Loading...
City Council Agenda Packet 01-27-1986C AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL C Monday, January 27, 1986 - 7:30 p.m. Mayor: Arve A. Grimamo Council Members: Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Jack Maxwell, Dan Blonigen. 1. Call to Order. 2. Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting Held January 13, 1986. 3. Citizens Comments/Petitions, Requests and Complaints. Old Business 6. Consideration of a Replat - Applicant, Doug Pitt. 5. Consideration of Defining Linea on the Proposed Zoning Map and Setting a Public,Hearing. 6. Consideration of a Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications, Specifying the Scope of work to be Done and Ordering an Advertisement for Bids for a Sower Interceptor Improvement Project. l 7. Consideration of Authorizing Repair/Replacement of Library Furnace/ Air Conditioning. a. Consideration of Amending the Fire Hall Construction Contract by Extending the Completion Data Four Days. 9. Consideration of a Proposed Residential Subdivision in the Orderly Annexation Area - Applicant, Kjollborg, Inc. flow Business 10. Consideration of Authorizing a Contract/Agreomant with Monticello S Township for Pira Protection Services. 11. Consideration of Alternatives for Traffic Signal Construction for the Highway 25 improvement. 12. Consideration of an Increase in League of Minnesota Cities Duos to Help Fund the City Legal Exchange and Research (CLEAR) Service. 13. Consideration of Gambling License - Monticello Youth Hoekay Association. I 14. Consideration of Dills for the Month of January. 1 15. Adjourn. MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday, January 13, 1986 - 7:30 p.m. Members Present. Arve Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Jack Maxwell, Dan Blonigen. Members Absent: None. 2- Amproval of Minutes. Motion was made by Blonigen, seconded by Fran Fair, and unanimously carried to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held December 9, 1985, and the special meeting held December 19, 1985. 3. Citizens Comments/Petitions, Requests and Complaints. Mr. Dave Anderson informed the Council that he has a purchase agreement to buy a home at 446 Wast Broadway in Block 38, which is currently zoned R-2. Mr. Anderson noted his purchase agreement is contingent upon the rezoning of this parcel to allow for the conversion to a real estate office for Century 21 realtors. It was noted that current and proposed zoning for the area would i not allow for commercial offices and that Mr. Andersons request would be considered either as a possible amendment to the zoning map or Mr. Anderson would have to specifically apply for rezoning. The property in question is in the block adjacent to current 0-4 zoning, which would allow this typo of use. Mayor Grimsmo informed the Council that the Orderly Annexation Board has hoard a request from Kjollborgs requesting approval for a residential plat consisting of 53 lots on 70 acres of land just south of Kjollberg'e Trailer Park on Highway 25. Mr. Grimsmo noted that the OAA plans to wait until the City's annexation study is complete before considering any action on this item. 4. Public Hearing on an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, Text and Map. City Administrator Eiden briefly explained that this was the third public hearing on the proposed zoning ordinance map and text and at the last public hearing by Council diroctivo, the staff has eliminated the PZ -R zoning along East River Street and left the property R-1, and also reduced the proposed B-4 arca in the block directly vent of the Maua Foods block and loft the property R-2. In addition, it wan noted that the portion of the Meadows Subdivision in now proposed for R-3 zoning as requested by developer, John Sandberg. sm 0 Council Minutes - 1/13/86 Mayor Grimsmo then opened up the public hearing for citizen's comments, and the following people were heard. Mr. Jim Metcalf noted that his partnership has an option on property in the north half of Block 51 that is proposed for elderly housing, and he was concerned over the proposed zoning from R -B, which would allow elderly housing projects, to R-1 single family residential, which would not. Mr. Metcalf questioned whether his previously granted conditional use permit would still be valid if their project gets faderal funding or whether the rezoning would cause problems in the future. It was the Council's consensus that possibly this north half of Block 51 should remain zoned for multiple structures, as this was the intent. Mr. Metcalf, representing Edgar Klucas, expressed opposition over the proposed rezoning of Edgar Klucas' 20 acres of land from R-1 to the proposed I-2 zoning. Mr. Metcalf noted that there are presently no interests in developing the land for heavy industrial use and that possibly R-3 multiple family zoning would be more appropriate for the area, as it would be adjacent to the Meadows Subdivision which is also proposed for R-3 zoning. Mr. Metcalf felt this transition from multiple family zoning to industrial zoning adjacent to his property would be compatible and possibly more appropriate than R-1 zoning. Mr. John Sandberg spoke in opposition to the proposed rezoning of the north half of Block B along East River Street from its former R-3 zoning to R-1 single family, as he previously purchased property across the street from this block and is now going to be requesting rezoning of -his R-1 lot to R-2 for duplexes, etc. Mr. Sandberg felt his saquest for R-2 zoning would be more appropriate since it would be across the street from what he thought would remain multiple family zoning, but for some reason is now changed to the proposed single family dwelling zoning. In addition, Mr. Sandberg noted that the preliminary plat for the Meadows consisting of multiple family lots will be heard later by the Council, which is consistent with the proposed R-3 zoning for the area. Mr. Larry Muehibauer, resident of East River Strout, spoke in favor of the proposed zoning map that would leave the area single family and indicated his agreement with both sides of River Street being proposed for R-1 zoning. Mr. Robert Davis, property owner In the Meadows Subdivision, expressed concern over the proposed R-3 zoning in the Meadows and what affect it would have on park facilities and additional traffic that a multiple zoning would create. Mr. Davis questioned whether the park facilities would be adequate if 192 multiple family units would be built in the area. -2- Council Minutes - 1/13/86 Rearing no other public comments, the Council discussed whether postponing action on the zoning map would be necessary if any of the comments were to be included in the new zoning map. Councilmember Fran Fair felt there were too many problem areas with the new zoning map and recommended that action on adoption be delayed until the Council could again review the proposed zoning for the entire city and possibly hold a workshop to correct some obvious errors. In addition, she felt a 30 -day moratorium should be instituted by the Council on any future zoning requests. Councilmember Blonigen did not oppose an additional work session but questioned whether additional public comments would be necessary, as he felt the two informational meetings and three public hearings should already be sufficient as far as receiving public comment on the proposed zoning. Councilmembers Bill Fair and Fran Fair felt the public should be invited to participate in the work sessions if for no other reason than to be informed of all the ramifications of the proposed zoning changes, including what uses, etc., would be allowed. Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Bill Fair, and unanimously carried to delay for 30 days any action on the proposed zoning map with a moratorium on any rezoning requests and to hold two work sessions to review and discuss any other changes that would be necessary before holding a final additional public hearing on February 10, 1986. The informational meetings regarding the zoning map will be held at 10:00 a.m., Friday, January 17, and at 7:00 p.m., Thursday. January 23, 1986.' ' 5. Consideration of Ordarinq plans and Specifications for water SYatom Improvement. Previously. City Council discussed and reviewed the water system analysis prepared by the City Engineering firm, which recommended that the City build a now water storage facility on Monte Club hill, along with if now wall and water main on County Road 118 connecting to Mississippi Drive from the present system for a total cost of $1,113,000.00. Approximately $217,000.00 could be saved by not connecting the water main on County Road 118 to County Road 39 at Mississippi Drive, but this was recommended by the Enginear to provide additional water pressure for the areas along East County Road 39. City Engineer, John Badalich, reviewed with the Council possible now connection charges the City could adopt to raise additional funds for a water system surplus fund to cover coat incurred by the City of oversizing water mains, installing water towers, pump houses, etc. A now connection charge increase along with -3- 0 Council Minutes - 1/13/86 assessments for properties benefiting directly by the water main laterals and assessments based on area that will benefit in the future from the proposed improvements could finance up to half of the cost of the proposed water system improvement. Some of the area assessments proposed by the Engineer would be for property currently outside of the City limits but would be deferred until a later date when the property came into the City or would use the system. Councilmember Blonigen questioned whether this large of an improvement was really necessary, and Councilmember Maxwell questioned whether it wouldn-t be cheaper to build a new water tower at the present reservoir site in the industrial park and eliminate the additional water main from Monte Club hili. Mr. Maxwell was informed that a cost analysis was previously done,'and it still turns out cheaper to build an 800,000 gallon water reservoir on Monte Club hill with the water main installation to connect the system than it would be to build a 500,000 gallon elevated tank at the present reservoir site. The basic reason for this is that the larger facility on Monte Club hill would not have to he elevated, which substantially reduced the cost of construction. After further discussion, motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Maxwell, to authorize the City Engineer to prepare plans and specifications for the entire water system improvement as recommended totalling approximately 51,113,000.00, with the specifications to be completed in spring of 1986. Voting in favor vas Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Maxwell. voting in opposition: Dan Blonigen waa opposed because no financing plan had yet been established for, the project. 6. Consideration of a Roolattinq Request to Replat an Existing Lot into Eight Townhouse Lots and Ono Common Area Lot - Applicant, Jay Miller. Mr. Jay Millor, co-owner of Colony by the Groans townhouse development in the Par West dubdivicion, requested approval to roplat the existing Block a, Lot 9, into eight individual townhouse Iota with a common area. The replat has met all City requiramenta; and as a result, motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Fran Fair, and unanimously carried to approve the subdivision as presented. 7. Consideration of Granting a Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Mixed Use iCommorciol Office Space and Residential) Within a Proposed Now Zone. PZ -M - Applicant. Soostrom CompanY. Recently, Mr. Wayne Soostrom approached the City to investigate the possibility of establishing a commercial office space for his electrical company at 110 Washington Street. Mr. Seastrom 0 Council Minutes - 1/13/86 �. intended to purchase the present home and convert the lower level for his office space needs and have a rental dwelling on the second floor. The conditional use permit request was heard and approved by the Planning Commission based on the asoumption that the proposed PZ -M zone for this area would be adopted which allows such activities. Due to the recent decision by the City Council to further study the proposed zoning map for the City and delayed action until February 10, 1986, the existing zoning in the area would not allow this type of activity. The Council noted that although the final action on the proposed zoning map ,has been delayed that would convert this property to PZ -M zoning and allow this conditional use, no opposition to the proposed PZ -M zone has been heard; and as a result, the PZ -M zone will be included in the final draft of the proposed zoning map. As a result, the Council felt that in this situation, the granting of the conditional use prior to the final adoption of the zoning map would be appropriate in order to allow Mr. Seastrom to complete the purchase of the property and do the necessary remodeling. As a result, a motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by 8111 Fair, and unanimously carried to approve the conditional use request based on the proposed zoning of PZ -M. 8. Consideration of a Conditional Use Reguest to Allow Open and Outdoor Storaqo and Rental Equipmont in a 8-3 (Highwav Business) Zone - Applicant, Suburban Gas, Inc. Suburban can has requested a conditional use to be allowed to operate a U -Haul rental business at their propane gas site along Highway 25 and 5y Street. Surburban Gas has agreed to the requirements of screening, fencing, and blacktopping of their parking lot. Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Blonigon, and unanimously carried to approve the conditional use request allowing Suburban Gas a U -Haul outdoor storage and rental equipment with the following conditions: a. A screening fence of approximatoly 60 foot in length be installed in the front, and a screening fence of approximately 150 foot in length be installed to the want of the existing security foncod-in area in this facility. This fence is to be a minimum of 6 foot in height and no mora than 6 foot in height, and to be a valid ccreening wood typo of fence. b. Some typo of trao planting and sh n:b planting as rcoNsad in the enclosed site plan. -5- Council ;:inutes - 1/13/86 C. A time table for these tree and shrub plantings be set for June 1, 1986. d. Depending upon when 5y Street will be improved this summer, the hard surfacing for the parking and driveway area of this facility be hard surfaced at that time. e. Set a completion date of no later than September 1, 1986, for the hard surfacing of the parking and driveway area. 9. Consideration of a Replatting Request to Allow Construction of a Zero Lot Line Duplex on Existing Lots - Applicant, Vic Hallman. Mr. Vic Hellman requested a replat of existing Lots 2 6 3, Block 44, into two new lots accommodating a zero lot line duplex. Councilmember Fran Fair questioned whether the proposed zoning map showing R-1 zoning for this area should not be changed back to R-2 to allow for the duplex being proposed rather than making a non -conforming use. This rezoning proposal will be considered . at the workshop session by the Council and staff. Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Fran Fair, and unanimously carried to approve the simple subdivision request to allow for the zero lot lino duplex as proposed. 10. Consideration of a Roplattinq Request to Allow Construction of a -Zero Lot Line Duplex on Existing Lots - Applicant. Jerry Barthel. As with the previous Stam, Mr. Barthel has requested a replat of Lots 9 6 10, Towneito of Monticello, into a now division of the lots to create a zero lot line duplex. Motion wan mado by Blonigan, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously carried to approve the simple subdivision request for the zero lot lino duplex on Lots 9 6 10. 11. Consideration of a Simple Subdivision Request to Subdivide One Existinq Ranidantial Lot into Four Residential Lots - Applicant. Doug Pitt. Mr.. Doug Pitt presented a subdivision request to subdivide two previous legal descriptions into four single family residential Iota, with two of the lots fronting on the Mississippi River and two of the iota fronting on Want River street. The proposed Subdivision would create the two river lots having 12 -foot parcel extanniona to River street to provide access to the properties. Concerns ware expronned over the 12 -foot width axtanoion that will be used for driveway purposes; and it was the ataff-a recommendation that a common driveway for both parcola be creatod over the e -6- Council Minutes - 1/13/86 24 feet with both lots having an easement for this purpose rather than creating two separate 12 -foot driveways that may cause problems in snow removal, etc. Public Works Director, John Simola, also noted that the plat as presented does not indicate any utility easements for sewer and water or surface drainage to River Street that are normally required around the perimeter of all new residential lots. Mr. Pitt indicated he was not in favor of the shared driveway concept but would rather see each home along the river have its own driveway. It was noted by the staff that a variance would have to be granted to allow driveways to be adjacent to each other and still recommended that a common, driveway with easements provided by both parties over the other's property would be preferable to two separate driveways and recommended that action be delayed on approval of this plat until the proper easements for the driveway and utilities are shown on the Certificate of Survey. Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Fran Fair, and unanimously carried to delay action on this request until the next mooting to allow staff time to review the easements necessary. 12. Consideration of a Request to Rezone from R-1 to R-2 - Anplicant, John Sandberg. This item wan delayed until a future meeting duo to the action by the Council under a previous item putting a moratorium on any further rozoning requests until the proposed now zoning ordinance map is finalized. 12a. Consideration of a Preliminary Plat in the Meadows. Mr. John Sandberg presented for Council review a preliminary plat on the replotting of the Meadows Subdivision to create multiple family sites within tho plat. Although the Planning Commiasion has not yet roviowod the preliminary plat, Mr. Sandberg requested Council consideration of the plat at this tics. In reviewing the plat, the City staff has noted name areae of concern mainly with how tho property will be screened from the abutting single family rosidancos already in existence and atroot accoa moa to County Road 75. The preliminary plat an pronentod propo sas to extend Marvin Elwood Road to connect with River Street and indicates that Lot 8 would be proposed for Futuro road extannion of Kealy Circle to County Road 75. Tho extension of Koaly Circle to County Road 75 through original Lot 8 was recommended by the City staff to help eliminate traffic problem* -7- 0 Council Minutes - 1/13/86 that may occur along Prairie Road if this multiple zoning plat was to be approved. Although the plat only indicates this as a proposed future extension, it is the staff's recommendation that the final plat for Kealy Heights contain a platted street for both Marvin Elwood Road extension and the Kealy Circle extension. Mayor Grimsmo questioned whether the two road extensions would be necessary to be developed at the present, time. It was noted by the City Engineer that although the Marvin Elwood Road extension to River Street may not have to be developed immediately, he would recommend that to eliminate a dead-end road, the right-of-way now be platted as part of this replatting process. Councilmember Fair questioned what screening the developer would do to protect the current residential properties abutting the proposed multiple sites, and Mr. Sandberg did agree to screening with trees, etc., the multiple lots that abut the existing residential structures but questioned properties that are not currently developed. After further discussion, motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Bill Fair, and unanimously carried to grant approval to the preliminary plat provided both Marvin Elwood Road extension and Kealy Circle extension are platted in the final plat and that screening would be required on Lots 9 6 10 as proposed. 13. Consideration of a Request for a Gamblinq License. A request for a gambling license approval by the Monticello Lioness Club has boon withdrawn for the present time. 14. Consideration of Adopting a Statement of Understanding for a Temporary Extension of the Piro Services Contract. On December 31, 1985, the current contract for fire protection for Monticello Township expired. In order to protect the City -a liability, an agreement of understanding for temporary fire protection services has boon signed by the City and the Township officials extending service to the Township for a period of 90 days while a now, renegotiated contract is being prepared. Motion wan made by Bill Fair, seconded by Fran Fair, and unanimously carried to approve ratifying the temporary fire protection agreement with Monticello Township calling for a 5200 baso foo par fire call plus $8.00 par hour par fire fighter responding to each call. 15. Consideration of Bids for Floor Coverinq for the Now Fire Hall. On January 8, 1986, two bide war* received for the installation of resilient floor covering and carpoting for the now Fire Hall. The bids received wars as follows: -8- 0 Council Minutes - 1/13/86 n 1. Kjellberg Carpet 6 Interiors, Inc. Base Bid 1 S 188.00 7 NE 8th Street Base Bid 2 $1,382.00 Buffalo, M11 55313 Total 51,570.00 2. Golden Valley Furniture Base Bid 1 $ 199.75 155 West Broadway Base Bid 2 S1,645.00 Monticello, MN 55362 Total $1,844.75 After reviewing the bids, motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Fran Fair, to award the contract for carpet installation to Golden Valley Furniture in the amount of $1,844.75 because the supplier was local. Voting in favor was Grimsao, Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Maxwell. Voting in the opposition was Blonigen, who opposed because he felt the percentage difference did not warrant awarding to the local bidder. 16. Consideration of Sewer Rate Adjustment. As required by City Ordinance, Public Works Director, Jahn Simola, has reviewed the 1986 Budget for the operation costs at the Wastewater Treatment Plant and collection systecs, and recommended that overall the current rate structure should be sufficient to meat operating costs for 1986. Although a general rate increase or decrease wan not recommended by the Public Works Director, he did recommend that the minimum chargo currently at $8.00 for the first 500 cu.ft. of sever usage be increased to 510.00 for a minimum billing to help defray the cost of bill processing, mailing, and accounting services. Motion wan made by Maxwell, docondod by Fair, and unanicouoly carried to approve the following sower rates for 1986: Individual IndustrialDischarge Rates Flow: $0.688 par 100 cu.ft. (SID for tho lot 500 cu.ft. or part thereof) BOD: $0.095 par pound TSB: $0.185 per pound Combined Raton Rato for residential, commercial, $10.00 par quarter minimum billing and institutional proportico for tho tat 500 cu.ft. or part thereof. Additional cubic foot at $1.29 par 100 cu.ft. or part thoroof. 'g - v Council Minutes - 1/13/86 f 17. Consideration of Maintenance Agreement with Wright County for County State Aid Highways in Monticello. Each year the City of Monticello has entered into an agreement with Wright County to maintain certain County State Aid Highways in Monticello. The County reimburses the City annually based on the types of maintenance the City does and based on the number of road miles calculated. Mr. Simola noted that there were no changes in the County'State Aid Roads for 1986 and recommended approval of the maintenance agreement. Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously carried to approve the maintenance agreement.with Wright County for County State Aid Highways as proposed for 1986. 18. Consideration of Making Annual Appointments. Minnesota Statutes require that at the first meeting of the new year certain appointments be made. Motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Bill Fair, to adopt the following annual appointment schedule: a. City Depositories: Wright County State Bank Security Federal Savings 6 Loan 1st National Bank of Monticello let Bank of Minneapolis Rick Wolfateller is also authorized to designato official depositories for investment purposes as needed b. Official Newspaper: Monticello Times C. Health officer: Dr. Maus d. Housing and Redevelopment Mr. Ban Smith - 9 -year term Authority: a. Acting Mayor: Fran Fair f. Community Education Rop: Bill Fair Joint Fire Board: Rick Wolfatoller OAA Board: Arvo Grimamo g. Library Board: Dr. Don Maua - 3 -year term par Schwartz - 3-yoar term h. parking Committee: Eliminated -10- Os� B Council Minutes - 1/13/86 L. Planning Commission: Joyce Dowling Richard Carlson Richard Martie Warren Smith Barb Koropchak J. City Attorney: Gary Pringle k. Consulting Planner: Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban, Inc. X. City Auditor: Gruys Johnson 6 Associates to. Consulting Engineer: Orr-Schelen-Mayeron 6 Associates Voting in favor was Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Maxwell. Voting in opposition was Blonigen, who opposed 1 -ho annual appointment of the Consulting Engineer, as he felt an evaluation session with the Engineer should be conducted prior to annual appointment. 19. Consideration of the Balance of Bills for the Month of December. Motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Fran Fa:Lr, and unanimously carried to approve the bills for the month of December as presented. ' 20. Consideration of Partial Purchase of Materials for Proposed Interceptor Sower Project and Authorizinq EAW Preparation. PubLic'Worke Director, John Simola, noted that duo to the largo amount of sower proposed for, the interceptor sower project, an Environmental Assessment Workohoot will have to be prepared on the project prior to construction. Mr. Simola noted that the City -o Consulting Engineer would prepare the nocoonary documents for the EAW at a coat not to exceed $1,750.00. In addition, the Public Worko Director recommended that in order to got the interceptor sower constructed through Block 15 between Highway 25 and Cedar Street prior to the proposed construction by Raindonce Corporation of the Mauo Grocery Store building, he rocommondod that approximately 374 foot of pipo be ordered Ln advance by the City prior to contract lotting so that the pipe would be on hand immediatoly for early opr Ing construction. Thin coot would be deducted from a future contract. Motion wan made by Fran Pair, oacondod by Bill Fair, and unanimouoly carried to authorize the City Engineer to prepare an EAW on the interceptor cover project at a coat not to exceed $1,750.00 and to authorizo the Public Workm Director to o rdar 374 foot of 1811 oowar pipe prior to contract lotting. Rick Wolfatdllor Anointant Administrator Council Agenda - 1/27/86 4. Consideration of Reolat - Doug Pitt. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At the last meeting, action was delayed on granting final approval to the Doug Pitt rapist. Some confusion arose at the time because the replat was treated primarily as a simple subdivision when, in fact, the action is to create four new legal descriptions, which is, in essence, a replat. The process is relatively simple to take careof esmall replat like this, but the problem came from the notion that it was a simple subdivision as defined in the ordinance, not a non-complex replat. Having talked with Doug, I believe we have resolved most matters. We will now require on the plat that the lots be designated by number, lot and block, and the replat be given its own name since it is combining parcels both from River Terrace Addition and from the Original Plat. Outlet A was of some concern, but the rationale behind it is to create a separate parcel that will keep Doug'o residence in full conformance. Staff has requested of Doug to name the subdivision, show all utility casements, show the drainage patterns for all four lots, show the setback lines, and show elevation. This is the information that is essential to granting final approval. when final approval is granted, then tho survoyor will prepare the hardaholl for recording. Granting final approval to this roplat should be contingent upon the payment of required special aosaaamento and the park dedication Poo. The overall parcel was assessed only once in 1975, and is now creating throe now units for which no aesoaament wan made, nor payment received. Past practice of the City dictatoo that a now aaaonamant be established for each now unit and that those amounts bo paid. City otaff rocommands that the aaaassmant per lot be cat at $4,344.78, which is an inflationary increase from the $2,731.50 original asooaamont. With rospact to park dedication foe, the City requires 10% of tho'value of raw, unimproved land. Based on a number of otopa, we arrived at an ontimatod value of $22,073.00, which figure in adjusted downward by subtracting tho voluo of sower, water, and otrooto. Thus, the 10% of the adjusted value yioldo a park dedication fee of $2.207.33. The data shoat supplied shows a couple of other alternatives for computing apoeial aeeoaomente, but the $4,344 is what City staff is recommending. When all three special aDs000mento and the park dedication foo are totaled, the amount Mr. Pitt owes tho City io $15,241.67. This Poo is required to be paid to the City prior to aigning of the plat for rocording. Your motion can be to grant final approval with the understanding that this amount of money io owed. fQ Council Agenda - 1/27/86 S. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:' 1. Approve the final plat with special assessments and park dedication fee requirements. 2. Approve the plat with no financial requirements. 1. Do not approve the plat. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends, that the plat be approved (provided all information requested ia, in fact, shown on the plat) with a sum of 515,240.00 required to be paid to the City. D. SUPPORT= DATA: Copy of the financial figures on special assessments and park dedication; Copy of the plat will be made available on Monday evening. -2- CDOUG PITT SUBDIVISION 55,914 sq.ft. X.81 comp. sale values taken from 2 sales along Mississippi Dr. 45,290.34 0 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS Assessed for one unit originally. Original Assessment - $2,731.50 Now creating 3 new units. Owe3 three more assessments. A. Original, amount per unit $2,731.50 B. Original amount plus 10 years declining interest at 7.5% (computed "as if" payments were made) 4,344.78 C. 1983 Meadow Oak (sower & water) 4,553.84 D. Original amount adjusted by construction cost index 5,465.45 E. Original amount adjusted by annual CPI inflation figures 5,804.26 Total Special Assessments Duo - Above amount times 3. Park Dedication fee is 10% of value of raw, unimproved land. Estimated value $45,290.34 Laos cost of 4 units for sower & water at today's inflation adjusted cost $5,804.26 x 4 23,217.04 ADJUSTED VALUE $22,073.30 Park Fee Percent X 10t PARK DEDICATION FEE• $ 2,207.33 Say $2,203.00 A B C $ 8,194.50 $13,034.34 $13,661.52 2,207.33 2,207.33 2,207.33 $10,401.83 $15,241.67 315,868.85 D E $16,396.35 317,412.78 C; 2,207:33 2,207.33 318,603.68 $19,620.11 0 MINNEAPOLIS -ST. PAUL CPI ANNUAL AVERAGE INFLATION 1976 6.2 1977 7.1 1978 9.1 1979 11.5 1980 11.3 1981 12.3 1982 10.0 1983 3.2 1984 4.3 1985 3.8 CONSTRUCTION PRICE INDEX Jen. 1975 2,103 Doc. 1985 4,208 2.0009 X 2,731.50 5 5,465.00 0 Council Agenda - 1/27/86 5. Consideration of Defining Lines on the Proposed Zoning Map and Setting a Public Hearing. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: It occurs to me that there is little more to say on this matter, and we have now reached decision time. we have held the two work sessions to clarify all of the zoning questions and the rationale behind the zoning map. It now comes down to a time when the City Council has to stipulate the zoning districts that they wish to adopt to help achieve the long range goals stipulated in the Comprehensive, Plan. A number of alternatives have been discussed to date. what needs to occur at this meeting is a clear cut statement of where the lines should be drawn and a motion reconfirming the public hearing for Monday, February 10. This meeting itself is not a public hearing and probably should not be open to the floor for continued debate. The only alternative actions are to continue work or to set the linea in their final form. There is no staff recommendation, nor supporting data for this item. C -3- Council Agenda - 1/27/86 6. Consideration of a Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications. Specifying the Scope of Work to be Done and Ordering an Advertisement for Bide for a Sewer Interceptor Improvement Project. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The plans and specifications for the entire interceptor sewer project have been completed. At the Council's request, these plans include the total interceptor sewer project as well as appurtenant work associated with the project . There are some decisions to be made as to the scope of the project and which appurtenant work should be included. The following is a list of work associated with the interceptor sewer project. Appurtenant Work 1. Replacement and rerouting of the Chestnut Street/River Street lift station . 2. Additional force main on Chestnut Street from Broadway to River Street. This would include either patching of the existing rural section of Chestnut Street or complete repaving with curb and gutter. 3. The Elm Street gravity sewer near Sixth Street to Country Club Road vs. the temporary use of the existing 6" force main on the west aide of Elm Street. 6. Sanitary sewer on 5%, Street from Linn to Maple Street. This would provide services to the railroad property on the north and would in tercopt the sanitary flow from some 30 homes into the intorcoptor sewer. 5. Water main and hydrants along with services to all the railroad property on the north aide of 5� Street from Maple to Pins. 6. Reconstruction of 5; Street as a rural typo roadway versus a wide urban street with curb and gutter. 7. Although not included in the project, there is also the possibility of reconstruction of Locust Street from 54 Street to Sixth Street. This construction should coincide with the work done on 54 Street. If the Council requests that assessable appurtenant work be includod, we could moot the necessary notification requirements and hold a public hearing for those improvements on February 10. This would allow ample time to issue an addendum to the plans and opacifications if necessary. -4- Council Agenda - 1/27/86 In addition to consideration of the appurtenant work as outlined previously, the Council will also have to decide the scope of the interceptor sewer project itself. The way the interceptor sewer is laid out, we would have to construct approximately two-thirds (2/3) of the pipe from Washington Street to Sixth Street in order to relieve even a small portion of the condition on Front Street. Constructing the sanitary sewer interceptor to this point would relieve at least 158 of the flow on Front Street and would allow a little breathing room prior to the problem re -occurring. This length of time could be as short as two years if the current rate of development on the west end of town continues. Constructing the final one-third (1/3) of the interceptor sewer from Sixth Street to the Elm Street lift station and abandoning the Elm Street lift station would result in a transfer of 19,000 gallons per day or approximately 5% of the flow down Front Street. The replacement and rerouting of the Chestnut Street/River Street lift station would result in the largest transfer of load. This part of the project would transfer approximately 30% of the flow in the Front Street sower to the interceptor sewer. The total load removed by the entire project would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 50%. As far as the coat of the project goes, OSM has indicated the total project to coat in the neighborhood of $1.6 million. I have enclosed a copy of a rough estimate for your review. A more refined cost tabulation may be forthcoming on Friday from OSM. If so, it will be enclosed with the agenda supplement. If the coot information does not arrive in time, it will be presented at Monday evening's mooting. As you may recall, at the last meeting we rather quickly presented information regarding the required Environmental Assessment Workshoot for the proposed interceptor sower project. The City Council voted to have OSM prepare the EAW at a coat of $1,750.00. The EAW is expected to be ready for publication February 3, and would require a 30 -day publication period to March 5 to meet the requirements of the rules. If no negative responses aro received during the publication period, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency can issue a negative dioclosuro not requiring a public hearing, and we could receive tho Minnesota Pollution Control Agancy'o permit between the 20th and 28th of March. In conjunctionwith the EAW, it is recommended that the City of Monticello advertise for bids on tho project, which acopa has boon determined Monday evening, to be returned on Friday, February 28. OSM would than tabulate the bids and make recommendations for award at the March 10 mooting. The award could be made contingent upon the receipt of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency permit. The specifications Council Agenda - 1/27/66 will allow a period of 45 days in which the City will be allowed to make the award. This would bring us past the second meeting in April if need be. The acquisition of the easements for the interceptor sewer .is going quite well. At the present time, we see no delays which would cause us to not have the easements by the time of award of the project. We expect the total cost of easements to be between $40,000 and $50,000 for the entire project. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: There appear to be several different combinations which could yield any number of alternatives depending upon the amount and type of appurtenant work selected. I will, however, present the basic three alternatives in connection with the interceptor sewer project. 1. The first alternative would be to construct the interceptor sewer only to Sixth Street to relieve the immediate problem, and then plan in the next two years to do additional work on the interceptor sewer. 2. Alternative number two would be to complete the interceptor sewer to the Elm Street lift station, thereby abandoning that lift station. 3. Alternative number three would be to complete the interceptor sower to Elm Street, thereby abandoning the Elm Street lift station, and further to replace and rorouto the Chestnut Street/River Street lift station, thereby reducing the total load to the Front Street sower by approximately 50%. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of the Public works Director that as a bare minimum Alternative 01 be eolocted and that tho Council advertise for that portion of work. It is furthor recommended that the Council strongly consider completing the remainder of the interceptor sower from Sixth Street to Elm Street duo to the coot savings of constructing this portion of the interceptor sewer with the remaining portion as outlined in Alternative q2. The remaining work, that of the replacement and rerouting of the Chestnut Stroot/Rivar Street lift station, I coo as an alternate which could bo put off for a period of two or more years with class monitoring of the load on tho Front Street oawar. If the City Council so doniroo and funds are readily available, thin work could be performed this year as wall. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of tho cost estimates from OSM; Copy of the plana for the interceptor sower; Resolutions for adoption. Specifications are available at City Nall for review. -6- _ �:�j� ,..�� "" is ! �;Cr:.�� C•:�� �O �. XY�TF cF�iv2 `�Ltilr�.iP�=1t?C�1©�-3 S i) fLuNV- 790 0 w, ;5�, pPviNta 9G/ 7a 0 fir. 7'l� �`�. U.� F --',"f:{'` Nit: t � � �' p � p •-, .� "%G%%F�l� !C%ZG1.� r,T 40,x,! `x' 9 ,cs /,3 c� '•'7 J 1 ?o -roe- A;V— ep 2 / bl / 0o Jli}T�+=MK,N /c D c7 To7'�•(r,, r=k��7.�:'7" nGMT � y � ai O J 70 Tn(- /SCO \•SGT C'�:y _ �1 I ,moo v FcarcF_ n1%� r G .CrF; fTR noti D m RESOLUTION 86 - RESOLUTION CALLING HEARING ON A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution of the City Council adopted the 27th day of January, 1986, pians and specifications for the construction of a sanitary sewer interceptor extending from Elm Street to Washington Street were given Council approval, and WHEREAS, said plans and specifications included appurtenant work which is determined to be assessable to abutting property owners receiving benefit. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO. MN: 1. The Council will consider the making of such appurtenant improvements In accordance with the plans and specifications and tho assessment of abutting property for all or a portion of the coat of the appurtenant improvements pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, at an estimated total cost of the appurtenant improvemonts of S 2. A public hearing shall be hold on ouch proposed appurtonant improvements on the 10th day of February, 1986, in the Council Ch ambers of the City Hall at 8:00 p.m., and the City Administrator shall give mailed and published notice of Duch hearing and improvement as required by law. Adoptod by tho Council this 27th day of January, 1986. Arvo A. Grimnmo, Mayor Thomas A. Eidom City Administrator RESOLUTION 86 - RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, ORDERING THE IMPROVEMENT, AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS WHEREAS, pursuant to a motion duly adopted by the City Council on the 15th day of October, 1985, Orr-Schelen-Mayeron 6 Associates, Consulting Engineer, has prepared plans and specifications for the construction of a sanitary sewer interceptor line from Elm Street to Washington Street and has presented such plans and specifications to the Council for approval; NCW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MN: 1. Such plana and specifications, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, are hereby approved. 2. That part of the project extending from Street to Washington Street is hereby ordered. The City Administrator shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin an Advertisement for Bids upon the making of ouch improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published for days, shall specify the work to be done, shall state that bids will be opened and considered by the City Administrator and Consulting Engineer at a.m.(p.m.) on , 1986, in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, will then be tabulated and will be considered by the City Council at 7:30 p.m. on , 1986, in the Council Chambers, and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the Administrator and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's chock, bid bond, or certified chock payable to the City for 5% of the amount of such bid. Adopted this 27th day of January, 1986. Arva A. Grimamo, Mayor Thomas A. Eidam City Administrator 0 Council Agenda — 1/27/86 7. Consideration of Authorizing Repair/Replacement of Library Furnace/ Air Conditioning. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Last summer the City Council authorized staff to install a bypass duct type gas furnace in the storage room at the Library. This gas furnace was to take the place of the largest of three rooftop combination air conditioner/heat pump units. This largest unit had given us a considerable amount of problems over the past feu winters. The Council authorized an expenditure not to exceed $4,000.00 for the installation of this furnace. In August of 1985, we took proposals from McDowell Heating 6 Air Conditioning in St. Cloud and Bruce Wachter of Griefnow Shoetmetal in Monticello. Mr. Wachter's was the lowest proposal for the furnace at a cost of $2,130.00. The City staff accepted Mr. Wachter -a proposal in August and authorizod the installation of same. The City staff was unable to got Mr. Wachter to fulfill his proposal. It is our understanding that at one point the furnace which was to be installed at the Library was sold to another customer. If you may recall, at an earlier meeting in November, I asked the Council for soma assistance in getting Mr. Wachter to fulfill his end of our agreement. In mid-December during a cold spell, the compressors for the large unit failed, thus leaving us without heating capabilities or air conditioning capabilities on this unit. By switching over to amorgoncy heat strip heaters, we were able to maintain coma heat in tho Library. A final attempt was mado to got Mr. Hruco wachter to fulfill hie and of our agreement. We gavo up the ghost, so to speak, and informed Mr. Wachter by letter on December 20 that we would contract with someone also to provide the furnace. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative would be to go to our second bidder on the duct typo furnace at a coat of $3,598.00 and havo this firm repair the air conditioning portion of tho largo heat pump unit at a coat of $2,000.00, thereby having a total exponditura of 55,598 .00. 2. Tho socond altornativa would be to roplaco the largo rooftop combination hoot pump/air conditienor with a now combination goo furnaco/air conditioner at a coot of approximately $9,000.00. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Doth of the abovo altarnativoo havo roma marito. Alternative 01 to approximately $3,400.00 cheaper. Howover, it has two main drawbacks. .7— Council Agenda - 1/27/86 One, we still have to utilize portions of the old air conditioner/ heat pump system which has given us numerable problems; and two, the furnace in the storago room would take up valuable storage space. Tho second alternative of replacing the entire rooftop unit has some merit in that it will be a completely new unit and much more dependable than the old heat pump system. It will be located on the roof, and thus the valuable storage space will be available for that purpose. It has drawbacks in that it is $3,400.00 more expensive than the repairs, and the gas furnace being on the roof will make maintenance slightly more difficult. It is the opinion of the Public Works Director and the Building Inspector that we opt for the second alternative. In our eyes, this should take care of the problem with the larger unit. The Library staff, as well as Gary and myself, would like to gat this problem takon care of for the time being. At some point in time, problems may again arise with the other two air to air heat pumps on the roof. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Bid information; Report from Bal Tech, Inc. J J -8- 7 -ton unit heater + ----- S 4,828.00 + economizer unit S 688.00 S 5,516.00 4. 5 -ton unit furnace + S 5,150.00 + S 3,500.00 + economizer unit $ 850.00 S 642.00 5 b, uuu. uu S 4,142.00 N.S. Services did not bid for fixing the existing 10 -ton unit furnace, but McDowall estimated $2,000.00 to repair the existing 10 -ton unit furnace. If two units are installed at the same time, we can deduct S300.00; and if all three units are done at the same time, we can deduct 5600.00. Both bids include no wiring. McDowell In bid also includes 2 inches of insulation on the inside of the duct work. Their bid proposals will hopefully be submitted by the time of the Council meeting to be distributed at that ties. McDowall CocDany N.S. Services 1. Duct type heater S 3,598.00 S 9,200.00 2. •10 -ton unit furnace + S 9,300.00 + $ 7,978.00 + economizer unit S 850.00 S 982.00 $10,150.00 S 8,960.00 3. 75 -ton unit heater + S 6,985.00 + ----- economizer unit S 850.00 S 7,835.00 7 -ton unit heater + ----- S 4,828.00 + economizer unit S 688.00 S 5,516.00 4. 5 -ton unit furnace + S 5,150.00 + S 3,500.00 + economizer unit $ 850.00 S 642.00 5 b, uuu. uu S 4,142.00 N.S. Services did not bid for fixing the existing 10 -ton unit furnace, but McDowall estimated $2,000.00 to repair the existing 10 -ton unit furnace. If two units are installed at the same time, we can deduct S300.00; and if all three units are done at the same time, we can deduct 5600.00. Both bids include no wiring. McDowell In bid also includes 2 inches of insulation on the inside of the duct work. Their bid proposals will hopefully be submitted by the time of the Council meeting to be distributed at that ties. PROJECT 91352 1. SCOPE DAL TECH, INC. 3 1.1. HEAT PUMPS- TEST THE AIR CAPACITY FOR THE THREE HEAT PUMPS TO DETERMINE IF THEY ARE OPERATING AT THE ORIGINAL DESIGN. 1.2. RECOMMENDATION - MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WOULD HELP REDUCE THE ENERGY COST TO OPERATE THE SYSTEM. 2. PERFORMA14CE DATA 2.1. HEAT PUMPS.- PERFORMANCE TEST INDICATES THE AIR CAPACITY IS CLOSE TO THE ORIGINAL DESIGN. S U M M A R Y SYSTEM DESIGN CFM ACTUAL CFM HEAT PUMP 01 3540 2961 HEAT PUMP N2 4400 4465 HEAT PUMP #3 2030 1850 2.2. RETURN AIR - THE QUESTION WAS ASK IF THE FANS HAVE ADEQUATE RETURN AIR. a. THE CEILING SPACE IS USED AS A RETURN AIR CHAMBER FOR HEAT PUMP 01 6 02; AIR ENTERS THE CEILING SPACE THRU SLOTS PROVIDED IN THE LIGHT FIXTURES, PLUS ONE -24x24 -EGG CRATE -OPENING NEAR THE BACK DOOR. I SEE NO PROBLEM WITH THIS COMMONLY USED INSTALLATION. 2.3. VENTILATED AIR - VENTILATED AIR WAS CHECKED BASED ON AIR TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS: SYSTEM CFM RA TEMPERATURE DA TEMPERATURE OA TEMPERATURE HEAT PUMP N1 266 72.6 68.8 33 HEAT PUMP N2 358 72.6 69.3 33 HEAT PUMP N3 2S 72.3 71.8 33 TOTAL VENTILATED AIR 649 NOTE A. THE'VENTILATED AIR FROM HEAT PUMP 01 S 92 COMES FROM LEAKY CABINET DOORS ON THE ROOF -TOP UNIT. NOTE B. HEAT PUMP 03 HAS AN OUTSIDE AIR INTAKE (DAMPER I9 CLOSED). T t BAS TECH, INC. i PROJECT 41352 3. REMARKS 4 3.1. HEAT PUMP #1 SUPPLY DUCT IS BROKEN WHERE DUCT ENTERS BUILDING. 3.2. HEAT PUMP k2 i THE BELT IS LOOSE AND CRACKED, CAUSING LOWER THEN DESIGN CFM (THIS BELT NEEDS REPLACING). i 3.3. HEAT PUMP #3 i IT WAS NOTED THAT THE FILTERS AND COIL HAVE A WHITE POWDER ON THEM, COULD BE CAUSING SOME RESTRICTION. 4. RECOMMENDATION AS THE TEMPERATURE DROPS THE EFFECIENCY OF AN AIR TO AIR HEAT PUMP SYSTEM ALSO DROPS. DURING VERY COLD WEATHER COST SAVINGS COULD BE UTILIZED BY RETROFITTING THE SYSTEM WITH A GAS FIRED DUCT HEATER. C Council Agenda - 1/27/86 8. Consideration of Amending the Fire Hall Construction Contract by Extending the Completion Date Four Days. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The bid proposal for Fire Hall construction stipulated that construction would reach substantial completion within 240 days of bid award. The specifications provided to the contractor stipulated that substantial completion would be 240 days from the day of the City's order to commence work. This disparity means that substantial completion was January 29 under the former statement, and February 14 under the latter statement. This matter needs to be clarified. Staff thinks that it is most appropriate that substantial completion date be started from the day of order to commence work, not from the ,day of bid award. Hence, the substantial completion deadline would be February 14. Due to soma modifications to the parking lot, which work took approximately four days, the contractor has asked that the substantial completion date be extended four days to account for that work. .This seems reasonable on our part. The committee has agreed to extend the completion date by four days. However, because of the two different dates, the motion to extend the completion data should read that it is extended from February 14, the original completion date, to February 18, the amended completion date. Because we have a construction contract, this action needs to be taken caro of by the City Council, and essentially you are amending the construction contract for completion data. without official action, it could be seen that the contractor is in violation. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Stipulate January 29 as the completion data, grant no extension. 2. Stipulate January 29 as completion data, grant four-day extension. 3. Stipulate February 14 ae completion data, grant four-day extension. 4. Stipulate February 14 ao completion data, do not grant four- day extension. The primary impact of extending the completion data or not extending it le that the contractor has to pay the full inopoction fees for TKDA. By extending the contract data for four days, the inspection foe will be covered under the initial bid amount from TKDA. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the original completion data be reconfirmed as February 14, and it is the recommendation of the Fire Hall Committee that the four-day extension be granted. Thera is no supporting data for this item. -9- Council Agenda - 1/27/06 9. Consideration of a Proposed Residential Subdivision in the Orderly Annexation Area - Applicant, Kiellberg, Inc. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At the last meeting, Mayor Grimsmo, the City's representative to the OAA Board , made reference to a proposed residential subdivision on the property that is known as the Berry Farm. This property lies vest of Highway 25, north of 106, east of the Dunes, and south of Kjellberg's Trailer Park. The subdivision proposes 54 one -acre lots. Rather than rehash the entire issue in the supplement. I am including my letter to the OAA Board which Covers all of the concerns. Also included is a segment of the OAA Board's agenda supplement prepared by Tom Salkowski, County Planning and Zoning Administrator. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Take no action - this would mean that the City has no formal position on the issue and that the OAA Board will have sole jurisdiction and decision making. 2. Pass a motion directing the OAA Board representative (Mayor Grimsmo) to oppose this residential subdivision on the grounds that it creates leap -frogging development and would cause undue difficulty to the City when the area is annexed. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: By virtue of the letter that 'I submitted earlier, We clear that staff racommonda that this residential subdivision be opposed. The reasons aro stated in the text of the letter. D. SUPPORTING DATA: My letter to the OAA Board; OAA Board agenda supplement; Copy of the proposed subdivision plat. J -10- City o/ Monticello OnIce of the Phone: (61 21 295-2711 City Aamnstrator Metro: (912) 333-5739 8'January, 1488 Monticello Orderly Annexation Board Monticello Township Hall' Monticello, MN 55362 Re: Petition of Kjellberg, Inc., to rezone from A-2 to A-1; Part of NEk lying Hest of TH 25, 22-121-25, Monticello Township. To the Members of the Board: Upon review of the information supplied by Mr. Salkowski, I request that the Board officially lay this.matter on the table until such time as the results of the City's annexation study have been received and thoroughly analyzed. My reasons are as follows: 1. The proposed development runs counter to the planning principles utilized in the OAA, to wit, that development ought to occur first in and/or adjacent to the City and expand outward to the outer boundaries of the OAA. 2. If we accept this proposal asrp ima facie evidence that urban dovolopmont will soon (3-7 years) be occurring in the OAA, than the County Zoning Ordinance will not be the most effective regulatory document. If this petition is granted, both the zoning and the subdivision design would cause undue hardship on both the City and tho land owners when orderly annexation actually occurs. it is my contention that if residential subdivisions are to be created in the OAA, city subdivision design standards are imperative to facilitate a smooth transition at the time of orderly annexation. 3. My next comment run* contrary to Mr. Salkowski'e statement on page 2. (tat two sentences following the word "comments" in second paragraph.) The City's Comprehensive pian and Zoning Ordinance both stipulate that a rezoning request should be accompanied by a detailed 'r 250 East Broadway * Monticello, MN 55362.9245 V Monticello orderly Annexation Board B January, 1986 Page 2 development proposal so that the impact of the rezoning and resulting development can be properly evaluated relative to the effects on surrounding property. As noted, the plat is merely a sketch plan at this stage, and its impact on, the surrounding area cannot adequately be gauged. 4. While this is somewhat repetitive, approval of this petition may generate land use conflict at the time of orderly annexation. Within the corporate limits, development along TH 25 south is primarily commercial. If this trend continues, commercial growth would run into 3 residential area creating a conflict. Perhaps commercial development will not extend this far south, but such a determination cannot be made until orderly annexation occurs and urban planning principles can be instituted. (This position contrasts with Mr. Salkowski's statement on the top of page 3.) 5. My final comment is a statement of general agreement with Mr. Salkowski's stated concerns with respect to compliance with the Land Use Plan. While Mr. Salkowaki and I may have differing rationale, we do arrive at essentially the name conclusion. Based upon the above reasons. I hereby request the OAA to either table or deny the petition. Please be advised that this statement has boon prepared by the staff of the City of Monticello, utilizing basic planning principles and acting in, what I believe to be, the beat intaroat bf the City. The City Council, having not mat in January, has not taken a formal position on this request. Yo truly yours, Thomas A. Bi am City Administrator TAE/kd cc: OAA Pile IFA Moaticello Orderly Annexation Area Board sleeting o'E,Januar_y 8, 1986 Agenda 8 Staff Report - Page .2 eport•Page.2 III. Pub,lia Hearing - Bjell'ber,g,,;Inc. 'Locati;on: NE; of'Section 22, -Township 121,, Range 25, lying 'west of State.'Highway'25 (ezisting,sice of berry Earm), Request .- To .rezone approximately, 70 acres f-rom;,A-2'- General. Agri - ,culture 'to :R-1 Urban/.Rural •Transition.;and 'a' Conditional Use Permit for, a 53' lot, platted, residential, subdivision. 'Comments- - Only therezoning shduld'be addressed at: this hearing, as 'the plat design 'is a (s{cecch at chis" point: Only if: the ;rezoning: is, approved should the- de'tai'ls of de.s;i.gn and layout! be, addressed. The rezoning raises;several..major issues, especially in light of•the recent discussions 'between 'the.City and Town'shi,Q coneerni'ng'annex- ation and development, trends in tha order,_ly annexation area. If" the City and/or the Township have not had an opportunity to thoroughly review this request, the 9oard.should continue the,item to,provide them time. to, 'do so. In' reviewing -a request for rezoning, the MA A.A. Boacd.•slts ,both as aPlanning Commission and as the final tgoverning body for land' use, matters; in the N.O.A.A. As: such. tie decision is a.legislative de- cision,.over which the Board has a wide latitude 'of discretion. It is incumbent upon •the, Board. however, to rely. upon its adopted Land Use Guide Plan for' guidance in these decisions., ,Figure 12, "Anticipated Future Land. Use in, the Guide Plan, desig- nates this parcel, and all outlying areas' of, the M.O.A.A., as "Sing,le •Family". The -Figure also shows a Proposed Community Perk" located on the. parcel' currently, :pro.poaed for,rezontn3. 'Pa'ge.21 of the guide plan, discusses the park proposal. 'Section VI Zoning, ob page. 31 of the Guide Plan addresses: the revVew of :zoning proposals. The, last ;sentence states: that., , "The long-range agricultural zoning classification should' be maintained until it ,can be, shown the axes is 'suitable for urbani:ation in ,accord -with the policy stat'eMents..:" Figures 13, and 1= shop: tie property, in question designated as "long-range," for utility extensions and agriculture. The pol"icy statements referred, to are found on pages 12 through 18 in the Guide -Plan. These are too lengthy. to repeat In detail heroin, but. ',in general, they urge development to occur adjacent to the City, especially where services are available. Scattered developemnt, and dev0lopmentaway from. the 'City. le discouraged until areas near the City are ".filled 'in,.". Nh'lle the 'thrust of. the Land Use Guide P.lan..woutd argue against this. current proposal,, there ,are also some arguments in its favor... •A1t1%01J3h D. Monticello Orderly Annexation Area Board Meeting of January 8, 1986 Agenda 8 Staff Report Page 3 located on the edge of the N.O.A.A., the parcel is adjacent to residential development lying to the vest and north_ At some future date, this parcel will be suited to residential use; much of the discussion may boil down to whether or not this is the proper time for it. ACTIW : As mentioned above, staff believe input from both the City and Township is vital on a project of this magnitude. If it is not received by the meeting time, continuation is probably in order. It is difficult to make any further recommendation at this early stage. 0 KJELLSERG MOBILE HOME PARK ---r---t--_ I I I 6 I 7 i 6 .1 2 31 .4..r S - 6 7 8 9 I i e. • .. .. u u...• .. m . m ....w ..r1 I I I I N.E. 88 to ST 3 I 2 37 38 I ---- vi 3 36 5 ¢ -------- ----' 4 ..:. — e--- - _. 32 .33 . 8 I Y.E. 87th I ST. 8 I ----• I 1 I 2 ...3.I.v ...30w 3 j to W 3\26 z !1 25 `e 12 -------- /.24 ,7 fJ — oourvry—; — Rwo ' 39 43 1.—n�1 — .4..ze. I.— Council Agenda - 1/27/86 10. Consideration of Authorizing a Contract/Agreement with Monticello Township for Fire Protection Services. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At the last Council meeting, the Council adopted a statement of understanding which provided for temporary extension of fire protection services for Monticello Township for a period of 90 days while a new contract was being proposed which would replace the previous Joint Fire Service Agreement that expired on December 31, 1985. The initial 10 -year Joint Fire Protection Agreement, from our understanding, was set up after the annexation proceedings were completed between the City and the Township, but was not a part of the annexation agreement as such. The previous Joint Agreement called basically for sharing the cost of fire protection based strictly on Monticello Township's assessed valuation as a percent of the total valuation of the City and Township. As a result of this previous agreement, Monticello Township has paid on an average approximately 18% of the total Fire Department operating budget during the past 10 years. Exhibit 1 enclosed with the agenda shows the total operating costs of the Fire Department over the last 10 years and the percentage and resulting dollar amount paid by Monticello Township for each of the years the contract was in force. As you can sea by the summary, Monticello Township has averaged approximately $5,700.00 per year for fire protection, with the City's share being approximately $27,500.00 par year. In reviewing the numbor of fire calla and the hours spent by the firemen converted to a percentage. Monticello Township's share of the total fico canhours was 67.28 compared to 37.2 for the City. As you can ace, more hours are spent in the Township fighting fires than in the City, but the coot paid by the Township over the pact 10 years is nowhera near this percentage breakdown. In evaluating the previous Joint Fire Agreement with Monticello Township, it is the etaff's opinion that adminiatrativo wino and coat vine, it is rocommandod that future fire protection for Monticello Township be on a contract basic similar to what the Fire Department has with silver Crock Township and formorly had with Otsogo Township rather than on a Joint Piro Agreement basis. Fire Dopartment President, Doug Pitt, and Fire Chief, Willard Farnick, have racommandod that any now fire protection agreement with Monticello Township provide for a batter coat sharing method more equal to the manhoura spent fighting firoc in each district. Recently, the City renegotiated the original annexation agreement with the Township because of changes in the local government aid formula by the state which roaulted in the City of Monticello contributing approximately $72,000.00 to the Township for the yearn 1984 and 1985 and annual payments of approximately 827,000.00 per year for a period of 10 years. The question now becomes vhothor the City should continua to tax its residents to support tho Township for additional services we provide for fire protection, or vhothor a more fair oharo formula should bo established whereby the Township pays a realistic coat IM Council Agenda - 1/27/86 for the fire protection services. The Joint Fire Board has had for a number of years a contract to service Silver Creek Township and, up to last year, Otsego Township. The fire contracts with these townships were based an a cost allocation using the department's fixed cost for a year along with a charge for amoritizing equipment over a set number of years. This total fixed cost was allocated to the townships based on their share of the manhours spent fighting fires in their townshipand anadditional hourly fee for each call was calculated. As an example, using the cost allocation formula, Silver Creek Township is currently paying $7,250.00 per year for fire protection services from the City. In using this same formula, which the Monticello Township Board felt was fair when contracts were entered into with Otsego and Silver Creek Townships, Monticello Township's share of the fixed cost for operating the Fire Department would be $22,607.00 per year. In addition to the fixed coot, an hourly fee for Salaries, gas, and equipment repairs of approximately $185.00 per fire call would be added to the fixed coat. Since Monticello Township has averaged approximately 26 fire calls over the last 10 years, an additional 54,800.00 would be added to the fixed cost total of 522,407.00, making an annual contract fee of approximately $27,200.00 per year. As you can Sao, this is ,quite an increase over what they have been paying on an average year during the past 10 years, but is on an equal basis with the formula used for contracts with Silver Crack Township. A different formula that has been racommanded by the University of Minnesota as a method of sharing fire costs with contracting townships has been widely accepted throughout Minnesota which based the coot of a contract on not only the percentage of fire rune made to the area being served, but also takes into consideration the accessed valuations of the districts. By using the assessed valuations as a part of the criteria for a contract along with the actual use of the department by each party, the coat allocation to the Township takes into consideration their ability to pay. This fair share formula would be a little closer to the method used under the previous Joint Fire Contract in that Monticello Township would be paying for fire protactiori using their percent valuation compared to the City's larger valuation. Some argumonte against thio formula using Seasoned valuations has a criteria canter on the fact that in sharing the coat of a fire department, valuations of a community should have no boaring on the number of fires or the number of manhouro spent fighting those fires. As I indicated previously, valuations aro not taken into consideration on our currant contracts with Silver Crack Township, but in using this University of Minnesota fair Share formula as part of the now contract with Monticello Township would give the Township the benefit of some of the same criteria used under the former Joint Fire Agreement. -12- Council Agenda - 1/27/86 In using the fair share formula, the operating costs along with depreciat ion of equipment items, would result in the total coat to be allocated for 1986 amounting to $57,145.00. The equipment and vehicles being depreciated take into account the items previously paid for by Monticello Township as part of the old contract and are not included in the capital items being depreciated for this contract. The total operating cost of $57,145.00 is then multiplied by Monticello Township's average percentage of manhour cost and assessed valuation, which would be 29.2%. Using this formula, Monticello Township •-s annual fire contract proposal would amount to S 16,686.00 for the year 1986. As you can ace, this is quite a reduction from the old formula used of $27,200.00 but is still greater than the Township'a average of $5,700.00 over the past 10 years. It is the staff's opinion, along with the Fire Department repro santativas, that either of the cost allocation formulae would be acceptable and provide a sound rationale for providing fire protection services. In both cases, Monticello Township would be paying a more realistic fair share of the total Piro protection cost. One of the main problems with the old Joint Fire Agreement is that Part of Monticello Township's previous annual payments for fire protaction service result in an equity ownership in part of our equipment per the previous agreement. As a result, not only has the Township averaged only $5,700.00 per year for fire pro taction, over hal:E of this annual payment has resulted in their ownership of part of the City's equipment. According to the provioua agreement, Monticol to Township could be responsible for 14% of the new Fire Hall bui iding, which alone would amount to over 390,000.00. Evan if the Township was agreeable to paying for a percentage of the now Fire Hall, I don't believe the City should be involved with the Township owning an equity portion of the City's equipment and buildings, as it provides an administrative headache. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Prior to initiating discussions with the Monticello Township Board on a contract renewal, the City Council should establish what typo of contract they would like to present to the Township. 1. The first alternative would be to enter into a contract similar to what the Piro Department now has with Silver Crack. Using the Piro Department costo for 1986 and basing the Township's share of this coat on percentage of time spent fighting their fire a, the contract proposal would be approximately 327,2CO.00 annually. An mentioned previously, the Township Board had approved thin typo of allocation when tho City entered into contracts with silver Crack and Otsego Townships. -13- Council Agenda - 1/27/86 2. Another alternative would be to use the U of M fair share formula which is becoming more widely accepted, which takes into account the Township's ability to pay based on valuation along with the percent of manhoure spent fighting their fires.. Using this formula, the proposed contract for services would total approximately $16,700.00 for 1986. 3. The third alternative would be to renew the previous Joint Fire Agreement. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is staff's recommendation that fire protection services be continued for Monticello Township, but on a contract basis rather than through a Joint Fire Agreement as in the past. A contract would eliminate the administrative problems and should provide for a more realistic fair share coat allocation for services provided. Either alternative #1 or N2 above is acceptable, and both formulae have merit. It is the staff and Fire Department -a opinion that regardless of which alternative is selected for presentation to the Township Board, a more realistic fair share of the Fire Department's coat should be paid by the Township to reflect the benefits they receive. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Summary of Township's coat under the old contract for the past 10 years; Coat allocation for now contract based on formula used for other townships; Cost allocation under U of M fair share proposal. EXHIBIT 1 SUMMARY OF MONTICELLO TOWNSHIP'S FIRE PROTECTION COST 1976-1985 -Total expenses <leoa> revonuo from firocalla and other contracto. Township Portion of Capital Outlay Cost S 3 1,548 644 7,316 704 1,896 13,077 1,150 786 2,223 $29,349 0 Capital Outlay Total Total Portion Monticello Township Net Cost of Cost Township % Cost Year Allocated- Allocated Based on Valuation Billed 1976 S 6,435 5 24 11.43% S 735 1977 25,652 11,584 13.365% 3,428 1976 20,310 4,450 14.46% 2,937 1979 68,870 44,299 16.52 11,377 1980 24,223 3,879 18.16 4,399 1961 24,678 9,531 19.89 4,909 1982 84,744 64,449 20.29 17,195 1963 20,665 6,412 17.95 3,709 1984 21,095 5,069 15.50 3,077 1985 38,881 15,654 14.20 5,521 5335,553 5165,352 $57,287 10 yre. 10 YR AVE. ANNUAL COST S 5,728 FOR MONTICELLO TOWNSHIP -Total expenses <leoa> revonuo from firocalla and other contracto. Township Portion of Capital Outlay Cost S 3 1,548 644 7,316 704 1,896 13,077 1,150 786 2,223 $29,349 0 COST ALLOCATION FORMULA CURRENTLY USED FOR SILVER CREEK CONTRACT Fixed Costs (1986 Budget) Telephone S 325.00 Utilities: 3,275.00 Salaries - Drills 1,800.00 Supplies 1,975.00 Training 1,800.00 Insurance 4,200.00 Building Repairs and Cleaning 700.00 Miscellaneous 450.00 SUBTOTAL $14,525.00 Depreciation Equipment - 10 years S 65,589 $ 6,559.00 Trucks - 20 years 98,175 4,908.00 Buildings - 25 years 537,057 21,482.00 TOTAL 1986 FIXED COSTS $ 47,474.00 % OF TOTAL MANHOUR COSTS - 10 YEAR AVERAGE City of Monticello 37.2% Monticello Township 47.2% Silver Crack Township 15.6% Allocation of Fixed Costa -Monticello Township (547,474 X 47.2%) - 5 22,407.00 Pluo: Hourly fee for salaries, gas, equipment repairs, etc. (1986 Budget - $12,950 _ Ave. 70 fires yr. $185 par fire Monticello Township hao averaged 26 calls par year pant 10 years Hourly fee $185 X 26 $ 4,810.00 TOTAL CONTRACT FEE S 27,217.00 BASED UNDER CURRENT METHOD N 1986 FIRE DEPARTMENT COSTS FOR FAIR SHARE FORMULA Operating Costs (1986 Budget) Without Capital Outlay items or Firemen's Retirement Relief Amoritization of Capital Items (A) Equipment & trucks purchased over last 10 yro.(per audit reports) Plus: Beginning equipment owned by City 1975 and prior Less: Portion of Capital items paid by Monticello Township per Fire Agreement past 10 years (B) Building Costa ( (without land) $27,475 $165,352 27,761 (29,349r $163,764 r 20 yr. • S 8,188 $537,057 _ 25 yr. • $21,482 TOTAL ANNUAL FIRE DEPT. COST TO BE ALLOCATED -1986 NOTE: Equipment & trucks amoritize d over 20 years Building amoritizod over 25 years 557,145 FAIR SHARE PROPOSAL 1985 Assessed valuations % of Total City of Monticello $100,568,378 84.6% STEP I Monticello Township 13,410,111 11.3% Silver Creek Township 4,908,592 q,1; TOTAL VALUATIONS $118,887,081 100.0% FIRE DEPARTMENT MANHOUR SALARY COST FOR PAST 10 YEARS BY LOCATION S % Of Total City -of Monticello $26.692 37.2% STEP II Monticello Township 33,918 47.2% Silver Creek Township 11,229 15.6% TOTALS $71,839 100.0% Monticello Silver Crack City Township Township Q % Of Assessed Valuations 84.6 11.3 4.1 STEP III % Of Manhour Coats 37.2 47.2 15.6 121.8 58.5 19.7 Average of Above %'a _ 2 : 2 } 2 Share of Total Costs 60.9% 29.2% 9.9% 1986 Fire Department Costa to be Shared $57,145 t STEP IV Monticello Township Percent X 29.2 Annual Monticello Township Fire Conte $16,686 Council Agenda - 1/27/86 11. Consideration of Alternatives for Traffic Signal Construction for the Highway 25 Improvement. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: As you may have heard or may have read, the Highway 25 project has been delayed from a February to an April letting. This in itself does not appear to cause significant problems, as we are still talking about a completion by fall. There is, however, a major problem with the federal funding of the traffic signals. The federal government has determined that there shall be no federal funding for Highway 25 until the bridge location is funded. The bridge siting has been delayed due to the inability to acquire the necessary soil borings for design. We currently expect the bridge to be sited and federal funding to become available sometime in July or August. The total cost of the signals for the throe intersections is expected to be $198,000.00. without federal funding, half of this cost would 'be borne by the City and County vs. a total coat of $19,000.00 for the City/County share, with federal funding. Thin federal funding problem brings about three posoiblo scenarios for the project. The first scenario is that the projoct be delayed until full federal funding in availablo. This could mean that the project could not be completed in 1986 and would have to be delayed until 1987. The second scenario is that the grading and blacktopping portion of the projoct be bid as scheduled and it include only the underground portion of the traffic signals. Thorn would bo no federal funding for this portion of tho work. Thin would increase the cost from $19,000.00 to $43,200.00. This cost would be split equally by the City and County, each paying $21,600.00. The third scenario in that tho City and County go ahead with the project in 1986 foregoing federal funding and pick up the cost difforonco. The coat would be so groat that this scenario is really not worth considering. Cao are basically looking at a cost increase of $12,100.00 for the City and $12,100.00 for the County to go with option number two. Wayne Fingalson, the Wright County highway Engineer, would not commit to this incroaso until he hos additional information as to the coot of the projoct. This coat catimato will be forthcoming. It is, howavor, astimatod that the City and County -a share may be lower than originally estimated in 1983 duo to some rocont changes in KN/DOT requiring them to pick up mora of the project. D. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Dolay the projoct until 1987. 2. Koop tho project on lino for 1886. The City and County pick up the additional $12,100.00 each for the installation of the .15- Council Agenda - 1/27/86 underground. The above ground traffic signals would be installed late this fall or early winter when federal funding is available. 3. Complete the project in 1986 with no federal funding, picking up half the cost of the $198,000.00. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It appears that Alternative R2 is the best possible way to go at this time. There is a slight drawback in that we will have a 4 -way atop at Highway 25 and Broadway for a longer.period of time than if we delayed the project until 1987. If it does become a problem, the State has indicated they would work with us in trying to retrofit the existing signal system at Highway 25 and Broadway to the new underground. The City could perform some of the base modifications with the State possibly doing some of the wiring. We hope it doesn't come to that, but that possibility does exist. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copies of funding alternatives. -16- C' ABOVE GROUND cost Federal state County city INT I1 5 48,000 S 43,200 5 2,400 S 1,200 5 1,200 INT 12 45,000 34,200 5,400 2,700 2,700 INT 13 45,000 34,200 5.400 2.700 2.700 5130,000 $111,600 $13,200 5 6,600 S 6,600 $198,000 $111,600 $43,200 $21,600 $21,600 INTERSECTION N1 Broadway/T.H. 25 - Federal 90% Local 101 INTERSECTION 12 Oakwood Dr./T.H. 25 - Fadnral 761. Local 24% INTERSECTION #3 7th Stroot/T.H. 25 - Fodar al 76% Local 24% Local moans everything not federal. Local breakdown is as follows: State - 501 of local cost County - 507 of Balance after fad. 6 state participar-lo City - Balance INTERSECTION I1 - State - 501 INTERSECTION 11 - state - 50% County - 25% County - 50% of balance City - 25% City - 501 0! balanC0 INTERSECTION 12 - State - 50% County - 50of balance O City - 501% 0! balance / D WITH FULL FEDERAL FUNDING Cost Federal State County City INT 01 S 68,000 5 61,200 5 3,400 $1,700 S 1,700 INT 12 65,000 49,400 7,800 3,900 3,900 INT /3 65,000 49,400 7,800 3,900 3,900 5198,000 - $160,000 $19,000 $9,500 S 9,500 WITH FEDERAL FUNDING FOR ABOVE GROUND ONLY UNDERGROUND Cast Federal State County City INT 11 5 20,000 ---- 510,000 S 5,000 S 5,000 INT /2 20,000 ---- 10,000 5,000 5,000 INT /3 20.000 ---- 10,000 5,000 51000 S 60,000 0 $30,000 $15,000 $15,000 ABOVE GROUND cost Federal state County city INT I1 5 48,000 S 43,200 5 2,400 S 1,200 5 1,200 INT 12 45,000 34,200 5,400 2,700 2,700 INT 13 45,000 34,200 5.400 2.700 2.700 5130,000 $111,600 $13,200 5 6,600 S 6,600 $198,000 $111,600 $43,200 $21,600 $21,600 INTERSECTION N1 Broadway/T.H. 25 - Federal 90% Local 101 INTERSECTION 12 Oakwood Dr./T.H. 25 - Fadnral 761. Local 24% INTERSECTION #3 7th Stroot/T.H. 25 - Fodar al 76% Local 24% Local moans everything not federal. Local breakdown is as follows: State - 501 of local cost County - 507 of Balance after fad. 6 state participar-lo City - Balance INTERSECTION I1 - State - 501 INTERSECTION 11 - state - 50% County - 25% County - 50% of balance City - 25% City - 501 0! balanC0 INTERSECTION 12 - State - 50% County - 50of balance O City - 501% 0! balance / D Council Agenda - 1/27/86 12. Consideration of an Increase in League of Minnesota Cities Dues to Help Fund the City Legal Exchange and Research (CLEAR) Service. (T. E. A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: A couple years ago, the League of Minnesota Cities started the legal service known as CLEAR to assist city attorneys throughout the state in their research. It is primarily a network situation where one city attorney can call the League to find another city attorney who has either been through the legal process on a particular issue or has acquired substantial knowledge on a particular municipal legal issue. In addition, the Leagues legal staff files amicus briefs in issues that are of genuine concern to cities. As indicated by their letter, their participation in such efforts is limited due to limited resources. The letter also clearly indicates that they aro asking for a dues increase, which is 5% of our annual League dues. What that means to the City of Monticello is an additional payment of $64.25. What that translates to for the City of Monticello is that if this service saves Gary Pringle one hour of research time, it has paid for itself. That is to say, if Pringle is referred to a city attorney in another community who he can then call and request full information on a particular issue, the time required to do in-depth research on that issue has been eliminated. We. of course, always pay for the research time Pringle puts in on any case. There is also the chance that the service would not be used in any given year, but that seems to be the full extent of the risk 0 for spending the $64.00. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Notify the League that we will accept the 58 increase in League duos to assist funding of CLEAR. 2. Notify the League that we do not wish to participate in the CLEAR program. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff rocommands that We accept the 5s duos increase for CLEAR sorvicoo. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the information provided by the League of Minnesota Cities. -17- F61 league of minnesota cities Survey Mailer DATE: January 14, 1986 TO: City Managers, Administrators, Clerks and Attorneys (for action by the City Council) FROM: Stan Peskar, General Counsel SUBJECT: Municipal Amicus Program The establishment of a Minnesota Court of Appeals has greatly increased the number of decisions from Minnesota courts that establish state vide precedent. The rapidity with which the intermediate court of appeals hears and decides cases, and the number of cases appealed, has made it impossible for the two to four friend of the court briefs which the League of Minnesota Cities is currently capable of filing each year to have any systematic influence on the development of judgemade law Impacting Minnesota cities. l Most cities regard the amicus work of the League to be useful and necessary. See the attached letter from Mounds View. The problem is the lack of staff resources to do anything but a hit and miss job of filing in all the cases that need our help. In the past six months the League has been asked to file briefs in the following cases. 1. Citv of Mounds View v. Johnson to court of appeals Issue: Ie the district court judge the real legislative decision maker? The district court ordered a rezoning of a parcel zoned residential to commercial since it was in contravention of a comprehensive plan based an property adjacent to the parcel. Property along one aide and across the street was zoned commercial and the council failed to down zone this neighboring property when the issue was considered. 2. City of Barnum v. Carlton Countv to court of appeals Issue: Does a city have power to site a necessary city facility at a state approved location if a county objects based on county zoning? The district court decision denied the City of Barnum a conditional use permit for the construction of a stabilisation pond system on a site that had PCA approval and for which grant funds had been allocated. -OVER- 183 university avenue cast, sc. Paul, minnesota 55101 (6121227.5600 �a 3. Citv of Duluth v. Howard F. Young to Supreme Court Issues: 1) Must public employers afford a veteran employee an opportunity for a veteran's preference hearing when the position is abolished, in other words, is a veteran always the last employee to be laid off? 2) Is a veteran's preference panel the proper body to review the good faith of the city in abolishing a position for economic reasons? 3) Is a knowing delay of 2 years in filing a request for a veteran's hearing a waiver of that right? The Court of Appeals decided that a veteran on a request made two years after the lay off must be afforded a veteran's preference hearing to determine the validity of abolishing a position and must be paid during the interim. 4. Oswalt v. Countv of Ramsev and Citv of New Brighton to Supreme Court Issue: Are cities estopped by equivocal statements of a city employee when another employee told the claimant he could request and possibly obtain relief by applications for a variance? A new Brighton resident purchased a house in the city in 1975. In 1978 the city passed a floodplain management ordinance placing the house in a floodway. The city allowed the house to stay as a non -conforming use. In 1980 the lot and p house began to collapse. Because of serious and continuing damage, the city condemned the house. The condemnatinn order required either the removal or the repair of the house in compliance with the flood plain ordinance. The resident alleged that the condemnation caused him to suffer symptoms of emotional stress. After foreclosure, he sued both New Brighton and Ramsey County under several theories including inverse condemnation. The Minnesota Court of Appeals found that the city's actions constituted a taking, even though the city building inspector's'auporvisor informed the owner that he could apply for a variance and the owner did not apply for one. The building inspector's order to make repairs to comply with the floodplain ordinance or to reduce the size the building was held to be an act of ending a non -conforming use. The city has an ordinance providing for termination of a non -conforming use without compensation at the end of its useful life. The court hold that the city did not use the established procedure to determine useful life for the house which resulted in a taking. 5. Itasca Countv v. Olson to Supremo Court Issue: Who are managerial or supervisory employees and for which kinds of personnel decisions does the open meeting statute override the Data Privacy Act. Itasca County began a job porformanca evaluation of the Hospital administrator at an open meeting of the hospital board. At the administrator'o request that the board close the meeting to the public because the discussion would involve information classified as private personnel data under the Data Practices Act. The county then sought a declaratory judgment to determine the partial' rights and responsibilities. The trial court ruled that the Data Practices Act creates an exception to the Open Heating Lav which is subject to -2- C tour[ review. The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed , assuming without investigation or analysis that any employee evaluation carried on by a local governing body is only for supervisory employees. It also decided that super- visory employees have no justifiable expectation of privacy in their evaluations. Nov cities do not know which employees are entitled to Data Privacy Act protections. Andrade v. Ellefson to Supreme Court Issue: Can a local government be liable in tort for issuing or renewing a license? The Court of Appeals overturned a trial court decision that granted a pre-trial dismissal to Anoka County from a suit that alleged that the county improperly renewed a day care license. Previous decisions seem to hold that a licensing authority acts to protect the public in general and no specific duty is owed to individuals. Because of the lack of time and personnel, the League could only do briefs to I and 3 above. To try to shape this vital area of development of, the lav, the League, in cooperation with the Minnesota Association of City Attorneys proposes expansion of the CLEAR staffing capabilities so the League could participate in 10 to 25 cases per year. The program would require the addition of a full or part-time attorney to the League staff. In addition to preparing briefs this person would track cases through the lover courts and arrange for selection of important cases for League participation. The city attorney's association proposed a governing panel of 10 acting pursuant to criteria established by the Teague Board. The suggested panel would consist of two League Board members, the four officers of the City Attorneys Association, the League General Counsel and three additional city attorneys selected by the seven designated panel members. With the assistance of staff, tho panel would: 1. Systematically review Minnesota cases which will or may be appealed and which will likely shape the lav affecting all or a substantial number of Minnesota cities. 2. Select from the cases reviewed, those which are deemed most worthy of MAP intervention and encourage and assist appeals in those cases. 3. The briefs would be prepared by CLEAR staff or in some cases by member city attorneys or their staff with assistance from CLEAR staff. -OVER- 9 Support of these activities would require $3n,00n to $50,000 annually, l� depending an the number of cases taken and the responsibility assumed by MAP upon the appeal. C: Would your city agree to an additional payment of 102 of your regular League dues. 52 if the city attorney is already a member of CLEAR, with the proceeds dedicated to this new city legal defense activity?* Yes, our city would participate No, our city would not participate Date: City of person communicating the council decision • before the council deliberates on and answers this Question, you may want to ask your city attorney his or her opinion. A copy of the League dues schedule is attached. We need a response to this inquiry by February 28, 1986 so that budgeting plans can be completed. Return to: Stan Packer. General Counsel, League of Minnasotn Cities, 183 University Avenue East, St. Paul, MN 55101 SCP:ctd 0) ............... Population: (1980 federal census) LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES Organized 1913 183 University Avenue East Saint Paul, Minnesota 55 101 Dues Schedule Effective during 1985-86 CITIES WITH POPULATION OF: 249 or less ................................................S 164 250-4,999 ............................... $56 plus 43,43c per capita 5,000.9,999 ............................. $454 plus 35.48c per capita 10,000-19,999 ............... ........... $980 plus 30.32c per capita 20,000119,999 ......................... $3,353 plus 18.35c per capita 50,000-299,999 ......................... $9,927 Plus 5.20c per capita 300,000 and over ...................... 116,732 plus 2.93c per capita (This schedule adopted June 13, 1985. Total rounded to nearest dollar.) For membership dues in the League of Minnesota Cities for year Beginning September 1, 1995 Annual dues for membership in the League of Minnesota Cities (this Includes subscriptions at $15 each to MINNESOTA CITIES) Payment from Public Funds Authorited by Minn. SUIL, See, 46S.58 Ideclare under the penalties of law that the foregoing account is Just and correct and that no part of it his been paid. Dated: julyj, 198S Executive Director, Lague of Minnesota Cities ovE-R- I C►f y GATEWAY TO THE NORTH December 5, 1985 Mrs. Susan Edel, President League of Minnesota Cities 183 University Avenue East St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Dear Mrs. Edel: Of VORA VQ RAMSEY COUNTY. MINNESOTA 2401 HIGHWAY 10 MOUNDS VIEW. MINN. 33112 78A 3055 The City of Mounds View recently received the results of our appeal of the decision of a Ramsey County District Court in the case of the City of Mounds View versus Gregory A. Johnson, dba Highway 10 Radiator. As you may recall, the Board of the League of Minnesota Cities directed your legal counsel to prepare an Amicus Curiae Brief on this case due to your recognition of the fact that should the initial decision stand, the integrity of comprehensive land use plans and the ability of cities to reasonably determine their land use and zoning, would be jeopardized. We happily learned that the Court of Appeals has agreed with the position of the City of Mounds View and the League of Minnesota Cities and reversed the District Court's decision. This decision again places zoning and conditional use issues back into the hands of the local policy making bodies by reversing the District Court's order forcing the City of Mounds View to rezono.and issue a Conditional Use Permit on the aforeme ntionod property. On behalf of the City of Mounds View and the Mounds View City Council, I wish to offer our heartfelt thanks to the League of Minnesota Cities for your assistance in successfully appealing this case. It is comforting to know that at a time when more than moral support is needed, your organization can be depended upon to support an individual member when it will also benefit the interests of all member cities. Sincerely, CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW �Linke Mayor J L/m j s /a no„o FOR BOARD USE ONLY 'r 16 Charitable Gambling Control 8d Rm N-475 Griggs -Midway Bldg 1821 University Avenue 1 St. Paul, MN 55104-3383 GAMBLING LICENSE APPLICATION (Gass A, B. ur C) INSTRUCTIONSi 1. PRINT OR TYPE. 2. Bring completed application to local governing buoy, obtain signature ano date un all copies, and leave goldenrod copy. Applicant keeps pink copy and sends remaining cubist to above address. 1. Chances to aoolication information must be submitted wtthh,in 10 days after tee cha— type of Application; ❑ Class A - Fee S100.00 (Bingo, Raffles, Poddlewheels, lipboards, Pull -labs) U Claes B - Fee S 50.00 (Raffles, Paddlewheels, lipboards, Pull-Tabo) ❑ Class C - Fee S 50.00 (Bingo only) e4,6e eherus navanle tn: Minneoote Ctmritable Cambli,no Control Board. Applicant (official, legal name of organization) MONTICELLO YOUTH HOCiMY PRCGRAM, INC. Business Address P.O. BOX 584 City. State, Zip 55362 Monticello, t-2( County Wright Business telephone Nusoer+lederal I.D. Number 612 )295-3140 I41-1497-027 ( me of organization ❑ Fraternal ❑ veterans ❑ Religious )' Otner Ntnprofit Organisation Typo of Organization Charter ❑ International ❑ National 13 state Nurser of Ieare in Number or Articles of C.ietence (in Minnesota I lncorporat ion (if incorporated) 10 unknown Location winere Articles ate Filed Monticollo, M toe No 1. Does Organisation have aloues structure? XX mazer of active xwmbers XX Z. Mae organization been previously licensed by the Roars? IF vat. give nate I. had license ever been denied, suspended XX or revoked? if yes check all that applyt ❑Denied ❑:e.speneed ❑pevn4ed 4. Is organization exempt from payment of XX U.S. income tot? If yea. attach copy of letter declaring exemption, 5. In organization tn. exempt from peyauant (XX or Minnesota to.? If yea, Attach Copy of letter declaring a.emptirxn. ISite Address 133 Sandberg Road �city, state, Zip Monticello, Mn. 55362 County tlriCht Yes No 1. Are all gambling activities Conducted at the above site? If no, complete a sepa- XX rate application form for each este ae a separate license in issued for each Bite. XX 2. Is site located witninczty/town limits? 5.0 an organization own the site where gambling activity will be Conducted? If XX no, attoen copy of the lease for the Bite. ILesuo Name lit lease or rent) Poworn Strongbh k Health, Inc. Address 133 Sandberg Ra . City, State, Zip F.oaticello, MN- 55362 t.amoiing Manager Name Susan Wiens. Address 1001 West Broadway City, State, Zip Monticollo, 1.2; 55362 the SID.000 fidelity band required by Minneaate Statutes 349.09 has been bbtatnso, Company Name Bond Number ani. i- Aeo✓lbt I An di' Coo. 1. ,jcc> Name of 0rgontsation-e (Iftiicero and Titles Jo J. Havel, President id. c. PAry Nystrom. Secretary Leroy Robideau. Vico•Prooldent Susan Wiens. Treasurer cru-nnnnl-n) mm) Cont, I"o'l nn P.•,. ?9 -2 - Minnesota Charitable Gambling Control Board GAMBLING LICENSE, APPLICATION (Class A. B. or C) GAMBLING SIZE AUTHORIZATION By my signature bolo■, local law enforcement officers or agent* of the Board are hereby *inherited to anter upon the este, at any time gembling /a being conducted, to observe. the gambling and to enforce the Los for any unauthorixed game or practice. BANK RECORDS AUTHORIZATION By my signature bolo•, the Board IS hereby outhOrited to inspect the bink record* of the canard Gambling Bonk Account shenever necessary to fulfill requirements Of current gaablinq rules and low. OAT" 1 hereby declare that 1. 1 hove read this application end all information submitted to the Boefdl Z. All information submitted to true, accurate, and complete( )'. ell other required information has boon fully disclosedt O. 1 am the Chief executive officer Of the orgeniastioni S. 1 assume full responsibility for the fair and lawful opar*tion of •11 activities to be conductedl 6. 1 will tomilLarire myself with the lass of the State of Ninnseote respecting gambling end rules of the Board and agree, If licensed, to sold* by those lass and rule•• including amendments theret*. Official, Legal Name of Organitation MOt(TICLLW YOUTH HOCKEY GROGRAM. INC. si rr Aft4t dot CAlof Cucutivo Officer) ~ Title/ 1 PRM IT ostl/22/86 ACKNOWILEOCINENi Or NOTICE BY LOCAL COYERNINC BODY I hereby ocknoeledge r*Csipt Of O Copy Of this application. By *eknOwlodging receipt. I *dolt having boon served with notice that this application will be reviewed by the Charitable gambling Control Board and it approved by the Board. •ill botoss effective 10 dors from the dote of receipt (noted below). unless a resolution of the Ideal governing body is passed Mich specifically disallows such activity and a dopy or that resolution Is received by the Charitable Csebling Control Board within 30 days Of the below noted dots. = lOCA1� pQsEAM1N4 BBD. Now of local Governing Doily v Signature of Person Receiving Application KONTICELLO YOUTH HOCKEY PROGRAM, INC. ORWNtZAT3pN Date Received ((his to dots tram which it* 30 day Now of Rapressntatly* for Cooling license Applicant approval begins) (aarvthg ".*Oct) ,Jo J. Havel M-00001-01 (17/44) Mite - Board `+ i GENERAL FUPTD - JANUARY - 1986 AMOUNT CHECK NO. Harry's Auto Supply - Starter, bearing, anit-freeze, etc . 215.92 21728 ( Coast to Coast - Misc. supplies 127.45 21729 Fair's Garden Center - 8 Beauty blocks 10.32 21730 Marcie's Farm Service - Dog food 44.48 21731 Hoglund Bus - Filter, kit, lens, head, etc. 169.25 21732 Monticello Printing - Street inventory cards 48.50 21733 Monticello Office Products - Rubber stamps, supplies 274.41 21734 Servi Star Hdwe. - Misc. supplies 198.83 21735 Russell and Sandra Olson-- Interceptor sever easement 2,997.72 21736 William and Marie Jamison - Interceptor sewer easement 1,700.00 21737 John and Jane Kiebel - " 2,248.29 21738 Robert Wieman - " 1,498.86 21739 Dept.of Natural Resources - Dep. Reg, fees 420.00 21740 Dept. of Natural Resources - Dep. Reg. fees 15.00 21741 State Treasurer - State building surcharge - 4th qtr. - '85 1,474.82 21742 Gayle Brodt - League Conf. reg. fees - Eidem b Wolfstelle r 100.00 21743 Mrs. Genevieve Weiman - Interceptor sewer easement 2,55t. 23 21744 North Central Public Service - Utilities 5,612.65 21745 Fullerton Lumber Co. - FireHall payment P6 36,675.22 21746 Jerry Hermes - Janitorial services 172.92 21747 David Stromberg - Animal control contract 212.50 21748 State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll tied. 225.04 21749 Thomas Eidem - Car allowance - Jan . 300.00 21750 Northern States Power - Utilities 10,172.77 21751 Hildegard Hedtke - Interceptor securer easement - trees 200.00 21752 Jean and Rita Brouillard - Final payment on fire hall len d 30,000.00 21753 KN. State Treasurer - PERA W/H 1,504.61 21754 MN. State Treasurer - FICA W/H 2,839.32 21755 PERA - State Treasurer - Ins. premiums 18.00 21756 Hildegard Hedtke - Interceptor sewer easement 1,725.96 21757 Dept. of Natural Resources - Dep. Reg. fees 292.00 21758 Dept. of Natural Resources - Dep. Reg. fees 12.00 21759 Phillips Petro. Corp. - Gas for Water Dept. van 67.16 21760 Wayne's Red Owl - Micro wave for M tco. Bldg. 159.95 21761 Johnny's Implement - Parts 20.00 21762 Fair's Carden Center - Replacement trees for Dutch elm prog. 668.60 21763 Gould Bros. Chov. - Shaft 13.95 21764 Mania's Farm Service - Posts 9.86 21765 Maus Tire Service - Repair tire 6.00 21766 L 6 S Tool 6 Design - Diameter wheel and frame - WWTP 600.00 21767 Wright County Treasurer - Homestead cards b asset. books 289.26 21768 Gruys, Johnson d Assoc. - Computer charges - Dec. 290.00 21769 Tom Eidem - Travel expense 21.65 21770 Ranger Products - Nuto and bolts 86.53 21771 Marco Business Products - Paper 6 natco, agreement on typo. 175.75 21772 Team Laboratory Chemical - 30 gal. root destroyer 440.81 21773 Bowman Barnes Disc. - Nuts and bolts 111.18 21774 Humane Society of Wright County - Animal control expense 41.00 21775 Monticello TW 11dwo. - Supplies - Hooter - 33.95 79.32 21776 Monticello Fire Dept. - Wages thru 1/17/86 434.00 21777 Earl F. Anderson - Posts 488.60 21778 Bridgewater Telephone - Telephone 929.26 21779 District 742 Comm. Schools - Workst udy student program 60.64 21780 Control Eyowe ar - Glasses 34.00 21781 Mobil Oil - Gas 11.14 21782 National Public Employer Labor Rai. Assoc. - Guido 30.00 21783 GENERAL FUND AMOUNT CHECK NO. St. Cloud Appraisal - Appraisal of Brennan 6 L. Johnson 800.00 21784 Banker's Life Ins. - Group Ins. 3,621.28 21785 Local 449 - Union dues 126.00 21786 Century Laboratories - Renuit 81.89 21787 Water Pollution Control Federation - Sub. 65.00 21788 State Treasurer - Surplus Property Fund - WWTP supplies 63.90 21789 Tierney Brothers - Tape for Kroy machines 90.45 21790 Ben Franklin Store - Towels 23.76 21791 State of MN. - Membership fees - Public Works Dept. 225.00 21792 League of MN. Cities - 1986 bulletin order form 10.00 21793 League of MN. Cities - 1986 Directory of MN. municipal offici 86.00 21794 A to Z Upholstery - Zipper repair on clothes - WWTP 17.00 21795 Wright County Treasurer - Police contract payment 9,782.08 21796 A T 6 T Info. Systems - Fire phone charges 3.79 21797 Orkin Exterminating - Pest control payment - WWTP 106.00 21798 MN. GFOA - Membership fee 10.00 21799 Al b Julie Nelson - Sub. 13.72 21800 National Life Ins. - Ins. premium - Tom Eidem 100.00 21801 Cost Information Systems - 1986 Dodge Guide Book 46.80 21802 Road Machinery b Supplies - Truck rental - Christ. decorations 295.00 21803 Govt. Finance Officers Assoc. - Membership fee - T. Eidem 70.00 21804 Safeey-Kleen Corp. - Mtce. - Public Works 36.00 21805 St. Cloud Restaurant - Towels 78.80 21806 -VOID- -0- 21807 Commissioner of Revenue - Water excise tax - 4th qtr. 307.05 21808 Monticello Chamber of Commerce - Annual dinner for T. Eidem 25.00 21809 Wayne and Sandra Cox- Interceptor sever easement 1,498.86 21810 Bernard 6 Betty Christianson - .. " " 1,498.86 21811 Joyner's Lanes - Refund of sign permit application 75.00 21812 First National Bank of Mpls. - '75 6 '83 C. 0. bond paymts. 179,579.30 21813 First Bank St. Paul - 1978 C. 0. bond payment 199,251.75 21814 Fidelity Bank d Trust - '71 Water Rev. b G. 0. Imp. bonds 26,418.12 21815 First Trust St. Paul - 1984 Tax Increment bond 28,118.75 21816 First National Bank of Mpls. - 1985 New Fire Hall bond 65,193.75 21817 Norwest Bank Mple. - 76, 79, 81, 77, 73, 81 Lib. bonds 530,155.55 21818 Foster -Franzen Agency - Ins. premium payments 2,478.00 21819 Communication Auditors - Fire Dept. radio repairs 1,492.00 21820 Springsted, Inc. - Prof. services - '85 Tax Inc. bond 7,856.24 21821 Cyr Construction - Repair to city house on Hart Blvd. 1,500.00 21622 Madden 6 Cruesnor - Prof. services - Union 554.23 21823 OSM - Eng. fees 2,946.79 21824 Dahlgren, Uban, etc. - Prof. services for Dec. 2,506.40 21825 Holmes 6 Graven - Prof. services - tax increment bond 255.00 21824 Water Products - Water motors 1,015.56 21827 Monticello Rotary Club - Membership duos 155.50 21828 Gould Bro. Chay. - Repairs - Fire Dept. - 165.77 200.77 21829 Dept. of Not. Resources - Dap. Reg. fees 116.00 21830 Dept. of Nat. Resources - Dap. Reg. fees 36.00 21831 MN. Unamp. Fund - Unemployment benefits - J. Schmidt 2,638.00 21832 Olson Electric - Misc. mtco. 1,934.12 21833 St. Michael Vat. Clinic - Vat. face - Animal Control 143.50 21834 Cary Anderson - Misc. mileage 109.80 21835 Anoka County Social Services - Payroll dad. 88.00 21836 Holmes 6 Craven - Professional services 56.00 21837 Burner Service 6 Combustion Controls - Repairs at WWTP 1,010.75 21838 Bal Tach, Inc. - Library mtce. 270.00 21839 TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS --JANUARY $1,284,363.85 _J L LIQUOR FUND AMOUNT CHECK DISBURSEMENTS FOR JANUARY - 1986 NO. Ed Phillips d Sons - Liquor 2,832.71 12171 Twin City Wine - Liquor 1,301.27 12172 VOID -0- 12173 Radisson Hotel - Res. deposit - Liquor Conv. 60.00 12174 MN_ Municipal Liquor Store, Inc. - Reg. fee - Liquor Conf. 40.00 12175 Carol Lessard - Inventory assistance 24.50 I2176 Katherine McCormick - Inventory assistance 24.50 12177 Griggs, Cooper - Liquor 3,029.94 12178 Eagle Wine - Liquor 779.19 12179 State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded. 170.00 12180 Northern States Power - Utilities 597.38 12181 North Central Public Service - Utilities 589.51 12182 City of Monticello - Transfer of funds to General Fund 20,000.00 12183 M. State Treasurer - PERA W/H 129.36 12184 MN. State Treasurer - FICA W/H 224.24 12185 NCR Corporation - Mcce. on cash register 1,699.70 oi2186 Gronseth Directory Service - Adv. 46.80 12187 Banker's Life Ins. - Group Ins. 264.87 12188 Martie's- Farm Service - Maxi melt salt 20.03 12189 Old Dutch Foods - Misc. mdse. 114.55 12190 Dick Beverage Co. - Beer 2,402.85 12191 KMOM Radio - Adv. 405.00 12192 Dah lheimer Dist. - Beer 10,092.75 12193 Day Dist. Co. - Misc. mdse. 788.10 12194 Grosslein Beverage - Beer 12,041.25 12195 Viking Coca Cole - Misc. mdse. 286.05 12196 Frito Lay, Inc. - Misc. mdso. 84.84 12191, Leifort Trucking - Freight 525.82 12198 Bridgewater Telephone - Telephone 58.93 12199 MN. Sheriff Assn, - Adv. 55.00 12200 Gruye, Johnson - Computer charges 110.00 12201 Thin City Wine - Liquor 1,386.91 12202 Eagle Wine - Liquor 254.83 12203 Eagle Dist. - Liquor 1,692.90 12204 Ed Phillips & Sons -Liquor 1,722.53 12205 Commissioner of Revenue - Sales tax - 4th qtr. 8,391.84 12206 Century Laboratories. Inc. - Ice foe 65.09 12207 First Bank Mple. - Liquor store revenue bond - 1976 46,499.85 12208 Foster - Franzen Agency - Ina. premium 127.00 12209 Foster - Franzen Agency - Liability insurance, 9,500.00 12210 Eagle Dist. Co. - Liquor 2,079.00 12211 TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS - JANUARY $130,519.09 • CITY OF HYrrICF]d0 Monthly• Dui lding Dapsrtment Report Month of Docomhorl9Bj PPIUSI79 and USB Lest '7h�e 9omo Month eL ear T-�s PEIWITS ISSUED Month November Month December Leat Year To Data To Data RE3IDI77TIAL 11-bar .. 7 2 1 93 98 1 Valuation 3 362,400.00 f r29,800.00 3 1,430.00 3 3,694,007.00 t 5,691,070.00 Fees 2,040.10 640.60 14.30 19,206.02 29,003.66 Surcharges 166.20 64.90 .70 1,637.55 - 1,942.60 " Number 4 1 1 36 24 Valuetlon 47,000.00 95,000.00 70,000.00 2,111,159.00 ••4,109,660.00 Fooa 364:00 609.70 565.95 12,676.23 ., 16,950.63 Surcharges 23.50 47.50 ,t ', 35.00 1,055.70 2,054.60 LIIW57RIAL 11-ber 5 Wu Lion 1 1,776,500.00 Fees 6,316.53 Surcharges P W I10L10 11-ber 6 2 52 76 Foos 165.00 65.00 1,979.00 91.21 • Surchergee 4.00 1.00 26.00 42.00 or fan$ Ihuaber 2 1 Valustlon 0 456.900.00 Feoe 20.00 2.205.02 Surcharges 228,25 TOTAL 110. 1'HIHIT3 19 5 7 141 291_, TOTAL VAIIMATION $429.400.00 9224.600.00 571.430.00 L7,281.740.00 10.457,630.00 TOTAL PPi9 2.569:10 _ 1.407.50 _50129_ .42.329.76 _ BL.130,52_ ILTrA1. LURCNARCTS 215.70 113.40 35.70 3.607.00 4,267.65 CIIMFIIT 111311711 - IIATUS Nmber ......... ._ rPrl - �3uT_ - ,_pnLe 1,1a year :NRCHARGC. Valuation Lp-tLy nt Single Fem11y 1 { 263.20 S 22.00 SI 49 600.00 40 31 Wplea 1 305.60 42.10 1 4,200.00 5 1 Ihllti-fad.ly I �6 3 Comeerciel' 14 1 Tnduatrial 0 Res: rarages 15 17 S1gns o 0 Public Building. 1 2, -LTFRATIOI7 OR REPAIR , Wellings 1 28 42 1 Commercial 1 609.70 47.50 ' 95.000.00 17 • 20 Industrl el 0 1 1 I 1.1 1 PWM4I DID ' All types I 2 65.00 1.00 I 70 52 I ACCr550P; STRUCrURES 1 Svlrml nq 1'0016 1• 0 0 , I 04444 10 0 / r � a 1 T1:111.OMRY PC R81T Ir; o L 0 DEMOLITION I .II 1 ,� o 1 ? I• TOIALS 5 •1,403.b0 1y.;0 lljJ.eoo sob 201 191' ' 1HDIV[DUAL,PEPMIT, ACTIVITY REPORT' I • MONTH OF De camber 14$5ERMIT t ,{LUMBER DESCRIPTION ,IPI NAME/LOCATION, (VALUATION 1PERMIT SUR1ARGEIPLUM8ING ISURCHARGr BS -B40 '24d story office addition ACI Robert W. Mosford/305 Cedar 9traei` 6 95,000.00 5 418.00 09.50 85-8441. 01n91a rattly dwelling SP Mike L Judy Cyr/1010 Meador Oak Drive 45,60.0.00 '263.20 22.80' 23.00 .50 85-642 Two family dwelling 0 Dayle Vacbas'Conot./300 6 302 Marvin 81vnod Road 84,200.00 385.60 42.10' 4.00 .50 TOTALS 6224,600.00 81,066.60 8112.40• 865.00 81.00 PLAN RtVSrM 1 "i1AC ' ' 85-840 2nd story office addition Robert Y. MOaford/305 Cedar Street 6 271.70 iTOTAL nm RtvIbo ' i' S. 271.70 .. 1 I 1 I � • TOTAL,R6VLN08 D1,616.90 �1 � -