City Council Agenda Packet 09-13-1983AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF TILE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, September 13, 1983 - 7:30 P.M.
Mayor: Arve A. Grimsmo
Council Members: Fran Fair, Jack Maxwell, Dan Blonigen, Ken :•taus.
1. Call to Order.
2. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held on
August 22, 1983.
3. Citizens Comments/Petitions, Requests and Complaints.
Old Business
4. Consideration of an Appeal From Planning Commission Applicant -
Assembly of God, Conditional Use.
5. Consideration of an Appeal From Planning Commission Applicant -
Blcjckei Adv,;, lisiuy.
6. John Sandberg Proposed Subdivision.
New Business
Consideration of a Variance Request Referred From Planning
Commission - Applicant, Bob Saxon.
8. Considerationofof a Planning Commission Recommendation in Relation
to Reconstruction of T.11. 25.
9. Consideration of a Request for a Public Hearing for Tax
Increment Financing.
10. Consideration of Amending the Ordinance Regulating Sewer
Hook-up Charges.
11. Adjournment.
NOTE: The Council 14ecting is on Tuesday this month,
duo to the Industry Day Banquet scheduled on
Monday.
I
MEMO
TO: Mayor 6 Council
FROM: Tom
SUBJECT: City Hall Roof, etc.
DATE: September 9, 1983
Enclosed, for your information, is the latest correspondence
from Architectural Alliance. Gary and I have met with Pringle,
who began to assemble all the data available to determine if
we should pursue litigation. This week, however, Gary P.
suffered a severe injury and, as such has not been at work.
Thus, we have no formal report or recommendation at this time.
we will be pursuing this immediately upon Pringle's return.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICEM O CITY COUNCIL
August 22, 1983 - 7:30 P.M.
Members Present: Arve Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Dan Blonigen, Fran Fair,
Ken Maus.
Members Absent: None.
2. Approval of the Minutes.
A motion was made by Maus, seconded by Blonigen and unanimously
carried to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held on
August 8, 1983.
4. Consideration of Information Relating_ to the Condition of City .
Hall Roof.
Since the City Hall was completed in 1978, the City has experienced
some leakage problems on numerous occasions which have not, apparent-
ly, been rectified to date. On August 12, 1983, the City Staff
held a meeting with the representatives from the Herbert Mikkel-
son Company, general contractor for the building, Mr. Herb Ketcham
of Architectural Alliance, the architect for the City Hall project,
nod two yunLlemen rupaeeen Liny Lite eumpany, ELLe l and Franz, whu
were the roofing subcontractors. The purpose of the meeting was
to try and resolve the roof leakage problem along with some other
apparent defects in the building.
After inspection of the roof, it was noted that tho flashing wan
installed on the roof under the shingles for appearance sake
which may not have been the beat installation. Gino possible
solution was to install a rain gutter to catch scxw of the
water coning off that portion of the Council Charnbors roof to
divert sono of the water directly to the ground rather than
having a largo quantity of water running off over the vestibule
or front entrance.
The group also discuoued the scaling or chipping away of Lhe
brick that has occurred on parts of the building duo to excessive
water aborption and the constant build up of ice during the
winter. It was noted by the architect that the City should have
boon aware that the typo of brick ured is very p orue and would
absorb water and that it would have to be treated with Como
typo of Coolant to prevent problems with this typo of brick.
Additionally, it was noted that there were cracks on part of
the roof line near the caves in the shingles which may be the
result of excessive ice accumulation.
Council Minutes - 8/22/83
It was the architect's recommendation that minor repairs be
done in a phased project to see how each step might solve the
leakage problem and the architect was working on obtaining
price quotes for the various improvements. It seemed apparent
from the meeting that the general concensus of the contractors
involved was that it was no longer their problem with the roof
leakage or any problem and that their warranty has expired and
it would be the City's problem. Building Inspector, Gary
Anderson, noted that he is in the process of receiving a pro-
posal from a contractor to seal the brick with a sealant to
stop water absorption. It was also noted that while a firm
price had not been established to install additional flashing
and rain gutters to help alleviate the leakage, these
quotations should be coming in the near future.
After considerable discussion on the problems, it was the con -
census of the Council to have the work done yet this year and
try to solve the leakage problems throughout the building
regardless of what the general contractors or roofing con-
tractors agree to do,and suggested that the City Staff try to
get some sort of settlement from the contractors involved.
A motion was made by Blonigen, seconded by Maus and unanimously
carried to consult with the City Attorney to see whether the
City Iles any legal recourse from the contractors involved for
the problems said to start immediately with the repairs to the brick
and flashing, subject to the legal advice as to whether
these repairs should be done prior to reaching a settlement.
S. Consideration of Appointing Gary Anderson as City Assessor.
Cai Juno 30, 1983, tho City received permission from the Com-
missioner of Revenue to re-ostablish the office of City
Assessor. 71re job description has been prepared for the
position and it was the recommendation of the administrator
that the City's Building Inapector, Mr. Cary Anderson, be
appointed also as City Assessor.
A motion was made by Fair, seconded by Maxwell and unanimously
carried to appoint Gary Anderson as City Anoessor with a
salary adjustment effective Suptemlr.r 1, 1983, to $23,000
annually.
6. Consideration of Final Annointment for a Secretary in City hall.
mr. Tun Cidem noted that approximately GO applications were
ruccivud los' the socrutary position that. was open. Ater
review of Lite applicants, Mr. I.idem recommended that Karen
Doty be hired as the new secretary.
A motion was made by Blanigun, seconded by Maxwell and unani-
mously carried to hire Karen Do Ly as the now secretary for
City Hall.
0
Council Minutes - 8/22/83
7. Consideration of Municipal Liquor Store Financial Statements
for the First Six Months of 1983.
Mark Irmiter, Liquor Store Manager, was present at the Council
Meeting to review the financial statement for the first six
months of operation for the off -sale Liquor Store. Mr. Irm iter
noted that sales were down approximately 4% from last year's
figures which has been the trend in other communities during
the past six months also. The resulting net income was only
$400 lower than last year's income for the same period.
It was noted that some possible improvements to the Liquor Store
in the future could be parking lot expansion and the addition
of new cash registers which will be budgeted for in 1984.
No other action was taken other than the review of the state-
ments as presented.
8. Consideration of a Request from the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority for a Loan to Acquira Land.
Last fall, the Monticello HRA provided tax increment financing
for IXI Corporation on Lots 7, Block 3, Oakwood Industrial .yark.
During the original negotiations, it was apparent that Lots 5
(` and 6 were also intended to be purchased for future enlarge -
went of the IXI Corporation's building complex. The City's
HRA originally only purchased Lot 7 , but it was the intent
of the HRA to obtain on option on the two additional lots
so that this land would be availabLo once IXI started to
expand their complex.
IXI Corporation recently approached the Oakwood Industrial Park
Partnership to request permission to begin construction of
their borm around all of Lots 5, 6 and 7, even though they
do not have ownership of Lots 5 and 6 yet. From the financial
standpoint, IXI's plan is to bring in the heavy dirt moving
equipment and have them dig all of the foundations,
move all of the fill. and (b all of the grading at one time
rather than have to hire machinery to come in on several other
occasions to do parts of the job. The Oakwood Partnership is
uncomfortable with allowing land that they still own to be
graded and bermed and would like to sea the 11RA acquire the
land first. Tho total purchase price of the remaining two
lots would require a loan from the City in the amount of
$154,800.00. Once the land wan acquired by the HRA, portions
of the lot would be resold to IXI Corporation in phnsos with
the loan being repaid to the City from the tax increments
generated on future building projects.
A motion was made by Maus, seconded by Fair, and unanimously
carried to authorize the 11RA to horror $154,800.00 from the
City to be repaid with the tax increment& generated from 1X1'8
expansion projects with an annual interact rate of 8% per year.
3 - 0
Council Minutes - 8/22/83
9. Consideration of Authorizing the Submission of an Urban Develop-
ment Action Grant Application.
Recently, the City of Monticello has been notified that it would
no longer meet the criteria established by HUD to be eligible
for future UDAG grant money after August 31, 1983. An Urban
Development Action Grant is basically a grant to the City which
in turn lends money to an economic developer at a reduced
interest rate. when the money is repaid back with interest,
the community is allowed to keep the funds and reuse the money
in a similar fashion to help other development within the City.
The program requires substantial canmitment from the developer,
with the higher ratio of private sector dollars to public
dollars creating a greater chance for grant approval.
In the last few weeks, Fulfillment Systems of Monticello has
approached the City in order to relocate their business within
the corporate limits and they have expressed an interest in
trying to meet the August 31, 1983, deadline to apply for the
UDAG grant funds to help them establish their business in
the City. The City Staff has been working on trying to gat
the applications submitted prior to August 31st and would
require Council authorization to apply.
A motion was made by Blonigen, seconded by Maxwell and unani-
mously carried to authorize the submission of an Urban Develop-
ment Action Grant application for FulFillment Systeme Develop-
ment Plan.
10. Consideration of Rescheduling the First Meeting in September
from Monday, September 12th to Tuesday, Soptembar 13, 1983.
Due to the annual Industry Day banquet scheduled for Monday,
September 12, 1983, it was the eoneensuo of the Council to
hold its first regularly scheduled Council meeting of the
month on Tuesday, September 13th, 1983. In addition, the first
regular meeting in October wan rescheduled from Monday,
October 10th (ColumbuB Day) to October 11, 1983.
11. Approval of the Bills.
A motion wan made by Maxwell, seconded by Fair, and unani-
mously carried to approve the bills for the month of August
as p� ental.
Rick wolf stol r
Assistant Administrator
4D
C
Council Agenda - 9/13/83
AGENDA SUPPLEMENT
Consideration of an Appeal From Planning Commission Applicant -
Assembly of God, Conditional Use.
Back in June of this year, Monticello Assembly of God Church filed
a request for a Conditional Use to allow a day care center in an
R-2 Zone. At our June meeting, the Assembly of God Church wanted
their request tabled until the next meeting, which would have been
in July. At the July meeting it was also tabled, and at our August
meeting it was tabled. However, at our September meeting they
c=c in and paid for their Conditional Use Request and wanted to
be on the Agenda for the September meeting; and they were on the
Agenda for the September meeting. At the meeting no one from the
Assembly of God Church was present to address their Conditional
Use Request. The Planning Commission did not know to what extent
or who the Conditional Use Request was for other than the applicant,
or if they had somebody in mind to occupy their building for a day
care center. Neither the Planning Commission or City staff knew
anything about this and denied their request for a Conditional Use.
Tho Wednesday morning following the Planning Commission Meeting,
the pastor of the Assembly of God Church came in and wanted to know
how the request came out with the Planning Cunmissicm. I Lu1J lhiah
it was denied. lie said he would like to file an appeal with the
City Council. At this time he indicated to me that they had some
other church activities going on the night of the Planning Commiasion
Meeting and that they intend to have somebody represent them at the
Council Meeting. The pastor indicated to me that tha church itself
is requesting the day care center Conditional Use Request, that they
would like to operate a day tarn center in their old church building
subject to State of Minnoo ota approval. In talking yesterday to ono
of the State Fire Marshalls, Robert Imholt, he indicated to me that
there aro several things that would have to be fixed at the old
Monticello Assembly of God Church prior to compliance with the Uniform
Pira Coda.
- 1 -
Council Agenda - 9/13/83
5. Consideration of an Appeal From Planning Commission Applicant -
Blocker Advertising.
Mr. Del Blocker has requested an appeal of the Planning Commission's
decision to have an outdoor advertising sign relocated from Lot 9,
Thomas Industrial Park, to Lot 11, Thomas Industrial Park. There is,
however, an existing Blocker outdoor advertising sign on Lot 11: but
with relocation of another sign on Lot 11, the new sign relocation
would be approximately 758 feet from the existing Blocker outdoor
advertising sign. Mr. Blocker is requesting relocating an existing
sign to a new location. But our Zoning ordinance clearly states
that no additional or new signs may be put up within the City limits.
'therefore, I would see this as being a new sign to be put up on a
new location and in violation of our City ordinance. Mr. Blocker
intends to buy all of Lot 11 in Thomas Industrial Park to put both
of his signs on. He currently leases the land where the existing
sign is now on Lot 11 but intends to purchase the entire Lot 11 if
a relocation of an existing sign from Lot 11 with a new sign to be
put up on Lot 11 is approved. It is not feasible for Mr. Blocker to
have just one sign on Lot 11. Mr. Blocker has also indicated that
he would remove both of the signs once the property becomes developed.
Current owners of the property have indicated they will pay off all
special assessments and deliquent taxes on this property upon the
purchase by Mr. Blocker of this property.
:W=
C
Council Agenda - 9/13/83
6. John Sandberq Proposed Subdivision.
John Sandberg proposed subdivision of a city lot to allow for construction
of two single family houses. Mr. Sandberg would like to subdivide the
westerly 21 2/3 feet of Lot 4 and all of Lot 5, Block 7, lower
Monticello Addition. This being a lot next to the river right off of
East River Street, the requirements for subdivision of lots would be
that the residential lot facing toward River Street would be a minimum
of 12,000 square feet, which he does have; and the lot to the 'tear
that would be off of the river has to maintain a minimum of 15,000
square feet in size. Hr. Sandberg exceeds that minimum amount of
setbacks, sideyard, rearyard, frontyard setback, and would be adhered
to within his proposed subdivision of the front lot. On the rear
lot the sidayard, the frontyard, the rearyard setback and the setback
off of the river would also be adhered to within the proposed simple
subdivision. The minimum front footage of the lot is exceeded here also
with the minimum being 80 feet, and he has 107.66 feet. The service
to the front lot off of River Street would be serviced by an existing
service line out into the street. However, service to the rear property
lot would be serviced by a 10 foot easement granted along the front
property line to the cast side of the lot extending through the rear
lot line of the front property. Along this easement line would be the
water and sewer lines to service the rear subdivided lot. Entrance for
the front lot would be off of River StrocL, and Lhu unUouicu to LLc r.:ar
lot would be off of Now Street. Now Street has not been vacated, therefore,
it is still a developed city street. We have othor houses along East
River Street hero that also use our city streets as a driveway to service
one lot or two residential Iota, therefore, waiving the right to have a
new street put in with curb and gutter,
- 3 -
m
sasewitietEestaot
ait
ReAR Lot
- q
:...� � te. �.,_ y � '. �f 1 ••. � fie,
i
•� "M... �����V� J`/fir �� � . t ,�
tf
1z t,J •�
m 4. i• . ,.••..."�....�..,� - -�' •� `� r:l. � 0-i
• �""+:'' 1 y ..r +• �; r. ' 1�,:, ,yam � � T,..,r * _ _ -
E -:Ivz
Ee
.rte `.` 1 t•
� NQ 9f 1
Council Agenda - 9/13/83
7. Consideration of a Variance Request Referred From Plannine Commission -
Applicant, Bob Saxon.
Mr. and Mrs. Saxon are the owners of the property immediately adjacent
to the cast of East Bridge Park. They have applied for a Variance to
setback requirements for the purpose of building a garage. Back when
initial conversations began about the realignment of the new bridge
and the resulting necessity of the State of Minnesota taking part of
East Bridge Park, we considered the idea that this property (Mr. Saxon's)
be acquired by the City and be made part of the park. The property is
considerably higher than the main part of the park. It was our initial
concept that this land could become available for parking thereby
eliminating all vehicle traffic from the interior of the park as it now
exists. The notion of this being public parking briefly came to light
back during the discussion of senior citizen parking. In a recent
discussion with the State of Minnesota relating to the highway and
bridge project, we suggested that we would accept this piece of property
from the State in exchange for the property they needed to receive from
us. I believe it was Mr. weingartz of MN/DOT who suggested that we
negotiate an outright sale price and request an equal amount of money
for the sale of our park land to the State. He indicated that either
they wouid not or could not get involved with buying pcupurty in uw-
change for property they needed for right of way.
Shortly after the discussion with MN/DOT, I received the notice from
Gary Anderson that there would be a public hearing relating to Mr. Saxon's
request for a Variance. Prior to that hearing, Gary and I met with Mr.
Saxon to suggest the proposal that the City acquire hie property. I
explained to him that an a result of the bridge project, we were, in fact,
interested but would not at that Lima be able to commit the City to any
kind of a purchase. 1 explained that the only reason this became
important now is that in the avant he wan granted the Variance, he would
be investing a certain sum of money in hie garage construction that the
City would then be faced with paying to him if the acquisition proceeded.
Mr. Saxon wan receptive to the idea, but did have some reservations. Ile
explained that he purchased the land at a very low price and has invested
substantial amounts of money in interior remodeling and repair. Ito
indicated that his concern was not so much for the value that might be
placed on his current property, but on the cost of replacing the environment
that lie hao. Baood on his own review of real estate, he io concerned that
to acquire other river property would be substantially more expansive than
what this particular parcel is worth. 1 indicated to him that he should
begin by presenting an asking price to the City giving ue s onathing to
react to. I also indicated that there might be various forme of innovative
_
4
Council Agenda - 9/13/B3
arrangements that could be made to help in his relocation but would not
be a financial burden on the City or himself. Based on his own search
of available property, Mr. Saxon found only one suitable site that
is selling for a substantial sum of money. In order to make the
acquisition of the new site feasible, he is requesting, first offer,
$70,000.00 for his current property. While I did not say outright that
such a sum was out of the question, I did indicate that we would
probably be interested in further negotiations. I also explained that
the matter is slightly complicated because we will be requesting money
from the State of Minnesota for the property that we are relinquishing
and that it seemed reasonable that we could spend an equal amount to
buy property to replace that which we lose to the State. During our
discussion, we were somewhat brainstorming on various alternative
ways for the City to acquire the property and still create the least
amount of inconvenience for Mr. Saxon. I suggested that if the details
could be worked out, would he Se interested in building his own place
on vacant river frontage, and he indicated yes. I suggested that it
perhaps could be cheapest for everyone if we acquired his current
property, but allowed him to continue to live there at a nominal amount
or even rent free up to a certain point while he worked on building his
own residence. lie stated that since he does have some building skills,
he could save even more money through sweat equity. He said he was
very receptive to a proposal like this. I indicated that the entire
question really would have to be taken to the City Council betore we
could enter some serious negotiations.
Returning now to the Variance Request before the Planning Commission,
I attended the public hearing on behalf of the City held last 7ucsday
night. I presented to the Commission those idoas and the information
that Mr. Saxon and I had discussed earlier. Ilio Commission felt that
since the City did not have an otficial position endorsed by the Council
as yet, and they were the adjacent property owner, they should not make
a final decision on the Variance Request. Cl-iainnain Ridgeway suggested
that one alternative would be for the Planning Commission to deny the
Variance Request, which would then prompt an appeal process by the applicant
and ultimately would bring the entire matter to the City Council for final
decinion. I auggosted that the matter rather than being denied or approved
simply be referred directly to the City Council for final action. While
Lila matter before you is formally a variance Requast, the entire question
of purchaoing the property for park expansion becomes relevant. I think
it might be appropriate to attempt to delay the final decision on the
Variance in order to puraue further negotiat Iona if we so desire. If
it is determined that via have absolutely no interest in the property, then
I think the Variance Request can be approved since there were no other
objections stated at the Planning Commission . 'More is, of course, always
the possibility that the City has other abjo ctiona to the Variance, which
has nothing to do with the suggested purchaao of the land.
- 5 -
Council Agenda - 9/13/83
ALTERIIATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Deny the request based on concerns unrelated to the park.
2. Deny the request in order to initiate negotiations for the
acquisition of the land.
3. Determine that the City has no interest in his property and
approve the Variance.
REFERENCES: A site map showing the location of the Saxon property.
- G -
m
Council Agenda - 9/13/83
B. Consideration of a Planning Commission Recommendation in Relation to
the Reconstruction of T.H. 25.
At last Tuesday's Planning Commission Fleeting, the Commission requested
that 1 carry the following recommendation to the City Council for their
consideration. It is the concern of the Planning Commission that
substantial traffic congestion will occur in and around the intersection
of T.H. 25 and 7th Street. They also indicated that 7th Street as it
turns into Inuring Lane will become a major collector from the southeast
end of the community to the northwest and thus will have increased
traffic flow. They also noted that the MN/DOT plan requires the
closing of the mall entry. As a result of the foregoing, they are
requesting that the City Council have installed traffic signals that
would control traffic at this intersection. I discussed the matter
briefly with John Simola, who indicated that the mechanism to initiate
such a request should be a letter from the City to the Department of
Transportation. lie also noted that the final determination relating
to the necessity of a traffic signal is made by MN/DOT based on traffic
flows. John did indicate that if the Council thinks that this inter-
section warrants a traffic signal, an authorization should be given for
him to submit a letter to MH/DOT requesting that the matter be investigated.
wo felt that since the 26th is when 14N/[RYf will he nnpoarinq before. the
Council with their information meeting, we could perhaps have some results
if we initiated our investigation immediately.
hu-. Carlson of the Planning Commission indicated that an informational
meeting was held between MN/DOT and the merchants located in the mall.
At that meeting, NN/DOT indicated that traffic counts did not warrant
a light at this intersection, but qualified that statemont saying that
the most recent traffic count was 1981. Mll/DOT indicated to those attending
OWL meeting that they will be taking a new traffic count in the spring of
1984 to determine whether or not a signal is required for that intersection.
I think it would be wise for the City to submit their letter of request
to ensure that such a traffic count is conducted next spring.
There are no references for this item.
- 7 -
Council Agenda - 9/13/83
9. Consideration of a Request for a Public Hearinq for Tax Increment Financing.
The project currently before the Housing and Redevelopment Authority for
tax increment financing assistance is for the construction of a new split
foyer office building on the corner of Broadway and Locust. The proposal
is brought forth by Metcalf and Larson. Because Metcalf and Larson, on
their available property, could not construct the size of building they
desired and meet the parking requirements in the Zoning Ordinance, they
proposed the purchase and acquisition of the small house lying north of
their property, said house currently owned by David Capps on a contract
for deed from Kermit Lindberg. The proposal does meet the criteria that
"but for" tax increment financing the project could not occur. To date
the HRA has held its preliminary review of the tax increment finance plan
and the required public hearing for the disposition of public land. They
propose to place tax exempt securities with Wright County State Bank in
order to make the acquisition of the Capps property. The tax increment
district would include the following properties: 1) Haas, 2) Toslow,
3) both of Metcalf and Larson's properties, 4) the Capps property,
5) Jones Maj,ufactuxing, 6) all of Monticello Ford's property, 7) O'Connor
Truck Repair. while all of these parcels are included in the district,
the actual redevelopment project will only occur on the Capps property
anel the current vacant property on the corner of locust and Broadway.
' The HRA is holding a opoeial meeting at 7:00 A.M., Tueoday morning, at
Perkin's Restaurant to adopt a resolution approving the final draft of
the tax increment financing plan. Upon their adoption, as required by
statute, they aro requesting the City Council to set a public hearing
for consideration of the tax increment finance plan. On Tuesday night
after the Council Meeting, I will distribute to you the copies of the
final tax increment finance plan. A simple motion and second to set a
public hearing for Septembor 26 will be the only action required for
this upcoming meeting.
RL:FERENCESi A sito map showing the proposed district and the proposed
project area.
- 8 -
66 66 BO 66 bb BO 66 66 00 66 66 80 66 61, 66
1151 II 15 11 15 1I 15 111 n15I 11 115
I I I I 10 I I d0 I 10 1 1 10 I
31 1 I33 17 331 3 3 9 0 i!
(C 0. H W Y. 7 5)
S.
]J6
S 1 771�S r • IS 11 6 15�D1516 10
_ � PRp
�O se
n n � r. 1 ., � I
11
I 5 1 5 1 5 I 5-
Gb GG 66 610
6 GIL"G Gf fG 6G I I 1 GG fb ,
G
1 GG I 66 66 66 66 GG 66 66 G6 I I GG
110 I 6, 010 6,n 110 60 010 6 1 101 6 10
u T
( z8---30--
GG 66 66 GG 66I 66 46 66 66 �E6 = 66
fib 64 66 GG G6 66 66'
6 6 i� 6 I � X 66 4' 6'T—
,J 10 6 10 6 10 6 10 16 tow
10
n m 0 n 1
Q 1
,o
B
/,-
pR0 JEGT
PROPOSED DISTRICT
132
I
i
I
1�NU�S I
1p
� I
I
I
I
I
I
I �1 •I
-� OQ�.EL EI
N ql
I I
I I
1
' I I
m
e�Low
acv >
1 1
1 I
� 1
59
I � I
I I
I I
I
s iLt d tiT7 GE[. LQ
DOEzo PMCPLIT
co L,00 L 4 T ^j
I I
I I
M kM.l F+tc7v21iv¢
max. a
-4
MOaTI CCi 1,0 I 1n u a
FOLD , Y- L. I o c of
I I I I
I I 1
i 2
Broadway
I 1
•I r �u4a: E I
i:�uSraF4soN p
I �
I II
I ,/.F i Auer 1
I Btwuy �
I
, I
I �
I
I �
Do tor74Y ' tl
a
I 7 16 9 /O
I I .
s— .19
9
132
D. c S. I
N a
acv >
8 eou"'.Lp4e,o
m p
Uel.oeEs
I
'�
I
N
m
I
I
D4��p
I
I
I I
I
I
I G41PPS
1
.n
I I
I 1
I �—Iqq
1
I I LL
I
U.IS. P6, -r
0"ir I'
I
�
I
I I ...•
I
N
I I I Q
1
I
r7
n
J
I
I I I 1
I � I
I I
I I
I
s iLt d tiT7 GE[. LQ
DOEzo PMCPLIT
co L,00 L 4 T ^j
I I
I I
M kM.l F+tc7v21iv¢
max. a
-4
MOaTI CCi 1,0 I 1n u a
FOLD , Y- L. I o c of
I I I I
I I 1
i 2
Broadway
I 1
•I r �u4a: E I
i:�uSraF4soN p
I �
I II
I ,/.F i Auer 1
I Btwuy �
I
, I
I �
I
I �
Do tor74Y ' tl
a
I 7 16 9 /O
I I .
s— .19
9
Council Agenda - 9/13/83
10. Consideration of Amendinq the ordinance Requlating Sewer Hook -Up
Charges.
In reviewing the Ordinance on sewer connection charges, there appears
to be a need for a clarification and addition to the Ordinance Section
7-2-1, (D). This Section or paragraph covers hook-up charges for
sanitary sewer users. The first change is in the first and second
paragraph. The Council previously raised the residential or unit
fee from $75 to $100, which should be changed in the Ordinance also.
In addition, the sewer permit was also raised from $7.50 to $10.00,
which should also be changed in the Ordinance.
The first of two major changes recommended in this Ordinance Section
involves collecting additional hook-up charges when additions are
added to present commercial, institutional, or public buildings which
change the parameter on which the original hook-up charge was based.
For example, under the present Ordinance if a motel is built and hooks
onto the City sewer, they are charged one (1) unit or $100 for every
two rooms in the motel. The recommended change in the Ordinance also
would allow the City to collect additional hook-up charges in the future
if the motel should, for example, add an additional 30 rooms.
Incidentally, the hook-up charges are a method used to generate revenues
for the Sower Department from users of the sanitary sewer trunk system
and treatment plant rnst, which were not originally nssrssnd to rhe
property owners. The charges recover a small amount of the cost of
construction or oversizing of the trunk sewer lines and treatment plant
facility. The hook-up charges are based proportionately on the amount
of use expected of a particularly sewer user. one draw back has been
that when the use increases due to additions or, enlargements of the
buildings, we have not requested additional hook-up chargos for the
additional uses. It is a staff recommendation that we add the following
Ordinance Amendment that would allow us to recover additional fees for
additional uuos.
The second major part of the Ordinance Amendment is a clarification of
a (unit) and parameter to be used for billing purposes. It is impossible
to list every type of facility and parameter that may be encountered,
but upon researching past practices on several hook-up charges, there seems
to be a common denominator based on maximum flow. It appears that a figure
of 250 gallons par day represents one (1) unit and, therefore, it is the
staff's recommendation that the following one line be added to the list
of facilitios and paramotors currently in the Ordinances
Typo of Facility Parameter Unit
Other than above (max. expected flow 250 gal/day 1
per day)
- 9 -
Council Agenda - 9/13/83
�-� This would clarify the Ordinance making it easier to work with and
fair to those it is imposed upon.
POSSIBLE ACTION:
1. Consideration of approving Ordinance Amendment as recommended.
REFERENCES: A copy of proposed Ordinance Amendment.
- 10 -
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 1983 11126
the City Council of Monticello hereby ordains that Ordinance Section
7-2-1 (D) pertaining to sewer connection charges be amended as follows:
Charges for public, commercial and institutional facilities
shall be the multiplication of $100 times the parameter times
the unit equivalent. Any fraction of a parameter shall be
rounded to the nearest whole parameter.
Any new construction, alterations, or enlargements of a
public, commercial, or institutional facility completed
after the initial connection shall be charged an additional
connection fee bused on the current schedule times the
parameter times the unit equivalent resulting from the
enlargement of the facility.
For various commercial, public, and institutional facilities not listed
in the chart in Section 7-2-1 (D), the parameter for determining the
sewer connection fee shall be calculated as followat
One (1) unit charge for each 250 gallons of Maximum Flow
per day.
r Passed by the City Council of Monticello this 13th day of September, 1983.
ATTEST:
111omao A. Eidem
City Administrator
Arvo E. Grimomo, Mayor
0/0