Loading...
City Council Agenda Packet 10-11-1983AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL ' Tuesday, C>ctobcr 11, 1983 - 7:30 P.M. Mayor: Arve A. Grimsmo Council Members: Fran Fair, Jack Maxwell, Dan Blonigen, Ken Maus. 1. Call to Order. 2. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held on September 26, 1983. 3. Citizens Comments/Petitions, Requests and Complaints. Old Business 4. Consideration of Resolutions Pertaining to T.11. 25 and Bridge - Minnesota Department of Transportation. 5. Public Hearing - Construction 5, Inc. - Consideration of Request to Vacate Streets. 6. Public Hearing - Consideration of Adopting Assessment Roll for Delinquent Sewer and Water Bills. 7. Consideration of Sideyard Variance Request - Robert and Mary Saxon. S. Consideration of Conditional Use Request - Assembly of God Church. 9. Consideration of Rer-irt Concerning Repairs to City Ball Roof. 10. Consideration of a Resolution to Adopt the 1984 Municipal Budget and Setting the Tax Levy. 11. Consideration of a Resolution Setting a Public Hearing and Author- izing Preparation of Assessment Roll for Meadow Oak. 12. Consideration of Plans and Specifications and Authorization for Bids for Pump [louse M2 Addition. 13. Consideration of Change Order 03 for Meadow Oak. Now Business 14. Consideration of Request to Incroano Seating at Guy's Bakery. 15. Adjournment. NOTE, The Council mooting is scheduled for Tuesday duo to Columbus Day on Monday. MINUTES REGULAR. MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL September 26, 1983 - 7:30 P.M. Members Present: Arve Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Dan Blonigen, Ken Maus, and Jack Maxwell. Members Absent: None. 1. Call to Order. 2. Approval of the Minutes. A motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously carried to approve the minutes of the regular meeting hold September 13, 1983. 4. Public Information Meeting - Minnesota Department of Transportation, T.H. 25 and Mississippi River Bridge. Mr. Jim Weingartz, Design Enginuer for the Minnesota Department of Transportation, presented to the Council a summary of the proposed plans to upgrade Highway 25 from 1-94 to the Mississippi River and F the proposed rcplacLm,_nt of thu Highway 25 bridge. Mr. iauingartz ` . noted that MN/DOT considers the two improvements as separate but (` related projects with one being improvements to Highway 25 for safety and traffic flow considerations, and the second item being the replacement of the deteriorating Highway 25 bridge. The City's responsibility before these two improvements take place would be to approve the layout of both the bridge and Highway 25 improvements and to enter into an agreement with the State of Minnesota to approve the construction plans and share in a portion of the costs. The present proposal calls for the now bridge to bo built on the cost side of the present bridge, ending up just cast of the present .River Inn property on Sherburne County side of the river. The present proposal for the bridge includes lighting of the traffic lanes and pedestrian walkways to be installed by the Stats of Minnesota, but presently the City would be expected to pay for operating costs and maintenance of the street lighting thereafter. In regard to the Highway 25 improvements from 1-94 to the river, MN/DDT is proposing to widen the roadway to include four lanes of traffic plus right and left turn lanes at various intersections along the routs. With this widening of the roadway and additional lanes, the present proposal would not allow any on -street parking along Highway 25. - 1 Council Minutes - 9/26/83 I Additional improvements along 25 include the installation of two additional signal lights, one at the intersection of Highway 25 and Seventh Street, and tho second at the intersection of Oakwood Drive and Highway 25 just south of the freeway. Various alternatives for improving Highway 25 were revicwcd with the Council with the State of Minnesota proposing a raised median divider strip to be constructed the entire length of Highway 25. This raised median plan is estimated to cost $800,000 with the City's share estimated at approximately $129,000 and the County's share $33,0^.0. Mother alternative presented by Mr. weingartz would be to have only a striped median for a portion of the way, which would reduce the total cost to $747,000 with the City and County share being the same as the first plan. The installation of a raised median would eliminate: traffic In many cases from making left or right turns in the middle of a block, which MN/DOT feels is a major cause of accidents and congestion problems . The State of Minnosota, according to their survey*, noted that this stretch of Highway 25 has twice the accident rate of similar type highways throughout Minnesota; and this is the reason MN/DOT is proposing the raised median for better traffic control and restrictive left and right turn accesses through- out the blocks. The proposed schedule at the present time calls for developing and designing the Highway 25 improvements during 1983 and 1984 with construction tentatively scheduled for 1985. The development and designing of tine new bridge would be completed between now and 1985 with construction being proposed for 1986 and 1987. After the presentation was completod, the Council members discussod the proposed Highway 25 improvements in regard to the raised median that MN/r= was proposing. Basically, the major concern of most of the Council members was that under the current MH/DOT proposal, traffic along River Street would not he able to cross Highway 25 duo to the barrier that would be installed. Mr. Dale Lunywitz, of the Wright County State Dank, and Mrs. Brion, of thu Riverview Clinic, both expressed complete opposition to the installation of: the median barrier along Highway 25 that would eliminate both left and right turns on Highway 25 to their businesses. Mr. Lungwitz felt that the closing of crone traffic on River Street would be devastating to the bank in that all traffic coming from tine north across the bridge would have vary limited access to their banking facility without some sort of ability to either turn left on River Street or turn left into their bank facility. Mrs. Orion, representing the Riverview Clinic, expressed similar dissatisfaction a0 noted that virtually no access would be available to their clinic from the south off of Highway 25. a' Council Minutes - 9/26/83 l Other busi noes owners along Highway 25 also expressed opposition to the raised median as they also felt this would eliminate left or right turns to their facilities and to the alleys currently situated on certain blocks. After a considerable amount of discussion regarding the raised median and the Highway 25 improvements, it was the concensus of the Council that NN/DOT should try and come up with some alternatives to present to the Council in regard to the closing of River Street cross traffic. In addition, it was recommended that Mr. Weingartz, if possible, have a special meeting with the group of affected property owners and business owners to receive their input to try and work out a compromise. Although the Council took no action in regard to the proposed plan for improvements, there seems to be some question whether the Council would approve the proposed plans as presented. The Council will again be reviewing this Stem at the next Council meeting after Mr. Weingartz has had a chance to set up a meeting with the affected property owners and present any alternatives to the closing of the River Street crossing if possible. The City's responsibility will be to draft a resolution supporting MN/DOT's design or adopt a resolution indicating what design the City would support. S. Public Hearinq - Consider Adoption of Tax Increment Finance District 82, Metcalf and Wrsuu, Devulupuru. The Monticello HFA recently gave approval to the Tax Increment Financu Proposal by attorneys Metcalf and Larson to build a 6,400 sq. £t. office building in Block 50. The Tax Increment District M2 would encompass the entire Block 5U, but the project being proposed at the present time for the office building would be located on Lots 8, 9, and 10 of Block 50. The Tax Increment Proposal indicates that the City would acquire the northerly 50 feet of Lots 8, 9, and 30 in Block 50 and raze the existing blighted nonconforming structure to enable the office building to add additional parking to meet City requirements. The Monticello HRA will place tax exempt securities with Wright County State Bank in the amount of $32,000, which will be used to purchase the said property and demolish the house that sits on it. The land will than be sold to Metcalf and Larson for approximately $10-12,000, who will then construct their now split foyer office building. The Tax Increment generated from the new building will pay off the bonds for the HRA over a period of 12 years. Once approved by Lite City Council, the entire district would be certified to the County Auditor immediately so that the developers Fcan begin construction got this fall. 1 - 3 - V Council Minutes - 9/26/83 A motion was made by Fair, seconded by Maus, and unanimously carried to adopt the resolution approving the Tax Increment Finance Plan 42. Sec Resolution 1983-78. 6. Public Hearinq - 1984 Municipal Budget. A preliminary 1984 Budget was previously presented to the City Council for review. The function of the public hearing is to meet statutory requirements allowing the public to comment on proposed expenditures and revenues for both the overall Budget as well as the specific Revenue Sharing Budget. Mrs. Judy Moody, representing the Monticello Country Club, requested that the City Council consider their previous request for funds in the amount of $30,000 from the Revenue Sharing allocation to be used by the Country Club to pay off their existing delinquent assessments and taxes against the Country Club Golf Course. Tho request for funds by the Country Club was noted and will be considered during the Budget session scheduled for Monday, October 3. Duane Gates, Monticello Community Fducation Director, also requested continued support by the City for the Chemical Awareness Program and the Ccanmunity School Summer Recreation Program.The proposed Budget for 1984 includes expenditures in the amount of $13,500 for the Community School and Chemical Awareness Program. Hearing no other car.v nt■ on the Budget or Revenue Sharing expenditures, the hearing was closed. Tho Preliminary Budget will be reviewed in a special session of the Council and City Staff on Monday, October 3, with the final Budget adoptions scheduled for October 11, 1983. 7 c 8. Public Iloarinq - Sherburne/Wright Counties Cable Communications Commission Request for Proposals, i Consider Adootinq SWC6 RTP Resolution. The Sherburne/Wright Counties Cable Commission has recently completed developing a request for proposals for Cable TV. it is the Commissions opinion that the RFP is realistic and will provide enough incentive for several companies to submit proposals. Hearing no comments from the public on the request for proposals, the Council considered adopting a resolution supporting the request for proposal as prepared. A motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Maus, and unanimously carried to adopt the resolution supporting the Cable Comission's request for a proposal document. See Resolution 1983-79. Council Minutes - 9/26/83 9. Consideration of Chanqe Order 946. The City of Monticello was recently informed by the MPCA and the Corps of Engineers that the City has not formally executed Change Order 846. To clear up this matter, it was recommended by the City Staff and City Engineer that the City formally execute Change Order 946, which provides the City a $2,699 credit. A motion was made by Blonigen, seconded by Fair, and unanimously carried to approve Change Order 946 with the Paul A. Laurence Co. on the Waste Water Treatment Plant Construction Project. 10. Consideration of a Report Concerninq Repairs to City Hall. During the past month, the City Staff has been consulting with Mr. Herb Ketcham, of Architectural Alliance, the architect on the City Hall construction project,in regard to some repair items that the City Staff felt should be taken care of. Basically, the City Hall building is experiencing continued leaking problems on the roof and maintenance problems on the exterior brick of the building. The architect was supposed to have the roofing contractor re -install a piece of flashing on the roof to alleviate some of the leakage problems, but to date has not initiated the work. Due to the upcoming fall weather, it was recommended by the staff that the City itself proceed to do some of the repair work by usiny City crows to do minimal repairs to stop the leaks in the roof. It was also recommandad by the Council that the Building Inspector again contact the architect to pressure for some type of solution from the contracors involved to make repairs. 11. Consideration of a Proposal by Fulfillment Systems. Inc., to Issue Tax Exempt Mortqaqe■ Under ChaDter 474 (The Industrial Revenue Bond Act). In August, 1983, the City Council adopted a resolution authorizing the submission of an application for an Urban Development Action rrant. The Grant Application was submitted to HUD on August 31, 1983, but additional information has been requested by HUD. HUD was requestiny documentation that the private funding that would be used by Fulfillment Systems for their construction project will come throuyh, and that if it was to be Industrial Revenue Bonds or a Tax Exempt Mortgage, a resolution of the City Council would be required. Up to this point, Fulfillment Systems and three banks have been negotiating the placement of a Tax Exempt Mortgage, which is a privately placed mortgage which must havo City approval to be tax exempt. Council Minutes - 9/26/83 In order to keep the UDAG Grant Application in process, a motion was made by Fair, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously carried to adopt the resolution giving preliminary approval to the development concept presented by Fulfillment Systems and the calling for a public hearing for the purpose of issuing Industrial Revenue Bonds for Fulfillment Systems. See Resolution 1983-80. 12. Consideration of Authoriz inq the Preparation of Plane and SDecifications for an Addition to Pump House 02. Public Works Director, John Simola, requested that the City Council authorize the preparation of plans and specifications for an addition to pump house e2 that would enable chemicals to be stored in e separate room adjacent to the pumps and controls. Currently, the City is experiencing considerable corrosion problems with the controls because of the chemicals being stored adjacent to the control panels. In addition, the pump house is becoming quite crooded and additional space is needed for storage of the chemicals. As part of the addition, the Public Works Director was requesting that the building addition be large enough to allow for future placement of a standby engine that could be used to power the pumps at full capacity during power outages. A motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Maus, and unanimously carried to authorize the Public Works Director and Building Inspector to prepare plans and specifications for an addition to pump house N2 and to present the plane to the Council at the next moating for approval. 13. September Bills. A motion was made by Maus , seconded by Maxwoll, and unanimously carried to approve the bills for the month of September as presented. Bee Exhiibit 926, 01. In addition, with Council consensus, City Administrator was authorized to purchase an additional typewriter for the City Hall for approximately $950 as part of the 1983 Budget. 6-L Rick Wolfstell ;r:iX Assistant Administrator ri Council Agenda - 10/11/83 AGENDA SUPPLEMENT 4. Consideration of Resolutions pertaining to T.H. 25 and Bridge - Minnesota Department of Transportation. W.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: This agenda item concerns the consideration of two resolutions. One resolution is to approve the plans as presented by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. The other resolution is to enter into a cost sharing agreement for the upgrading of Highway 25. At the September 26 Council meeting, the Minnesota Department of Transportation gave a presentation outlining the proposed two projects and presenting cost data. Of major importance during the discussion at that meeting was the raised median, especially that portion from Third Street to River Street and the closing of River Street to through traffic. As presented, projected costs with the raised median and closing River Street to through traffic were as follows: The total cost for the Highway 25 upgrading project was estimated at $800,000.00. The County's share, $33,000.00, and the City's share, $128,600.00. This is based upon City participation in the following costae The City would pay for 75% of sidewalk costs, 10% of curbing costs, 10t of the driving lane costs, and 10% of the right turn lane costs. In addition,the City would pay its contributing proportional share of storm sewer costs. Also, costs resulting from the project but not yet estimated would be a■ followae 1. Moving and rewiring street lights. 2. Adjustment of manholes and gate valves. 3. Manhole, sewer line, and water line repair* and/or replacement. Along with the Highway 25 costs and above costs during this time period, we will incur costs for a portion of our interceptor sewer, which may be constructed under the roadway prior to completion of the project. - 1 - Council Agenda - 10/11/83 The September 26 meeting ended with no formal action, but it was the concensus of the Council that the plan as presented by MN/DOT would not be approved with River Street closed. Mr. James Weingartz was asked to attend the October 11 meeting and present alternatives, which would include the opening of River Street. On Monday evening, October 3, there was a meeting between Mr. Jim Weingartz of MN/DOT and the dwntown business representatives. I discussed the outcome of that meeting with Mr. Weingartz. I was told that information was brought forth as to the moving of Highway 25 out of Monticello and bypassing the City. This alternative was looked at by MW/DOT some time ago and was not practical. The reasons were also brought forth in general discussion at the May 24, 1983, Council meeting. We are, therefore, basing this agenda supplement and staff recommendations only upon the projects now proposed to upgrade the existing roadway and build a new bridge. Also brought up again at the business meeting was the alternative of widening the street and striping rather than a raised median. Mr. Weingartz informed me that he explained to the business people, as he had also stated at the Council meeting, that striping would result in only a 10% reduction in accidents. The raised median type of construction, however, would result in a 35% reduction in accidents. Thera in not enough return on tax payers dollars in accident reduction to permit MN/DOT to provide striping only. Mr. Weingartz was very firm about this. It is part of tho purpose for the now construction to move traffic more freely, safer, and cost effectively. Mr. Weingartz also stated that one other important item was brought out at the meeting. This item related to accident prevention at intersections. Now lights themselves would not prevent accidents without channelization of left turns. This channelizetion takes several hundred feet of street prior to the intersections. I would assume that the paper will also present some additional views and insight into the business representatives meeting and its outcome. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONSt The alternatives presented here are either to adopt the two resolutions or not adopt them. The basic lanquage here would be that if the City Council can come to agreement with the State of Minnesota on the proposed plan, then we would adopt such a resolution. If we cannot come to agreement with MN/DOT on the design, the cost sharing resolution, of course, would not be considered. - 2 — Council Agenda - 10/11/83 C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the staff recommendation that we approve only such a design which includes through traffic through River Street. We have informed MN/DOT on several occasions that this is an extremely important part of this project and a necessary part of our approval. The burden is up to them to come with a safe, cost effective design in which to accomplish this. As far as the raised median vs. the striped median, it is the staff's recommendation to go along with MN/DOT with the raised median. We feel that allowing turns at midblock would be a detriment to traffic flow and would, indeed, result in a higher accident incident rate. We can provide no information to counter the State's recommendations as to the median construction. In addition, they have said on several occasions that they would not consider the project without the raised median. At this time I have no information as to whether MN/DOT will comm forth with a proposal to open River Street. It is important that we work with them hastily to this and. If we are unable to reach an agreement on the design and miss the proposed lotting data for this project, it could mean as much as a four year delay in the upgrading of Highway 25. During the four year period we are liable to see more traffic problems and congestion along Highway 25. In addition, the delaying of this project could delay and would delay the bridge project. This could moan that MN/DOT in this period of time may start placing further weight restrictions upon the traffic over the bridge. The cost of rerouting this traffic could be significant. D. SUPPORTING DATAt A statement roforring back to the minutes of the May 24, 1983, Council Meeting; letter from MN/DOTt Council Minutes from September 26, 1983, meeting, which aro included in this packott please also rofor to article published in Monticollo Times on October 6, 1983. Two resolutions pertaining to T.H. 25 and the bridge. - 3 - MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL May 24, 1983 - 7:30 P.M. Members Present: Arve Grimsmo, Ken Maus, Fran Fair, Dan Blon igen, Jack Maxwell. Members Absent: None. 2. Approval of the Minutes. A motion was made by Maus, seconded by Fair and unanimously carried to approve the minutes of the regular meeting hold on May 9th, 1983, as presented. 4. Cons adoration of a Presentation by MN/DOT Relative to Con- struction of a Now Highway Bridqe and Proposed Liqhtinq of the Existinq Hiqhwav Bridqe. Recently, the City of Monticello requested that the Minnesota Departmant of Transportation consider repairing or replacing the Highway 25 bridge sidewalk lighting which has not worked for a number of years. Mr. James Weingartz, preliminary design engineer for 1@l/DOT was present at the Council Meeting and explained the State'a proposal to light, not only the sidewalk, but the entire bridge for both pedestrians and traffic. Mr. weingartz noted that the original estimate for the installation of 10 lighting fixtures to light the traffic lanes and 5 lights for the pedestrian sidewalk was estimated at $17,100 and since the sidewalk lighting amounted to one-third of the light fixtures, the State proposed that the City of Monticello pickup one-third of the construction cost or approximately $5,700. in addition, the City of Monticello would be responsible after construction for all power con- sumption for the sidewalk lighting thereafter. Prior to the meeting, MN/DOT was notified that the City was not necessarily interested in seeing the roadway lits, but was only concerned about the sidewalk and felt that the $5,700 was too costly. Mr. Wsingarta also noted that he reanalyzed the cost associated with installing the 5 light fixtures for the sidewalk and if just the cost for the new fixtures and materials was used, the City would be responsible for $4,200 or aprroximately 25% of the total lighting project cost. I- o Council Minutes - 5/24/83 J It was basically the Council's consensus that since a new bridge is being proposed by the State within the next 4 to 6 years, they were not in favor of the State spending $17,000 to light the existing bridge or for the City to spend 4 to 6 thousand dollars to light just the sidewalk. Public Works Director, John Simola, was directed by the Council to investigate what it would cost to get the existing lighting in operation, if possible, and to re- port back to the Council within two weeks. No action was taken by the Council regarding approving or dis- approving of the lighting project at the present time, but will be made at the next Council Meeting. Mr. Weingartz also reviewed with the Council MN/DOT's proposal for a new bridge that is now in the planning stages. It was noted that approximately 10,000 cars per day now use the Hwy 25 bridge and the preliminary plans are to possibly upgrade Hwy 25 from the river to the interstate by widening the roadway for four lane traffic. A number of alternatives have been studied in regard to the now bridge alignment which would probably be located directly adjacent to the existing structure. It was also noted by Mr. Weingartz that since Hwy 25 is a State constitutional highway, the possibility was remote that the highway could be relocated to a different location outside of the City limits as it would take an act of the State legislature to change the routing of the present Highway 25. It wan noted that the tentative plans call for informational public hearings to be hold within the next few months regarding the proposed now bridge and that if all went wall, it would be at least 1985 or 1986 before construction could start on the bridge which would take two years to complete. INN ted"E�4 R �a t aeptember 30, 1983 City of Monticello City Ball 250 East Brodvay Monticello, HN 55362 In reply re far to: S.P. 8605-29 (TH 25) Improvement to TH 25 In Monticel to Dear Sir: Minnesota Department of Transportation District 3 301 Laurel St.. Box ri Brainerd. Mfnnesota 56401 (2 $8) 828.2480 As you know the Minnesota Department of Transportation is proposing improvements to Trunk Highway 25 in Monticello. These improvements include signalimation, channelisat ion, and the addit ion of two thru-lanes. These improvements wit extend froom River Strut to County Road 117. On July 26: 1983 representatives from the Department of Transportation held a public info rastional meeting to discuss these improvements. Then on September 26, 1983 Do partment of Transportation representatives attended a meeting of the Monticello City Council and again described the proposed improvements and received constants . On Tuesday. October It. 1983 at 7:30 p.*, Department of Transportation representatives will attend a meeting of the Monticello City Council. At this October meaeting the Minnesota Department of Transportation will request the City Of Monticello to approve our preliminary proposal and to pass a resolution agreeing to enter into a cooperative agreement with the Department of Transports t ion. This will be another excellent opportunity for public involvement and I would socourage your participation at this meeting. If you have any questions concerning theme improvements please feel free to contact: Jim Weingarta. P.E. District Preliminary Design ingineer 301 Laurel Street. P.O. Box 975 Brainard, MH 56401 Phone: 218-828.2452 Sinearel Dave Imilonich, P.S. Acting District EogInto rA.LvwtnA,r,.r.,r,f..vfo,.r j f RESOLUTION FOR LAYOUT APPROVAL RESOLUTION 1983 6b4- 95 At a meeting of the City Council of the City of Monticello held on the 11th day of October, 1983, the following Resolution was offered by Councilmember , seconded by Councilmember to wit: WHEREAS, the Commissioner of the Department of Transportation has prepared a preliminary layout for the improvement of a part of Trunk Highway Number 25 renumbered as Trunk Highway No. 25 within the corporate limits of the City of Monticello, from 0.1 miles south of CSAR 117 to 0.1 miles north of CSAR 11; and seeks the approval thereof, and WHEREAS, said preliminary layouts are on file in the Office of the Department of Transportation, Saint Paul, Minnesota, being marked, labeled, and identified as S.P. 8605-29, 7104-4390, 7104-10, Layout No. 1. 1:05.1, T11r::, OE 1T RESOLVED that said preliminary layouts for the improvement of said Trunk Highway with the corporate limits be and hereby are approved. Upon the call of the roll the following Councilmembers voted in favor of the Resolution: The following Councilmembers voted against its adoption: whereupon the Mayor and/or the providing officer declared the Resolution adopted. Dated 11 October, 1983. Arvo A. Grimsmo, Mayor Resolution 1983 #84 Page Two STATE OF MINNESOTA COIRITY OF WRIGHT ._ CITY OF MONTICELLO I do hereby certify that at said meeting (of which flue and legal notice was given) of the City Council of Monticello, Minnesota, on the 11th day of October, 1983, at which a majority of the members of said Council were present, the foregoing resolution was adopted . Given under my hand and seal this 11th day of October, 1983. Thomas A. Eidem City Administrator 0 RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO PROVIDE IMPROVEMFNTS ON A PORTION OF TRUNK HIGHWAY 25 RESOLUTION 1983 d5gr 8�— WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation, pro- poses to make certain improvements on a portion of Trunk Highway No. 25 located in the City of Monticello in Wright County, upon and along Pine Street, and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City that such improvements of said roadway along said street be extended to greater width and capacity than is necessary to accommodate normal trunk highway traffic from south of CSAH 117 to the Mississippi River (a distance of approximately 4,000 feet.) BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO that the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation is requested to provide for improvements on the aforesaid portion of Trunk Highway No. 25 con - misting particularly of curb, gutter, storm sewer, signals, and sidewalk (in which the City will share in the cost) and considered as construction and improvement of said roadway to greater width and capacity than is necessary to accommodate normal trunk highway traffic. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that following approval by the Minnesota Department of Transportation of plans and specifications for said im- provemant■ of said trunk highway and before a contract is awarded for the construction of said improvements, the City shall enter into an agreement with the State which shall provide that the City shall pay its share of the cost of the requested improvements as determined by the State in keeping with its latest edition of Minnesota Department of Transportation Directive - Basic Policies and Procedures, Cooperative Construction Projects with Municipalities (a copy of which has been received from the Minnesota Department of Transportation's District Engineer) and, that if the Static lets the construction contract, the municipality will deposit with the Stats upon demand, after the execution of the agreement and before the start of construction, a sus equal to an estimate of the City shire as prepared by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. The City shall, in addition to paying its proportionate share of the cost of the proposed work, obtain at its sole cost and expense all necessary right of way easements and construction permits for the work to be performed outside the limits of the Trunk Highway or established City streets and roads, together with all drainage outlet rights where Resolution 1983 083 Page Two necessary. Such easements, permits and rights shall be obtained and certified copies of them furnished the Department of Transportation before any contract for the proposed work is awarded. Arve A. Grimsmo, Mayor CERTIFICATION STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF WRIGHT CITY OF MONTICELLO 1 hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is a true and correct copy of a resolution presented to and adopted by the City of Monticello by the City Council at a meeting thereof held in the City of Monticello, Minnesota, on the 11th day of October, 1983, as disclosed by the records of said City in my possession. Dated this 11th day of October, 1983. Thomas A. Eidem City Administrator 04/ / Oct. 3, 1983 Premise: The present plan would: a. Effectively divide city into two segments, b. Restrict the free flow of traffic, c. Negate many city improvements such as access to parking lots, d. Affect extreme hardship on some businesses and affect everyone to some degree, e. Improve traffic flow through Monticello for arterial traffic, but detriment to Monticello, f. We will use our financial and political recourses to defeat this project as now presented. Sept. 30, 1983 RESOLUTION We, the Downtowfl Business People, hereby recommend to the Monticello City Council that they recommend to the Minnesota Department of Transportation that they re-route the Highway 25 traffice to an area west of Monticello. Point of information: The traffic between Big Lake and Monticello will continue to use the bridge as it now exists. L V- C Council Agenda - 10/11/83 Public Rearinq - Construction 5, Inc. - Consideration of Request to vacate Streets. (G. A. 6 J. S.) A. REFERE14CE AL3 D BACKGROUND: On the enclosed sap you will see where Construction 5 is proposing that the City o£ Monticello vacate portions of the street which they currently own in exchange for extension of Lauring lane. But no vacation of Hennepin Street would be allowed unless some re -alignment of Lauring Lane takes place and the city requests that vacation of any streets on the south portion of Lauring Ione of the city's property not take place until a permit application is filed. John Uban, planning consultant for Dahlgren 6 Assoc=iates, our consulting planning firm, was out on Tuesday afternoon and discussed with Malones the possible re- location or re- alignment of Lauring Lane to go through or around their property. Malones thoroughly stressed that they would be in direct opposition to the street going through their property and/ur touching any of their property at all. Malones would also object to any street right-of-way being on their portion of the land. In John's opinion, the Malones are quite objectional to any extension of Inuring lane going on their property. Mr. Uban's opinion is that if the extension of Louring Ione is con- otructed that it be in the most smooth manner to allow smooth flowing of traffic along Inuring Lane. John Simola, public works director, went out to discuss with Malones possible re -alignment of L3uring Lane on Thuraday morning. Malones had discussed displeasure with Mr. Uban having indicated that the proposed street would have gone straight through their property anyway, regardless of what they would have to any. John discussed with them that with the original layout of During Lane or the old Seventh St., it was originally platted to go straight through their property but that it wou 1dn't go straight through their property unless it was a lost r4neort. John discussed with the Malonea the possible ro-alignmont of Louring Lane to go around their property. The Malones discuased disploasura with any of the right-of-way of the road touching on their property, but thoy possibly would be in favor of the right-of-way crossing a coiner of their property. At no time would they like any portion of the road right-of-way on to their property oneo it makes the turn and proceeds easterly. Malonoo also discussed with John some of the disploasura with Construction 5 and tho problems they have had with them in meeting obligations to them, as they are the contract holder on tho proposed street vacation property. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1) Plead donia 1 of any vacation of any city streets. 2) To cl000 the hearing for moro consideration at a future Council meeting. - 4 - Council Agenda - 10/11/83 3) To consider other options for re -alignment of Lauring Lane, which are enclosed with an attached drawing. Alternatives for 03 would be: 1. Passing through Malone's property with a corner of the property being exchanged for our portion of a corner piece of Fallon Street, thus, the City paying fair market value for the amount of square footage used for the actual roadway through the property,, and the extension eastward of Lauring Lane would be divided along the property line of 508 Malone property, 50% Hoglund property. 2. Re -alignment of Lauring Lane to exchange the corner of Malone's property for a corner of Fallon Street, with the eastward portion of the extension being all onto Hoglund's property. 3. Re -aligning Lauring Lane to swing around Malone's property and just catch one corner of the portion of their property in exchange for a corner of Fallon Street. Also enclosed is an appraisal done by John Sandberg on the proposed vacation of Hennepin Street between the railroad right of way and Seventh Street, an approximate 80' x 330' piece of property, 26,400 aq. ft, or .606 acres. John's appraised value was $24,000.00. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: staff recommends not to vacate Lauring Lane until the re -alignment has been resolved. We are not objecting to the vacation of Hennepin Street from railroad right of way to Seventh Street or inuring lane. The staff recommends that Washington street not be vacated at this time due to City underground services undernenth Washington Street. Staff also recommends that the vacation is done as amoothly as possible with all affected property owners involved. Once the Lauring Lane extension is in and the property cast of Washington Street develops, the staff recommends that cower and water be extended to the Malone and Doran proporties. D. SUPPORTING DATA; John Hadalich, Consulting Engineer, OSM, will give his professional opinion on the best alternative route to approaching street vacation and the extension of Lauring Irmo; John Sandberg's appraisal; Maps of the throe options for Alternative 03. - 5 - JOHN W. SANDBERC Box 396 MONTICEL LO, MN 55362 City of Monticello 250 South Cedar Monticello, MN 55362 RE: Hennepin Street, between railroad right of way and 7th Street. 80' x 330' (26,400 sq. ft. ) (.606 acres) Pursuant to your request 1 have reviewed the above described property. I have appraised it this day In its "as is" condition with all improvements in and paid. APPRAISED VALUE $24,000. Yours truly, John W. Sandberg (Jy ,IMS/ml � I S �•• , `�� • i %� r ` �� , ... •T�,/�r�A-rte. L-j4L or —77 j Pie :1 — w';�„? b•L�L X, T AL 1 a Q Council Agenda - 10/11/83 G. Public Hearing - Consideration of Adoptina Assessment Roll for Delinquent Sewer and Water Bills. (R. W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Purpose: To place on assessment rolls those accounts which are delinquent (amount is over 60 days past due) on the assessment roll to be certified to the county auditor for collection. Minnesota Statutes 429.101 and 444.075, Subdivision 3, allow for special assessments to be collected for various types of current services that are delinquent. Those people whose accounts are delinquent have been notified of the public hearing and are given an opportunity to present input if they so desire. The following are delinquent accounts that are over 60 days past due and unpaid as of the date this agenda was prepared: Michael Klein Michael Dahmen Daryl Elsenpeter Balance - $102.09 Balance - $162.26 Balance - $138.70 Burnette Christopherson Charles Soucy Richard Cole Balance - $98.49 Balance - $362.48 Balance - $112.04 Joyce Lawson James Johnson Michael Woodward Balance - $48.75 Balance - $93.20 Balance - $181.78 / Chris Maas Tom Cloud of Wilbur Eck C Balance - $113.44 Balance - $42.13 �J'Balance - $60.01 (rental) Dick Rickman Donna Allen Tracy Foss Balance - $130.35 Balance - $119.69 Balance - $66.19 Richard Brooks () Balance - $G1.991 L' All of the abive aro charges for sewer and water accounts. C It should be noted that these people have been notified in tho past about their dolinquent accounts and various attempts have been made to collect those amounts. It is rocommended that theoo delinquent accounts be put on the aosassmont roll for collection in 1984 at tho interest rate of 8e. it should bo pointed out that 8% is the highest interest rate allowable for assesomento that have not boon financed through bonds. Harold Krahl - $123.60 - Tree removal (t Mol Wolters - $226.60 - Water and sower hookup charge Jamea McMaotora - FRA - Mowing grass - $50.00 7h000 are two roaidencea in Anders Wilhelm Eotatoo which h11va bean ro-poosonood by FRA. -6- Council Agenda - 10/11/83 7. Consideration of Sideyard Variance Request - Robert and Mary Saxon. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AI4D BACKGROUND: At the September 26 Council Meeting, Bob Saxon's request for variance came before the City Council on reference from the Planning Com- mission. It was passed directly to the Council from the Planning Commission because the City being the abutting property owner had not drafted a formal position that could be presented at the Planning Commission's hearing. I attended the Planning Commission hearing and explained the City staff's concern over the granting of the variance, what with the impending rehabilitation of Highway 25 and the Mississippi River Bridge. At the September tri Meeting, the Council requested that Mr. Saxon accept a postponement of action until October 11. The City's request was based on the notion that details with respect to the highway and bridge reconstruction would all be clarified by October 11, thus making a final decision easier. I am not sure we have reached that point. However, I do think we must address Mr. Saxon's request for variance at this time. Mr. Saxon's request is for a variance from setback requirements so that he may place a garage/storage building within five feet of his westerly property line. The City is the abutting property owner on that western property line. Mr. Saxon's request is based upon the configuration of his existing structure, and states that an attached garage is not feasible. Ile, therefore, needs to build a detached structure, which would violate the setback regulations. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1) Deny the variance on Lila grounds that a bonifide hardship does not exist. This might be difficult to prove since from an architectural point of view ilia house in not conducive to having an attached garage. 2) Deny Lilo variance on the grounds that it creates unnecessary hardship on Lilo neighbor (the City). John Simola has indicated to me that his building this close to the property line and the hill that goes into the park could cause severe problems with runoff and erosion and undermining. John fools that it might be costly for the City to have to maintain that slope and also that any work that we do on the hill could conceivably upset Mr. Saxon's floor. 3) Depending on tho State's action with respect to the highways, the City could deny the variance and enter negotiations for the trans - for of the property. Thia is the position we initially wished to - 7 - Council Agenda - 10/11/83 investigate. I realize there is some concern over whether or not the City needs parking space for the park or parking space at all in this area. This also leads to the question of suitable expense for the land and development cost. As I noted in an earlier agenda supplement , Mr. Saxon is asking for an amount that will allow him to acquire other riverside property. Mr. Saxon has requested $70 ,000.00 for this property. An informal appraisal of the land estimates the property to be worth approximately $54,000.00. if the City elects to enter negotiations to acquire this property, I am of the impression that various innovative techniques could be used that would make the acquisition acceptable to both parties. 4) Grant the variance requested. If the hardship as stated is found to be legitimate, the City may grant the variance. If, in the future, the City elects to acquire this property for some reason, then the asking price will understandably be higher since Saxon's investment is greater. 5) Postpone action. This would allow the City a little more time to maneuver on its negotiations with the State and clarify any difference of opinions that may exist on the Council with respect to this land as a parking area. I do, however, think that an unnecessary postponement is unfair to the applicant. Mr. Saxon has been very cooperative and open to our requests, and I think to unnecessarily delay the City's decision would be unfair and create unnecessary inconvenience for the applicant. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Excluding, for the time being, the possibility that T.H. 25 could be totally relocated north of Monticello, it is staff's position that, regardless of what is done to T.H. 25, this would be an advantageous acquisition for public parking. If the State does go ahead with the rehabilitation of Highway 25, we can anticipate some revenue from them for land we are losing in East Bridge Park, said funds which could be dedicated to acquisition and development of parking in this area. We also think that the entire parcol would not be needed for parking and thus, additional park land could be developed that could be utilized. Viewing this in the long ra ngo,should development occur on what is now Holkor's parking lot, it would be appropriate to have public parking facilities nearby. This oito is also convenient for senior citizen parking. lastly, it would eliminate vehicle traffic through the heart of the park. D. SUPPORTING DATAs Nemo frosnJohn Simola, map of the site in quostionl other information Ilan lxemi oubmittod to you with previous agendas. - B - MEMO In granting this variance to move the garage within S feet of the property line, one should consider the closeness to our embankment along the driveway to the park. This embankment is currently held in place with roof bridging, plywood, old snowplow blades, and poles. Future work on this embankment could cause damage to the garage if placed so close, damage for which the city would be liable. John Simola Public works Director D-7 •"' lt�+ T � � V F R �' t. •r • � S1 .. ,� .. �. ,• -, . �-�: •- ; ,fir � _ _.� 46 if zzz It ti �•..`�j: c-, ♦ i l • ~`gip � ��+. � a •) 1, . ..,,4�r�.-,•,., � r•. :' J L .�� '• �,. � n {'/{,w^ yr �.��1.•1'� 1i �.�•,� -• ya=d Vatla " i q.aSt a build a A _ ot+ �betc anb Ms Y Sex ,•, •o,.`V a•�r••'.. T. i .,,•, +J.��f"� ,'. f mow•.. W� Na. '• V i 7 Council Agenda - 10/11/83 8. Consideration of Conditional Use Request - Assembly of God Church. (G.A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At the September 12 regular Council meeting, Monticello Assembly of God was present for their Conditional Use Request. At that time, having very sketchy information on what they intended to do, the Council suggested they go back and come up with the plans for the day care center. The church is considering from 50 to 142 preschool and day care students. In talking with the Pastor of the church, he indicated to me that they intend to be open from 6:00 in the morning until G:00 in the evening. The children they would be taking care of would be in the age from 1 to 12 years of age. They would be open Monday through Friday. The church would be the applicant and the operator of the proposed day care center. They intend to purchase playground equipment as needed according to State guidelines. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1) Approval or denial of the Conditional Use Request with the following possible conditions attached: 1. In regard to the playground equipment, any purchase of playground equipment and/or use of existing playground in our East Fourth Street Park, the hours of operation, how long we would like to grant the Conditional Use, who the operator applicant is, State Fire Marshal's report and if findings are approved and completed, that the parking lot possibly be blacktopped, if this meets the County and State requirements for day caro preschool children. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1) Qualified applicant must moot the qualifications as net by the State Fire Marshal's office, the County and State require- ments, and the City requirements. The staff recommends that it be up for periodic review and/or that the Conditional Use be granted for not more than one year from the date of application with termination of the first Conditional Use period be on or about June 15, 1984. D. SUPPORTING DATA, State Fire Marshal's reports Wright County Human Services Information is to be provided at the Council Meeting. - 9 - STATE OF MINNESOTA Department o1 Public Safety I Di State Fire Marshal Division Tlma: EXIT INTERVIEW I Name: phone: �3E►7J23V1 � 60D /9i1u/!C�/- l�aexP,���??. v� s- X9.5-3da7 Addre..: 'y _ I. /7/2�LNi ,QiI�-/lLcs. ///07J77GCZt.O 0-J..' a_l P—i— Inaccordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statute 299F.01 1, Minnesota Uniform Fire Code, inspection of the above premises was completed and the following violations and/or deficiencies were noted requiring corrective action: Code Violation Summary Deficiency and Corrective Action BR7I'Pa T /c JC AS '+ D/1 400£ at.�tls�7G.� Tlr� rOA4-0+d.-A/6 ♦n"$- 06 D.,~9 /. Pzo✓iod .2✓n ",r *goo CxleriA/6 GdAPer�I. ip>.IdA . �. pa'V,Dt- /PPP'Q V&V ryaT /Nm-N/?FeT wV/ /H-:- Ek rT Dvi�J• 3. RRwrnd e1APF !L►+ro VAM ..6c. 1'0 - 7.1•r.l �. P,2or/,vC//T'+nno✓vp .cWAme1c7xy -Ie� rPIWJ6. P/tov/Dr /'-0a Fine' dtPafti►risesi DtrAU.rrAJ $1,.P" r. ! Fl/ZST, 4. 702 o ✓ r v B /^M N rf Nip z,*2 D ow -5 t7ZZ-- .S " wz7LRr/DNIAZ L A/.MtM J.f lTc'7a'r. s'n. vo& DCTG'GTVa2.6 Pert- L 54- / o- 7. 3. M• Z 9. c07"P<y w .rN AIL '.W01 -"0A VA-- Fears✓ -I ey /rrdi J-:5 e-, 1&-6 /o -7. 0 . NOTE • Si gnnures indicate tecelpi of copiae For further assistance please.� ' contact the giro Inspector at 4 ' 0 following number: a'1G - 76 �// 'x" ' airs Chi.l/n.pnvnurir. Fin In tor�r l�aIAe4c To Aoxl7�1- a Di'l4t lift: White - Ownar/Raprr..np .; Gnary — rh. Chi.11R.g n : PWO5)07 pin. - Or.iuon Oniec rd - Bina Firm tmprnw Council Agenda - 10/11/83 9. Consideration of Report Concerning Repairs to City Hall Roof. (G.A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Since our last City Council Meeting on September 26, 1983, the staff had recommended that we do the repairs needed to the City Hall roof to get us through the winter. The Council's recommendation was that we put a little pressure on Architectural Alliance to see if we could get this matter resolved as soon as possible. Also the Mayor, Arve Grimsmo, indicated that he would like to sit down and talk with Architectural Alliance in a two party phone conversation on the 27th, 28th, or 29th of September. Mayor Grimsmo and myself had a telephone conversation with Mr. Herb Ketcham, Architectural Alliance, on Thursday afternoon. In our phone conversation, we indicated points of events that have happened from thcinitial preplanning for the new City Hall building up to the present, when we are having the leaks in our roof, and they still exist. Mr. Ketcham still indicated that the building was built according to code or standards that were used back in 1977 when the building was originally designed and built. Presently, some of these standards are not used anymore; and if we had the hindsight to foresee that some of these initial standards were not to be used in the future, they wouldn't have been put on. But they are in, and we have to live with them being in as thuy ara. Somewhat reluctantly, we got around to the point that we had heard that Architectural Alliance was one of the architectural firms that was considered for a big project in the Metropolitan area. Taking that into consideration with the architectural designed building that we have right now, we indicated to Mr. Ketcham that we would not like to, but if we were forced to, we would contact the League of Cities or the American Instituto of Architects Association to inform them of the problems we have had with our building and that we are very displeased with our building. Mr. Ketcham, becoming vary excited at this point, tried to steer no into the direction of coming up with some type of workable solution rather titan going that route where, in effect, both of us do lose. At this point Mayor Grimemo suggested that Mr. Ketcham set up an appointment with Councilman Blonigen to come up with a workable solution to our problem. At this point I not up a meeting with Councilman Blonigon, Mr. Ketcham, and myself for 6:00, October 3, 1983. At this meeting, Dan presented the points that we aro very dissatisfied, tho basic one being the flashing and how the flashing was installed. Mr. Ketcham replied that there were two typos of standards that were used, one being the way that it was installed and the other being another way it could have been installed. But the one no chosen by the roofing contractor was the way it was installed. At thin point Councilman Blonigen brought up the point that wo have no intentions of having them repair our roof, that we are going to go ahead with a full replacement of our roof in the spring of 1984. - 10 - Council Agenda - 10/11/83 This basically caught Mr. Ketcham and myself by surprise. The only real discussion we had on this was to come up with a price on how much we thought it would cost to do a complete roof replacement, but then took into consideration that our building is a little over S years old and how the public would look at doing a full replacement on a virtually new building and the costs that would be involved with it. But in discussing further Dan's suggestion of replacing the whole roof in the spring of 1984 with the overall cost of the project, the savings would definitely come back to the City in the years down the road. The number one item would be energy conservation --cutting our fuel costs down, both heating and cooling. At this point in the discussion, Dan and myself both indicated to Mr. Ketcham that we are definitely looking moreso for a monetary settlement of some kind, hasing our reasons on the improperly installed flashing; and the flashing, therefore, being the reason we are having most of our leakage problems. Mr. Ketcham took this into consideration and suggested that if flashing is all we were talking about as to the major cause of the roof problems that something could possibly be worked out with the roofing subcontractor on the project as some type of settlement for the flashing, whether it be monetary or material and labor supplied to do the roof replacement. In regard to getting any type of settlement from the architect or the shingle manufacturer, the shingle manufacturer is in bankruptcy court right sow. Therefore, the chances of gutting any type of settlement on the shingles from the shingle manufacturer vary from slim to none. Mr. Ketcham took into consideration some of thu items discussed in the meeting and that under advisement we are definitely looking for some type of monetary settlement, lie will go back and discuss this with the general contractor and the roofing subcontractor involved with the project and got back to us some type of monetary settlement that they may come up with. Mr. Ketcham called me again on Tuesday morning after discussion with the subcontractor and the general contractor involved in the project. They felt the tiolution to the problem could best be resolved in a negotiating session hold at the City's convenience where over the City designated. Mr. Ketcham indicated lie would got back to the general contractor and roofing subcontractor and come up with a data or datos that would be acceptable to the City. 1 called Mayor Grimsmo on Thursday morning and asked his advice in regard to this matter, who ho would like to have repre- sent Lilo City in a negotiating oeosion. Mayor Grimsmo felt that this would be a very good idea and suggested possibly that Councilman Blonigon could reprooent the City in the tho negotiations, and also City staff portion, Gary Anderson, Building Official, could be a rep- rosentativo on the Cily'a behalf. In talking thio over at our Council agenda meeting, the staff suggested that we also oak Councilman Maus if lie would participate in the negotiating session, ao lie is a negotiator in tho Union contract. Tho staff also recommended that City Attorney, Gary Pringle, also be present to represent the City in thio nogotiating mooting. The mooting has boon sot up for 3100 P.M. �1� M Council Agenda - 10/11/83 on Tuesday, October 11, 1983. The caulking that was ordered for the project by John Simola is mono acrylic terpolymer sealant. This caulking was used when the building was originally built and was used around the windows and doors and around the beams. we would like to use this caulking around the windows and the doors and the beams. Also ordered was dowel corning silicone building and glazing sealant. This caulking was recommended for sealing the cracks in the existing exterior brick. No caulking or roof cement has been ordered yet at this point to repair any leaks in the roof. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1) The City crews do the spot repairs to the leaks in the roof. 2) Accept the recommendation of Architectural Alliance and have the roof repaired and the new piece of flashing installed at our expense. 3) Pursue legal action. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The city staff would recommend that we go ahead with the proposed negotiating session mealing scheduled for October 11 at 3:00 P.M. The following are possible alternatives to address at the \- negotiation meeting: 1. Go strictly for a monetary cash settlement. 2. Accept supplying the entire amount of flashing needed for the full replacement of the City Nall roof. 3. Accept supplying all roof replacement building materials to the City at the roofing oubcontractor'a cost and/or at a percentage amount of material costa. 4. Accept Arehitoctural Alliance's suggested list of alternative energy connarvation methods in our building in regard to our lights, installation of coiling fans, and/or entering into an agreement with a maintenance mechanical contractor to do scheduled maintenance periodically throughout the year on our heating and cooling system. n. SUPPORTING DATA: Letter from Architoctural Alliance dated Octobor 4, 1983. - 12 - Architectural WA�lliance 407 a'lan A.M10 Salh WVtaXt, MrVl("= s5 (612) 8n-5103 Arch!Wure • Planning-hterior Desigr•LaniscaPeAAchtaetuo -Energy Design Mr. Gary Anderson Building Inspector City of Monticello 250 East Broadway Route 4, Box 83A Monticello, Minnesota 55362 October 4, 1983 Dear Gary: After last night's meeting. I feel no;closer to a solution and somewhat perplexed as to what to do not: To re501ye the roof - issue, it is obvious it cannot be done by lettefli and individuals representing different points of view;' i 1 would suggest, as we had discussed, that the CJty ;ouncil appoint a person or persons with whom we can sit down and r/splve this i ssue. " We are anxious to do all that we can to find a solutton`lhat is acceptable to everyone. I believp,it can only 6E done with people who have the authority to accept or reject on the part of the City. Once this is done, I believe we can resolve our differences. Si nce reely, 44— HERBERT A. KETCHAM, JR. FAIA Principal HAK/crh cc Vern Larson Ray Eklund 9 Mnv.imk9.9artiPma-TwnGtlos1toMionvAftWf.lmArlgoloe Council Agenda - 10/11/83 10. Consideration of a Resolution to Adopt the 1984 Municipal Budget and Setting the Tax Levy. (T. E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The 1984 Municipal Budget is being put into its final form incorporating all of the suggestions, corrections, and revisions that came out of the work session last Monday night. Two adjustments that were not noted at the work session were made. While there are two adjustments, they are interrelated. An arithmetical error was made in totalling the capital outlay expenditures for the revenue sharing fund such that we had a total expenditure figure of $13,500.00 greater than what was actually itemized to be spent. To rectify that we took additional capital outlay expenditures from the general fund and transferred those expenditures to the revenue sharing fund. The net result is that the total revenue sharing expenditure is the same as in your preliminary budget, but the tax levy has been reduced by $13,500.00. Similarly, the entire general fund expenditures have been reduced by $13,500.00 and the overall City budget has been reduced by $13,500.00. The completed final budget document I anticipate being ready for distribution within two weeks. I do need the resolution setting the budget and the tax levy to be adopted so that I may certify to the County Auditor on the following day. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS There are no real alternative actions for this item since statute requires that the resolution be adopted and certified by this coming week. There is also no staff recommendation. D. SUPPORTING DATA: A copy Of the resolution to be moved for adoption. .J-3 - l RESOLUTION ADOPTING 1984 BUDGET AND SETTING THE TAX LEVY c RESOLUTION 1983 481 WHEREAS, the City Administrator has prepared and submitted to the City Council a budget setting forth therein his estimated needs of the City of Monticello for all operations and the debt service for the fiscal year commencing January 1, 1984, and; WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the same, and has made such changes therein an appeared to be in the beat interest of the City of Monticello: ' NOW, THEREFORE, BE 1T RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, that the budget so submitted by the City Ad©inistrator, together with the changes made therein by the City Council, be, and the same hereby is, adopted as a budget for the fiscal year c munencing on January 1, 1984, and; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of Monticello, that there be and hereby is, levied for the fiscal year commencing on January 1, 1984, the following sums for the respective purposes indicated therein, upon the taxable property of the City of Monticello to wit: REVENUE General......................579,125.00 Li brary...................... 19,800.00 Sh ada True ................... 19,940.00 OAA .......................... 890.00 DEBT RETIREMENT Do bt Service Fund ............ 531,045.00 ENTERPRISE Wa tar Fund ................... 9,675.00 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Capital Improvement Revolving ...................100,000.00 TCYPAL TAX LEVY ............. 1, 260, 475. 00 Resolution 1983 081 Page Two The above Resolution was introduced by Councilmember , was duly seconded by Councilmember with the following voting in favor thereof: The following voting in the opposition: The City Administrator is hereby instructed to transmit a certified copy of this resolution to the County Auditor of Wright County, Minnesota. Dated: 11 October, 1983 City of Monticello ATTEST: Thomas A. P.idem City Administrator Arvo A. Grimsmo, Mayor 01D J _J Council Agenda - 10/11/83 11. Consideration of a Resolution Setting_a Public Hearing and Au thor- izinq Preparation of Assessment Roll for Meadow Oak. (R.W.) A. REFERE110E AND BACKGROUND: As part of the 82-2 Improvement Project for the Meadow Oak Subdivision, it has been the City's intention to have this project completed by October 1, 1983, so that the assessment rolls could be prepared yet in '83 for collection during 1984 . The bonds were sold with this in mind, and as a result the City Council will have to hold a public hearing on the proposed assessment rolls as soon as possible. Although the project is not yet completed, we feel that we have enough cost information on the construction cost along with all our indirect cost to make an accurate assessment so that it can yet be certified to the County Auditor this year. John Badal ich and Chuck Lepak began preparing the proposed assessments based on current and estimated cost for the Meadow Oak Project. John, Chuck, John Simola, and myself had a meeting Friday morning to review the figures on the proposed assessment rolls. The following is the proposed assessment breakdowns by areas: - Meadow Oak Estates, Second Edition, $511,929.00. - Balance of out lots within Meadow Oaks Subdivision, $IG8,060.00. - water main assessment to Jim Boyle through industrial property to reach the Meadow Oak Subdivision, $163,135.00. - City -a share of water main oversizing, etc., $143,309.00. - Total estimated project coot to be aosesoed, $986,433-00. The total projoct cost of $986,433.00 should be sufficient to cover all of the City'a construction costo and all indirect costo rolated to the project. To briefly explain, tho Meadow Oak Eatatao and the Meadow Oak Second Edition aro the two plata that are cur rm,tly being developed by Ultra Homos, Inc. They will receive the bulk of the aomoosmento totalling $511,929.00, which includes costa for sower, water, and street improvements along with a portion of the storm sower cost, lift station const, and force main coat. The balance of the out lots within tiro proposed Meadow Oak Subdivision were basically proposed to to assossod for portions of the lift station and force main, some of the out lots in the northerly 2/3 of the Meadow Oak Subdivision woro also aosesood for storm sower benefits and the coot associatod with the entrances off of County Road 75. - 14 - Council Agenda - 10/11/83 As you may recall, water main had to be extended from Oakwood Industrial Park through Mr. Boyle's property to reach the Meadow Oak Subdivision, and this total construction cost amounted to $306,445.00. Of this amount, $163,135.00 is being proposed as the assessment against Mr. Boyle with $143,309.00 being picked up by the City on ad valorum taxes for oversizing, etc. It is our understanding that the Council initially gave approval to deferring the water main assessment to Mr. Boyle's property for one year with collections starting in 1985 rather than 1984. During our Friday meeting with the city engineer, it appears that some additional cost relating to the bond sale, etc., will be assessable to the project and as a result final figures relating to the exact cost of the project will be available Tuesday evening from Mr. Badalich. The $986,433.00 estimated cost might increase a little but would have no effect on the City's share of $143,309.00. It is recommended that after reviewing the proposed assessments with the city engineor, the Council adopt a resolution ordering OSM to prepare the proposed assessment roll and setting a date for the public hearing. A copy of the resolution is enclosed as a reference, which can be adopted if the Council agrees with the cost allocation and method of assessment. 31 L go- RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BL ASSESSED, ORDERING THE PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT, AND CALLING FOR A HEARING ON THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENT. RESOLUTION 1983 P82 WHEREAS, a contract has been let and costs have been determined for the improvement of a subdivision known as Meadow Oak Subdivision for the construction of streets, curb and gutter, sanitary sewer line, water collection line, storm sewer drainage, and appurtenant facilities, and the bid price of such improvement is S and the expenses incurred in the making of such improvement amount to $ so that the total cost of the improvement is S 00 S2, �d NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA: 1. The portion of the cost of such improvement to be paid by the City is hereby declared to be $ IAS . j7l , and the portion of the coat to be assessed against benefited property owners is declared to be $ rgG.st p%12•oo 2. The City staff, with the assistance of OSM, consulting engineer, shall furthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially assessed for such improvement against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land within the district affected, without regard to cath valuation, as provided by law, and shall file a copy of such proposed assessment in the office of the City Administrator for public inspection. 3. City staff, along with OSM (conuulting engineer), shall complete the proposed assessment roll on or Ik fore Friday, October 14, 1984. Np� 4. A hearing shall bu held on the alth day of Neweffd=, 1983, in the City Hall at 7:30 P.M. to pauu upon such proposed assessment and at ouch time and place all persons owning property affected by such improvement will be given opportunity to ba heard with reference to ouch assessment. 5. The City Adminintrator is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed aosessmo nt to be published once in the official newspaper at. least two weeks prior to the hearing, and he shall state in the notice the total coot of the improvomont. lie shall also cause mailod notice to be given to the owner of each parcel described in tho assessment roll not leas than two wooka prior to the hearing. Rcnolution 1983 082 Page Two Adopted by the Council thin 11th day of October, 1983. Arve A. Grimsmo, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas A. liidem City Administrator Council Agenda - 10/11/83 12. Consideration of Plans and Specifications and Authorization for Bids for Pump House #2 Addition. (J. S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At the September 26 meeting the Council authorized preparation of plans and specifications by City staff with no outside costs. We first contacted one of the larger nearby contractors to see if he would be interested in preparing construction details for the building. He was, but there was a significant fee attached to it. We then contacted Spancrete in Osseo, Minnesota, as they had been the suppliers for the original concrete decking on the pump house in 1970. They stated they would supply us with the roof decking connection details, but only after receipt of order for the panels. It was, however, through discussions with these contractors, material suppliers, and structural people that we did develop the plan and details for the building. The building addition as drawn is approximately 10 inches larger than was originally proposed. This additional 10 inches was required to meet the proper overhang using three standard 40 inch roof deck panels. This would allow for no cutting and panels could be purchased from one supplier. Enclosed with the agenda supplement is a copy of the plans. The specifications are available at CiLy Hall for your review. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1) Approve the plans and specifications as presented and authorize advertisement for bids. This would allow us to advertise for a short period of time, contacting several contractors, and 1Lavu Lha building cunq,lutud by Lho and of the year. 2) Modify the plane and/or specifications. There would still be time to incorporate some design changou and still have the building completed by the end of the year. 3) Do nothing. Thio alternative does not 001Ve the problems as brought out in the September 26 meati.ng with the chemical injection uystema. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the staff recommendation that you approvo Lhe plans and specifications as presented, that we advertise for bids based upon those, plans and spacifications to bo returned to the Council for their conaiderat ion at the October 24 mooting. D. SUPPORTING DATAi The plans for tho addition to pump house 02. Spacificationa are availablo at City Hall. - 1G - 11 - ­', _db;— _- , *0r� vo Cu I Jos i4k ACALX sit%. K p►L F 14 4-P L -s ova" 4ZOJK%f A AIN T- Q 0 CLC T job J3 4-4 2'.f.'an- !-1 it E014C, t-196'ft Ile ofgm."fa 46 "0 Cusleew To SUFAac giz-t" *�p 4e vo, OD FLOOA 101A4 -ULI-LT i I Cz* - - - ^�• -�— -__ ��-:T.7` Ltr °. 'i' ,,6i �n f___=—__ _ ,-'_'. o _ _ _ y�6C� Fv� h z. , >. `tf !' C.� c � S 2 4. -7. 5 > �if ziC4 7 7 c ?o > > > > > C % 'o a> 114' � Qin aK.+b 7 G �i:e0 ,O w •� f u► „ � . oor S,/ COM6 cifL� •�. ?.Nw?.f:ClOyL r �Aft�,./.,'.•'� '- 2- Sfr4i -Sk7rJt? _- �-fel CrQYt.bL:� W:b;rinti �C��a:T CteRPr�fis F -..; : n c '> whit V,1.YJ. ►�P�rMI I - . .— .- - � -. i7. Q ,. �J C- f i► V fL JAAP,A Ci L� .O _ w.a►.y Z.T.A_ * ® r`.w• cb r'.N e;r•iT FKc'2rr • (,e..c. ct.•d +•/bYf, r.,, bad•- ;; •�E��i c•wr,d ra- P;0Pos.. 0 ►1 IBX : ry"J AOn�i.o�v it CowlSrq�lcT Rs Fia SPKm CRc` r 311 hooF �o,wi �l �P•t NOT E : r ON i F AT V0R 70 VERIFY ASI 1`1EASU�'Jc_MLN► PK10: , T3 ST..NRT Jr fLo ju_i V:ING M ATE RIA � ot,t.�.r.: PUMP �ovS� NO. 2 ADOT'o�1 Fo R 'Y E G%TY of I�lon�-► C E�.L© oc.T- tiq�3 „ � . "Co,.;T.- L• SY1i'�i GAM, S,/ �LeP ,�r� tii: -Sk7rJt? _- �-fel CrQYt.bL:� W:b;rinti �C��a:T whit ..►c �.�� : A f Cost .— .- - � -. i7. Q ,. c;►► ra _ c ALtw CoM'CoL "TOiNi ot,t.�.r.: PUMP �ovS� NO. 2 ADOT'o�1 Fo R 'Y E G%TY of I�lon�-► C E�.L© oc.T- tiq�3 t Council Agenda - 10/11/83 13. Consideration of Change Order #3 for Meadow Oak. W .S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Richard Knutson, Inc., the general contractor on the Meadow Oak Project, has requested an additional sum of $1,000.00 in mobilization fees for his subcontractor, Metrocurbing. Metrocurbing has claimed $1,000.00 in additional mobilization charges due to not being able to complete that portion of the curbing near the railroad in their first trip to Monticello. As you know, there were delays in obtaining the railroad permits due to communication problems. We, however, were not made aware of the mobilization charges until after the work had been performed. It is my understanding that Metrocurbing neglected to even notify Orr-Schelen-Mayeron when they mobilized out the second time to complete the curbing. John Badalich can offer some insight as to why he feels this is a reasonable request, as he forwarded the Change Order request to us. Metrocurbing is currently replacing approximately 200 ft. of curbing, which was chipped, busted and cracked by Oanann Construction during the grading operations. I � As a general update on the project, we have officially notified Richard Knutson, Inc., of our intent to collect liquidated damages in the amount of $300 per day as of October 1, 1983. The general conditions and special provisions of the contract documents require that the project be substantially complete as of this date. Currently we have not accepted the water due to noncomplotion of testing and flushing, and we have not accepted the sanitary sower, as the lines and lift station have not leen properly cleaned, and the lift station is not yet eanploto. In addition, the street paving in not yet complete and needs significant repairs prior to placement of the wearing course. Because we are realizing additional costs related to engineering services, inspection sorvicoo, City staff costs, budgetary and assessment complications, we have opted to onforcc the liquidated damages clause of the contract. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONSt 1) Approvo the Change order an requested. 2) Not approve the Change Order. 3) Negotiate a price other than requested. I - 17 - Council Agenda - 10/11/83 C. STAFF P.ECOMMENDATIOU: $1,000.00 appears to be a large sum of money to move one (1) concrete slip form paver, a bob cat and crow from Bloomington and back. That figures out to $400 or $500 per hour. The staff feels uncomfortable with this request and would recommend a lower amount. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Change Order #3 and letter from Metrocurb to Richard Knutson, Inc. Bpi c Council Agenda - 10/11/83 14. Consideration of Raquest to Increase Seating at Guy's Bakerv. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: There has been significant concern over parking requirements that needed to be met when Sam Peraro built the building that stands on the corner of Broadway and T.H. 25 and now houses the Pizza Factory and other businesses. That building was recently sold. The new owner when inquiring about which businesses could assume occupancy was informed that certain parking restrictions had to be met. Prior to Guy's Bakery accepting that space for their business, we informed them that based on the parking requirements we would allow them seating for 16 customers only. After only a few days of operation, Guy's Bakery has requested additional seating. our initial response to their request was to deny it based on the parking requirements and the fact that they had been informed well in advance that 16 was the maximum seating. They requested the right to come before the City Council rather than accept our denial of their request. i informed t" bakery that before I would place them on the agenda, they would have to take their request to the Downtown Parking Committee and justify it to them. On Wednesday morning, October 5, a representative from the bakery met with the Downtown Parking Committee and explained their request. Marn Flicker, on behalf of the Parking Committee, called t•4 and it is their view that the bakery be allowed to place eight additional chairs. This would total seating for 24. The Parking Committee's juntificaLion is based on the contention that a large amount of the bakery's customers are downtown employees and as such do not require parking facilities since they are already parked in their usual spots. The Parking Committee has no objection to this. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1) Grant the request from Guy's Bakery for additional seating. 2) Deny the request for additional seating on the grounds that it violates the parking requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. 3) After reading this item, call City (fall and give your voice approval and request that the item be removed from the agenda all together. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Even though the Parking Comenittoo gave ita blessing to the request, I was reluctant to make the administrative docioion to grant their request without Council approval ainco it could be said that it would violate the parking requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. I do not, - 19 - Council Agenda - 10/11/83 M however, see this as a major controversial issue. If, upon completion of your reading this item, you wish to dispense with the matter, simply call me and tell me that you have no objections to their putting in eight more chairs. Upon receiving an affirmation of their request from three of you, I will delete the item from the agenda and simply inform the bakery that they may go ahead and add the chairs requested. D. SUPPORTING DATA: The Parking Committee's consent to this request was not presented in writing and thus, there is no written supporting data for this item. - 20 - 6 MPMORANDU: TO: Mayor Grimsmo 6 Council Members FROM: Tom Eidem As a result of some earlier conversations that indicated the Agenda Supplement was not always as complete as you would like it to be, we on the staff have prepared a new method and format for presenting the Agenda Supplement. The new deadline for having an item placed on the Agenda has been set at 4:30 P.M. on the Tuesday prior to a Council Meeting. The following morning at B:00 A.M. the staff will hold its regular Agenda Meeting. To date, these Agenda Meetings have been designed to help those of us on the staff avoid surprises and make sure everything is covered prior to meeting time. The new direction we will be taking will result in, perhaps, lengthier, more comprehensive Supplements for you to use. The basic format will be similar to what you have been receiving, but the subsection titles will change. For each item that appears on the Agenda, the Supplement section will be numbered and titled accordingly; and at the and the name or initials of the author of the Supplement section will he in parentheaes. C- Subsection A will be entitled Reference and Background and will be the narrative typo statement that you have been receiving all along. Subsection B will be called Alternative Actions where we as staff will determine and list as many CA the possible alternatives the Council could take from the realistic to the absurd. We will attempt to seek out the possible long term and short term consequences of each given action. At this point, we may oven speculato so to public opinion, staff opinion, etc. Subsection C will bo entitled Staff Recommendation and will be the result of staff discussion, presumably arriving at a unified recommendation for Council action. In the event that there are two very strong but differing recommendations, we will sulxait both of them to you with the names of the persons holding each position. Subsection D will be entitled Supporting Data and will be the same as what is now called References. We will attempt to give you a thorough packet of history and reference Oil each given item. Of courso, not every item that over appears on the Agenda will require a longthy discussion. Some matters aro easily handled with a simple motion or a simple presentation of information. Our main concern is providing you with adoquato background and current information for those decisions - 1 - which could be seen as controversial or precedent setting. Also included with your Agenda packet this time is the Preliminary Budget Memo, which I indicated would be forthcoming. This need not be discussed during the Council Meeting. Its sole function is to give you a conceptual framework within which you may work while reviewing all of the munbers that are listed in the Budget document. Thomas Eidem City Administrator 2 c. cm OF MQII'ICELLO Monthly H1tilAirlg Department Report PE2i2QTS and USES Month of s�temberl983 "gUCTS Gast fiie emc Month Lest, Year T�iia Year r ISSUFD MonthAuguat MmthSept embci�Ls-u Year To Date To Date RMIDFNTIAL N=ber 6 10 3 18 51 Valua:.io:,. $193,275.00 2481,455.00 S 6,730.00 1504,414.00 72,296,127.90 1,042.09 3,262.01 86.40 2,954.69 11,687.04 Sarc'.art•:; 96.64 240.94 3.50 209.25 1,149.38 )MMzRC 1 A:. Number 1 10 2 23 nI'j6'. tv:1 3,687.40 813,900.00 751,000.00 1,896,112.40 42.60 4,848.45 3,190.00 9,896.16 ., .'F.1rr••: 1.84 407.45 375.50 948.44 Number 1 1 2 Val:lation 90,000.00 861,000.00 590,000.00 Feel 664.95 2,779.92 1,862.40 Surchart:; 8 45.00 430.50 295.00 ir, um3INu :a m1}er 4 11 2 33 Foc: 94.00 406.00 47.00 11099.00 3ur•cha:'_- s 2.00 10.50 1.00 23.00 11+ FN-• a:rl:n r 1 1 10 8,U00.00 40,220.00 i•rs 10.00 66.50 548.40 ;i-:t-'h:,r'•-: 4.00 17.90 L^FAL NO. r=7IAt ' S 33 32 3 23 119 ,'('!'AL VA LU AT IN 286,962.40 1,303,355.00 6,730.00 2.116,414.00 4,822,460.30 ICTDL.LF.FS 1,853.64 _8,584.96 _ _ 86_40 8,924.61 25,093.00 ')TAI. SURCHARGES 145.48 662.89 I.50 1,016.25 2,433.72 Number to nete `•;'..'!IT ;Number FIFRMI r 3`U CHARGE._ �Yu1ti ,a�1 � •ihi s.Yfe1' _-_fes-Y3_-Vmaw 511'r•1f i:+mily 4 1 973,16 $ 82.36 y 164,700.00 21 3 IA11'1, n 1 0 Nul'+,- Gtm;ty 3 2,152.02 151.05 302,100.00 6 1 C rtrrcrC,' 1 2 21010.11 145.45 290,900.00 11 3 I 114'5$t t'i Al 1 1 res. ii•tl'nf;t'S 1 59.50 3.25 61500.00 7 2 �54;n') 1 68.50 4.00 81000.00 3 0 11th; tc 0 0 1:t"rJZd7IC$i ,+i: ?;YAiFt 1 IA•'�- 1 1 ing5 2 77.33 4.28 61155.00 12 9 ftrcwtcr'c;n1 7 2,790.84 259.25 517,500.00 11 1 1.1du>tr'iq} 1 47.50 2.75 51500.00 2 0 `I.LIMp,iA1l: 11 406.00 10.50 33 2 Alt 141)'1> Acceasory Structures 1 0 5wicrm+iny 1'0030 4 1 Decks 2 0 TumNorary Permit 2 0 DomOlition IC'I`AL 32 $8,584.96 $662.89 $'1,303,355.00 �� 119 23 INDIVIDUAL PERMIT ACTIVITY REPORT MONTH OF September , 1983 - _ - - - - PERMIT DESCRIPTION P NAME/LOCATION VALUATION F -- NUMBER r PERMIT SURCHARGE PLUMBING SURCHARGE 83-535 Kitchen RemodelI Ad Wayne Labreel, 400 W. 4th St. 5 7,555.00 I5 65.83 5 3.78 S S 83-516 Front Entrance SAD Shawn McGoff, 205 Prairie Road 600.00 I 11.50 .50 83-537 Drive -up Teller Addn., Re ; model Ad Kentucky Fried Chicken, Hwy 25 6 1-94 91900.00 79.90 4.95 83-538 60':120' Retail/Repair B1- C! Milton Olson, 240 West Oakwood Drive 110,900.00 585.25 55.45 31.00 .50 83-539 Front Entrance Remodel Ij K c H Auto Repair, 349 W. Broadway 500.00 10.00 .50 83-540 Rambler w/attached Ga age ISFj Marvin George Builders, 14 Fairway Dr. 45,150.00 I 261.18 22.50 23.00 .50 83-541 Split Entry w/attached Ga r�. SP Marvin George Builders, 16 Fairway D . 40,750.00 241.78 20.38 23.00 .50 83-542 Split Entry w/attached Gari. SF. Marvin George Builders, 18 Fairway or. 39,400.00 1 235.30 19.70 23.00 .50 83-543 Split Entry w/attached Garf.SF Marvin George Builders, 32 Fairway Dd- 39,400.00 235.30 19.70 23.00 .50 83-544 4 Plex with Garages MF Walter Pratt, 518-520-522-524 Wright St. 100,700.00 434.75 50.35 60.00 .50 83-545 4 Plex with Garages IMF Walter Pratt, 518-513-515-517 Laurincj Ln.100,700.00 434.75 50.35 60.00 .50 83-546 4 Plex with Garages MF Dean Smith, 517-519-521-523 Ramsey S1. 100,700.00 434.75 50.35 60.00 .50 83-547 Church Addn. 6 Remodeling 'AC Church of St. Henry, 505 W. 4th St. 467,200.00 1,351.00 233.60 46.00 .50 83-548 Basement Remodel 'AC Dr. Maus, 201 W. Broadway 3,000.00 38.50 1.50 83-549 Attached Garage RG Thomas Giroux, 132 Marvin Elwood PA. 6,500.00 59.50 3.25 83-550 Outdoor Advertising Sign S Blocher Outdoor Advert., Thomas Ind. Park 8,000.00 68.50 4.00 83-551 Exterior Stairs AC John Koppy, 224 W. Broadway 500.00 10.00 .50 83-552 Handicap Ra:Ip - vestibule i AC Clyde Bentzin, 103 Pine Street 6,400.00 52.90 3.20 83-553 Shop Building Remodel I Al Northern States Power, Monti. Nuclear' Plant 5,500.00 47.50 2.75 83-554 Office Building ,C Metcalf s Larson, 113 Locust Street 180,000.00 633.00 90.00 34.00 .50 83-531 Retail Building Remodel QAC Floyd Kruse, 154 West Broadway 30,000.00 193.00 15.00 28_00 .50 ' TOTALS $1,303,355.00 $5,483.79 $652.31 $411.00 $5.50 PLAN CHECKING 83-537 Drive -up Teller Addn, Re - e -Model Mode I AC Kentucky Fried Chicken, Hwy 25 6 I-914 $ 51.94 83-538 60'xl2O' Retail/Repair Bld'. C Milton Olson, 240 W. Oakwood Drive 380.41 83-S44 4 Plex With Garages MF Walter Pratt, 518,520,522,524 Wright St. 282.59 83-545 4 Pres, with Garages MF waiter Pratt, 511,513,515,517 [aurin Ln. 282.59 83-546 4 Plex With Garages W Dean Smith, 517,519,521, 523 Ramsey t. 282.59 83-547 Church Addn. 6 RemodelingI AC Church of St. Henry, 505 W. 4th St. 878.15 83-554 Office Building 11} d Metcalf s Larson, 113 Locust Street 411.45 '-531 Retail Office Remodel AC Floyd IU -,-e, 154 W. Broadway 125.45 c� (�-9 \TPAL RFVFM IF $ 9-24 vol Toa• a� Dopsrtlnsm of A{im-nlstrallon e Codas a Standards pivislon 409 Mo 40, Melro Square Building • v { 71h and Robert Stroeta O L' Sl, Peul. MN 55101 ,I/NNO•N (612) 296.4639 BUILDING PERMIT SURCHARGE REPORT Quarter Ending Sent, 30 year 198L_ l It ydp or. administering the Build. ,ng Code for other municipafil—, pteesa list them on the reveres poor - (POPULATION 20.000 OR LESSI Repanlna Unit • County Telephone No IinclWe Area Code) MunklDetiry city Qf Monticello Wright I 612/295-2711 All" . - City, state. Sip . • 1250 Eae`,•Broadyay'. Monticello, MN 55362 Hams a suilduq ORd$r, �. �• a.0. Cenitic lion Number, Telephone Telephone No. l—Wde ACodel Gary Jlndereon '• M0909 1612/295-3060 Typo of Buildlnai re : eW r of Number, a Ali ompr Idinpe unha Vatwtlon PromptsW W on leVatuatl One and Two Family Dwelling to xi S 503.600.00 11 5 47.750.0 '.Multi -Family Dwolling 3 12 302,100.00 1Commercial Building 2 N/A 290,900.00 10 534,167,401 Industrial Building NIA 2 95, 500.001 Institutional Building N/A Total 15 23 $1,095,600.00 23 $ 677„437,401 PART "A” PERMITS BASED ON FIXED FEE: Tho surchergo coo2gulation is based on the permit tee. Surcharge o uats .ODDS of each permit fee. or 509, whichever is greater. IF" Lee. Than $10001 (Fee Moro Than 111000) Typo of Permit: Np mel :' Jot Tow Number de Fa r Total Plumbing ! 16 Times50e S9 n0 T1mes.0005 Electrical Times 509 Times.0005 Mechanical Tines Soo Times .0005 Building , '. .Times 500 Tlmes.0005 Other K, * Times We * Times .0005 470181 $ r,y�pn Total $ 4.•i i ,� Total part "A" $ 4. no The surchorgo computation Is based on the veluatlon of cortstrucuon. ART "B" PERJNiT$ BA$ED QN VALUATION: and permit fees are based on actual cost of construction. Ylperor Vdwlbn M • `e :oneltuebon Por. Numb1srp pp111'Tet ,`.'?•,....1' 1 I Numberm h :milt tsmM . hrrrrltl— ' / m•IVNunbn Mrmka Total i1,000AWorLess �'38 M�4 r ewe 61.773.037.40 N.A 49, 11 886.52 -1.00,000 to !2.000.000 11 $600.00) w .U004 N'$' mines k IM) •' ,2.000,000 to 53.000,000 11 •Jlrosi $000.00) *- .0003.~ I minus' y 2M) " •� 000,00010 Y1.000,OOU 1 tWM 01200.061 + 0%) '41 minul , at 3M) • Sa,tM0,001i to V_•.U-0,000 I L" As, +, 0001 ( _ minus ' x aM) •• .1.001-_OOU and c+n- — TiAWe,1.a01 ytG1006'.�( _ mints, 46N11• _ -- (;RAND TOTAL VALUA110-N M 1,0n0.001) • A _ _ — +_ -_- {Shaded Area D v -� d Use Only) { IOTAL PART "B" 1 8B6.52 N A, Not Applicable TOl'l� PA T A" AND "B° SURCHARGE LESS 4Ye RTENTIQN " i -', . __ 35.82 c�Tc��JpCMAR r.REM OS9.70 ,' i1o• alp I r 1 hmeby cenlly � prmsti h q heroin to be Vua and correct. Sionid_ � I? k _.�__11t1s B"+TAae OLLieiaL_ ..Dole 10/3/83 ,yr r 1 ;pmol must ire Itilty ,Libolele4 uld�tant tf�Qelher with )u1(Jnroe remittance, to the State Building Inspector. /p8 Matto -aro Building, Sevapollier bort 5tr#h{s, 3t, Payl, Mlhn6ygla, 55101 by the 15th of the n onth following the Paporlmo ;nth. 04ip1icsta maybe ref yeti! fi ie, CheAs a I InaA�sYable to the Gteu Traasuror