The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Agenda Packet 05-27-1986AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, May 27, 1986 - 7:30 p.m. k Mayer: Arve A. Grimsmo Council Members: Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Jack Maxwell, Dan Blonigen. 1. Call to Order. 2. Approval of Minutes of the Regular Meeting Hold May 12, 1986. 3. Citizens CommentB/Petitions, Requests and Complaints. Public Hearings 4. Public Hearing - Consideration of Granting a Variance to Parking Lot Design for the Monticello -Big Lake Hospital District. 5. Public Hearing for Public Improvements Appurtenant to Construction of Interceptor Sower. Old Business 6. Discussion on water System Improvements. 7. Consideration of Amending the Comprehensive Plan. i` 8. Consideration of Initiating Annexation Procedures. 9. Consideration of Adopting a Resolution Setting a Public Hearing on Public Improvements. Now Business 10. Consideration of Proposed Amendments to the Zoning Ordinanco Relating to Signs. 11. Conaidoration of a Request to Allow a Residential Lot Split with the Two Lots when Split being Lane than the Minimum Lot Square Footage Requiroment. Applicant, Dol Emmol. 12. Conoidaration of Amending a Conditional Uao Pormit to Allow Construction of a Now Parking Lot with Four Variances. Applicant, The S000trom Company. 13. Cona adoration of Granting a Variance to Allow the Use of Public Parking Lots in Liou of Required Off-Stroot Parking. Applicant, Floyd Kruse. 14. Consideration of Relocating the Band Shall to Ellison Park. 15. Dopa rtmont Head Roports. (' 16. Consideration of Billo for the Month of May. 17. Adjournmant. NOTE: MEETING IS BEING HELD TUESDAY DUE TO MEMORIAL DAY. t- MINUTES y _ REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL ws Monday, May 12, 1986 - 7.30 p.m. Members Present: Arve Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Jack Maxwell, Dan Blonigen. Members Absent: None. 2. Approval of Minutes. Motion was made by Blonigen, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously carried to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held April 28, 1986. 4. Consideration of Granting a Single Event Gambling License, Raffle - Applicant, Alano Society. Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Fran Fair, and unanimously carried to approve issuing a raffle gambling license to the Alone Society to be hold July 4, 1986. S. Consideration of Making Appointment�to Fill Vacancy at Wastewater Treatment Plant. The City of Monticello recently advertised to fill a vacancy at the wastewater Treatment Plant and received 41 applications. Of the 41, five were interviewed; and it was roeommanded by the City Administrator, along with the Public Works Director and Plant Superintendent, that Mr. Allan Holtberg, Assistant Public Works Director in Stewartville, Minnosota, be offered the position as Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator and Lab Technician. The position would be a union scale position. Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously carried to offer the position of Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator to Mr. Allan Holtberg. 6. Union Contract (Tentative). This item was dropped from the agenda, as no now information was available for review. 7. Consideration of Grantino a Seasonal 3.2 Beer Licando to the Softball Association. Motion was made by Maxwoll, seconded by Blonigan, and unanimously carried to approve issuing a 3.2 Boor On-aalo License to the Monticello Softball Association contingent upon proper certificate of insurance coverage and annual fee of $129.00 being paid. Council Minutes - 5/12/86 B. Petitions. A petition was reaaived from the Wright County State Bank requesting the City Council authorize the installation of a sewer line repair on Pine Street that would connect the Wright County State Bank to the sewer main. The Wright County State Bank has been experiencing sewer line difficulties over the past number of years,and as part of the Highway 25 Improvement Project requested that a new service line be installed and assessed to their property. Motion was made by Blonigen, seconded by Fran Fair, and unanimously carried to accept the petition and to order the installation of the sewer service line in conjunction with the Highway 25 construction project. A petition was also received from Construction 5 petitioning for sanitary sewer, water, storm sewer, and street improvements through the Construction 5 Addition extending Lauring Lane to Fallon Avenue. The petition requested the improvements to allow the developers to proceed with their plans to build two 24 -unit apartment complexes within the development. It was noted by the petitioner that conditional use permits will be required for the apartment complexes; and if the conditional use permits are not approved, the request for improvements would be withdrawn; as without the apartment buildings being constructed, the developer would not be able to pay•tho proposed assessments for the improvmento. It was noted that because of the extra amount of work that would be involved in constructing a street through thin area, a tax increment district was previously formed within this subdivision to holp defray soma of the cost of the street and utility extensions. An part of the petition request, the City Council discussed whether more apartment un ito aro necessary within the City of Monticello; and it was Council comber Blonigon-a opinion that there may already be too many multiple family unite available in the City, and it could be bad for the community in the long run. Mr. Blonigon also noted that additional multiple family housing units would exceed the recommended percentage of multiplo units vs. single family unite as suggested in the City's Comprehensive Plan and felt the City should be slowing down on the numbo r of unite approved in the future. It was noted by the City staff that the property in question has always boon zoned for multiple and appears to be the bout use for the property near the freeway. As a result, a mo tion vac made by Bill Fair, seconded by Fran Fair, to accept the petition for street and utility improvements contingent upon final approval being granted for the conditional use request for the two 24 -unit apartment complexes. Voting in favor was Fran Fair, Bill Fair, G rlmomo, Maxwell. Opposed was Blonigon. R -2- rJ� Council Minutes - 5/12/86 A petition was also received from Jim and Beverly Boyle requesting annexation of 120 acres of land south of the present City limits, 80 acres of which is proposed for the new middle school site. As part of the annexation request, the City Administrator recommended to the Council that additional areas surrounding Mr. Boyle's property be also considered for annexation at this time. Some of the areas included the Monte Club Hill, which is the proposed site for a new City water tower, and areas adjacent to this Oita which have been initially proposed as residential subdivisions. In addition, a small area of land north of the freeway is currently 758 surrounded by the City limits, and it was recommended to square off the boundaries that this parcel also be annexed during this process. At the present time, motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously carried to accept the petition from Mr. Boyle requesting annexation of 120 acres and to review the additional areas recommended by the City Administrator with a decision to be made at the next regular Council meeting. Once an area is determined for annexation, the proper papers would be filed with the Municipal Board and Township Board for approval. Rick wolfsteY or Assistant A �inistrator '3' 0 Council Agenda - 5/27/86 4. Public Hearing - Consideration of Granting a Variance to Parking Lot Design for the Monticello -Big Lake Hospital District. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUrrD: Shortly befo ro the last Planning Commission meeting, Monticello -Big Lake Hospital came in and requested their building permit for parking lot expansion and the ambulance garage parking lot. In reviewing the parking lot design, we found that two variances would be required to grant that permit. There had been apparently a breakdown in communication, in that the designer of the parking lot had not processed the variance application, nor had the Hospital District processed such a variance application. Under the terms of our ordinance, a public hearing, which must have mailed notice to neighboring property owners, must be held before any variance can be granted. In light of tho request coming from the Hospital District, and that the design variance was relatively minor, I advised the Hospital District to secure signed statements from the affected property owners which would waive their right to a public hearing. This statocent, in easonco, would be the adjoining property owners' opportunity to stipulate that they had no objection to the design variances. I indicated to Barb Schwientek that if we could secure these waivers for 100% of the property owners who ordinarily would receive mailed notice, we would dispense with the public hearing in front of the Planning Commission and evaluate the variance as presented. We prepared and provided the Hospital District with written otatemonts of waiver as wall as the names and addresses of the property owners we would mail notices to if we wore to proceed with the process. As of the evening of the Planning Commianion meeting, Barb Schwiantok was able to secure signatures from all but ona property owner, who would not sign. Consequently, the Planning Commission could not grant final approval of the variance, but to expedito rocommendod that the hearing be hold before the City Council and final action be taken at the Council level. This then, is an explanation of how a Planning Commiaa ion public hearing got bofora the City Council. Thorn aro two variancoo required. The firat variance hos to do with the 5 -foot groan space that is raquirod behind ovary curb. In order to design the individual parking stal la to have the depth required, the 5 -foot apace needs to be reduced to simply a curb line. Also, because of apace limitations caused t y the sharp topographical change on the north aide of the property, individual parking stalls will be toy foot long rather than the required 20 foot. Duo to the severe topographical change, thin variance v oquent qualifies as a legitimate request perhaps more than many we have noun lately. The Hospital is attempting to generate the maximurs amount of parking but fail approximately Gy foot short in overall dopth. The sharp drop on the north aide of the property precludes the Hospital from adding fill to cro ato the extra 64 foot. The Hospital is ready to got under construction, and the staff finds no major problems with this varionco request. Cin Council Agenda - 5/27/86 NOTE: Public Works Director does wish to discuss the drainage plans for the parking lot with the parking lot designer. This drainage question has no bearing on the variance, but I simply wanted to let you know we wore looking at that matter. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Conduct the public hearing, approve the variance. 2. Conduct the public hearing, deny the variance. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the variance and allow construction to begin immediately. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the ordinance showing a public hearing requirement; Copy of a location map; Copy of the site plan. -2- A variance request to reduce the minimum �Q a.` parking space size from 9• x 201 /.v to 9• x 1816" and to eliminate e required five {S} foot green area behind the parking lot curb. w \ Monticello-Big Lake Hospital. / 1,x'1, ;`�I • �j�,�� ' � .��! -� _ � .. A177, �� 0'�. moi! .�! . ¢�v`' ;,rj//{i r •3'\� `� .. „ / `' iii:.-:r,�.- /•,:� \� N0 aw. �� 1:�—�� '' •y �..,.,'1 i:.:. � •__ - ...�Yy>T Rabi'. W'a*.Pfn.:it::.. ...--- o Dental ' --y Ouitding i � e I t _ � ww•" G191' "_ Rc`I�iTMlG f°"+aLA'�swo } ��'�fi„� •1 � � 041D GAG(TVI IT � .� uNa�i �• �% 1c, j �,,,.rs.•n, F r CAl•YALO f Celff ftN�uut r`s at '3, c•• ;u ! " / e ;<n� uct11� P°rr 1 „+pu>rJl a•i�r. ►•"" � ,. r--� . i t t'.i';1Lf/'f'lL1� � "�` •I • 1' crrfl�� _ ._ + Vr, .6TA+.tn� !' _�1:�I�.G"u►flp �!� i IV— CEJ 23-6. PROCEDURES. �+ (A1 Request for a variance or appeal shall be filed with the Zoning Administrator on an official application form. Such application shall be accompanied be a fee as outlined in Chapter 26 of this ordinance. This fee shall not be refunded. Such application shall also be accompanied by written and graphic materials necessary for the explanation of the request. (B] Upon receiving said application, the Zoning Administrator shall refer the application, along with all related informaticn,_to the City Planning Commission. (C) The Planning Commission shall consider the ® variance or appeal at its next regular meeting unless the filing date falls within fifteen (15) days of said meeting, in such a case the request would be placed on the agenda at the regular coating following the next regular meeting. The zoning Administrator shall refer said request along with all related information to the Planning Coactlasion at least ten (10) days prior to the regular meeting. This coating shall be a public hearing, notice of which ( shall be mailed at least ten (10) days prior -W to the meeting to all owners of property according to the Wright county assessment records, within three hundred fifty foot (350•) of the property to which the variance relates, when a variance request pertains only to yard setback requirements, ■_ only abutting property owners need be notified. Notices sent ohall also indicate the appeal process in Section 23-6, Suooivistuna (C) through (1). (D] Failure of a property owner to receive said Notice shall not invalidate any ouch proceedings as not forth within thin Ordinance. (E) The request shall be referred to the City staff for a report and recommendation to be presented to the Planning Commission. A prolimnary draft of the City otaff'a report and recommendations ahall be given to the City's Planning Commiaaion at least ten (10) daya prior to the meeting at which cold report and recommandaiiona are _ to be presented. The final report and recoauaondationo of the City staff is to be entered in and made part of the permanent written record of the Planning Commicoion meeting. _ (F) The Zoning Administratnr chola notify the originator of the variance request or appeal of the Planning Commiooiona, nerving an the 6 board of Adjuotmont and Appeaio, decision in writing. jai Decisions of the Planning Commiaaion aro final nn Annual Is t1104 w,4t P} five (4I Council Agenda - 5/27/86 5• Public Hearing for Public Improvements Appurtenant to Construction of Interceptor Sewer. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUIID: Several months ago, we held a public hearing under the provisions of Minnesota Statute 429 for the purpose of assessing to benefiting property the cost of installing sewer and water lines, streets, curb and gutter, etc. All of this work is appurtenant to the overall construction of the interceptor sewer. At the time we mailed the notice for the public hearing, we purposely excluded the owner of the north half of Lot i, Block 12 (the lot adjacent to the new Fire Hall). The reason we eliminated that site is that the half lot was determined to be substandard in size and consequently unbuildable. Being unbuildable, the property would derive no benefit from sewer or water or street. Since that hearing, we have noticed that this parcel is included in the B-4 zone, Central Business District, and consequently is buildable for a small commercial enterprise. The Zoning Ordinance does not require a minimum lot size in the B-4 zone. Since the lot in now considered buildable under the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, then it can derive benefit from the installation of public improvements. A second supplemental hearing needs to be hold in order to conform with the provisions of M.S. 429. Ho action will be required at the conclusion of this hearing. A second hearing on the assescment role will be held as the project noora completion. This parcel will be included in that hearing also. This hearing is primarily a formality, since clearly you have already ordered the making of the improvements. At the later hearing on the aasosamont, you may be faced with debate with reopeet to the actual assessable values, but that is no different than any assessment hearing. There are no alternative actions, nor staff recommendation for thin item. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of a map indicating the parcel in question. -3- KoY� help oP iAt �. 810ek 12 �` J• 1"x�l'tiJ�u 1, j �•, /� �t r / , IT atm, +. •� r f^ �y ` 77i. .J~.t � f3 �:fj ' .. 4•i t t/, it 5,'fr�, '%.t •" J -r •�°l•J•� „..�. it. "::r • t• fr � •`/ / ,y "x'-61 •�o ' lr,. �� ,l' "" �,p• •�:, ,',, t .� .1 •l �. "�•�+:J ,t11=. s'' tJ /. � ''1, '��'ti?+, VMS :' t � � r . � �� •j � 0 • •i . •l , � i4t f' :,�J Qom: 'NWAY i i E •'� e •mac i , I .Nt cA 1yO 81 , '4 � t � • , �•�.,� � ��`� � > � *W. `ter t •(•� t.(•(, fir_... �t �� ;�� Jam,,,_.-- � c , k �.,;,' �' ••�•"-`.. aye �.�� °�, .� t• 777 + Council Agenda - 5/27/86 6. Discussion on Water System Improvements. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Some time ago, the City Council authorized staff to expend $10,000.00 to perform a soil investigation on the Monte Hill for the ground level reservoir and to drill a teat well at the existing underground reservoir site for the purpose of determining the adequacy of the soil formations for a municipal well. The soil investigation was completed in April of this year at a cost of $1,643.50. Approximately two weeks ago, we began drilling the test well just west of the existing underground reservoir on Chelsea Road. They extended the test well into the sandstone formation underlying the water bearing sands in this area to a depth of 254 feet. We developed the well slightly, performed an analysis of the soil formation, and concluded that the fine sands in the water bearing area below would not yield a well of the capabilities of the ones in the downtown area. The sands were fine and would require a fine screen or a gravel packed well. A gravel packing, which means just as it indicates that gravel is packed around the outside of the screen, enables a well to yield more than the well terminated in fine sands. There are, however, no guarantees as to when the gravel pack may fail and as to when maintenance problems could be prevalent. It is always batter to go with a naturally developed well in sands that yield the water readily. Some additional well screen was put on the teat ` well and some additional developing done; and it was further concluded that it may be best to try another location rather than continua further development at this point. I contacted the City Administrator and Council members, an the cost was going to be an additional $2,500.00 depending upon the depth. Thio would make our total expenditure in the area of $12,500.00. All of the members contacted unanimously consented to proceed with a Lost boring to locate a suitable formation. We placed this boring or drill holo on the northern most portion of the underground reservoir site near I-94. We extended the toot boring into the sandstone to a depth of approximately 305 foot. The results of the boring indicated that the water bearing layer above the oandatono wan alightly thicker in this area, but the sands were of relatively the same texture and appeared to be somewhat dirtier, as some clay stringers were present in and near the water bearing area. Those additional investigations, along with the cost of the coil investigation for the reservoir on Monte Hill, came to approximately $12,350.00. On Wednesday, we discussed at length our options with the City Engineer and the wall drilling firm. Ono of the options would be to go back and continuo to develop the exicting toot wall. Thorn was coma indication that the formation may have boon alightly plugged off and that the wall might yield more than first indicated. Thin further development, of courcc, would coot us approximately 51,500.00, but would be vital if we were to continua to consider the reservoir alto for the wall. -4. Council Agenda -$127/86 All of our other options appeared to mean moving the well from this site to other locations such as the Monte Club Hill or other City property or publicly owned property. These options would cost significantly more money, we felt, and would not fit well with the proposed caoeign of our system in that this well was to pump directly into the uradsrground reservoir; and the high volume pumps at the reservoir then wou8.d be used to fill the system. Any other options would be much more costly. Chuck Lepak of OBM is currently determining some of tkzose costs and will have some information for Tuesday evening's meet=ing. I made the decision on Wednesday afternoon not to ask the Council for further authorization for another $1,500.00 to develop the original test well. I felt that the Tuesday evening meeting was close conough to discuss the options we had. I informed the well driller that I realized we would need this test well if we, indeed, intended to locate: our municipal wail there or even to estimate costa of i: -tor design it; but I was not going to authorize the additional funeds at this time. The well driller, LaynaMinnesota, whom we have -worked with over the past many years, indicated that a municipal well could still be developed at the reservoir in their opinion and that -this was the most logical site for the City to choose. They indiea::ted that we could not make the proper decision without having the final design data from the toot wall. They said that they would tort=tine to develop the wall and have those toot results for us at Tuoszday evening's meeting. And if the City determined that that was v-aluablo information that they needed, and were going to locate the muruicipal wail in that area, we would consider payment to Layne Minnesotan of the $1,500.00 extra cost. I told Chuck Alborg from Layne Minnesota that if the Council chose not to use that site and felt the irmformation was not needed that they more than likely would not pay the Sr. 50D.00. He said it was worth the risk to his firm, as the drill rig would not be able to got back into the area for at leant 2-3 weeks ahoulLdthe Council decide to finish the wail at that time. The wall is =urrently being developed, and I will have coma additional information =or Tuesday evening's meeting. In dealing with Bruce Cagnoliuo on the piece of property for Who reservoir, he cent a letter to the City asking some questions about water costo and aorlcoemanto, otc. I discussed his letter wit Cr John Badalich and Tom Eidam; and based upon their input. I drafted a lottor back to Bruce. It is my understanding that he would like to caro to the meeting to discuss coma of the information provided in oy letter and also acres of the questions he asked. At this time ,I expect him to be alt the meeting. I have enclosed his letter land my reply. 8. ALTERNATIVE ACTIO118: 1. Altornativs til would be to continuo to proceed with the design of our water improvamont systems based upon the location -of a wall at the unclarground rnnnrvoir aita. 10 Council Agenda - 5/27/86 2. The second alternative would be to relocate the well site and re -analyze and design the water improvements as necessary to fit that new location. It should be pointed out that it is imperative that a test well be drilled at any proposed site to determine the feasibility of locating a well there. The cost of a test well would be a minimum of $7,500.00 and could be greater depending upon the depth. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of the Public works Director that we review the information provided by the further development of the test well at the underground reservoir site on Chelsea Road; and if this information looks at all favorable, we opt for Alternative #1 and use this site in our design. If this information indicates a decent well cannot be developed, then I would recommend looking for a site nearby the reservoir whereby piping can be laid back to the underground reservoir. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copies of letters from Bruce Gagnelius; Information provided by Chuck Lepak. -6- iii ' `�..•• City of Monticello ti % Tom Eldem City Administrator REQ Proposed Vater Tower•land Acquisition 1 with regards to the above Tom, We would like to ask for your assistance In answering a few questions that have come about since we have done some research into our situation. Assuming we recleve water service, with a booster pump, cin we reeieve water pressure to a hydrant of 1_�esi. 2�. With the assumption d1 is yes, can a hydrant be located within.rilft. of our present bldg. i I3. Could you approximate a monthly bill considering a comparative water user such as Perkins? OWould there be any coats besides a booster pump is. water line, Installation etc. and what would they be? 5, Has the township agreed to allow us to subdivide the land as shown in the proposed plat? 6. What would the appx, tax increase be for the property when subdivided. OWould a road be put in to the reservoir? What type and surface if any. dr-11, In the near future, if any development took place on the lower subdivided land, would the residents be eligible for service? Tom, our insurance classification can'be lowered from a class 10 to class 6 if certain conditions are met' as referred to in Questions 1 S 2 which Is the most important factor in our decision. Any help you can give us is greatly appreciated. If we should be referred elsewhere for any answers to the above questions please lot us know so we may arrive at a decision promptly. Thank you Rogards, Druce Gagnellus Monts Club t(je 01011tt Club "'��/ V �Ln�lnll., Chinn. 117/t 4. If acceptable to you, the staff would make the following cost proposal to the City of Monticello Council. First, the City of Monticello would pay for the construction costs of the lateral lino leading from the Tou"hip Road to the ground level reservoir. We would pay ono -half of the coot of a service stub and valve located in the easomant to savvo the Monte Club. The actual coat of this stub and valva could not be determined until ouch time as the size of the Lino is known. Typical 1 -inch cervico groups coot under $100.00. Two-inch service group* could cost in the neighborhood of $500.00 to $600.00, with the larger lines e::coadlr9 thin cost. The City of Monticello would exempt the Monto Club and the minimum lot area needed by ordinance for ouch an establishment from a water assessment. The fronto Club, 4 EaD Y mcmlo. Mintroswm 63362.024* 9 City M..&A. MONTICELLO. MN 55362.9245 .�, April 30, 1986 ,Isaata,23933•s738 . Mr. Bruce Gagnelius c/o Monte Club Box 172 �e Monticello, MN 55362 Omnamo .:h Counca: Den Blon,een Re: Proposed Water Tower Land Acquisition Fran Fan VIM= Fos Jack Maxwea Dear Mr. Gagnelius: We have reviewed your letter in regard to our acquisition of trnnterm:or, land for a ground level reservoir near the Monte Club. We have Tom Ekem the following comments or answers to your questions. vice Otrector: Rick Wenamaef 1. It 1* assumed that the Manta Club will receive water service lbne WOMB. JonnSImou by utilizing a booster pump 'located in or near the Monte arming a ZWWV: Club itself. The nearest hydrant to the Monte Club is proposed G°n'Anearson to be in the area of the ground level reservoir. This hydrant, with non -boosted water pressure, will have less than 60 PSI. The hydrant, however, would provide adequate water to fight a fire in the area of the Monte Club through the use of the City of Monticellole Fire Departcont p=por trucks. I 2. It is proposed that hydrants will be located along the Township road leading to the Monte Club, so wall as County Road 118. There will be a hydrant within 1,000 feet of the Monte Club along this road which will have pressure of 60 PSI. 3. An approximate monthly bill for water for Perkins during 1989 would average about $43.00. It should be pointed out, however. that Parkins is one of the highest restaurant commercial water users in the City of Monticello. All of the other restaurant* are lower in usage. 4. If acceptable to you, the staff would make the following cost proposal to the City of Monticello Council. First, the City of Monticello would pay for the construction costs of the lateral lino leading from the Tou"hip Road to the ground level reservoir. We would pay ono -half of the coot of a service stub and valve located in the easomant to savvo the Monte Club. The actual coat of this stub and valva could not be determined until ouch time as the size of the Lino is known. Typical 1 -inch cervico groups coot under $100.00. Two-inch service group* could cost in the neighborhood of $500.00 to $600.00, with the larger lines e::coadlr9 thin cost. The City of Monticello would exempt the Monto Club and the minimum lot area needed by ordinance for ouch an establishment from a water assessment. The fronto Club, 4 EaD Y mcmlo. Mintroswm 63362.024* 9 Mr. Bruce Gagnelius April 30, 1986 Page 2 however, will have to install its own water service line from the easement, the booster pump, and pay the hookup charges. Hookup charges for a 1 -inch line are $40.00 plus a $50.00 meter. Hookup charges for a 2 -inch line are $300.00 plus a $430.00 meter. The cost of the hookup charge and meter increases with the size of the line. The remaining undeveloped property surrounding the Monte Club and surrounding the ground water reservoir would not be exempt from future assessmentr. from water and/or sewer mine and services as they are needed and provided. 5. The City of Monticello recently held a joint meeting with Monticello Township in regard to orderly annexation. This meeting was less than fruitful in regard to possible annexation within the Orderly Annexation Area. As discussed earlier, the Monte Club may wish to patition for annexation into the City of Monticello to assure that you would be able to subdivide your land as proposed. 6. The approximate tax increase for your property when subdivided could be negligible. within the City of Monticello we have platted but undeveloped iota of 12,000 aq.ft. which have a value of $100.00. These lots, non -homesteaded, see a yearly taut of $2.21. Such lots are located in the western part of Monticallo. " In the eastern part of Monticello, the City has platted and developed lots which are currently valued at $700.00 per lot. Those Iota, non-homeotaaded, one a yoarly tax of $15.48. More information regarding this would be available from the County Assessor. It is suggested that you verify those figuroo'with him. 7. The City of Monticello intends to place a road into the reservoir from the Township road.. This road would probably be relatively narrow and have a weather resistant surface ouch as crushed granite. Some typo of embankment control would be provided along the southern edge of the road to prevent washouts from the adjoining hillside. 8. In the near future, if development took place on tho lover subdivided land, the residents would be eligible for water service from "the lines and/or laterals in and around the ground level reservoir. if significant duveiopment took place, the City may look into owning and operating a booster station to provide adequate preacuree for all development in and around Monte Hill. Sanitary newer service is currently not available in thu immodiato area. There are, however, itmodlate plans to provide eanitary newer service to thr Middle School located just below the Monte Hill. We will Mr. Bruce Gagnellus April 30, 1986 Page 3 work with the School and property owners in the area and attempt to have the sanitary sever service sized adequately for future development in the area. There are questions as to how much area the City should be planning to serve with future improvements. It would be advisable on your part to stress interest in being a part of those improvements, as providing alternate sanitary sever service in the future to other points could be extremely expensive and cost prohibitive. If you have any questions, or if we may be of any further assistance, please contact us. At this point in time, we are still hoping for a 1986 construction season for the ground level reservoir at the Monte Club Hill. Your continued cooperation is imperative and greatly appreciated by the City of Monticello. A epectfjulllly, John E. Simola Public works Director JES/kd cc: Pile is --1 T. Eidem V Council Agenda - 5/27/86 7. Consideration of Amending the Comprehensive Plan. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: In June of 1984, the City Council officially adopted the Comprehensive Plan as revised. That Plan has been an active guide plan, but has never been printed and ;prepared into a final document. The primary reason for not printing was the preparation of aL 1 of the graphics required. We were trying to figure out a way to prepare those graphics ourselves rather than hiring the engineering or planning firm to print them. With the completion of the Annexation Study, we found that we had all of the graphics required for the Comprehensive Plan, and further, they were current. Consequently, wL thout any additional expense, we were now able to prepare the Comprehensive Guide Plan into a final document. This document is being provided to you at this time. The peculiar aspect of this matter is that while I am handing out the 1984 Comprehensive Guide Plan in its final form. I am proposing certain amendments to that guide plan. The majority of the amendments have to do with updating the inventory of existing conditions. At original adoption, the Nursing Homo, Fire Hall, and middle school were clearly not part of our existing inventory. All of these facilities are now being proposed to be included in the inventory. Similarly, several of the tables that require statistical changes will be amended to reflect most recant data. These, of course, aro all non -controversial issues. The two substantive amendments relate to the number of unite of multiple housing that will be allowed as a percentage and a position statement on annexation and planning. With reapoct to multiplo hnusing, I have counted all of the single family building altos in '.hs City. Those sites total 1,783 and includes a proposed 320 Iota yet to be platted in Meadow Oak. The first time we performed this count, I did not include the 320 Meadow Oak potential lots. The reason I am including them at this time is that that Planned Unit Development has racaived overall approval, and any developer as time and money permit may tomo in to further subdivide the outlots into buildable sites. In essence, the lots exist on the books but do not yet exist in reality. In the supporting data, there is a o hoot attached reflecting the number of units that would be allowed for multiplo housing using 306, 408 and 45%. Also on that sheat it reflacto the total number of units already built and available, the units which aro approved and have had conditional uses issued, the units which have been approved by virtue of subdivision and tax increment finance approval and for which a conditional use application is pending, and finally, the units which may tentatively be approved in subdivisions that have already received City Council approval. I think you will find the numbers intorosting in that we have not exceeded our percentage amounts by a vary alarming margin. Granted, the inclusion of Cho 320 Meadow Oak lots anoints in keeping this percentage down. -7- Council Agenda - 5/27/86 Based on conversations with Howard Dahlgren's office, a community such as ours could handle as much as 45%. Our current vacancy rate is not high. Similarly, the interest in constructing units is still high. Concerning annexation, in the back part of the Comprehensive Guide Plan there is a section on the Orderly Annexation Area. I have prepared and am suggesting looking at new language which will, in essence, clarify our annexation position. To date, we have been in a position of waiting for urbanization to occur and designing our facilities for that urbanization to accommodate eventual annexation. I think that the joint meeting illustrated that such annexation may not occur in the near future. The new language is meant to indicate that the City has no desire to enter into conflict and confrontation with the Town Board. In checking with the League of Minnesota Cities legal services. I am informed that it is acceptable for cities to "close its borders" so as to have a clear definition of its planning and development areae. If we elect to pursue that approach, I believe it would be beneficial for the City to pursue annexation of the school area and the proposed water tower area, as well as the area on our far eastern border (simply to straighten out our borders), and then invite petitions from property owners who would be interested in becoming part of the City. Each petition and parcel would need to be evaluated by the City in terms of its desirability to be annexed, and very likely would generate a public hearing before the Municipal Board. A NOTE: An addendum to Boyle's petition for annexation was received Monday requesting that the additional 110 acres lying south of the school site also be annexed into the City. If the Council choonan to follow this course of action, then the Orderly Annexation Area tends to lose its significance to the City. At that point, we may wish to consider withdrawing form the Joint Planning Board, since it will have no direct bearing on the City's planning efforts. The only drawback to closing our borders and declaring a moratorium nn expansion, in the posoibility that Monticello Township may adopt municipal powers and fila for incorporation as its own city. The City of Monticello would than be a city surrounded by some other city with full municipal powers. It strikes me as unreasonable that the Minnesota Municipal Board would grant an incorporation of the Township aroa when there is a city available that could provide all municipal services and expanded tax baso. It occurs to me that the City would only consider reopening its borders and expanding through annexation if the Township were looking at incorporating as a city and the Municipal Board requested the City of Monticello to annex. The proposed amendments are Listed on separate pagan for your comparison to the existing Comprehensive Plan. The object of this meeting is to diccuco the value of the proposed amendments. If there is basic -B- Council Agenda - 5/27/86 agreement that these amendments should be incorporated, then the only action for the City Council is to set a public hearing for one of its June meetings in order to take testimony on the proposed amendments. If there is no desire to amend the Comprehensive Plan, then the matter should simply be dropped. Lastly, if you feel the amendments are appropriate, but need additional language changes or conceptual alterations, then the only Council action would be to direct the staff to prepare alternate amendments for consideration at the next meeting. Then, at that meeting, you would set your public hearing for consideration of the amendments. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Elect not to amend the Comprehensive Plan, dismiss the subject matter. 2. Find the amendments basically suitable, set a public hearing for one of the June meetings. 3. Find that amendmert is are needed, but direct staff to consider alternate forms of amendment for reconeldsration at the June 9 meeting. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that we discuss the amendments and their justifications. and find them basically to be acceptable. we would then ask the City Council to order that a public hearing be hold in conformance with state law and that the amendments be formally considered at that hearing. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the June, 1986 , Comprehensive Guido Plan; Copy of a single family/multiple family dwelling unit comparison; Copy of proposed amendments to the Comprehensiva Plan. PROPOSED 1986 AMENDMENTS `.. TO THE MONTICELLO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Page 3 - ADD the following paragraphs: Since the creation of the OAA, the Joint Planning Board has ruled on planning issues utilizing rural zoning standards. Such development, in fact, tended to occur contrary to urban planning goals. Further, during the 14 years of the OAA's existence, the City has developed public services and utilities to accommodate the eventual annexation of the OAA. These development standards have been at the exclusive expense of the City taxpayer. Without clearly defined municipal boundaries, the City's planning efforts are quite open-ended. In order to better plan for and provide City services to its residents, the City of Monticello ought consider dismissing the notion of annexation and then with clearly defined borders, the City can focus its attention on planning and development in the most economical fashion. Pago 8, lot Paragraph, Lino 3: DELETE "...is" INSERT "...was intended to be... Page 8, let Paragraph - ADD after loot sentence: "Soma limited success can be reported." Pages 10-14 - UPDATE with accurate, current data. Pago 16 - ADD the following paragraph: In 1986 the School District successfully passed a bond referendum for the construction of a middle school. The selected cite line in the Township abutting on the City's southerly boundary adjacent to County Road 118. The middle school is proposed to be completed and occupied by the fall of 1987. Pago 17 - UPDATE with accurate, currant data. Pago 18 - Fire Hall Section - COMBINE three paragraphs into one. ADD the following paragraph: In 1985, a now 8,486 square foot seven bay Piro Hall was completed. The Fire Department took occupation in the spring of 1986. Funding for this facility was through the sale of 5863,000.00 of C.O. Bond authorized by referendum in November of 1984. C' 0 Page 21 - 5. Monticello Nursing Home - DELETE second paragraph. ADD the following to end of first paragraph: "This facility is currently standing vacant." ADD the following new paragraph: A new 91 bed, 50,018 square foot Nursing Home was constructed on the north side of the Hospital in 1985-86, with the relocation of residents occurring in the spring of 1986. Page 22 - ADD the following paragraph after Hillcrest Park: "NSP Softball Complex: A four field (three softball, one multi -use) complex was constructed with LCMR funds in 1986. within five years, the City plans to light at least two fields and erect a concession/restroom facility." Page 23 - 32 - UPDATE with accurate, current data. Pago 33, Paragraph 1, Line 2 - DELETE "...and its Orderly Annexation Area (OAA)." Pago 37, Paragraph 5, Line 2 - DELETE "...and the OAA." Pago 39, Introduction Paragraph, Lino 4 - DELETE '...and the OAA." I Pago 45, Paragraph 3, Lino 3 - DELETE "...thirty percent (30t)." INSERT "...forty-five parcent (45!)." Pago 70 - DELETE entire section. SUBSTITUTE with the following now section: 3. Development In an effort to properly plan for development, it is recommondad that the City actively pursue annexation of lands proposed for school development and for water tower siting. It is further rocommondad that annexation of some lands on the cast occur to more clearly defino the easterly corporate limits. As noted, certain urban "pockets" have developed and may oventually be boat served by the City. (Figure 7) It is recommended that, rather than the City pursuing annexation of these lands, the City invite property owners to petition for annexation. Such a process would tend to eliminate any confrontation between the City and the Township. Upon receipt of a proper petition, the City shall evaluate the planning and development factors in order to determine whether or not to allow the annexation. In initiating such ,/ C7) a processit is recommended that a deadline for petitions be established after which no boundary changes shall occur - •�� for an extended period. By closing the corporate limits, the City's planning and development efforts can become explicitly defined and scheduled. M CU Total Singl-o Family Lots - 1783 (includes 320 lots to be platted in Meadow Oak) 1783 1783 1783 x 301 x 408 x 45% 534 units 713 units 802 units Total units built and available a 436 (241) Units Approved - Conditional Une Issued I. Kornovich 24 2. Metcalf 6 Larson 31 81 (elderly) 3. Metcalf S Larson 26 ( family ) 517 (296) Units Approved - Subdivision 6 TIF Approved Conditional Una Appliced for 1. Conetruction 5 48 565 (32%) Subdivision Approved Suitable for Multiple 1. Par want - 40 222 2. Keely Heights -182 787 (44%) 0 I Council Agenda - 5/27/86 8. Consideration of Initiating Annexation Procedures. (T.E.y A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At the last meeting, you received and accepted a petition from Jim Boyle to annex 120 acres lying immediately adjacent to our southern border and adjacent to County Road 118. At the same time, I presented to you a tentative drawing of other lands in that general area that might be suitable for annexation in conjunction with the Boyle property. One of the parcels I indicated on the map was an additional 110 acres owned by Jim Boyle and lying immediately south of the 120 acres for which he petitioned. Since that meeting, I have talked with Jim Boyle, and he indicated a desire to have the additional 110 also annexed. I instructed Jim to send me a letter adding the 110 acres to his original petition. and I have since received that letter. Consequently, we are looking at 230 acres owned by Jim Boyle that he wishes to have annexed. At the last meeting, you opted not to take definite action, for you wish to further consider potential annexation lines. I still am of the opinion that it is best to follow section lines and square off our boundaries in that southeast corner. I am aware of the concern for the residents living in that area and that they might voice objections. The proposed boundary line can be very easily adjusted. If the City opts not to take the larger area, I encourage the city to consider taking at least the 230 acres of Boyle -a, all contiguous lands leading to the Monte Club so we have a place for our water tower, and that peninsula of land lying between Meadow Oak and the Mississippi River. These areas aro shown on the attached maps. Once the arca to be annexed has boon agreed upon by the Council, the following process needs to occur. 1. A resolution from the City Council will be submitted to the Executive Director of the Minnesota Municipal Board. Supporting documentation will be attached. 2. Upon receipt of the resolution, the Executive Director of the Minnesota Municipal Board shall dosignato a time and a place for a public hearing. 3. The hearing shall be hold within 30-120 days from receipt of the document by the Municipal Board or from tho date of Board action. The hearing shall be in Wright County. Mailed notice shall be given to the affected parties, and two successive weeks published notice will occur in the legal newspaper. a. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Municipal Board shall evaluate the 13 factors regulating annexation and make its determination. -10- Council Agenda - 5/27/86 5. Upon evaluation of the factors, the Board. by its own direction, may alter the boundaries as originally proposed. If the Board exercises its authority to change the boundaries as proposed, additional hearings would be required. 6. Upon arriving at a decision, the Board transmits its order of annexation to the appropriate parties. 7. After the process is complete, there is an appeals process for any party feeling aggrieved by the order. During another part of this agenda, there will be discussions on the water system and our proposal with the Monte Club. While these are basically distinct issues, they are very closely related. Similarly, this annexation question is very closely tied to the Comprehensive Plan amendments presented in the immediately preceding agenda item. It is my contention that under our current growth patterns, if our borders are not clearly defined, the annexation question and extension of services question will be a continual re -occurring nightmare. Some concrete decisions need to be made in the near future if we are to make reasonable progress. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Defino the area proposed for annexation, adopt a resolution initiating the annexation procedure. Upon adoption of the resolution, staff will prepare the map detail and the legal description detail for submittal to the Executive Director of the Municipal Board and to the Township. 2. Elect not to annox any lands. No resolution noodo to bo adopted for thin action. NOTE: Alternative 01 includes the notion of annexing only the Boyle property or any configuration of lands. The maps I am presenting under supporting data aro simply suggestions, and tho Council needs to arrive at a decision on which lands will coma in. If there is to bo any lands annexed at all. than Alternative 01 is the proper alternative. The only variable within Altornativo 01 in the definition of the lands to be included for action. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff rocommonda that the Council adopt the resolution initiating annexation and that they carefully consider the annexation of all lands rocommondod by the staff. From a land use planning porapoctivo. I havo rocommondod a larger aroa than might be essential at this time, but I am trying to avoid creating boundary lines of convenience. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Various maps indicaClny coetdin annoxation alternatives: Copy of the rosolution initiating the annexation proccaal Boylo correspondence. cm NOTE ON ANNEXATION ITEM: Maps A, B, C, S D included in your supporting data for the Annexation item (98) all show a squiggely (spelling?) line in the center of the Boyle property. After we had completed coloring all sixty (60) maps (4 maps x 15 agendas), Dennis Taylor stopped in to discuss Boyle's request. When I showed him our maps, he noted we had not extended far enough west. Rather than make 60 new maps, we made the minor adjustment. All property lying west of County Road 118 is Boyles, except 10 acres in the southwesterly most corner and the cemetery in the southeastern corner. Ignore the skwiggalie line. Point of Information: How do you spell schwigulee? -12- \ ` •v — • _ vl rte• @R I �•� —� i l • �� \�\ \ \� ` moi\ F'� y{' �T;\.�--� t ��, � _`_ �� i a• `� � �y:�� 6 '� `'v. tea+ 1 .L ; �.: \ •: yIf i � Fes. kk r , I 1. f i Lek• ', � - v� .IN City of Monticello J Wright County Minnesota Planning Area 1'q: �C t t . • e - '� r.r� - � �- - , �r :tet.-___z� _�.,,° =� ti; r-- ., -_ o • 41 � -x IN at \�' ..�+r { ice' 1 1• + : \ _ 1po� ". .. '--:.' 26 --"-»' PS i L-•�'� �r;ti _ 29 S:.'•' i Z _ t tri ii ' O / , 1 \ r� "C Coity L.[rrdt$- • ' _ -�� U• ��G.t Orderiy Annexation Area •:.35 •c,.u[ a4 3 �,-• "_'1•-�� ' � :1 �.✓ fab.', i _ '- •` i � �.`�- ,~ i~ i . , � .•era ° " 1 � �% ei /" _". i', '' .. . _ ^ � '< _` - -- '--,:�"-=- City of Monticello Wright County Minnesota01 Planning Area ! G L L. 1 - �; r +•u F L f + ,; v L`/•;, V ` r }- ~ ' • .; t1 x // :1 'ine: r ,,��..♦♦ •...�f•� F�� f �j4 nM awtewntr•warpor I . i/'� F .3• i a 'i I• : .,,/'rt��_ \''i`'i��\ 1 •1� Figure 2 haw t I� IT �i\ -------'tee =ilea=�\ja. ( _ `— tl�--�--tT -- R , Li NS 27� 26 25 rf� al-,—Ii4lI - --29 City Limits Ord --------- R erly ltnnexatinn Area 34 _ ?.ILS �� — •-- _---------- ------ -36 ti 35 - - �' / � ^, ~� . / Z -- - -`•rte � � ,/'!-� Qctfi 15, City of Monticello `--1 Wright County Minnesota-_--+,' Planning Area U61*1 )i_:� i/ C E c L �'J = �-- � —'fit: � ltiti�a. lt• t••a� !at• t• �� t•��,�,,,� � a. � ttatrtt� .i/ Fipurn 2 rvn o...ara�r. ..nor i I L�, _ 'j: ... �^ _ ••ri' . ♦ —t I -1---- - -�'. �_�1__ --- 0 _� a L „a -s '•. e y , �' 14 m a• �� _ 1 ,�•° �, `,/'J..r;.- tea` � /�'R' ,� \ '!ice `�',y,� )�. 'o -v __� `�o �' 0 1' •, -,,.4• ,• nv _—_-- 30 26 25 L 2L 29 City Limits Orderly Annexat;nn Aiea Iz ---------------------- ■ / � •� '• _.'0.'1'• '� � J • z.�,�t• - t t«- .. �r /� �-f8 �'� 1 71� ,, :, 4 City of Monticello ��.- _ \� �L• Wright County Minnesota �!—.• ' . _.r-w.,.~.� _ Planning Area 1/ C D L L l�a_ �� a_ a_ aa.a_aa.aa«i.��.��ri.��.�M i�•�f�S�l�llllr�tl�l� i.� ~ //` `� f _. 11 _' t� •" 1.. ,~+ r �' ' Figuro 2 ki t 7 1 AV N _ e..., w. A W, 2� 26 25 N City Limits____ I ---------- 0 r�erly AnnexM-- ' N 1��' . i - ---------- =� Nis 4*4 36 LAO 4 -0 g P 71 N City of Monticello ?C� Wright County Minnesota 4 Planning Area t C E L +»0 son ? ,%-^ 0" Flour* 2 5010 (F. .91,ea Wlwl., AM& Q-202 j"A;V21 4XI May 15. 1986 Tom Eldom City Administrator 250 East Broadway Monticello, MN 55362-9245 Dear Tom: As we agreed this past Tuesday, in your office, t1his letter is to serve as an addendum to our petition for- anne;iati on of my Ny 7th letter', to include the balance of the 110 acres , SOULlh of the power line. This will include all Of our Prop el'tY in WriCjht County, in the City of Monticel Ia. Mr. Dennis Taylor-, Monticello land surveyor, has. been instructed to deliver an accurate description of the total property to you. WO understand that You will have your hearing an May 27th. It is also Understood that you will notify the townshi_ p srsd OAA Doe' -d of the anneitation action. Thanks Tom. Sincorpl Jim Doyle JP/ra cce Mr. Shelly Johnson cc: Mr. I)onnis Taylor, cc: Mr. DeVore Preston cc: Mr. Merlin Peltier SOlO P..�ecry�$led., .9'ai/e• '�-YOf .9eo/L�d�sly .iatuJ•armB5fi4 �60l�4AS/•39C'J May 7, 1986 Tom Eidem City Administrator• 230 East Broadway Monticello, MN 33562-9243 Dear Tom: Enclosed is a petition to annex the 120 acres north of the power line, of which 80 acres is sold to the school board. A checl; in the amount of $480.00 is also enclosed for the filin!3 fee. Thanks, Tom, and if you need more information, pleas• call. Sincerely, Jim Boyle JD/ra ,.r i PETITION FOR ANNEXATION of LANDS INTO THE CITY OF MONTI CELLA To the Council of the City of Monticello, Minnesota: I (We), the undersigned, the sole property owner(s) of the territory described below, hereby request the City Council of Monticello to annex this territory to the City and to extend'tho City boundaries to include the same, and for that purpose respectfully state: 1. The territory to be annexed consists entirely of unplatted lands which are filed in the .office of the County Recorder of Wright County, Minnesota. All of these lands lie entirely within the County of Wright, Minnesota, . and the description of such lands is as follows: 2. The territory described above abuts upon the City limits at the boundary(ies) thereof and none of it is presently included within the corporate limits of any incorporated city. 3. All of this territory is or is about to become urban or suburban in character. Signed \ �i1 J+ !✓ / S Footnote: In the first paragraph, use I or We ao,appropriato to indicate the owner/ownara of the land.1 If the land is in joint ownership with your apouso, use We. In the legal doacription inaartod in numbered paragraph I, be aura to include a total acroago statement. A map indicating the proporty-in question Should also be attached to the petition for City review. L � $o,000 X19 x$3,000 J9.JsA 7:2B.S2. Sp . 00 -27 S- 9c st t\ -4 (p�, 0 C-4, X" 3TS, o4 f) ©171 ®71 ---- 40A 40A 40A A)71 -2g, 5-C A �4oA IDA q.0 A �a A prorose-d /� nne X . • e— 6owe C, LINA U RESOLUTION 86 - RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO ANNEX CERTAIN LANDS IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA, TO ANNEX CERTAIN ADJOINING UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY TO THE CITY. TO THE MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL BOARD: WHEREAS, certain territory described below is not presently included within the incorporated limits of any city; and WHEREAS, said territory described below has been designated for orderly annexation to the City of Monticello is urban in character, or about to become so, and in need of central sewer and water facilities in the immediate future, and WHEREAS, this territory abuts upon the City limits at the southeasterly boundary thereof. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO. MINNESOTA, THAT: 1. The City Council hereby determines (1) that the territory described below abuts upon the City limits and is or is about to become urban or suburban in character; and (2) that none of the territory is now included within the limits of any city. 2. The City Council hereby declares its intention to annex the following territory to the City: (INSERT LEGAL DESCRIPTION HERE) Resolution 86 - Page 2 J. Annexation proceedings pursuant to Minnesota Statute 414 are hereby initiated, and the Minnesota Municipal Board is requested to set a time and place for a hearing upon annexation of the above described property. Adopted by the Council of the City of Monticello, Minnesota , this 27th day of May, 1986. Arve A. Griosmo, Mayor Thomas A. Eidem City Administrator J 1Alit OW t: I t z. 4" 7wx # c A W VA the �O. and zz .;-r4,po2L-'v L-%;,. ' that hllirim,7. vt* Q!Z-m-lzia, ilvv� 4N% , Witi,iW-4 fin*#ii 'sea i4.1it3t4y'c.Et.�t4i'. "'abo, hAs to ;)'with, Load. oaunssl'thst. -v intancl to olilk but &Ioarly 'wo'cannat ollsoes 4Lqttot' AM an deriving diftev lit b"I%orAt-4.4 *40 pt 4?pvclo,# Aiim§4`4 4 - iia% will have nominal -40oiltot, Itilk1il lov kho uiik+teA cdriol" vuttor'.& ful a woivaflc ',g6v4 IflAt. wt 0, lip bi-ikof4miq M,,iokf: The other; costorattoiII '411.3 w3kii in tmiikioitty 'til'individual' proVertiviij, #%'a Ara giln"2ol I!mzj.# jjr Clio, p i; axlstroot, ii6j��t ki W lighting., at,().. 1101M, 14 "A"140D. , Outsl.olvi easw-oi+om That we maitecl 60.4oliv to t400losv 4iiwhwa 0 i-!kkj,fq� i. W4 i mlili, io'explain that, it weliAolli t3politi CI il Pill4L , ,4L , i}ij;jjj'j , 0 L4 I : be cheaper to ffle.osvb Isouic thail two. bovotato tit", M- iklafi:,ValF 'chat. ii; vas dw*Trun%,hLUhway PD. t -we wot;# doltitf 41 I:j jljh, (liqljoily 06 .04 � - ij i jf4fok of: any - othorl'woilli tit the-ClOry. we WNIA 011lw� hove'17600, 044 Qui Of. our: shareCoI4614-A o 114 dubiws.as 'to vijiiipthor' ori llot,26% of but,kliq Cooid OvOnAliii ismosed lAos but Wholl Clio Liod f!s,#jj6(!,tA qFg 'f rMhifit it ,as one, cliarly'vil, exceed 1'69 20% jovol. 1110 the City doundit at, Mile tiffle 'in 1 0 et14pv iiia the puliiA6 6arInq.for, thine jliv as folloves, Jun 23. coun!)IIJ .00! pf �.itioj joy "04, j . I f O''Fio .bond oeii; AUQDS!t Id. 'fy'flo jj""iloli #P-l"I to 1-1141- Cf40911,.4 There Ara not alternative ot;6tolloj If-ep ItAff, #jfig if�i 'D., SUPPORTIM nATA3 Opon RESOLUTION 8c - RESOLUTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING ON PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution of the City Council adopted February 10, 1966, ordering the making of improvements appurtenant to the construction of a sanitary sever interceptor line, and WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution adopted April 14, 1986, entering into a cooperative construction agreement with MN/DOT for the rehabilitation of Trunk Highway 25 and appurtenant work. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA: 1. The Council will consider the improvements appurtenant to the interceptor sewer project and appurtenant to the rehabilitation of Trunk Highway 25 in accordance with the plane and specifications and the assessment of abutting properties for all or a portion of the cost of the improvements pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, at an estimated total cost of the improvement of $387,000.00. 2. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvements on the 9th day of June, 1986, in the Council Chambers of the City Hall at 7:30 p.m., and the City Administrator shall give welled and published notice of such hearing and improvements as required by law. Adopted by the Council this 27th day of May, 1986. Arvo A. Grimsmo, Mayor Thomas A. Eidom City Administrator „\n( -A �*P, . - %"'Z; Q ” r ==rt*vi%rdc24zFv �Jaz-,! Ail- ,tv"h adctln% Q,w have. �#vAv-,iv:t tt:^ the t;,xft owt adopt as da,11lavol. C. flTAIV DEN)WHIJOATMI Start r000rm0000rto that. 1114 jwqpqf�yr) UJ)011 JAIM 10414011. POPYOUM Of' 019' fe-qll pt] q P,,416-11 1411f) (4/5) Vote. COV/ at Lila 61417 pr grplaq gf 1!1,9 LO *.bQ �y FA Be 2. PROHIBITED SIGNS: The following signs are specifically prohibited by this paragraph. (a) Any sign which obstructs the vision of drivers or pedestrians, or detracts from:the visibility of any official traffic control device. (b) Any sign which contains or imitates an official traffic sign or signal, `Q except for private, on -premises directional G` , signs. (c) Any sign which coves or .rotates. Exempt are time and temperature information and barber poles. an— d) Any sign which contains or consists of banners, pennants, ribbons, streamers, strings of light bulb, spinners, or similar devices, except in case of Subsection (c], Paragraph 4. (o) Portable signs, except in case of Subsection (C], Paragraph 4. (f) Signs which are attached in any manner to trees, fences, utility poles, or other such permanent supports, except for those signs found on fences (inside) of baseball parks. (g) Advertising signs of 200 square feet or more, in place on or before June 23, 1980, and which are the principal use of the lot of record as of the above date, and which have an agreement on file with the City on or before August 23, 1900, in the form so designated by the City Administrator, which is signed by the property owners and the advertising sign owners and all signatures notarized, may continua Z7a non -conforming use until such Line as the lot of record above is developed or improved, in which case, the non -conforming advertising sign must be removed within 60 days after written notice from the Building Official. (h) Advertising Signa as defined in Chapter 2 of thio Ordinance of 199 square feat or less in area, except that those signs which were in place on or before 0/19/75 may continuo as a non -conforming use. f�"JS�Q PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE pV [B) 2. (s) Portable signs, as defined in i below, and other attention getting devices, as defined in iii -v below, except as provided for in subsection (C], Paragraph 4. i. Portable sign shall be defined as an advertising device not permanently attached to a building, facade, or pylon. Portable signs include electronic and non -electronic sign boards on wheels, banners, as defined in ii below, sandwich boards, hanging placards, signs mounted on movable standards. ii. Banners shall be defined as fabric, paper, vinyl, or similar material which carries a specific message and which can be hung on a wall, facade, awning, canopy, suspension cable or wire, etc. iii. Streamers/Pennants shall be defined as flags, triangular pennants, spirals, spinners, etc., attached in series to a single cord or support line which is then strung or suspended from point to point. iv. Inflated devices shall be defined as inflatable devices which may be stationary or airborne (but ], tethered) which are intended to attract attention to a specific location or site. V. Searchlights - self defining. 0 (C] GENERAL. PROVISIONS: 1. All signs shall comply with maintenance Section 5-305 of the 1970 edition of volume V of the Uniform Building Code as promulgat, . by the International Conference of Building Officials. 2. When electrical signs are installed, the N� installation shall be subject to the City -s �G _•Q ` Electrical Code. G3. No signs other than governmental signs shall be erected or temporarily placed within any street right-of-way or upon i any public lands or easements or right-of-ways. 4. The temporary use of search lights, banners, pennants, and similar devices shall require a permit. The permit shall be issued for ' a maximum period of ten (10) days with a minimum period of one hndred eighty (160) days between consecutive issuance of such permits for any property. The permit shall be predominantly displayed during the period of validity. Use of portable signs shall be restricted to information only and may - L! not exceed four (4) square fact (no advertising). 5. All signs shall display, in a conspicuous manner, the owner's name, permit number, and date of erection. 6. All height restrictions on signs shall include height of sign structure. 7. In any district, any portion of any sign exceeding two (2) square fast shall be act back fifteen (15) foot from any right-of-way Lino and tan (10) feat from any residential (soned) property line. 6. Any sign now or hereafter existing which no longer advertises, or identifies a bona fido busineaa conducted, or a cervica rand Bred, or a product sold, shall be removed by the owner, agent, or person having the beneficial use and/or control of the building or structure upon which the sign may be found within tan (10) days after written notice from the Building Inspector. C 5�O PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE OR O (C] 4. The temporary use of portable signs, decorative attention -getting devices and searchlights shall require an annual or daily permit. (a) An annual permit for portable signs, as defined herein, shall be granted for a maximum period of twenty (20) days per calendar year. The applicant shall determine and specify on the application the days planned for display, i.e., twenty consecutive days, ten weekends, etc. (b) A permit for decorative attention -getting devices shall be issued for a maximum period of ten (10) days with a minimum period of one hundred eighty (180) days between consecutive issuance of such permits for any property or parcel. (c) All portable signs and attention -getting devices must be wall maintained and kept in good repair at all times. The Building Official shall order the immediate removal of any device considered to be damaged or in poor condition. Non-compliance shall be just cause for revocation of the permit without refund. (d) All portable signs and attention -getting devices shall be allowed only on the property or site where the business or enterprizo is situated. No placement shall be allowed on public rights-of-way. (s) All portable signs and attention -getting devices shall be on ground level except that banners and streamers may be affixed to a building, facade, permanent pylon sign, or other permanent fixture. Airborne inflatable devices shall be tethered on site. (f) Not more than two (2) portable signs shall be displayed at the came time. (g) Not more than two (2) attention-gotting devices shall be permitted to be displayed in conjunction with any portable sign. (h) A decorative attention-gotting device may boar the name of the business, but shall not bear any service, product, price, etc., advertising message. (i) Permit foes shall be eat by the City Council and shall be payable upon application for said permit. 0/0 Council Agenda - 5/27/86 11. Consideration of a Reguest to Allow a Residential Lot Split with the Two Lots When Split being Less than the Minimum Lot Square Footage Requirement. Applicant, Dol Emmel. (G.A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: As you will nolo on the enclosed site plan, Mr. Emmel is proposing to split a standard inter -city 66' x 165' residential lot. If Mr. Emmel is allowed the lot split, he will enter into a purchase agreement to purchase the adjois.ing � lot (a 33' x 165' residential lot) from the adjoining neighbor. The total size of the two lots when split would be 825' x 99'. These two residential lots would be less than the minimum residential size required in this R-2 zoned area, which is 12,000 square feet minimum. The most square footage Mr. Emmel would get from each of these two lots would be 8,167 feet. If the lot split were approved, Mr. Emmel would propose to redirect the front entrance of the existing house on Lot 10, Block 45, Original Plat, to the River Street side. Mr. Emmel would like to construct an attached garage to the existing house to be within 21 feet of the River Street lot side. In this case, it would be a sidoyard setback on a corner lot, and we would need a 2D -foot setback requirement on which the proposed attached garage would meet. On the other half of Mr. Emmol'a request in to be allowed to construct a single family dwelling on the southerly 825 fact of the west one-half of Lot 9 and all of Lot 10, Block 45, Original Plat. The house could be constructed on this lot to moot the minimum setback requirements, but would not meet the minimum lot square footage requirement. Mr. Emmal is proposing to match the currently existing houses which do front or abut Chestnut Street in between West River Street and West Broadway. In doing no, Mr. Emmol's newly created lot would be of loan square footage than the newly created houses since tho ordinance was adopted in 1975. However, Mr. Emmsl'a newly created lot would be larger than two of the existing houses now fronting on parts of Lots I & 2, Block 45, Original Plat, abutting Want Broadway. The solo intent of minimum square footage requirements for rooidantial iota is to allow enough land area to accommodate a single family house and an attached or detached garage and any accessory buildings. Mr. Emmol'a newly created lot, with the existing residential house lot, would be :1,2325 foot short of the minimum lot square footago requirod. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve the residential lot split creating two now lots, with one lot having an existing house, and one a vacant lot, with lose than the minimum lot square footage requirement. 2. Deny the residential lot split. -1s- Council Agenda - 5/27/86 C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Mr. Emmel be allowed to redirect the front entrance to the existing house and allow construction of an attached garage within 21 feet of the existing front property line. Staff is also recommending denial of the residential lot split, with the actual lot size being too much leas than the minimum square footage required. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the location of the residential lot split and variance request; Copy of the site plan depicting location of the existing house with an attached garage and a proposed new house and garage on subdivided lot. -16- lot a?39s g9t to lots K s4 6916 4 iotyge L�uSY��t raga too 1°t A,.h tha _knit 11 -1 it7L,I' 1 PLOT PLAY [ADORE 3SCh PS'l NL(! -9k e:e � ' PERMIT EMBER • 11 F--GAL� '� �':: •:..• ' .1 CRIPTION ::LOT' �1 )• I •I BLOCK7- ADO TION !/.Qi 9 Gp !. SO. FT. OF SITE MEA /0 / O 50. FT, or AREA OCCLPIED BY BUILDING INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICANT THP! PC— NEED .NOT pL USES Wn[n PLOT PLAN] ORAWH TO ]CALL ARE /ILEO WITH THE P[.HIT APPLICATION. %DR N[v aVILO1NG3. /WOV IDL TnL FOLLOWI wO INFORNATIONf LOCAT IOw O. PVOPO]CO CONSTRUCTION AN0 [1.1ST INO PROV[H[wT �. SMOW pUILDI nG SITL ANO ][Tp ACR OI rENS IOM]. ]NOW [A!r[NT]. flMllH CONTOURS OW VA INAG[, 1'YW]T PL00R CLCV AT IONS. 3TRELT ELEVATION ANO SEWER CLCVATIO.I. $NOW LOCATION OF ''+Ai[v. ]C+CR, GAS, •11.0 ELECTRICAL SCRVICC LINEO. SNOW LOCATION] Of 3VVVLY PIN]. ]PCCI" THE USE Or EACH OVILOINC .w0 EACH NAJOW PORTION THEREOF. INDICATE. NORTH IN CIRCLE EACH GRAPH S_UARE EQUALS I01.0" BY 101-0" _I._I..I—I__I_I--I.._I_I_I..I.-.I.-I I I .I I I I I •ICI V I I I l l l l l l l l l l l l l f ,11 i l b:; ,I•NI V I I I V I I I I j l l l ` -i--I--I-••I—I--L---I—j-I—I'--I--'I•'ll--I—I--� I I -I---'ISI — I I I I IATi l j l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l Jul V I I I I l j l l l l l l l l I III I I I I Jill I I I —I --I• I I -I. I TI -j I---I—I r-!.Azl 1 -i—I•-I—I--'—j---'-I—I----�-li�- -I- � ��- -'rTl �-I I I I I I I I I I j I I I LL,I I `1 j I E I -T i l i IIIIIIIII� II"I � I IIIIII�IiI I I,1� � , . 1 I/[.nily IN. 1''...0..•.a L�ryllyV=➢RJ SII .i V {. ��....nU. J I K`R` �w.."0 ,HAI na TA.ry., w.�� p. ..•0. ..�IOnul — 1oa.po.m•I. J .......................................................................................................... (Fa; CI;; UAE o."I !_NED APPROVED BY DATE" ��AOORES$ Q�1 1r7v j•�1ua/.17'iQP�/ I. PERMIT MNGER I AL � 'r - 8a!f(.�l/�sf Xiger2•sr2err . � :RIPT 10 Lor S• LY �3F7"LOr4 CSLY82�f1ldfpQocx,S ADDITION Iv, ]K 70 WLYWf7lor Y�NLYVW 1011 yS 'r 4. ;;V! AT SO. PT. Or SITE ARCA SSI /e i ` S0, R, Of AREA OCCLPIED BY BUILDING �n� .. 867 a ,aaa INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICANT THI] ro.•• .[CD nor 11 OSCo —INROT 111.1 .-AN. To ]..L[ A.[ I.L.C. .11. THE PC.NIT VPL IC1T 10., =0. .CV o."DIHO]. PAOVIDE THE IOLLOWINO INrO..•TIONI LOCATION Of P.OP011ED C0.]T.UCTION A.0 CX13T.l6 '.1.0""CNT1. ].Ov DUIL01 No 11" AND ][TDACR 0'""...... 1.Ov E1].ENT1. rIH11. CO.TOUw1 O. Ow•I N•C[. 'I+]T 1100+ CL[VAT IOn]. DT.[CT LLLV AT EOn AnD ]CVC• CL [r AT IOn. $HOv LOC •TION Or VATEA. ]CvC., GA], I— CLCCT.ICAL AC.VICC LINL]. ]MOv LXT 10.1 Or ]Uwr[T PIM]. Or EC IrT THE U1C Or EACH DUILDI.0 ..0 CAC. ..1JOw PO.T10N TNC.[0/. .- INDICATE NORTH IN CIRCLE EACH GRAPH MARE E%ALS 101-0" EY 101-0" I I I I I I I I i l l l I I I I I I I I I I I I l rel Lid I I I I I I I I I�I I I I �ycE�l I .I -1-f � �I '-I--I-I--I--I•- I -I-j-I-- �', - I-- I -I--I--I-I-I-I---I- I �I�-I-• -I--I. I- ISI -I I I I I I I III I I I I t I�I I I _ I I isasJ' — L I—_ IC! 1 1 1 1 1 I -� -•-I �t -I I I -I- I II it IIII 151 I I I I Ibs' ITI -I I '• -� •IRI I I I I 77 r -i -I- I I +11, II w• <.n,h Inn 1b D10p0•+O conn.uUun II n• n m•n .Om •M inn n •nrn• •M rn•I rD , ne. yn ., i n. mr.• ��In„ . I.n bDu�luq.DD1C..1 - I EST. IWlvEk srREEr _. •�r,.. iv_a v v.µ . �J nnu.y. J 4i nl_Lnu�.A ..................................................................................................... (ra+ clTr�u+[onTl� i_nLD APPROVED BY DATE (4) -4 o T. 75 — r -I N al Au Co j4"5',w;tA LOLSS-1-LA • .. .r 1 Rm«+ � X6•,0 44 � RwA mosiu' z••o �i •',�• .So BuJrm— � 1 1( 1.8.12 LL �S MPinLCaEi ' ell rTJai+ Council Agenda - 5/27/86 12. Consideration of Amending a Conditional use Permit to Allow Construction of a Neu Parking Lot with the Following Variances: a) To allow a driveway curb width more than the maximum requirement. b) To allow the curb cut within the maximum between two curb cuts and an intersection. c) To allow a parking lot design with no parking circulation within the parking lot. d) To allow a pylon sign to be erected in excess of the maximum square footage allowed. Applicant, The Seestrom Company. (G.A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The Seestrom Company is before you with a request to amend certain conditions which were attached to its conditional use permit. Mr. Seastrom would like to construct a parking lot along the west side of the existing house. If allowed to place a parking lot here, Mr. Seestrom would not put in the two parking spaces which were required along aide the existing garage, and would also not put in the screening fence to screen these two parking spaces. If allowed to put in the parking lot as proposed, Mr. S000trom would need the above variancon. At the Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Seestrom came up with a different parking lot design an recommended by Planning Commission. In doing so, he would need three variances instead of four. Mr. Soostrom, since the Planning Commission meeting, has come up with a now parking lot design which would allow three additional parking spaces in replacement of the two which he was proposing to relocate. With the newly proposed request as noted On the site plan, Mr. Soostrom would only need the request to amend his conditional use permit to allow construction of a now parking lot for additional parking with one more additional parking space when created. Mr. Soestrom would alas need a variance to allow the already erected sign to remain in place with the minimum square footage of the pylon sign being in excess of the minimum pylon square footage allowed. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Amend the conditional use permit to allow construction of a now parking lot deleting two proviouoly located parking opacoo and allow relocation of these two parking spaces with the addition of ono parking apace. 2. Deny the amendment of the conditional use permit to allow a relocation Of two parking spaces with the addition of Ono parking space. 3. Approve the variance request to allow more pylon sign square footage than the maximum allowed. 8. Deny the variance request to allow more pylon sign square footage than the maximum allowed. -17- Council Agenda - 5/27/86 C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: With the proposed new zoning area and recognizing the full intent of this type of zoning, PZ -M (Performance Zone Mixed), staff recommends approval of Mr. Seestrom-a request to be allowed to amend his conditional use permit to allow a relocation of two previously approved parking spaces with the addition of one parking apace. Staff recommends denial of the variance request to allow additional pylon sign square footage than the maximum allowed. The whole intent of conditions with this type of zoning is that they be as close to the minimum requirements of our ordinance as possible. We feel that the pylon sign could have been erected to meet the minimum square footage requirements, therefore, not needing a variance for additional pylon sign square footage. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the location of the conditional use permit; Copy of the site plan depicting the proposed layout for the new parking lot as previously submitted; Copy of the site plan depicting the proposed now layout for the new parking lot. J -18- P] 21 A request to amend a conditional use permit to allow construction of new parking lot with the following variances: 1. To allow a driveway curb cut width more .than the maximum requirement. 2. To allow a curb cut within the maximum between curb cute and in intersection. 3. To allow a parking lot design with no parking circulation within the parking lot. 4. To allow a pylon sign to be erected in excess of maximum square footage allowed. Seestrom Company. + 7T r 'y ��i� � � • tlraRi� J , t V _ 4.r6 0 13.2f F 'A. c V, I r6 311" P[WAlip Re c o �wewlf 4,41 ro J Council Agenda - 5/27/86 13. Consideration of Grantin_9 a Variance to Allow the use of Public Parking_ Lots in Lieu of Required Off -Street Parking. Applicant, Floyd Kruse. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At the April 14 City Council meeting, Mr. Kruse was present to discuss the concept of whether or not the City would perolt the use of public parking lots to fulfill the entire complement of parking required for a proposed building. The reason staff brought Mr. Kruse to the Council meeting at that time was so that Mr. Kruse could get an indication in a preliminary way as to whether or not the Council would support such a request. By getting a preliminary determination as to the acceptability, Mr. Kruse could then make a determination on whether or not to spend substantial sums of money in plan preparation. Since that time, Mr. Kruse has taken his proposal to the public hearing process in front of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission granted his variance, but it comes to the City Council because of the Zoning Ordinance requirement that final approval shall be granted by the City Council. The entire question of utilizing public parking in lieu of providing private parking is complicated by the original assessment formula the City used when they built the public parking lots, and is further complicated in this case because the applicant is proposing dwelling units and not pure commorcial/retail space. In providing this background information, I will try to be as clear and conciso as possible. It is my understanding that the City originally acquired and built the public parking Iota under an assessment formula that vas tied to a geographic area and number of parking spaces affiliated with the existing use. In the beginning, if a use changed in a particular building such that the parking requirements changed also, the assessment was adjusted to reflect the now parking requirements. It in further my understanding that State Auditor, Arnie Carlson, discovered the fluctuating asaeasmento and instructed the City to cases that procedure. Consequently, a particular assessment wan assigned to a particular business, and with it came the right and privilogo of a particular number of spaces for that business. Also, connected with the original acquisition and construction. I further understand that tho assessments levied against property owners was intended to rotiro tho debt associated with acquisition and construction, and was not intandod to bo a perpetual assessment to assist in the operation and maintananco. In asoonco, at tho completion of the assessment roll, the property owners would pay no more money to the City for public parking. whon the original a0000smont roll was adopted, the Figo-it-Shop was required to provide 10 parking spaces. The Figo-it-Shop was able to provido two parking spaces on their own property, and thus, were assessed for eight public parking spaces. Whan tho use of the building changed from the Figo-it-Shop to Dino'a Doli, a restaurant, no parking space, adjuatmants warn made. Undur the strict turns of the 2U11181y Ordinanco, now construction of tho cams restaurant would require -1g- Council Agenda - 5/27/86 39 parking spaces on site. In addition, the creation of two apartment units upstairs would generate the need for four more parking spaces for a total of 43 spaces. Under current conditions then, two out of 43 required spaces are being provided for on site. The remaining 41 required spaces are being provided in the public parking lots and paid for by the taxpayers. The current proposal for a new structure requires four parking spaces for the two apartments plus 16 more spaces for the office/professional building, for a total Of 20 spaces. When added to the requirement for the restaurant, this one parcel requires 63 spaces. If the new building is built, then the two spaces currently provided on site would no longer be available, and all 63 spaces would be required in the City parking lots. Based on the original assessment which is paying for eight spaces, Mr. Kruse would receive 55 free parking spaces. This gats even more complicated. At the time Mr. Kruse converted the Figs -it -Shop into a restaurant, the City had no mechanism to require payment for the excess parking space requirements being generated by the change in use. Consequently, the 33 spaces over and above the original 10 required of the Figs -it -Shop were free of charge. It was thio very building use change that generated the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that would allow the City to charge for public spaces in the downtown when a building changed its land use. Since the 33 newly required spaces were granted without fee, I think it would be impossible to go back and make the fee retroactive against Mr. Kruse. Basically, he was allowed to change the use of an existing building without providing the 33 additional parking spaces required. we now have a proposal to build an additional structure that will require 20 additional parking spaces. We also now have provisions in our ordinance that allows the City to charge for spaces that cannot be provided on site. Based on today's prices. City staff has determined that the cost of a parking apace is approximately $100 par year. In Mr. Kruse's coca, this would moan a payment in the first year of $2,000.00 for the 20 required spaces. The annual maintenance portion of the overall fee will change based on overall operation expense. Whilo this amount may sound expensive, in reality it is quite cheap. The 5100 accounts for total snow removal, atriping, swooping, periodic Desiccating, atc. Considering a parking space is 9' x 20' tills aq. ft.), the coat of a parking space per year 1n just under 56C par square foot. If a developer con utilize 1001 of his lot to build revenue generating structures, than he will likely generate anywhere from $5.00 to $0.00 par square foot of space, while he is paying out 55¢ par square foot for each parking apace fully maintained and cared for by the City. If the developer hos to provide parking on Oita, the square footage available for generating revenue is substantially less. Staff wiahoo to add one more couplication to thin proposal. This complication is generated by the fact that the proposed structure contains two apartment dwellings in the upper level. It is the otaff'a contention that at least throe spaces be provided on private property A for the exclusive use of the apartment dwellers. Residents of the L -20- Council Agenda - 5/27/86 • apartments will frequently leave their car stand for an indeterminate amount of time throughout winter months. Retail customers and employees generally will remove their vehicles overnight. Apartment dwellers may leave cars sit for any period of time which will hamper our snow removal efforts. Mr. Kruse in opposed to having to place private spaces on his lot since it would require the reduction of building size. Staff recommends that three spaces be required to be placed on site and that the apartment residents bo required to utilize those spaces. Maintenance of these spaces would be the responsibility of the property owner, not the City. At the public hearing, the Planning Commiso ion approved the use of public parking spaces for Mr. Kruse's building. They did not address the question of requiring tenant parking on site. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Grant the applicant the full complement of 20 parking spaces in the public parking lot at a rate of 5100 per space per year. 2. Grant the applicant the full complement of 20 parking spaces in the public parking lot at ooze other figure to be sot by the City Council. 3. Deny the variance request in its ontirety requiring that the developer provide all required parking. d. Grant a variance allowing the use of public parking Iota, but also require a minimum of throe apartment tenant parking spaces on private property. In the avant this alternative is selected, the overall parking required in the public parking lot would be reduced according to the reduction in the size of the building. C. STAFF RECOMME:;DATION: Staff rocommondz that the public parking lot use variance be granted, but that at lona t three apartment resident parking npacea be required on site. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the minutes of the Planning Comminalon; Map showing location; Copy of the pertinent section of the ordinance relating to public parking lots; Copy of the site plan for the proposed now structure. -21- Planning commission Minutes - 5/13/85 3. Public Hearing - A variance recuest to use a cunicioal parking lot to meet the minimum off-street parking space recuirements. Acolicant. Floyd Kruse. Mr.. Floyd Kruse was present to propose using the municipal parking lot to the rear of his property for off-street parking space requirements for an addition to his existing restaurant. Dino's Deli. Mr. Kruse indicated that he was over to the Pizza Factory building and indicated' it was 29 feet from the building to the curb. Mr. Kruse is proposing to be 31 feet from the rear moat portion of the addition to the center of the alley. War -an Smith questioned the parking lot assessment process. It was explained to him by Zoning Administrator Anderson and that there are approximately 4-5 years remaining on the original 15 -year assessment. A questioned raised by Planning Commission members was where the apartment tenants would park. Mr. Kruse answered that they would be parking in the public parking lot. Staff recommendation on this was we felt there was no problem with Mr. Kruse's request. The only thing we are concerned with is that he allow some type of off-street parking for the apartment tenants in the roar portion of his lot. Theparkinglot assessment formula was given for Planning Commission members information by Rick Wolfateller, Assistant Administrator. Public hearing was closed. Motion by Warren Smith, seconded by Joyce Dowling, to approve the variance request to use the Municipal parking lot to mast the minimum off-street parking space requirements, and direct City staff to review the ordinanca parking formula am established an the parking lot assessment role to come up with the number of parking spaces which Mr. Kruse would be short and figure out an annual assessment for Mr. Kruse: Motion carried unanimously with Richard Martie and Barbara Koropchak absent. 0 =k,i,o9 n9 1e1Pe1 tsaaae Perms ue®a mom' 04; s A aai meat' tre to im`� lot' to r�iteY%� 66a�8 1(Yt18a' l`. / /1 �1!!i ",+11L7 r ��'/)�t17?77 +, r t (0 "•i r � .r ; �"; _ o r `'•++J „%`j j�j:7JJ��;1�1jj1'j !' Grr� !�� "�' ' . i t. r t .l¢'; � y �i- =� \aL'J •I G(J,M(l,�tr"�CP'�'Lf•L{jJ. j t 'ff� .~t.i ."-�• t,.; `, r••t•r f j .,1,.'f• .1�, ,> :Lf'LLj•:� • r C� . • 1l ! r f '��= r ,(j f• M•. .Y -f j. i. "rj'�9""1'r'�� [(h`'/+(i+,(•jtjJ 'i /� .t , r _ r� Q' 1 % r��+'l i' r �,;. •y'� : i j j , a•"^r�'J r . ,i�rj �•r f l 41°,' ' :'�} o' • •` j ""'•.':.1 � \ ,' • �J ;'.6- , /�� '�i I' r"f j.': t :1'" f-,.,�,',"'•'L'•'f"r``-•�, G� �. r � ' �. •,,�� •'"�� LL�� jj � f • s ; :�;' :r '-i•./71�'� t �"',u,iw►t))1��'t�'; ;. x`'1„4 �" ; ��''7`�. ,r+tj� � :'`- /lJ••- Y -HWAY No. 84 t '' �..,. •` i t � 11 6. CHANGE OF USE OR OCCUPANCY OF LAND: Any change of use or occupancy of land already dedicated to a parking area, parking spaces or loading spaces shall not be made, nor shall any sale of land, division or subdivision of land be 'made which reduces area necessary for parking, parking stalls, or parking requirements below the minimum prescribed by these zoning regulations. 5. CHANGE OF USE OR OCCUPANCY OF BUILDING: Any change of use of occupancy of any building or buildings including additions thereto requiring more parking area shall not be permitted until there is furnished such additional parking spaces as required by these zoning regulations. i �rss� 6. PUBLIC PARKING LOTS: In the event of a change of use or occupancy of land and/or buildings, where such change shall cause the now use to be in violation -of the minimum parking requirements of this section, the Planning Commission may recommend approval of a variance which would grant the use of public parking spaces in a sufficient number to bring the total number of parking spaces (public and private) into compliance with the minimum requirements of this section. For each public parking space required to comply with the minimum requirements of this section, an annual fee shall be paid to the City, said fee to be established on an annual basic by the City Administrator. Any variance request to utilize public parking space, shall be reviewed in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 27 of this Ordinance, and shall require final approval _-of the City Council. 7. off-street parking facilities accessory to residential use may be utilized solely for the parking of liconood and operable passenger automobiles, no more than one (1) truck not to exceed gross capacity of nine thousand (9,000) pounds, and recreational vehicle and equipment. Under no circumstances shall required parking facilities accessory to residential structures be used for the storage of commercial vehicles or equipment or for the parking of automobiles belonging to the employees, owners, tannants, or customers of business or manufacturing establishments. Do j r..t Y�1 ti: � I f• � � /: A w �� .. . _:, �,,,�, �- ., -I- r�� ..... ..._. � � c,w Council Agenda - 5/27/86 14. Consideration of Relocating the Band Shell to Ellison Park. (J.S.I A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Some time ago at one of the Council meetings, we discussed the possibility of moving the band shell to Ellison Park. The Minnesota Department of Transportation wanted to know, for cost reasons, where the building would be moved. The Council at that time consented to relocating the band shell in Ellison Park. At that time, where was some discussion as to whether that structure or a similar structure would be built in Ellison Park. The State of Minnesota has asked us to pin down costs, as they are currently putting together a package for federal funding which will allow them to repay us for the band shell. As it stands today, the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the City staff feel that this structure itself could not be relocated. A now structure would have to be built. We have looked at several different ways to come up with a cost for the structure. We originally thought that we could modify the structure somewhat using pre -fab upper sections and have a contractor perform the elevated base work. We had problems with this, as it was difficult to put togothor an upper structure and lower structure that would be similar enough to the old band shell to satisfy the requirements of the federal government, MN/DDT, and City staff. In our further discussions with MN/DOT, it became more evident that the cleanest way to go for funding of this structure would be to build an identical structure with some small modifications. We would assume that we may be able to use coder look-a-liko asphalt shingles on the roof to got away from the metal edging on the ribs; and also more closely align the stucco texture to the existing building in Ellison Park. Mr. Bob Ehrich from the Minnesota Department of Transportation, who works in the Right-of-way Division, Evaluation Section, felt this would be appropriate. We talked to Mr. Ehrich in regard to getting accurate costs for the proposed building. We have the old costa when the building was originally constructed, and utilizing construction prico index techniques arrived at a figure in the area of $22,000.00. This appeared to be in lino with the Stato'a estimates. This is excluding demolition of the old structure which will be handled by State contract. Before the State or the Fads will authorize payment for the structure, the bridge aiting must be completed, which will be done probably in late Juno or early July. In addition, they must have an actual coot for construction of the band shell. In order for us to obtain ouch a coat, it would be necessary to rovioa and redraw the plan ahooto and include coma specifications in a contract. The original structure was built on a vary l0000 oat of documents which would not be in the boat interest of the City at this time. The City staff could proparo the necessary documents and have them ready for a meeting in Juno. we could than have bids returnable in July and be able to hold the bids for 30-45 days. During this period of time, I would expect that we would receive payment from the Minnesota highway Doportmo-,it and tho Fads. -22- Council Agenda - 5/27/96 9. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative is to authorize the staff to prepare plans and specifications for the construction of a band shell in Ellison Park very closely resembling the existing structure. 2. The second alternative would be to attempt to change, our plans and/or receive payment for the structure. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the staff recommendation that the Council authorize preparation of plans and specifications as outlined in Alternative q1. This would be the simplest way to receive full value for the loss of the band shell in Bridge Park; and as we have previously discussed, the most desirable location for a new structure would be in Ellison Park. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Cory of the front plan sheet for the proposed building. -23- WTIO fit OVER AMF 146W fV-1r) C,EPAlt 5WI144L -S, 7 WO. FAcsA ftAS "L,' -JS comic 42 FRONT P-LEVATIOd /4L Council Agenda - 5/27/86 15. Department Head Report - Administration. (T.E.) On Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, May 14-16, I attended the annual conference/business meeting of the Minnesota City Managers Association. The prime presenter was Mr. Layne Longfellow, a Doctorate in Psychology, who presented material on management technic, people handling. and stress management. At the annual business meeting, I was elected to serve a one-year term as the Second Vice -President of MCMA. On May 29 and 30th, I will be attending a 2 -day conference in Brainerd of the Minnesota Coalition of Outstato Cities. This organization has been a loosely formed association group who have lobbied jointly for the concerns of outstato cities in opposition to certain concerns of metro area cities. lie have been a member of the Coalition for three years. In the past, it has been a loosely formed group wherein officials from member cities could get together and share common concerns, and perhaps lobby at the legislature for common concerns. The Coalition has not ever intended to replace the League of Minnesota Cities, but is in fact a recognized affiliate of the League. If anything, the organization formed solely to oxpross concerns of a more apocial nature, when the League, by virtue of its eizo and general membership, could not be advocates for a special position. Prior to the 1985 legislative cossion, tho Coalition became extremely concerned over the proposed local government aid formulao. They felt that the controversy in the logiolaturo over the local government aid formula warranted assessing each member city an additional lobbying fee which would bo used to hire a professional lobbying firm to represent our interests. Monticello cooperated in that effort, and the lobbying was soon as generally successful. AD a nuclear power plant city, we did not gain in local government aid, but we did not lose any government aid which wao proposed by the metro area formula. The particular conference that I am attending is designed primarily to prepare for the 1987 legislative session. There is a proposal amongst several of the Coalition cities to again levy for lobbying purposes. At first blush, I am opposed to an additional lobbying fee of approximately $1,400.00, and believe that the City may wish to withdraw from the Coalition of Outstato Cities bocauso of this issue. I aupportod the original lobbying effort, but the Coalition, if it continues to need professional lobbying services, is growing into an organization which I think can bec000 excessive. The City is a meuber of, and I porconolly have boon active in, the League of Minnesota Cities. As a league, representing all cities in Minn000ta, it by definition cannot be advocates for every special concern. The League has, however, boon reliable in its assistance to the cities in general in tl.inn000ta. I am not at all optomiatic about the direction certain mombors of the Coalition of Outstato Cities aro pursuing. It is my contention that I will attend the conforenco to make a determination of their prop000d 1987 legialativo action plan and return with a recommendation to the City Council that we continuo ou mombora of the Coalition or withdraw from that organization. -24- Council Agenda - 5/27/86 The third week in June is the annual League of Ftinnesota Cities Conference. we have already made some reservations for both housing and for conference registration. If you wish to attend and have not already notified Rick or me, please do so as early as possible so that we can try to make the necessary arrangements. If you have looked at your League of Cities magazine, you realize that the conference is in Duluth this year. CABLE The SWC4 is meeting approximately once every other month as it conducts its business. At the April meeting of the Commission, two candidates for the position of Cable Administrator were interviewed. At the conclusion of the interviews, the Commission voted unanimously to hire Barbara Jones, a recent graduate of Gustavus Adolphus College. Starting salary for Ms. Jones will be $18,000.00. We are currently searching through the ten cities to find office space for her. This position is paid for and sustained 100% by the Commission and its income from the Rite Cable Company. It does not require any financial contribution from any of the individual cities. The Cable Administrator will work closely with the Cable Commission, the cable company, the public access division, and the general public. With respect to public access, public programming by residents, we have had soma difficulty in finding volunteers for the formal training sessions. We had hoped to conduct an initial public access training session with at least one representative from each of the ten cities. Chris Lommol has agreed to represent Monticello. The other communities have boon having a difficult time finding an interested party willing to accept the training procedures. Consequently, Rita Cable Company did not conduct a training session for only one parson (Monticello's representative) but hopes to hold a training session soon when at least 5-8 people have agreed to sign up. Somewhat related to public access is government access. Am soon as Chris has received the formal training for public access equipment, I hope to have him train at least one other individual who can than begin taping government meetings for delayed cable cast. In addition, I am hoping that the City can produce a cable program on punch card voting that can be shown periodically throughout the summon leading up to the primary and the general election. Granted, we have already used the punch card voting system once, but I would hope to make this year's voting even easier for the voter. PERSONNEL/COMPARABLE WORTH Duo to the recent revisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, I have found it necessary to rovioo the proposed personnel policy that I submitted to the City Council approximately throe years ago and which received no action. I have asked Frank Madden, the Labor Attorney who has assisted us in the pact on spacial personnel problems, to give me a legal review of the personnel policy am that we may be in compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act. Ilio review should be completed sometime in mid-June so that I may prepare a final copy of a proposed personnel policy for your consideration. with respect -25- Council Agenda - 5/27/86 to our participation in the joint comparable worth study, I anticipate receiving our final results any day. On June 2 there is a morning seminar in Golden Valley to discuss the final results of the comparable worth study and how it might best be implemented for individual cities. In addition to the hierarchy of jobs established in the comparable worth study, I am hoping that we can establish pay ranges and grades that will assist in the annual compensation determination. COMPUTER To bring you up to date on the continuing saga of our computer search, we have now begun to collect the credentials for various computer consultants. Rick and I have made a number of trips to view computer systems, both hardware and software, and have listened to vendors demonstrations and pitches to the point of exhaustion. It is fairly clear in our minds what precisely we would like to achieve through automation. The difficulty we have in our search is translating our normal operating language into computer operating language. It has not boon uncommon to ask if a particular system can accomplish task X and the vendor responds, yes. Then, when we pull out the specific form and demonstrate precisely -what task we would like it to achieve, the vendor frequently says, well, no, we can't do that without some modification. Every system that we have reviewed to date has 90 out of 100 positive aspects but has two deficiencies. Those two deficiencies generally vary from system to system. We, therefore. believe it is the most coot officiant for the City to consider engaging a professional computer consultant to help us analyze our computer needs and aosist us in preparing a request for proposals. By preparing a uniform request for proposals in "computerese", then Bach and ovary bid should bo responding to the came demands. Proposals such as theoa can then be compared and evaluated objectively with respect to our needs, not with respect to all of the other things a system might be able to do. It is my hope that a request for proposci.s for consultant services can be prepared for Council review for the first mooting in Juno. If it is authorized at that. time, I will distribute them to the consultants with good credentials, and we can evaluate their proposals in the early part of July. When we select the final consultant, we would enter a contract for consulting services and begin our computer acquisition. FILING Our naw filing system is near completion, at least on the main floor. The transfer of old and obsolete documents to the basomant still has to be done. The final ro-orrangomont of the back room still needs to be done. The currant working filoo aro all traneforrod and put into the now cabinets and filed under the now system. Because it is all too easy to lot slide by, I wish to take this time to inform the Council of Karon Doty's excellence and dedication in making this filing system conversion. She virtually single handodly took on records from the early 6010 to the present, sorting, creating now filos, and physically transferring them into the now equipment. She designed the now coding system. Moat important though, she kept her sense of humor through this whole thing. -26- Council Agenda - 5/27/86 FEDERAL TAX ACTION while there, in fact, is not a lot we can do, we have been watching closely the action at the federal level concerning the Gramm-Rudman Bill vs. the Packwood Tax Bill. Both bills have provisions that address the tax exempt financing method cities have used in the past, so they are of ongoing interest to cities. The newspapers clearly are filled with information on federal action concerning these bills. At this point, cities generally are watching closely and writing letters when it seems appropriate. -27- Council Agenda - 5/27/86 Department Head Report - Finance. (R.W. ) 1. Review of Quarterly Liquor Store Financial Statements. Enclosed with the agenda you will find a copy of the first quarter financial statement for the Liquor Store. Mr. Joe Hartman will be at the meeting to review and answer any questions you may have regarding the operation. Some highlights of the financial statements include sales up approximately 6% over the first quarter of 1985, but I would assume the additional excise tax that has been added to the cost of the merchandise accounts for the majority of this increase in sales. The excise tax was in effect since last October and raises the cost of liquor and wine and also increases the sales apportionately. Gross profit has increased approximately $4,000.00, or 118, over last year's first quarter; and the resulting gross profit percentage is 21.82%, which seems appropriate. overall operating expenses have increased approximately $2,300.00, but the operating income still shows a gain over last yoar of 51,600.00 to $7,914.00. Overall, it seems that the Liquor Store operation is mooting expectations at this Limo. It should be noted that although the income for the first quarter is only $7,900.00, this period is traditionally the slow time, and the majority of the income in produced during the second half of the year. The impact of the summer construction on Highway 25 is hard to determine at this time, but the staff expocts sales to possibly d ecroaso during the summer compared to previous years duo to the inaccessibility the construction project may have on our Liquor Store operation. 2. 1985 Audit Report. Gruyo Johnson 6 Associatos, the City's auditing firm, has recently completed its examination of the City financial records and is currently in the process of preparing the 1985 Audit Report. The completed report should be available in a few weeks and will at that timu be presented to the Council for review prior to Juno 30, 1986. At this timo, I am not awaro of any negative comments from the auditors regarding the financial condition of the City. 3. Financial Status. The City recently received over $1 million from the sale of bonds that will be used to finance the intercoptor sower project that has boon underway for the past few wooke. This money has boon invested over the next four months to coincide with the expected payments on the project. In addition to the bond sale money, the City, an of April 30, 1986, had cash and investments for all City funds of approximately S1,600,000.00. Of this amount, approximately half of the money to oneumhorod by the special assessment and debt service .� funds to be earmarked for payment of principal and interest on the City's debt. In addition to the $1 million for the Interceptor sower -28- Council Agenda - 5/27/86 project, an additional $200,000.00 is currently available in construction funds for completion of the Fire Hall project and Sixth Street extension for Raindance Properties. The balance of the funds are surplus funds at the present time in all other City funds. Monthly financial statements comparing actual revenue and expenditures to the 1986 Budget are available at City Hall for review if any Council member is interested. Sometime in early July, I will include with the agenda a copy of the 6 -month financial statement. -29- MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR BALANCE SHEET MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE • .................................................................................................................e.................. MARCH 31. 1986 AND 1985 ASSETS CURRENT ASSETS CHANGE FUND • 1.000.00 • 1.000.00 - CASH IN BANK - CHECKING 25.996.36 31.051.71 CASH IN BANK - RESTRICTED .00 1.614.80 INVESTMENTS 333.772.22 220.924.71 ` INVESTMENTS - RESTRICTED .00 47.540.20 ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE 1.237.36 .00 - NSF CHECK - RECEIVABLE 51.36 61.33 INVENTORIES 99./35.03 90.877.89 PREPAID INSURANCE 9.124.66 12.194.96 UNAMORTIZED BOND DISCOUNT 90 --_00 -------136 TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS • 470.616.99 • 405.402.5:0 } PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT LAND • 6.039.95 • 6.639.95 • BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS 151.671.04 151.671.04 - j PARKING LOT 8.515.508.515.50 a FURNITURE AND FIXTURES 50.400.31 38.400.31 - ACCUM. DEPR. - BUILDINGS l 38.366.75) 1 34.280.75) ACCUM. DEPR. - PARKING LOT 1 6.385.00) 1 5.967.00) ACCUM DEPR-FURNITURE t FIXTURE160.566.•0) ---- 13•.•50.58) TOTAL PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT • 57 ---- • TOTAL ASSETS _--140.190 • 610.807.56 ............. ---150=800_07 1 556.202.97 ............. t �' Sa 6 r � 1 a I MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR BALANCE SHEET 41 MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE l� ............................................................................................................................m....�.. MARCH 31. 1986 AND 1983 S LIABILITIES AND EOUITY CURRENT LIABILITIES ACCOUNTS PAYABLE • 28.847.29 • 29.214.02 SALARIES PAYABLE 1.370.33 1.189.97 PAYROLL N/H - PERA 120.04 32.04 PAYROLL Y/H - FICA 243.40 33.13 PAYROLL Y/H - STATE 110.00 229.00 PAYROLL Y/H - FEDERAL 303.00 199.00 1 BOND INTEREST PAYABLE .00 495.00 ACCRUED SICK LEAVE l VACATIONS BALES TAX PAYABLE 603.32 8.1314.68 1.306.93 3.400.76 -_-_______-__ TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES _____________ • 37.416.26 • 36.127.89 a LONG-TERM LIABILITIES 2 BONDS PAYABLE • __--__----_00 • 43.000.00 ------------- n t------------------- TOTAL LONG-TERM LIADILITIEB • .00 • 43.000.00 ___ y TOTAL LIABILITIES • 37.416.26 • 63.127.89 j EOUITY RETAINED EARN1N08 • 560.137.11 • 439.576.11 REVENUESOVER EXPENDITURES 13.234.19 13.190.97 ------------- TOTAL EOUITY ---------'--- • 573.391.30 • ---473=073 08 y EjE' TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY _____________ • ...6=0.GO7= 6 • �� 0�� r MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR r REVENUE AND EXPENSES MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE FOR THE TNREE MONTN9 ENDED MARLN 31. 1986 AND 1983 CURRENT -PERIOD CUR -PD YEAR-TO-DATE Y -T -D SAME -PD -LST -YR PD-LYR Y -T -D -LST -YR YTD -LY AMOUNT RATIO AMOUNT RATIO AMOUNT RATIO AMOUNT RATIO SALES - LIQUOR 0 57.101.73 30.83 • 57.101.73 30.83 6 33,368.69 31.79 0 33.368.69 31.79 BEER 97.301.10 32.67 97.501.10 52.63 90.377.19 52.00 90.377.19 32.00 MINE 26.155.59 13.21 21.155.39 13.21 21.996.23 12.63 21.996.23 12.63 1 OTNER MDSE 1.867.10 2.6] 1,867.10 2.63 1,657.70 2.67 1.657.78 2.67 MISC. NON-TAXABLE BALES 2.232.11 1.21 2.232.11 1.21 2,000.80 I. 13 2.000.80 S.IS DEPOSITS AND REFUNDS ( 778.19) ( .12) ( 778.191 1 .12) 1 318.31) ( .31) 1 318.31) 1 .311 1 BOTTLE DEPOSIT - MISC 11.66 .02 11.66 .02 119.93 .09 119.93 •09 DISCOUNTS l 227.03) l .12) < 227.03) ( .121 l ------------- 3.02) l .00) ( ___ 3.02) ( .00) TOTAL SALES _____________ 6 185.191.69 ______ 100.01 • _____________ 183.191.69 ______ 100.01 • 171.197.26 100.02 6 171.197.26 100.02 i COST OF GOODS BOLD •( 111.807.35) ( 75.19)6( 111.803.33) l 78.19) •( 137.972.62) (_79 20)6( 1]7.972.63) 1 79.20) GROSS PROFIT 6 10.391.31 21.82 • 10.391.31 21.92 • 36.221.61 20.82 • 36.221.61 20.82 GENERAL AND aDIM. EXPENSES = PERSONAL SERVICES SALARIES, REGULAR • 1].716.61 7.12 • 13.716.61 7.12 • 11,9.2 3 8.36 • 11,912.33 0.36 1 PE 13].98 .23 133.98 .23 323.03 .30 523.83 .30 INSURANCE. MEDICAL AND LIFE 791.61 .13 791.61 .13 1.091.73 .63 1.091.73 .63 tl SOCIAL SECURITY 673.63 .36 673.63 .36 86]. 9B .SO ---.__ 863_98 •SO ------ TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES • 15.650.86 __-._--_ 8.11 • 13.650.86 0.11 • (7.]96.819 9.99 • 17.396.59 9.99 7 SUPPLIES UPPLIES• SOPERATlNO 226-66 12 • 226 06 12 • .03 • 53.53 .O3 L E OENERALSUPPLIES 1.213.79 .67 1.215.79 .67 762.06 ____•• _-_--__762_06 ._--11 3 TOTAL SUPPLIES • 1.172.63 .79 • 1.172.65 .79 • 818.11 .17 • 810.11 •17 MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR REVENUE AND EXPENSES MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE FOR INE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31. 1986 AND 1983 CURRENT -PERIOD CUR -PD YEAR-TO-DATE Y -T -D SAME -PD -LST -YR PD-LYR Y -T -D -LST -YR YTD -LY AMOUNT RATIO AMOUNT RATIO AMOUNT RATIO AMOUNT RATIO OTHER SERVICES AND CHARGES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (AUDIT) • 379.00 .20 • 379.00 .20 • 330.00 .19 • 330.00 .19 COMMUNICATION 121.51 .07 121.51 .07 151.35 .09 151.38 .09 TRAVEL -CONFERENCE -SCHOOLS 170.13 .09 170.80 .09 153.00 .09 151.00 .09 ADVERTISING 310.00 .17 3 10 .00 .17 15.00 .03 15.00 .03 INSURANCE. GENERAL 5.117.03 2.91 5.117.03 2.91 2.979.73 1.71 2.979.73 1.71 1 UTILITIES. ELECTRICAL 1.375.65 .71 1.373.65 .7/ 1.531.85 .88 1.531.85 .SO UTILITIES. NEAT INO 1.101.28 .76 1,100.28 .76 902.70 .52 902.70 .52 UTILITIES. 6 1 Y 52.011 .03 52.00 .OS 157.73 .09 157.73 .09 MAINTENANCE OF EQUIPMENT 1.581.00 1.02 1.881.00 3.02 1.712.61 .90 1.712.61 .90 EOUIPMENI 1.111.00 .62 1.111.00 .62 .00 .00 .00 .00 d TAXES AND LICENSES .00 .00 .00 .00 12.00 .OS 12.00 .O1 .,� GARBAGE 271.50 .15 271.50 .IS 217.50 .11 217.50 .1/ DEPR. - ACQUIRED ASSETS 2.520.38 1.37 2.520.38 1.37 2,693.82 1.55 7.693.52 1.33 • _____________ _____________ _--___ __--_-__----- _-___- a TOTAL OTHER SERVICES • CHARGES• 15.091.26 0.16 • 15.091.26 0.16 • 10.923.32 6.28 • 10.923.]2 6.20 DEBT SERVICE I NTERE Oi • 217.30 .13 • 217.30 .13 • 953.13 .SS • 955.13 .55 PAYING AGENT FEES 11.85 .01 11.83 .O1 10.00 .01 10.00 .01 TOTAL DEBT SERVICES • 262.15 .f1 • 262.35 .11 • 965.13 .56 • 965.13 .56 TOTAL GENERAL t ADIM. EXPENSES• _---32=177.12 -17_53 • _-__32_177_12 -17 53 • -__-30_103.75 _17-30 • ---_30.103.75 -17-30 y TOTAL OPERATING INCOME • 7.911.22 1.29 • 7.911.22 1.29 • 6.120.09 3.52 • 6.120.09 3.52 OTHER INCOME (EXPENSES) INTEREST INCOME • 5.231.75 2.83 • 5.231.75 2.03 • 7.105.76 1.08 • 7.105.76 1.00 OTHER INCOME 89.31 .OS 89.31 .OS 21.00 .01 21.00 .01 CASH LONG/GNORT 1 1.29) 1 .00) 1 1.29) 1 .00) 1 51.60) l .03) ( 51.65) 1 .03) ------------- ------------------- ------------------- -----' ------------- ------ TOTAL OTHER INCOME (EXPENSES) • 5.319.97 2.80 • 5.319.97 2.08 • 7.070.00 1.06 • 7.076.00 1.06 ----- ------- - ------------------- ------------------- ------------------- ------ NET INCOME • 17.231.19 7.17 • 17.231.19 7.17 • 17,190.9) 7.50 • 13.195.97 7.50 ............. ...... ............. ...... ............. ...... ............. ...... LIUUUN 5HLL5 • D/, 101.75 100.40 f 57,101.75 100.40 DISCOUNTS ( 227.03) ( .40) ( 227.03) < .40) COST OF SALES - LIGUOR ------------- 43,945.48 77.27 ------ 43,945.48 77.27 GROSS PROFIT • 12,929.24 ------------- 22.73 6 12,929.24 ------ 22.73 BEER SALES 97,501.40 100.80 97,501.40 100.80 DEPOSITS AND REFUNDS ( 778.19) ( .80) ( 778.19) ( .80) COST OF SALES - BEER 77,803.37 80.44 77,803.37 80.44 GROSS PROFIT ------------- • 18,919.84 ------ ---------- 19.56 4 --- 18,919.84 ------ 19.56 WINE SALES 24,455.59 100.00 24,455.59 100.00 COST OF SALES - WINE 15,584.15 63.72 15,584.15 63.72 ------------- ------ ------------- ------ GROSS PROFIT 6 8,871.44 36.28 • 8,871.44 36.28 OTHER SALES 4,867.10 99.15 4,667.10 99.15 BOTTLE DEPOSIT - MISC 41.66 .85 41.66 .85 COST OF SALES - OTHER 4,986.53 101.58 4,986.53 101.58 GROSS PROFIT ------------- •( 77.77) ------------------- ( 1.58)5( 77.77) ------ ( 1.58) MISC. NON-TAXABLE SALES 2,232.41 100.00 2,232.41 100.00 COS - MISC. NON TAXABLE 1,442.45 ---- 64.61 ------ ------------- 1,442.45 64.61 ------ GROSS PROFIT • 789.96 35.39 • 789.96 35.39 TOTAL SALES 185x380.06 304.03 185,380.06 304.03 TOTAL COST OF SALES ------------- 144,803.35 486.41 144,803.35 486.41 TOTAL GROSS PROFIT • 40,576.71 ------ ------------- 817.62 • 40,376.71 ------ 817.62 �i J 0 Council Agenda - 5/27/86 Department Head Report - Public Works. (J.S.) With the beginnings of summer already at hand, this looks like a very, very busy season for the Public Works Department. We are busy trying to schedule all of the projects we intend to complete this year. As in previous reports, I will discuss briefly each area of Public Works. STREETS AHD ALLEYS There are a significant number of projects started or to be started this year involving streets. The Highway 25 project is to start in mid-June, and as far as we know, Buffalo Bituminous is the low bidder on the project. This will involve a significant amount of inconvenience for travelers through Monticello as well as many residents. It is anticipated that we will be without signal lights for a significant period of time. In addition, we will be down to two lanes north of I-94 for a good part of the summer. South of I-94, traffic will be detoured on Cedar Street and/or on Sandberg Road. Much of Highway 25 will be closed for 4-5 weeks south of I-94. This project also brings with it the widening of 7th Street. The City is currently negotiating with the owner of the Kentucky Fried Chicken for the purchase of trees and shrubbery prior to the beginning of the project. These trees and shrubbery will be used on other public property within the City. The Sandberg Road project which was started last year is still a big question mark. Thin road is and was intended to be used as a detour for Highway 25. Its current status lies in the hands of the attorneys. West County Road 39 is to begin on or about the middle of Juno. The apparent low bidder on this project is also Buffalo Bituminous. This project will only sae the grading portion being completed in 1986. The remaining paving of the shoulders will be done in 1987. Sixth Street construction is well underway and should be paved by mid -Juno. This will provide a thoroughfare between Cedar and Highway 25 and also access for the now Sixth Street Station. On May 20, at the request of the Council. I approached the County Board with a request for a signal light at the intersections of County Road 118 and County Road 75 on the oast and of Monticello. I discussed the project at length with Mr. Wayne Fingoloon, the County Engineer. There does not appear to be a possibility of funding by federal sources for any portion of thin signal in the near future. The County is also in a tight squeeze for funds. It is possible they may modify their 50/50 coot sharing policy as that the cities may have to pay more than 50% of the coot for a signal oyatom. This signal system would coat approximately $80,000.00. The County Board will review this signal system, as well an the Pato of East County Road 39 at the next Board mooting. East County Road 39 is achodulod for casements and right-of-way purchase thio year with grading beginning in 1987. -30- Council Agenda - 5/27/86 PARKS AND CEMETERIES It appears this year is going to be one of the busiest years in the Park Department in Monticello since some of our parks were initially established. Our people are busy grading the four softball field complex. we are establishing another smaller softball field in the Country Club Park. In addition, we are regrading and trying to level a small field in the Hillcrest Park. We have basically lost all of our facilities in the area of the Fourth Street Park for the summer dua to the construction of the interceptor sewer. It is our intention, when the interceptor sewer is completed, to rebuild the softball field at Fourth Street Park, which is used significantly by the Girls Softball League, and straighten or relocate the hockey rink to provide more area for the softball field. we also intend to do away with the berms for the free skating area, relocate the free skating area so that this area of the park may be further developed for recreational purposes. We have budgeted for some playground equipment to be added to this park, and we have oleo begun planting some additional trees in this area for beautification. We are currently looking into the relocation, which would actually be a rebuild, of the band shall at East Bridge Park. The band shall would be rebuilt in'Ellison Park. WATER DEPARTMENT In the first quarter of 1986, we replaced the burned up 60 II.P. motor on wall #1 with a now 75 H.P. motor and controls which will work with the now pump of higher capacity to be installed in this wall in the future. Much of our current plans for water center around the proposed improvements. I won't go into great detail hero, as this will be covered in another portion of the agenda. SEWER DEPARTMENT During the first quarter of 1986 and continuing currently, we aro involved in proposals for contracting the wastewater Treatment Plant. The committee is intending to visit various treatment plants in Minnesota and in nearby states which aro contract operations by contractors proposing for the Monticello Plant. Those inspections of those plants are expected to be complete prior to final review of proposals. Currently, the WWTP is mooting its permit limitations. In fact, the water going into the river at many times is still at zero BOD. All our permits aro at 25 and 30. It is my understanding that we have won an EPA award for the clarity of our discharge to the Mississippi River. On one hand, I am slated about ouch an award. On the other hand, some of the reasons we ars looking at contracting are also the reasons why we won ouch an award. N -31- Council Agenda - 5/27/86 The interceptor sewer is well underway. The jacking has been completed under Cedar Street; and my the time of the meeting on Tuesday evening, the interceptor sewer should have been completed across the Sixth Street Station property. Much of the work on Fifth Street west of Locust has been completed, and the project is moving ahead nicely. We have encountered significant problems, however, in the area of the force mains on the west end of town. We have been unable to got a test on the force main which was installed in the mid -70-s but never used; and the 6 -inch force main along Elm Street has some leaks. Both of these areas bear further investigation, as I know it is your goal as well as my own to have these force mains as tight as possible. We have had occasion to use our emergency pump twice in the past month. The force main at the location of Chestnut Street and River Street came apart while the contractor was excavating in this area, and we had to use our emergency pump to bypass the lift station to the gravity sowers in this area. Also last week there was a transformer failure on NSP's lane which caused an outage at the lift station in Bridge Park. It also caused damage to some of our electrical switch goar in the park. If not for our emergency pump, we would have had significant amounts of sewage in homes and discharged into the river. This particular pump has paid for itself time and time again. LIBRARY The installation of the now furnace and air conditioner at the Library is now complete. We are looking forward to a cool summer at the Library, and hopefully a warm winter next year. ADMINISTRATIO14 AND ENGINEERING In April of this year, I attended the National Road and Street Maintananeo Conference in Nevada. I found this conference, which was put on by the Cantor for Local Government and Technology from the Oklahoma State University, to be vary rewarding. While there wars portions of the conference which did not pertain specifically to our operations hero in Monticello, Minnesota, a groat deal of the conforonco I found beneficial. While at the conference I attended 13 separate presentations involving many facota of public works from anow and ice removal to highway reconstruction to specification writing. I also round a lino of communication for further information from people in other areas. This lino of communication is called Tochnology Transfer. The Federal Highway Administration, through the Rural Technical Ansiotanco Program, has not up centers for transfer of technology on roado, bridges, and transportation. There aro currently 75 universities and four state highway departments in the United States which can be used for sources of information on general or specific problems. The closest one -32- Council Agenda - 5/27/86 to us is in the Fargo/Moorhead area through the North Dakota State University. I intend to research this further so that we will be able to get information fast and efficiently through the Technology Transfer Center. One of the other presentations I felt very useful vas d presenta�!,)n by Roger Garbo from the University Asphalt Company of Urbana, Ill.inoi;. His presentation centered around quality assurance specifications, specifically for asphalt. Some of the points brought out in his discussions could be transferred to not only our paving operations, but our sealcoating operations as well. During the seminar, I took approximately two complete notebooks of notes on many of these topics, and I could go on in great detail. I would like to at least mention one more aspect of the conference, and that was a presentation by Harry Bisco, who is the Director of Public Works from Allentown, Pennsylvania. He gave a presentation on anti -ice and snow, road surfacing material. What this involves is the inclusion of flaked hydrophobic calcium chloride in the bituminous mixture. It is mixed in approximately 5% quantities in the top layer of asphalt during the last 45 seconds at the batch plant. In Allentown, Pennsylvania, this material has been placed on slopes as steep as 118 and has proven itself in that community. It is not the total answer to control of snow and ice, but for smaller amounts of snowfalls and for keeping a street clean, it works. It bears watching. I believe there is some tooting in Minnesota going on with it, possibly through the State Highway Department. It could be something the City of Monticello may look at for some of our atrooto in the future, especially those like Washington between River and Broadway. This is the and of my report for the first quarter of 1986. The entire Public Works Department is looking forward to a very buoy and productive eummor. _1 -33- Council Agenda - 5/27/86 Department Head Report - Planning 6 Zoning. (G.A.) CITY ASSESSING The Board of Review was held Monday evening, May 19, 1986, with several commercial property owners in attendance asking for review of their properties. With the Council members present, the directive was made by the members present to go look at the properties, meet with the individual owners, and get back to the Council members by June 9, 1986. As of this writing, wehave met with some of the commercial property owners; and the response we are getting from them is that they are acknowledging this process. We may not have come up with a satisfactory value fur all of them that we have talked to, but some that we have talked to have accepted the reduced value we have come up with. The not result of this is that we will have values updated in our commercial property section of assessments to show to the State Department of Revenue that our values were adjusted with the 1986 assessment. CIVIL DEFENSE with the abnormal amount of rainfall we have had in the past weeks, we have noted that the ground water level has increased, which has affected several properties which never had water or sump pumps in their basements; and thay aro having to purchase a sump pump to pump water out of their basements. The Miosisaippi River is at a higher elovation than it has boon in previous years, with the only notable flooding occurring in the River Terrace Trailer Park campsite area. We have an upcoming meeting with NSP out at the NSP Training Center on Juno 5, 1986, relating to the nuclear plant disaster in Russia. PLANNING 6 ZONING with interest rates low and the activity of porapactivo buyers and homeownera, we are cooing an upswing in zoning requests coming to the City, not so much for now arena to be platted as yet, but for amendments, conditional uses, and variances. With an upcoming decision on annexation and the location of the now middle school site for the Monticello Public School system, we will be looking at amending our zoning ordinance to zone around the proposed now middle school site. Depending on the outcome of the annexation study, we may be cooing an increase in existing and propound now dovolopmento to become annoxod into the City. with spring upon us and the grace growing, we aro cooing come areae that aro becoming blighted, with the biggest emphasis on existing non-licannod vehicles and what we can do to take caro of those and got them licensed or removed. wo may be looking at amending the ordinance to put more restrictions on the public nuisances and also tho addition of a section to address open burning with a propound fano section. -34- Council Agenda - 5127186 Also before you tonight was an amendment to our Sign Ordinance to address portable signs, banners, etc. BUILDING INSPECTION With building permit activity increasing, much demand is put on this department to keep up with the increasing amount of permit activity, inspections, and the time to review plans, alor;l with the other three job titles assigned to this position. The activity in the building inspection department by the end of ,May is projected to be approximately over half -way on the total building permit valuation for the entire year of 1985. Enclosed you will also find additional information which was submitted from my department to the Monticello School Disuict for building permit data back to 1981, showing all the permit activity with specifically citing buildings in numbers to the typo of buildings, residential, commorcial., and industrial, which have been constructed from 1981 through April 30, 1986. -35- J BUILDING PER14ITS ( Lhru 4/30/86) 1981 1902 1963 t984 1985 1986 Single Family Permito -' Number 25 7 23 29 400 16 Valuation $ 985,000.00 S 230,000.00 51,108.964.00 $1,425,000.00 S 2,166,000.000 S 951,600.00 Two Family Pormito Numbor 0 3 2 1 Valuation $ 0.00 $ 230,511.00 $ 154,396.00 $ 80,600.00 S 416,900.0C_3 S 64,200.00 4 -unit Apartment Permits Number 0 4 4 0 11 0 Valuation $ 0.00 $ 52t,509.00 5 445,100.00 S 0.00 S 173,90 0.000 S 0.00 6 -unit Townhouoo Pormito Numbor 1 0 0 0 22 0 Valuation $ 227,000.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 S 523,40 0.000 0.00 8 -unit Townhouno Pormito Number 0 0 0 1 1 0 Valuation $ 0.00 $ 0.00 5 0.00 S 200,000.00 S 408,200.00.0 :5 0.00 8 -unit Apartment Parmito Numbor 0 0 1 0 . 0 O Valuation $ 0.00 $ 0.00 5 251,000.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.000 5 0.00 12 -unit Apartment Pormito Number 0 0 1 0 2 2 Valuation $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 350,000.00 $ 0.00 S 460,000.000 5 416,400.00 10 -unit Apartment Pormita Numbor 0 0 0 0 1 0 Valuation $ 0.00 $ 0.00 S 0.00 5 0.00 $ 735,900.CM0 $ 0.00 22 -unit Apartment Pormito Numbor 0 0 0 2 1 0 Valuation $ 0.00 S 0.00 5 0.00 $1,627,000.00 S 731,5 00.000 $ 0.00 Commercial Pormito Numbor 3 3 5 14 t 10 0 Valuation $ 902,000.00 $ 604,500.00 3 917,020.00 $1,013,000.00 S 3.804, 5 00.0 00 3 0.00 J (t„) 4/30/86) 1961 1902 1983 1904 1985 1986 Industrial Permits Number 3 2 1 2 0 0 Valuation $1,521,000.00 S 903,256.00 $ 91,000.00 $1,440,000.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Rosidenti.al Garage Permits Number 11 4 7 17 15 1 Valuation $ 57,900.00 $ 15,660.00 S 28,556.00 S 94,700.00 S 81,500.00 $ 7,000.00 Rooidentiai Addition/ Remodel Permita Number 6 11 20 39 28 14 Valuation $ 60,700.00 $ 66,234.00 S 70,295.00 $ 105,007.00 S 146,970.00 5 53,480.00 Commorcial Addition/ Remodel Permits Number 4 2 23 19 17 4 valuation 5 144,000.00 5 130,000.00 $2,640,000.00 S 270,030.00 5 370,160.00 $ 68,400.00 Industrial Addition/ Remodel Permits Number 2 0 2 3 0 0 Valuation 5 294,000.00 $ 0.00 5 505,500.00 $ 336,500.00 S 0.00 S 0.00 Total Building Permits Number 43 23 44 66 70 20 Valuation $3,'172,900.00 $2,665,444.00 $3,346,036.00 $6,761,100.00 $ 9,500,600.00 5 1,459. 200.00 Total Addition/ Remodel Permits Number 12 13 45 61 45 10 Vn luat Lon 5 498,700.00 S 196,234.00 $3,215,795.00 5 791,617.00 $ 517,130.00 3 121,000.00 Total Po rmito Number 55 36 99 127 123 30 Valuation 54,271,600.00 52,061,670.00 $6,562,631.00 $7,552,717.00 $10,025,730.00 $1,501,080.00 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMEMT REPORT 011ie Koropchak May 22, 1986 Chamber of Commerce - The Chamber of Commerce meets twice a month, Board of Directors and the regular luncheon meeting. Chamber lunch- eon meeting activities have included guest speaker, Or George Karvel, and lunch and tour at the New Nursing Home. At present, the Chamber is seeking an approved contact for the purchase of 4th of July fireworks including insurance coverage. The City and NSP will also be named on the policy, if no insurance is obtained the fireworks display may be cancelled from the celebration. The Chamber of Commerce membership is 112. Housing and Redevelopment Authoritv - Gary Wieber having resigned from the HRA, February 12, 1986, members approved Bud Schrupp to serve as it's Acting Chairperson. Marilys Erickson, Moon Motors, has accepted the vacated position left by Wieber. After approval of this new member by the HRA at the June meeting,. the name will be submitted for ratification by the City Council. Roger Hedtke, Snyder's Drug, resigned from the HRA, May 1, 1986, creating another vacancy. The Authority is in the recruitment process to replace this vacancy. The Authority has discussed the following items with the decision to either take no action at this time or disapproved of the i concept. Items discussed: First, the possible purchase of the Alvin Jones property on Locust Street with the idea to include upgrading of the abutting alloy. (no action at this time). Second, the use of Tax Increment Finance for the Central Business Rehabilitation project. (did not approve concept). Third, I contacted Dee Johnson, owner of 1XI regarding Lot 5. Block 3, Oakwood Industrial Park. The HRA has an agreement to hold this property for IXI's expansion until December 10, 1987. I inquired of IXI's future plans. Dee Johnson explained that IXI has under- gone an evaluation process, hired a new president, and is presently under reorganization. Unless the Monticello HRA had an urgent need for the above said property, IXI would like to sea the agreement hold. (No action needed). Fourth, the HRA Option Agreement, with the transfer of a warranty deed for Lots 13, 14, and 15, Block 51, City of Monticello, from the Monticello HRA to the River Park View (Metcalf/Larson Elderly Project) on May 8, 1986, the HRA no longer holds an option agreement on the said property with Metcalf/Larson. Ground breaking ceremonies being held May 22nd. (no action needed). Industrial Development Committee - I attended the Star City Workshop on April 15, 1986. The theme "Assessing Your Pro- spoct's Creditability" included red flags, questions to ask, things to ask for, and seven key ratios for basic evaluation -36- of financial statements (Balance sheets and Income sheets). Also, I received a letter of acknowledgement from MinnDEED that Monticello was recertified as a Star City. The Industrial Development Freeway Sign was ordered April 11, 1986, from Jeff Hoglund at a cost of $1,800.00. Completion of the 8 X 16 foot V-shaped sign is expected the end of May with installation along southeasterly I-94 in the Oakwood Industrial Park to follow. On Friday, May 23, 1986, the Airport Subcommittee is scheduled to interview the legal firm of O'Connor and Hannon. After the interview the Committee will make a recommendation to the respected City Councils. This firm would work independent of the three cities envolved: Monticello, Big Lake, and Becker. Their prime respon- sibility at this time would be the preparations of a joint -powers agreement (bylaws and rules) for the Airport Commission. After the preliminary drawings had been returned to the Aeronautic's Division, Minnesota/ DOT on April 11, 1986, Mr. Ron Lloyd reported that time had not permitted them to refly the recommended area. However, he also said that after their initial area observation, they saw no real problems with the recommended area. Present plans are to refly the area by May 23, 1986. The Annual Industrial Development Banquet was hold Monday, May 19. 1986. Dispito a last minute cancellation. I believe the banquet faired well. Tom Triplett, Commissioner of the State Revenue De- partment was the guest speaker, replacing Mayor George Latimer. The number of dinners served were 113, however, full account for total donations has not been completed at this time. Guests were Commissioner Triplett, Erik Fjerdingsrad of Det Scandinaviske Vinduscompaniet A/S. Woody and Eunice Langhnug of Interspan, Inc.. Senator Batty Adkins and Wally, Minnesota Star City Coordinator Bob Stern and Irene , and NSP Economic Development Director Dick Wright and Mary. I prepared and dolivored four cost estimates for all business property owners within the Central Business Rehabilitation Project to Steve Johnson, Downtown Retailers Association on May 8, 1986. Property evaluations wore determined by the 1986 Tax Book (estimated market value). Coat of the project was taken from Option A and Option B of the Strectsca pe Study prepared by Dahlgren, Shardlow. b Dban. Projects - Dot Scandinaviske V induscompaniet A/S is a Norwegian company who produces the H -window. The Company's first contact with Monticello was approximately l} years ago. In February of 1986, Erik Fjordingatod, Odd JO rgensen, and Roald Storhaim mot with Mayor Grimsmo, Tom Eidem, and myself. At that time, the company requested confidentiality. Mr. Fjordingstad returned to Minnesota on April 5. He has been in contact with tho Minnesota Trade Office, Minnesota Department of Economic Development, and the -37- World Trade Office. Mr. Fjerdingstad has looked ac four other cities: Lakeville, Maple Grove, Chaska, and Delano. Upon this visit, I have met with Mr. Fjerdingstad on four different occasions. Mr. Fjerdingstad has visited the Bondhus Corporation, met with a local carpenter, Michael Bregenzer, toured Monticello and the Industrial Parks, and had dinner with some of the IDC members. Information prepared for Mr. Fjerdingstad's return trip home was an example Tax Increment Proposal, the Monticello Economic Development Plan with Industrial Park maps, the Monticello video, a list of manufactures for needed production equipment, and packets prepared by the Monticello Times and Joel Winkelman of James and Gruber, CPA's. Mr. Fjerdingstad returned to Minnesota and Monticello on May 17. He attended the ID Banquet, however, felt it was pre- mature to announce plans of their Minnesota location until the company's final decision for American production is made. Mr. Fjerd- ingstad's main task on this visit is to find a wood supplier. In addition to his banquet appearance, he has visited the Monticello Country Club and Pinewood East and West Elementary Schools, returning to Norway on Saturday. Additional requested information will be mailed to the company next week. Plans are for Mr. Fjerdingstad and Mr. Jdrgensen to return in June. In August, Mr. Fjerdingstad and wife, Ase Elen, Mr. Starheim and wife, Inger, and Mr. Jdrgen- sen will again visit. lnterspan, Inc. is a Swedish firm, with an expanded facility scheduled for completion and operational in Florida this August. Plans are for a Minnesota expansion to follow. Their product is a seal used in the expansion joints of concrete bridges and parking romps. Mr. Woodrow Langhaug and his wife, Eunice, are contact person,. for the company. They also attended the banquet. Mr. Bruce Carlson of BC Properties represents a Minneapolis firm with need for a light manufacturing use (injection of rubber molding). Plans are for a 30,000 square foot building with initinlly 20-30 employees and a potential of up to 50 employees. To date, they have visited the Oakwood industrial Park sites and the vacated Beat -In -Webb building. Mr. Carlson returned last Tuesday with five top executives of the firm for a second tour and viewed the video tape. The Lefsa Shock is a small lefsa production (10 employees) out of Montana and Colorado. Evan and Muriel Granrud are the owners, looking to expand in Minnesota. The SDC sampled their lefsa at their May morning meeting. Other contacts made are with Mr. Halvorson of Minnesota DHIA and Mr. Coonce of Minnesota Sports Federation. -38- Council Agenda - 5/27/86 Department Head Report - Senior Citizen Center. (K.H.) February - Waseca College came to our Center and gave a one -day cooking and craft class. I opened it to the County, and we had excellent attendance of 60 people. The Waseca College professors were so pleased, they have offered to come every three months to teach classes, especially for Seniors. They will be here again on June 13 to offer microwave cooking for one or two, and lampshade making, plus other things. Food distribution hosted and staffed at the Center is every other month in 1986 for the Community. We had 247 people use it in February. The Senior Citizens helped with the judging of the Arts 6 Academics program for the Elementary School. March - We continue to have our dances at the American Legion every other month. In March there were about 120 present. March 14 we hooted 38 visitors from the Little Falls Senior Center. September through May, on the first Friday of each month, our Community Education Senior Citizen Task Force entertains the nursing home residents on a one to one basis, usually having about 18 with our guest and committee members. April - We had 267 at the Community Commodities Distribution. We continuo to offer free blood pressure chocka'aach Tuesday, free hearing aid chocks, 2nd Tuesday of each month from 1:00-3:00, and free legal aid the 3rd Monday of each month. May - Older Americans Month Monday, May 5, we participated in tho Wright County Council on Aging Fun Day this year at Delano Senior Cantor. Our exorcise group each Monday hae now resumed. being the walking group, with the return of nice weather. Thin winter we began a 500 for Fun group each Friday morning, which to quito successful. May 15 nomination for Outstanding Senior Citizono were turned into Buffalo. we again this year oponoorod an cocay conatent for 6th graders on "My Favorite Grandparent." Seven clascoa and approximately 168 children participated. The Santora did the judging and made the 31 prizes to be awarded on May 29. Thursday, May 29, from 12:00 - 4:30, we will be having our annual Open House, Ethnic Day. Plon ao attend and tanto foods from around the work, with many artifacts on dioplay. Thio Is the Contor-a thank -you to you and the Community for the continued support of our Cantor. Monday, Juno 12, Karon was pr000ntod with an award by Governor Porpich in Coon Rapids. The award wan for hoc outstanding aarvica to enhance the lives of Older Amoricano. .39_ GENERAL FUND -- MAY DISBURSEMENTS AMOUNT CHECK NO. Little Mountain Electric - Furnace repair at Library 765.86 22312 :orrow Sanitation - April contract payment 6,062.50 22313 Anoka County Social Services - Payroll ded. 132.00 22314 ICMA Retirement Corp. - Retirement cont. 74.67 22315 Dave Stromberg - Animal control payment 212.50 22316 Jerry Hermes - Janitorial at Library 206.25 22317 Mrs. Beverly Johnson - Animal control contract 250.00 22318 State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded. 230.04 22319 Thomas Eidem - Misc. expenses 40.00 22320 YMCA of Mpls. - Monthly contract payment 529.17 22321 James Preusse - Cleaning city hall 337.50 22322 Arve Grimsmo - Mayor salary 175.00 22323 Dan Blonigen - Council salary 125.00 22324 Mrs. Fran Fair - Council salary 125.00 22325 William Fair - Council salary 125.00 22326 Jack Maxwell - Council salary 125.00 22327 PERA - Pere W/H 1,549.35 22328 Dept. of Employee Relations - FICA W/H 3,909.70 22329 Commissioner of Revenue - SWT - April 2.545.00 22330 Wright County State Bank - FWT - April 3,095.00 22331 PERA - Ins. premiums 18.00 22332 Dept. of Nat. Resources - Dep. Reg. fees 4.00 22333 Dept. of Nat. Resources - Deg. Reg. fees 36.00 22334 Dept. of Nat. Resources - Dep. Reg. fees 245.00 22335 State Treasurer - Building Code Div. - State surcharge - let qtr.. 598.93 22336 Monticello Apartments - (Ridgemont - Wally Houle) - Trees 1,160.00 22337 Ridgemont Apartments - Wally Houle - Interceptor sewer project 1.00 22338 Ed Larsen - Refund of balance of liquor license 566.66 22339 Wright County State Bank - P b I due on Loan 37,243.83 22340 Commissioner of Revenue - Payroll ded. 329.38 22341 MN. Dept. of Economic Security - Unemployment benefits 651.64 22342 James Metcalf - Option refund and abstract charge 712.13 22343 Dept. of Nat. Resources - Dep. Reg. fees 465.00 22344 Dept. of Nat. Resources - Dep. Reg. fees 18.00 22345 Jack Beattie - Ensement for Interceptor sewer project 1.00 22346 Thomas Etdem - Monthly car allowance 300.00 22347 Beverly Johnson - Reimb. for tile and paper - Lindberg house 64.49 22348 Northern States Power - Electricity 8,907.32 22349 Burlington Northern R. R. - Permit to open cut at Henn. b Wash. 3.200.00 22350 Industrial Dev, Comm. - Bnnquot ticket 75.00 22351 L b G Rehbein - Payment #1 on Sewer Project 20,739.00 22352 Veit b Co. - Pnyment 111 nn 6th St. Project 7,125.00 22353 Marquette Bank Mpls. - 1974 Parking Lot bonds 16.802.52 22354 St. Cloud Restaurant Supply - City hall supplies 94.08 22355 A T b T Info. Systems - Fire phone charges 3.96 22356 Wright County Humane Society - Animal control expense 20.00 22357 Century Labs - Crabgrass killer - parks 159.45 22358 Phillips 66 - Gas 13.51 22359 Martte's Farm Service - 75 6' posts 199.75 22360 Springsted. Inc. - Bonds for 86-1 Inter. Sower Project 10.611.58 22361 Layne MN. Co. - Motor repnir on pump 525.00 22362 Monticello Times - Adv. b Printing 741.51 22363 Jim Ennis Cabinets - Library - toy box, mnp ntand, cabinet 1,15n.00 22364 Suburban Gas - Gas 136.50 22365 MN. Fire b Safety - Fire Dept. supplies 77.00 22366 Davis Electronic Center - Pager repairs - Fire Dept. 215.62 22367 Simonson Lumbar - Fire Dept. - 131.18 6 Mtce. 198.89 22368 GENERAL FUND AMOUNT CHECK NO. Maus Foods - Supplies for all Depts. 130.50 22369 Monticello Ford - Repairs - Fire Dept. 243.40 22370 N. S. Mechanical - New furnace at Library 7,978.00 22371 Monticello TW Hardware - Supplies 14,86 22372 Monticello Office Products - Office supplies 339.64 22373 Ben Franklin Store - Park expense 28.56 22374 Flicker's T. V. - L.'WTP repairs 2.79 22375 C. C. Sharrov - Ratchet set - Fire Dept. 49.72 22376 Control Data Business Adv. - Consulting fees - Comp. Worth 333.00 22377 MPLS. Star 6 Trib. - Ads for WWTP position 6 truck sale 359.90 22378 Service Plus Foods - Dog food 18.82 22379 Corporate Report - MN. - Sub. renewal 21.00 22380 Dennis Reierson - Mailbox repair expense 4.87 22381 Gruys, Johnson - Computer fees 290.00 22382 Commissioner of Revenue - Assessor license fee 6.00 22383 Morrell Transfer - Freight charges - Mtce. 36.48 22384 Smith, Pringle 6 Hayes - Legal 1,309.00 22385 National Life Ins. - Ins. premium - T. Eidem 100.00 22386 Monticello Printing - S/W portals, Fire Dept. forms, Bldg. Ins. 370.75 22387 Local 1149 - Union dues 189.00 22388 Monticello Big Lake Pet Hospital - Animal control fees 795.06 22389 Wright County Auditor - Police contract 10,288.86 22390 Orkin Exterminating - Monthly contract payment - WWTP 106.00 22391 Persian's - Headset and cord 45.00 22392 John Simola - Las Vegas seminar expense 560.03 22393 Jerry Wein - Travel expense - Fire Dept. - Rochester 170.00 22394 Ted Farnam - Travel expense - Fire Dept. - Rochester 247.50 22395 Brad Fyle - Travel. expense - Fire Dept. - Rochester 188.60 22396 Tom Lcifert - " " " 247.50 22397 Kevin Stumpf - 171.50 22398 Greg Dahlheimer - 274.63 22399 VOID -0- 22400 David Kranz - 184.28 22401 Gene Jensen - 326.43 22402 North Central Public Service - Utilities 1,395.28 22403 ICMA Retirement Corp. - Retirement fund - Reimb. 74.67 22404 Dave Stromberg - Animal control 212.50 22405 Jerry Hermes - Janitorial at Library 206.25 22406 State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll W/H 50.04 22407 Coast to Coast - Supplies for all Depts. 261.88 22408 Gordon Link - Gas 367.35 22409 Flicker's T. V. - Ref., stove, microwave, range hood - Fire Hnll 1,113.00 22410 Ruff Auto Parts - Coll 30.00 22411 Dahlgren, Shardlov, etc.- Profession services 5.495.08 22412 Wright County Treasurer - Real estate taxes 1,170.00 22413 Pitney, Bowes - Postage machine rental 59.25 22414 Gould Bros. - Parts 27.30 22415 Seitz Hardware - Supplies 167.67 22416 Harry's Auto Supply - Filters, belts, goggles, solenoid, tank 228.22 22417 Hoglund Bus - Parts 58.04 22418 Annandale Sod Service - Softball fields sod 360. DO 22419 Figs It Shop - Ports 3.00 22420 J M 011 Cu. - Gas 339.02 22421 General Rental Center - Sod roller rental 3.25 22422 Al 6 Julie Nelson - Sub. 13.72 22423 OSM - Eng. Face 6,783.28 22424 Banker's Life Ins. - Group Ins. 6,830.16 22425 GENERAL FUND AMOUNT CHECK NO. Wright Councy Recorder - Recording easements, etc. 50.00 22426 PERA - Pero W/H 1,626.88 22427 Dept. of Employee Relations - FICA W/H 3,066.28 22428 Wright County State Bank - FWT taxes 2,641.00 22429 Bridgewater Telephone - Phone charges 952.29 22430 Dept. of Nat. Resources - Dep. Reg. fees 652.00 22431 Dept. of Nat. Resources - Dep. Reg. fees 22.00 22432 District 742 Community - Work Study program reimb. 120.00 22433 Braun Eng. Testing - Foundation investigation for water reservoi• 2,426.79 22434 Bowman Disr. - WWTP supplies 113.86 22435 Ranger Products - WWTP supplies 89.41 22436 Fisher Scientific - Part for WWTP 43,49 22437 Unocal - Gas - Fire Dept. and Van - Water Dept. 67.69 22438 Unitog Rental Service - Uniform rental 153.60 22439 Wright County Highway Dept. - Purchase of used tar pot 500.00 22440 Ziegler, Inc. - Muffler 30.27 22441 Monticello Fire Dept. - Salaries - April 1,662.00 22442 Tom Eidem - Reimb. for MCMA Conference expenses 152.41 72443 Mrs. Irene Foster - Tree replacement expense 30.00 22444 Petty Cash - Reimb. petty cash fund 40.16 22445 Wright County State Bank - C. D. Purchase 525,000.00 22446 Wright County State Bank - C. D. Purchase 500,000.00 22447 Bridgewater Telephone - Fire phone charges 35.90 22448 Fire Safety 6 Comm. Corp. - Microstrobe for Fire Dept. 57.21 22449 Bryan Rack Products - Lime for softball fields 7,256.67 22450 National Bushing - Supplies for Mtce. 177.62 22451 Holmes 6 Graven - Legal fees for Interceptor Sever Project 917.00 22452 Mobil 011 Corp. - Gas for Fire Dept. 60.64 22453 Purcell Plumbing - UVTP b Parks Depts. repairs 232.82 22454 Plymouth Industrial Supply - Goggles, coveralls, gloves - St. 76.42 22455 Big Lake Equipment - Plugs 8.75 22456 K 6 K Plumbing 6 Heating - Fire hall - 6" strainer installed 1,065.10 22457 MN. Pollution Control Agency - Annual fee 140.00 22458 Wright County Highway Dept. - Crack filler, lime 497.34 22459 Tripp 011 Co. - Gas for Fire Dept. 8.00 22460 Vance's Service Center - Gas for Fire Dept. 61.36 22461 Kromer Co. - Repairs for St. Dept. 57.53 22462 Golden Volley Furniture - Chairs, tables, mats for Fire Holl 1.411.00 22463 Team Laboratories - Degreasor and Deed. blocks 1,969.56 22464 Fyles' Backhoe 6 Sever Service - Digging at Mont. Office Prod. 75.00 22465 Rick Wolfsteller - Misc. mileage 29.50 22466 Paul Klein - Travel expense - Fire Dept. seminar 275.53 22467 Elk River Concrete - Interceptor sever pipe 2,631.20 22468 Earl F. Andersen - Paint - Street Dept. 903.08 22469 Automatic Garage Door - Repair door 6 car radio controls- Fire 1,242.40 22470 VOID -0- 22471 Water Products Co. - Water meters 2,379.43 22472 Feedrite Controls - Supplies - Polyphosphnte, etc. 1,033.32 22473 foodin Company - Supplies 37.48 22474 Gary Anderson - Mileage expense 71.59 22475 Wright Count yy Recorder - Record 6 easements 60.00 22476 Jim Hatch So loe - Chains, roko and flags 129.45 22477 Dept. of Net. Res. - Dap. Rog. fees 812.U0 22478 Dept. of Nat. Roo. - Dap. Reg. fees 22.00 22479 Dept. of Nac. Res. - Dep. Reg. face 18.00 22480 Audio Communications - Radios for Civil Dof. and Fire Dept. 2,139.95 22481 Payroll for April 33,082.02 TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS - MAY 11,281,100.93 LIQUOR FUND LIQUOR DISBURSEMENTS FOR MAY - 1986 AMOUNT CFJr'CK NO. Commissioner of Revenue - Sales cax for March 5,814.68 12370 Eagle Dist. Co. - Liquor purchase 2,098.98 12371 Twin City Wine Co. - Liquor 1,119.59 12372 State Capitol Credit Union .. Payroll ded. 165.00 12373 Eagle Dist. Co. - Liquor purchase 150.72 12374 PERA - Pera W/H 143.92 12375 Dept.of Employee Relations - FICA W/H 355.36 12376 Commissioner of Revenue - State W/H 204.00 12377 Wright County State Bank - FWT taxes 304.00 12378 Eagle Dist. Co. - Liquor purchase 2,534.13 12379 Twin City Wine Co. - Liquor 1,539.84 12380 Internal Revenue Service - Annual Fed. liquor tax renewal 54.00 12381 Ed Phillips 6 Sons - Liquor purchase 5,478.56 12382 Griggs, Cooper 6 Co. - Misc. mdse. 16.56 12383 Eagle Wine Co. - Liquor 114.09 12384 Ed Phillips 6 Sons - Liquor 115.30 12385 Quality Wine - Wine purchase 910.53 12386 Northern States Power - Utilities 540.73 12387 Banker's Life Ins. - Group Ins. 310.41 12388 Old Dutch Foods - Misc. mdse. 158.31 12389 The Minnesota Jaycees - Dues - Joe Hartman 35.00 12390 Gruys, Johnson - Computer fees for March 110.00 12391 Bernick's Pepsi Cola - Misc. mdse. 314.80 12392 The Glass Hut - Repair to store 16.00 12393 Cloudy Town Dist. - Misc. mdse. 205.75 12394 Bridgewater Telephone - Telephone expense 63.42 12395 VOID -0- 12396 Thorpe Disc. Co. - Beer purchase 6,184.25 12397 Stromqulst Dist. Co. - Misc. mdse. 36.05 12398 Coast to Coast - Store expense 13.97 12399 Viking Coca Cola - Misc. mdse. 356.35 12400 Grosslein Beverage - Beer 17,933.41 12401 Dahlheimer Dist. Co. - Beer 14,373.40 12402 Day Dist. Co. - Beer 1,082.70 12403 Seven Up Bottling - Misc. mdse. 258.10 12404 Jude Candy 6 Tobacco - Misc. mdse. 599.23 12405 Dick Beverage - Beer 2,632.05 12406 Monticello Times - Adv. 90.00 12407 City of Monticello - Sewer and water 52.08 12408 Maus Foods - Store supplies 35.74 12409 Yonak Sanitation - Garbage contract 91.50 12410 Monticello Printing - Office supplies 24.80 12411 Monticello Office Products - Office supplleu 49.35 12412 North Central Public service - Utilities 76.23 12413 Ed Phillips 6 Sons - Liquor 2,417.50 12414 State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll Ded. 170.00 12415 Twin City Wine - Wine purchase 1,151.15 12416 Liefert Trucking - FroiRht 673.R1 12417 Wright County State Bank - C. D. purchase 90,000.00 12418 PERA - Para W/H 145.90 12419 Dept, of Employee Raltatons - FICA W/H 252.88 12420 Wright County State Bank - FWT taxes 248.00 12421 Griggs, Cooper - Liquor purchase 399,84 12422 Eagle Dist. Co. - Liquor 5,490.05 12423 Payroll for April TnTAI n1Qn11a CRWVwTC , _ 4,449.81 , CITY OF WIT1CIEWO • MPilhly Dodding Dcperl.mr d Rcport I I'MDUT'9 mid USM .-. li-th of Apr11 1986 last nue -Bwe. rlrn.u, •Leel leer 'n,1e 71er I IPEUUTS 3SSUF37 Ily,lh n.r.h Kn1h Arlt Leet T- To D.to To Da Le RMI DF71Ti AL , llumber 6 14 11 23 33 Vel Un Llon 1415,800.00 5340,990.00 1 959,050.00 %1.5F4,170.00 S 1,511,250.00 Feee 2,044.60 1,946.40 1,511.44 7,119.94 8,092.15 S".I, rg.. 207.90 170.45 479.50 791.90 755.50 001eenci AL 11umber1 I 6 10 4 .1 -Lion 2,500.00 5,900.00 255,910.00 765,760.00 -- 68,4D0.00 Foca 35.50 54.70 1,790.75 7,270.00 .. d6R. 70 Sw•chergee 1.25 2.95 127.95 112.65 34.20 III LUSTill AL Ilmnber I I Valultlon Fee. Surch argee P W1011110 , Ilumber 6 ] 7 IS 19 Faoa 150.00 116.00 309.00 612.00 523.00 Su rch ergee 3.00 2.50 4.00 10.50 9.50 0171LILS Ihunber 1 1 2 Valu a Lion 00.00 1,430.00 1,430.00 Feoe I(.o0 14.30 24.70 Sw•chergee .50 .70 1.20 I TOTAL 110. IT7u111 it 14. 21 74 AA An TOTAL VAII)AT10N416,3UD.00 34R.32D.Oo 1214.910.00 1_91. 5+n nn I c . ono nn I TOTAL FF.F.1 2.240.30 2,133.40 6,201.19 10,692.14 9.109.15 IOTAI. SwIGIA11GIS 212.65 176.60 611.45 9114.55 RU0.1C WIUtF1rr IIIUDI_- rF-r tlumbcr to hole PFIUIIT VATURK Number PiMUT VelunLlon ';URCl ARGZ -'Ihln rcnr .I,nSt 7c01• Si3lgle family 5 S 1.567.10 S 150.40 1 3001000.00 I6 6 ' fAlpl oA I 7 ' Ihlitf-teml ly 7 7 Comnerel el 0 4 Indo 0 0 Ilan: C'nregee 1 62.50 3.50 7,000.00 1 1 SIp1e 0 0 Public Building• 0 0 AI.1FIUT1C41 Cit IIFTAIR ILel huge D 310.90 16. ]f 33,110.001 13 12, Compo rel Al 1 :.4.70 2.95 5,900.00 4 '1 ' lnduatrlel I 0 0 PI1110]1110 ' I kill typen 5 116.00 7.50 19 15 ACCI.SSOPI LTllue 1'UAr9 0v1 se.l nq roo14 1• 0 0 D1CAe I 14.30 .70 1.430.00 1 0 I � I 1LRPORAP1 rMU11T 0 0 0F110LI TIUII I, 1 0 I TOTAIS 21 7,173.40 176.60 341,320.00 50 d9 INDIVIDUAL PERMIT ACTIVITY REPORT • MONTH;OF APRIL , 198 6 'ERMIT 'UMMEER I ',DESCRIPTION 1p]NAME/LOCATION. (VALUATION 5 .0 008.90 29J0 21.00 .50 66-665 :Ingle Pamlly Dwelling 8P Mike 6 Judy Cyr/2862 Oakview Lane" 650;800.00 06-866 Bingle Pamlly Dwelling OF Doyle Vachon-Const./206 Jerry.Lietarl 38_,600.00 709.10 79.15 Dr! ve .10 86-867 House Addition AD Mayne 6 eendrs Cor/306 :. •4th,ed. 1,000.00 86-668 House Additions a Rmove- .AD Jerry a Marlene Heliman/418:8. Ord 5,000.00 14.10 tion 06-869 8!ngle Family Dwelling SP Bruce tachman/115 Kevin L.ongley'Dr. 50,700:00 8.8-870 Garage Addition A House AD Ivy Dehlgron/314 Kim 8t. 7;500.00 52.90' R..We 06-871 House Addition AD Charles Chrlstlanaon/524�w. Rivsr,8t, •8,000.00 86-677 House a Garage, Root ReplacoAD George Lietart/203 Minnesota 8t. sent 1,470.00 :0-870 Attached Garage RG Krlq 6 Jill Ask/105 Hedman Lane 7,000.00 6-874' How* Dock D Richard Han3on/760,9ra1rie; Road (;430.00 86-979 Oaraye Addition AD Ralph Sieg/20 Fairway Drive 5,400.00 86-876 Bin p1e Family Dwelling 5P Klein 6 Lahlor/1101 Club. View Dr. 50',100.00 BB -877 Wino w,a OOor Replacement AD Ralph Nellenbeck/424 8. Oroodway 1,410.00 BB -078 Basemen t; Remodel AD Royer CaCISOn/613 K. River Ot. ,1.410.00 :6-679 Gaa.POmp island Canopy AC Reds, Mobl1/200 K. Broadway 5,900.00 86-980 Single Family Dwelling 1► �Rikanson Builders Co;/2617 Mudow 74,400.00' ' Oak Lane - d'O7AIA 8146,320;00 - 29_TAL,RMCKLIK 8 2,110.00 I ccee • PERMIT ISURCHARGE�PLUMBING I SVICHARrc 6 285.40 3 25.40 3 71.00 5 .0 008.90 29J0 21.00 .50 19.50 1.50 50.50 ,2.50 709.10 79.15 77.00 .10 65.50 0.75• 68.50 4.00 14.10 .70 62.50 7:50 li'.30 .yo 52.90' '2.70 307.90' 29.15 21.00 .10 14.30 .76 14.30'•• .70 54.70. 2.95 355.90 37.20 24.00 l4, $2.017.40 6174.10 1116.00 3=.10