i. = •. _.� i_L =�. a0� �' ie 39 pm. Mon[iwllo 2952537
County SWill- ,r_-- _ _ _Z _
i' _ - _ _,�� _ Delano 972-29te
Celtato 299.5454
April 23, 1980
Honorable Mayor
City Council
Monticello, Minn. 55362
Gentlemen:
Enclosed is the Sheriff's Lew Enforcement report for the month of March, 1980.
568 hours of patrol service were contracted for during the period in which the
following activities were tallied:
2 - Burglary of First Baptist Church S a residence - both cleared by arrest of
three juveniles 6 all items were recovered
1 - Possible theft of clarinet from the high school
I - Theft of generator A wrench
1 - No pay customer at Perkins - cleared by arrest
3 - Simple assaults - all cleared by arrests
1 - Forgery at Wright County State Bank - under investigation
1 - Property damage - soap dispenser pulled off of the wall at Mc0onald's
1 - Theft of battery from vehicle
1 - Theft of 3 barricades belonging to the village
I - Attempted burglary at the First Baptist Church - no entry gained
1 - Theft of log ehainn, binders 6 tarp from a truck
1 - Vandalism - pop machine tipped over
1 - Theft of jacket from vehicle
2 - Civil matters
1 - Attempted suicide
1 - Harassing phone calls - cleared
1 - Theft of chain saw, tool boxes 8 tools from vehicle
1 - Property damage - awning at Jones Mfg damaged
7. - Runaways - both returned
I - Bench warrant arrest
2 - Reports of minors with altered driver lietnses trying to obtain liquid -
under investigation
2 - Arrests for issuance of worthless chec' s
1 - Arrest for misrepresenting age to obtain liy•lor
3 - Pumestlet
3 - Public nuisance b disturbances
7 - SUSPiclou s vehicles 6 persons
10 - Traffic complaints
SHERIFFT OFFICE
•Court House wrigh C—ly
I ,' `',�• ' : -- :,BUFFALO, MINNESOTA' SS717 ,
Taiophon* 6M)162 r
Non-Bmrgaocy Bui No. 687-]900
DARRELL L.•NIOLPP-c
Counly. S6ofN6-
_
Sheriff's report for Monticello for March, 1980 continued:
1 - Prowler report
1 - Missing person
4 - Miscellaneous complaints
1 - Lost billfold
1 - Alarm sounded
1 - Phone threats
1 - Fire reported
2 - Emergency messages delivered
167 - Car S subject checks
63 - Citizen aids
30 - Motorists warned
12 - Accidents investigated
97 - Traffic tickets Issued:
55 - Illegal parking
13 - Speed
8 - Driving while intoxicated
4 - Reckless driving
3 - Erratic driving
1 - Careless driving
4 - Driver license violations
2 - Open bottle
3 - Improper lane usage
2 - Stop sign
I - Driving after revocation
I - School bus stop sign violation
Yours truly,
Darrell Wolff, Sherif
0
Jamas F. Powers, Chief Deputy
N Hour Emrgmey Tab c—s
hbtro 473.6673
Monticello 285.2537
Dwmo 872.2924
Collate 2865450
Billing: For the month of March, 1980 -- $ 6,409,00 over payment in Febru,lry
6.378.66 mnnthly am—nr
$ 30.34 credit
$ 6,378.66
- 30.34
$ 6,346.32 due fur March p;lyment
COUNCILUPDAT E
May 12, 1980 Meeting
1. Additional Telephone Lines - Wright County Sheriff's Department.
On Thursday, May 1, 1980, Ken Maus, Arve Grimsmo and I met with Buddy Gay
and Don Hozempa, with the Wright County Sheriff's Department. One of the
main concerns expressed to the Wright County Sheriff's Department was the
need for additional telephone lines to the Wright County Sheriff's Depart-
ment in Buffalo.
Currently, Monticello has one local line - 295-2533 - going to the
Wright County Sheriff's Department in Buffalo. In addition to the
local line, an individual can call the County Courthouse and get
connected to the Sheriff's Department; however, because of the increased
calls into the Courthouse and on the loca 1 line, it is not always feasible
to get the Sheriff's Department right away. As a result, the Sheriff's
Department will be getting a WATS line, and it should be in service
approximately July of 1980 according to Buddy Gay of the Wright County
Sheriff's Department. This is not to be confused with the 911 system.
2. Extension of East River Street and Additional Parkinq - Medical Clinic.
Although no formal plans have been presented at this time to the City of
Monticello, concern has been expressed by citizens who live along East
River Street in the Ellison Park area, about the extension of River
Street and additional parking that may occur behind the Hospital for the
medical facility.
A letter has been sent to these property owners notifying them that
no formal plans have been received yet by the City of Monticello; how-
ever, as soon as we receive any preliminary plans, that the Hospital
Administrator and i will be reviewing thi s with concerned property
owners in the area.
3. Review of Monticello Siqn Ordinance.
Their next meeting, May 20, 1980, will fi nd the Planning Commission reviewing
some proposed revisions to Monticello's sign ordinance regarding non-
conforming signs. This is as a result o P the joint meeting between the
City Council and Planning Commission held recently. Council members,
As usual are invltLd t.. ..••r.v this tai ate. illi.
ADDITIONAL ITEM FOR POSSIBLE CONSIDERATION
Consideration of Settinq_Salary Scale and Reallocation of Napes for
Information Center in 1980.
Karen Hanson, Senior Citizens Director, has requested that the City of
Monticello adjust the allocation of those personnel working at the Informa-
tion Center. Previously, the City of Monticello allocated 50% to the
person performing the work and the remaining 50% was put in a fund
for the Senior Citizens Center. Ms. Hanson is asking the City to
consider the possibility of paying those employees who work at the
Information Center 2/3's, with the remaining 1/3 set aside for the
Senior Citizens Center. Her reasoning for this was due to the increased
cost in gas, etc., since the ladies who do work at the Information Center
do provide their own transportation to and from the Center.
Additionally, she mentioned these personnel do contribute quite a bit
already to the Center in terms of any portion of the wages they earn.
Additionally, Ms. Hanson indicated we should consider establishment of
the salary to be $2.90 per hour in 1980, as opposed to $2.30 in 1979,
as a result of the increase of the minimum wage law in the State of
Minnesota.
C) POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of reallocation of salaries earned by
Information Center ersonnel, and the setting of
salaries for 1980. j.
�M
1�/ Y
P�
l
Tal,phone 2952711
(.rift' o1l/!'Ionfi A.
250 East Broadway
MONTICELLO. NIN 55362
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council Members J-7
FROM: Gary Wieber, City AdministratoDATE: May 6, 1980
SUBJECT: Board of Review Meetinq - May 13, 1980 - 7:00 P.M.
Metro L.ne 333-5739
Enclosed, please find the following for your information to help guide you
for the Board of Review to be held on the above date:
1. Copy of function of Board of Review taken from the League of Minne-
sota Cities manual.
2. Comparison of Market Value of several homes comparing valuations for
taxes payable in 1980 and 1981.
3. New home cost schedule used by the Wright County Assessor's office.
4. Depreciation schedule used by the Wright County Assessor's office.
As you can see by the comparison of the valuation for taxes payable in 1980
and 1981, there has been quite an increase in home valuations. As a result,
quite possibly there may be more than the usual number in attendance at the
Board of Review on Tuesday night.
As you can see by the information supplied, basis for the valuation of homes
is by categories, which include square footage, the year built, and whether
the particular home is in "good" - "normal" - "fair" - or "poor" condition. It
should be noted that the depreciation schedule is based on actual sales that
have occurred in Wright County and have been tabulated.
Although it is obviously not entirely possible, by utilizing this method, the
discretion or judgment factor has been redurad es nu -ch -1il
POSSIBLE ACTION: After completion of the Board of Review, the City Council
should adopt the assessor's list of property values with
any adjustments that it makes.
REFERENCES: As stated above.
q � � p
Welcome to
U cD
y/hlonticollo
a
little
little moseniain
--�
The f7lv!luun/ oJRrrleu
The city council may serve as the board of re.
,iew in cities which have been separated from the
own. In cities which have not been separated
nn the town for assessment and election put.
:s, the town board serves as the board of re.
few.
The
The city council may appoint a special board of
.-view to which it may delegate all of the powers
nd duties the concil would.have if it acted as the
oard of review. The members of the special
oard of review serve -at the direction and diserc-.
236
tion of the council. The council determines the
number of members to be appointed, the eompcn-
salion and expenses to be paid, and the term of of-
fice of each member. At least one member of the
special board of review must be an appraiser, real -
lot or other person familiar with property valua-
tions in the assessment district.
The board of review meets in the office of the
city clerk. The city assessor and the county asses-
sor must also attend this meeting with their assess-
ment books and papers. These latter officials may
take part in the proceedings, but may not vote.
The meeting date of the board of review, which
must be between April 7 and June 30, is fixed by
the county assessor on or before April 1 of.each
year by giving written notice to the city clerk.
Upon receipt of the notice, the clerk must give
published and posted notice of the meeting at least
10 days before the date set for it.
A majority of the members may take action at
the board of review meeting and may adjourn the
meeting from day to day for a period of 20 days
until the work of the board has been completed.
After 20 days frum the date of its first meeting,
the board has no authority and any action taken is
invalid unless the commissioner of revenue has
granted an extension.
In fulfilling its role, the and of review has
ihrev main fuact�is to perform:
OIt must review the assessor's list, makingsure
that all taxable property in the city has been
properly placed upon it.
0 It must review the assessor's valuations,striv-
ing to standardize the ratio between market
value and adjusted market value for each in.
dividual piece of property. To accomplish,
this, the board may raise or lower valuations
on individual properties, but increases in
v,11t-iduns cannot be made without first
notifying the property owner and giving him
an opportunity to be heard.
OThe huaid must hear and settle the com•
plaints of individual property owners regard•
int; the v.duatiuns whivh have been placed
upun their properly.
If a person fails to appear in person, by counsel,
or by written tummunication before the board of
review alter being duly nntified of the board's in.
lent it) raise the assessment of his property, or if a
person feeling aggrieved bk an assessment fails to
apply for a review of the assessment, he may not
appear belwe the county board of equallwtion for
a review of hie assessment, except when an assess•
mens ars made subsequent to the meeting of the
1977
bard of review or when Ne can establish that he
did not receive notice of his market value at least
five gays before the local board of review meet-
ing 4
__1(tr_Jocal board o(review may not reduce [he
total or aggrcgate amQplit,,p(A1emettt _r�.
turned �_thc only cssorhy.Atn&cjban.13%-4 a
This means—Ft ia_t compensation must be made for
reductions in assessed values by making com-
parable increases in assessments against other
parcels of property.
After the final adjournment of the board of re-
view, the city assessor is authorized to make addi-
tional assessments but the board cannot make fur-
ther review. Complaints on these later assessments
can be heard by the county board of equalization.
W
COMPARISON OF MARKET VALUATION
1979 vs 1980
Payable 1980 6 1981
�-
VALUE
VALUE
1-1-79
1-1-80
PAYABLE
PAYABLE
NAME
PARCEL q
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
1980
1981
Connie Decktr
155-010-009060
Lot 6 8 7, Block 9
8 14,191
E 22,685
Orig. Plat, Monticello
Steve Hammer
155-010-008050
Lot 5, Block 8
33,915
40,300
Orig. Plat, Monticello
Bruce Ellingson
155-010-029040
Part Lots 4-7, Block 29
35,326
41,480
Orig. Plat, Monticello
Ed Lange
155-010-029020
Part Lot 2 6 Lot 3, B1k.29
21,450
25,575
Orig. Plat, Monticello
Richard Quick
155-010-033030
Lot 3, Block 33
29,068
30,985
Orig. Plat, Monticello
Donald Maus
155-010-046090
Lots 9 6 10, Block 46
71,203
79,550
Orig. Plat, Monticello
George Phillips
155-010-045040
Lots 4-7, Block 45,
62,447
73,505
COrig.
Plat, Monticello
Lydia Swanson
155-010-048131
Lots 13 6 14, Block 48
26,814
31,910
Orig. Plat, Monticello
Dennis Lundquist
155-010-050140
Lots 14 6 15, Block 50
37,677
42,820
Orig. Plat, Monticello
O.S. Johnson
155-010-057010
Lots 9 6 10, Block 57
54,083
65,470
Orig. Plat, Monticello
Cun Johnson
155-010-057050
Lots 5-7, Block 57
52,533
63,530
Orig. Plat, Monticello
I
Dave Bauer
155-014-001020
Lot 2, Block 1
50,434
56,245
Hoglund Addition
Troy Chaplin
155-014-001010
Lot 1, Block 1
37,584
45,950
Hoglund Addition
Hal Kral
155-015-009040
Lot 4, Block 9
43,043
58,077
Lower Monticello
Iry Kallin
155-015-019011
Long Description Block 19
66,075
78,203
Lower Monticello
COMPARISON OF MARKET
VALUATION (Continued)
VALUE
VALUE
1-1-79
1-1-80
C
PAYABLE
PAYABLE
NAME
PARCEL d
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
1980
1981
Roy Lauring
155-020-002010
Lot 2, Block 2
S 46,605
S 68,700
--
River Terrace
John Sandberg
155-020-001060
Lot 6, Block 1
60,404
63,638
River Terrace
Audrey Sandberg
155-020-002060
Lot 6, Block 2
57,853
76,337
River Terrace
Steve Johnson
155-023-001080
Lot 8, Block 1
70,998
83,180
Doerr Estates
Mike Slagter
155-026-001080
Lot 8, Block 1
28,677
48,821
Anders Wilhelm
(NC)"
Ron White
155-028-001020
Lot 2, Block 1
5,000
86,161
Sandberg Riverside
(Lot)++
Mel Wolters
155-028-001070
Lot 7, Block 1
3,500
101,167
Sandberg Riverside
(Lot)**
Lloyd Lund
155-013-001130
Lot 13, Block 1
37,452
46,991
�,
Hillcrest
Blaine Nobbs
155-013-001070
Lot 7, Block 1
37,400
52,266
Hillcrest
Frankie Peterson
155-020-002040
Lots 4 A 5, Block 2
35,000
49,940
_.
River Terrace
+ (NC) means not complete for purposes of valuation
•` (Lot) means value based on empty lot only
NEW HOPE COST SCHEDULE FOR UMIGHi COUNTY
Tuck Under Garage, Single $500, Double $650
Attached Garage, Single $10.50 Per SF, Double $9.00
De-Lached Garage, Same as ntcacneo
Garage With Basement, Add 3.50 Per SF
Single Fireplace, I Story $1200-$1500 2 Story $1400-$2000
Double Fireplace, I Story $1500-$2200 2 Story $1800-$2500
Extra Plumbing Per Fixture $200-$2.50
Central Air or hest Pump, Forced Air System $900
Central Air, Hot Water or Elactrie $1400
Deck With Rail, $3.50 Per SF
Average Asphalt Driveway, Add $200 To Land Value
Average Cement Driveway, Add $300 To Land Value
Adjust Driveways for Excessive Situations Above Averago
Split Level, Add $1.00 To Base Cost Per SF
Split Entry, Add $500.00
14 Story 120%
Ili Story 140%
1 3/4 Story 1502
2 Story 1601
Dormers On It Story I•lake It Ih Story
Dormers On I11 Story Make It 1 3/4 Story
Porches, New Schedule
Basement Cost $5.00 ?or SF
Grade 4 thru 7 With No Basement Deduct $3.50 Par SP
Double l:obileo On Basement Add $5.00 Par SF
Spancroto instead of other type floor or.roof add $3.00
Per SF
L
BASE1111T
FTNTSII
USE
I!7 198
ISSESSMENT
200
4UO
600
800
1000
1200
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300 1400
1500
1600
1800
2000
Class
- D 8
49.77
48.35
47.06
46.16
45.31
44.32 43.75
43.18
42.70
42.26
41.98
Class
- D 7
42.83
41.70
40.63
39.79
39.15
38.23 37.66
37.24
36.81
36.46
36.18
Class
- U 65
40.77
39.64
38.68
37.67
37.20
36.39 35.85
35.47
35.04
34.6y
34.44
Class
- D 6
38.72
37.66
36.74
35.96
35.25
34.55 34.05
33.70
33.27
32.92
32.70
Class
- D 5;
36.49
35.50
34.61
33.91
33.23
32.56 32.10
31.75
31.36
31.04
30.82
Class
- U 5
34.26
33.34
32.49
31.86
31.22
30.58 30.16
29.80
29.45
29.16
28.95
Class
- 1) 4',
32.56
31.67
30.86
30.26
29.66
29.06 28.63
28.31
27.96
27 .7 1
27.50
Class
- D 4
30.86
30.00
29.24
28.67
28.10
27.54 27.11
26.83
26.48
26.26
26.05
Dble.
Cobile - No
Basement - D 3
27.75
27.00
26.35
25.84
25.27
24.78 24.42
24.14
23.85
23.57
23.43
Class
- D 5
Economy
Type Built
By
Payne. Marvin
George, Krienke,
others that
qualify
for FHA low income loan.
Class
- D 4
oclular
homes
Cor.plyinp.
With State
Building Code - Clearwater
Forest
Tvpc
Class
- D 3
DouLle
Unit Specified
As Mobile
Home -
A.N.S.I.
Class
- D 51i
Standard Wausau
Class
- D 6
Deluxe
Wausau
- added
features
to look
for: walled in
kitchen
with deluxe
cabinets, patio door,
triple
glazed
window,
windows other
than sliders,' covered
entry,
patio
in rear
of parage etc.
Tuck Under Garage, Single $500, Double $650
Attached Garage, Single $10.50 Per SF, Double $9.00
De-Lached Garage, Same as ntcacneo
Garage With Basement, Add 3.50 Per SF
Single Fireplace, I Story $1200-$1500 2 Story $1400-$2000
Double Fireplace, I Story $1500-$2200 2 Story $1800-$2500
Extra Plumbing Per Fixture $200-$2.50
Central Air or hest Pump, Forced Air System $900
Central Air, Hot Water or Elactrie $1400
Deck With Rail, $3.50 Per SF
Average Asphalt Driveway, Add $200 To Land Value
Average Cement Driveway, Add $300 To Land Value
Adjust Driveways for Excessive Situations Above Averago
Split Level, Add $1.00 To Base Cost Per SF
Split Entry, Add $500.00
14 Story 120%
Ili Story 140%
1 3/4 Story 1502
2 Story 1601
Dormers On It Story I•lake It Ih Story
Dormers On I11 Story Make It 1 3/4 Story
Porches, New Schedule
Basement Cost $5.00 ?or SF
Grade 4 thru 7 With No Basement Deduct $3.50 Par SP
Double l:obileo On Basement Add $5.00 Par SF
Spancroto instead of other type floor or.roof add $3.00
Per SF
BASE1111T
FTNTSII
Quality
200
4UO
600
800
1000
1200
Mery Good
7.22
5.60
5.10
4.67
4.40
4.33
Good
6.45
5.10
4.67
4.16
4.00
3.90
AvcrnQc
5.94
4.67
4.25
3.82
3.65
3.56
Fair
5.50
4.33
3.90
3.56
3.40
3.31
BLM/oak
8-3-79
USED HOME DEPRECIATION SCHEDULE - FOR 1980 ASSESSMENT
YEAR 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1800 2000 2200
1976-1979 -
,od 42.83 41.70 40.63 39.76 39.15 38.23 37.66 37.24 36.46 36.18 35.90
"Normal 38.72 37.66 35.74 35.96 35.25 34.55 34.05 33.70 32.92 37..70 32.35
Fair 36.49 35.50 34.61 33.91 33.23 32.56 32.10 31.75 31.04 30.82 30.50
Poor 34.26 33.34 32.49 31.66 31.22 30.58 30.16 29.80 29.16 23.95 28.66
1970-1975
Good 40.26 39.20 38.20 37.40 36.80 35.95 35.40 35.00 34.25 34.00 33.75
Normal 35.60 34.65 33.80 33.10 32.45 31.80 31.35 31.00 30.30 30.10 29.75
Fair 32.85 31.95 31.15 30.50 29.90 29.30 28.90 28.60 27.95 27.75 2.7.45
Poor 30.15 2P..10 28.60 28.05 27.45 26.90 26.55 26.20 25.65 25.45 25.20
1960-1969
Houses Built
After 1930
Ik Story -- IIOZ
A Story
-- 1202
1� Story -- 120%
11 Story
-- 140'
1 3/4 Story + 1301
1 3/4 Story
1502
Good
38.97
37.95
36.95
36.20
35.65
34.80
34.25
33.90
33.20
32.90
32.65
Normal
34.07
33.15
32.35
31.65
31.03
30.40
29.95
29.65
28.95
28.80
28.45
Fair
31.00
30.20
29.40
28.80
28.25
27.70
27.30
27.00
26.40
26.2.0
25.95
Poor
27.40
26.65
26.00
25.50
25.00
24.45
24.15
23.65
23.30
23.15
22.95
1950-1959
Good 35.97 35.00 34.15 33.40 32.90 32.10 31.65 31.30 30.65 30.40 30.15
Normal 30.95 30.15 29.40 28.75 2V .20 27.65 27.25 26.95 26.35 26.15 25.90
Fair 27.35 26.65 25.95 25.45 24.90 24.40 24.10 23.80 23.30 23.10 22.90
Poor 22.60 22.00 21.45 21.05 20.60 20.20 19.90 19.65 19.25 19.10 18.90
1930-1949
iod 30.00 29.20 28.45 27.65 27.40 26.75 26.35 26.05 25.50 25.35 25.15
.�rmal 24.80 24.10 22.15 23.00 22.55 22.10 21.80 21.55 21.05 20.95 20.70
Fair 20.45 19.90 19.40 19.00 18.60 18.25 18.00 17.80 17.40 17.25 17.10
Poor 13.70 13.35 13.00 12.75 12.50 12.25 12.05 11.90 11.65 11.60 11.45
1910-197.9
Good 26.12 25.43 24.78 24.25 23.90 23.30 22.95 22.70 22.25 22.05 21.90
Normal 21.30 20.70 20.20 19.80 19.40 19.00 18.75 18.55 18.10 18.00 17.80
Fair 16.80 16.35 15.90 15.60 15.30 15.00 14.75 14.60 14.30 14.20 14.05
Foor 12.60 12.3-> 11.9() I1.6u 11.30 11.00 10.75 10.60 10.30 10.20 10.05
Before 1910
Cood 2.1.40 20.85 20.30 19.90 19.60 19.10 18.85 18.60 18.25 18.10 17.95
Normal 19.36 18.85 18.35 18.00 17.60 17.25 17.05 16.85 16.45 16.35 16.20
Fair 14.80 14.35 13.90 13.60 13.30 13.00 12.75 12.60 12.30 12.20 12.05
Poor 10.80 10.35 9.90 9.60 9.30 9.00 8.75 8.60 8.30 8.20 8.05
Houses Rni.lt Before.. 1930
Houses Built
After 1930
Ik Story -- IIOZ
A Story
-- 1202
1� Story -- 120%
11 Story
-- 140'
1 3/4 Story + 1301
1 3/4 Story
1502
2 Story 140%
2 Story
w 1602
Bill/sok
8-3-79
� moi%-v�i�"J�
2/
''�_ _
J; .
.�
iRilGii'a tioul:rY
04�fIrd,
COIMERCiAT,
BUILDING DEPRECTATTON SCIIF.DULE
NOTE: This schedule not
to be used for pre-06gincered
inctal
buildings, or pole type
buildings although the dcpreciaLion
tabic may'bc used to caifulate
depreciation from
rcpi:ucmgnt
Y..,
cost '.now,' Chi.wo,story
buildings, if the second
floor is not
re so
used, add no value. If
used for storage only add
10%. If
3S
used as office or apartment add 40% to 50% to base
value
�=
depending upon coridikion. If, about the same. condition
as
33
first floor', add 40%.
If better add 50%.
,
rlia
!; a
USE 'OF BUILDING
CONSTRUCTION
QUALITY
3-
Fair Normal
Good
SA
Apartments
.•i•q•17.20 21.75
31.50
33
F
Auto Sales
:•17.90 22.85
28.55
Country Clubs
:26./15 32.35
37.90
�T °i'
D4artment Stores..
16.15: 18.60
22.60
Factories
11.95;; 18,40
26.20
Funeral Homes
23.50 31.75
36.55
Garages, Commercial
17.95 25.85
33.05
Hedfcai Clinic
35.25 41.35
53.15
Hedical'0fffees
31.35 38,35
44.55
Hotels
20.00 28.90
34.80
Nursing Homes
32.14,•3Qr80•
49.20
Offices-Hanks
28.09,- 37.75
49.05
Resturants
93.00, 4(4.35.
55.60
Retgil Stores
16.1522.20
29.70
Supormnr}xts
19..40 •21:+80
25.50
Shopping Centers
17.46 19:62
22.95
Worelwusec
10.15 •.14 05
21.25
DMIHI;CTATT.OM
TARLF
Effective
Condition
Are
Poor Fnir Norn.iI
Good
1976-78
1007. 100%
100%
70-75
90% 92%
94%
;�.
60-69
627 82% 86%
89%
50-59
551C 72% 78%
82%
40-49
47% 62% 70%
75%
30-39
40% 53% 62%
68%
20-29
34% 44% 54%
60%
10-19 °
26% 34% 45%
52%
sf,
before 1911'7:.
20% 26% 37%
43%
BUiJ j ac
Taxes payable on property based upon 100 mills, homestead credit computed.
Ag Credit deducted.
t
1980 Payable
1981 Payable
Ree 6
operty Resi
Farm Resi
fec S
Conn
Resi Form Resi
Farm
Comm
lue RS
IIS NII
arm
NH
IIS US Nil
NII
'0000 180
99 640
500
860
134 97 560
315
860
1)0000 324
206 960
750
1290
214 147 840
473
1290
4/11000 4)4
318 1260
1000
1720
307 195 1120
631
1720
yu000 698
430 1600
1250
2150
99 244 1400
789
2150
40000 998
544 1920
1500
2580
580 310 1680
946.
2580
70POO 1298
762 2240
1750
3010
860 376 1960
1104
3010
800000 1598
987 2560
2000
3440
1145 443 2240
1262
3440
-OU 1898
1212 2880
2250
3870
1420 562 2520
1419
3870
j 000 2198
1437 3200
2500
4300
_ 1700 720 2800
1577
4300
%dt,''
/%.F/
''Iloy
OFFICE OF COUNTY ASSESSOR
L L MATTSON, WRIGHT COUNTY
.3-'
RUBEN CONK
Co."" 49699409 &UIIALO. MINNESOTA 55311
D3►YT♦ CO. A400st00
TaLVMOMa, 40&3900 (e►t 100)
PliE-ENGINEEnD METAL BUILDING !
1• ;
rl
! 10'. SIDE: WALLS
COST ESTIMATES
1984 ILSSESSHEITT
ITCH 5;000'$F 10;000 SF
15.000 SP !'
1. Concrete Floor per sq. it-. { ' $1.80 .51.60
$1.50 -
2. Building 6 Insul. per iq. f•C. '$5.A5 $5'.30
$6.95
*Add 109 to cost of 02 for Each 4' Height over 10'
1
3. Electrical per sq: ft. $ .85 $ .70
$ .60 :
4. Forced Air Heat per sq. ft. $ .90 $ .70
$ .60
5. Window Walls paf of µlazing $3.80 $3.80
$3.80
A D1.• Ain.. IISE TN PI.ACF. UNIT COSTS
'
7. Air Conditioning USE SANE SF COST AS FA HEAT
1
B. Interior PartitioniAlt - Offices etc. Value as observed
Add 102 to cost of 42 for em.Ch 4' height over 10'.
Note - Behro's Blda. runs $1.00 per 8F under stran steal.
6-28-79