The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Agenda Packet 08-26-1985AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Monday, August 26, 1985 - 7:30 P.M. 1. Order. 2. Minutes of August 12, 1985. 3. Citizen Comment/Patitions, Requests, Complaints. Old Business 4. Consideration of Reimbursement to Mel Wolters for a Portion of The Meadows Pond Construction. New Business 5. Consideration of Granting a Conditional Use Permit for a Used Car Sales in a B-4 District - Applicant, Clarence McCarty, DBA Monti Auto Sales. 6. Consideration of a Preliminary Plat for a Subdivision to be Known as Victoria Square - Applicant, Mike Reher. 7. Consideration of Granting Approval to the Development Stage for Outlots C. D. 6 H in Meadow Oak - Applicant, (( d Dickman Knutson. 8. Consideration of Grantingan Approval for Davelopmant Stage and Final Stage for Outlot G, Meadow Oak, to be Known as Meadow Oak Third Addition - Applicant, Dickman Knutson. 9. Considoration of Granting a Conditional Una Permit for a Multiple Dwelling in Excess of Twelve Units - Applicant, Wayne Wiaber. 10. Consideration of Granting Ansont t0 Land Registration - Applicant, Michael Soltis. 11. Consideration of a Roquoat to Raaproad Special Asoaoamonto in The Meadows - Applicant, John Sandberg. 12. Consideration of a Resolution Establishing a Portion of Marvin Road as a Minimum Maintananco Road. 13. Consideration of Adopting an Amendment to Ordinance N6-2-14 Relating to Length of Impoundment. 14. Consideration of Quarterly Liquor Store Report. 15. Consideration of Bills. 16. Adjournment. MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL August 12, 1985 Members Present: Arve Gri memo, Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Dan Blonigen, Jack Maxwell. Members Absent: None 1. Call to Order. 2. Approval of Minutes. Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Dan Blonigen, and unanimously carricd.to approve the minutes of the special rooting held July 29 and August 7. and the regular meeting hold July 22, 1985. 3. Citizens Comments Mr. Mol Wolters, Devoloper In the Meadows residential subdivision plat, appearod before the Council requesting partial raimbur soment from the City for part of his ponding area construction coats within the Meadows subdivision because of the Par West subdi vision draining storm water into the Meadows pond. Mr. Walters nor -ad that the developer of the Par West subdivision paid approximatoly 51,900 to the City of Monticello to bo allowed to drain atorm water into this pond and he felt he should be roimburaod thi a amount if the pond is large enough to accept other subdivisi one water. The Council Membora suggeo ted this item be placed on a future agenda with additional background information before a decision could be mado. 4. Consideration of Pursuing acquisition of the Assembly of Cod Church Building. Previously, the Council hake discussed tho possibility of tho City acquiring the vacatod Assembly of God Church building on 4th Street for the possiblo relocation of the Senior Citi zon-s Cantor. Tho asking price for the Church at that time wan vary high and the urgancy of relocating the Senior Citixon'o Cantor wan not present, so the proposal was not seriously considered by tho City. Several months ago, businesses in the block whore the Senior Citizonls Cantor in currently loo atod, axprasnod interest in axpaknding and inquired as to the avaliability of that Senior Canter proporty. At that point, the City rov ivad inquiries with roapoct to the Church building on 4th Street for rolocation purposes, but tho asking price still was con oidarod too high at 5200,000. -1- Council Minutes - August 12, 1985 Since thattime, the business interest in expanding on the Senior Citizen's Center property has diminished, and it appears there is no urgency for the Senior Citizen's Center to be relocated. As a result of these events and the high asking price for the Church property, it was the consensus of the Council to drop all negotiations at this time for the Church building. 5. Consideration of Change Order R1 for Project 85-1 Interceptor Sewer. LaTour Construction Company, contractor for the recently completed interceptor sewer crossing of Highway 25 requested a change order in the amount of 54,500 for the excavation of an additional three feet of material and extra dewatering cost due to what the contractor felt was an error in the plans prepared by the City Engineer. LeTour Construction noted that the plan elevations were incorrect and there was an additional three feat of excavation that was necessary and the additional cost to the contractor was $6,300, but the contractor agreed that if he had known of the extra excavation at the bidding process his bid would have reflected approximately $4,500 more in cost. It is recommended by Public Works Director, John Simolo, that the extra $4,500 was reasonable and recommended that the change order be initiated. Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Jack Maxwell, and asked to be carried to approve Change Order Y1 on the 85-1 Interceptor Sower Project in the amount of $4,500 to LoTour Construction Company. 6. Consideration of Adopting a Resolution Granting Preliminary Approval to a Proposal for the Salo of Industrial Revenue Bonds - Applicant, Voit Construction. Mr. John Criss, attorney representing Voit Construction Company, approared before the Council requesting approval of a Resolution granting preliminary approval to a proposal for Industrial Rovenua Bonds for the construction of a 33,000 square foot grocery and retail building to be located on property just north of the cemetery along Highway 25 near tho railroad tracks. Initially, Voit Construction discussed with the City the davlopmant proposal and the use of tax increment financing for this property duo to its covers topographical and foundation problems of the site. During their feasibility study on the project, developers decided to request Industrial Revenue Bonds also be approved for the project to help lower the coat of financing. 1 -2. Council Minutes - August 12, 1985 Since Industrial Revenue Bonds are only issued now after an approved allocation is granted from the State, the developers requested approval of a preliminary resolution which would allow them to request money through the State Pool. The preliminary resolution would in no way commit the City Council to approve the final application. The deadline for requesting allocation from the State Pool is September 1, 1985. Additional details to be worked out should the Council proceed with Industrial Revenue Bond issues concern the extension of 6th Street at the south end of the property and whether the Streets should be vacated for additional parking area for the development or whether the City should retain the street for right-of-way purposes. In addition, all 19 points concerning the creation of jobs, tax base increase. and the but for clause which determines that the project would not proceed without Industrial Revenue Bonds must be established before the allocation can be approved by the State. Soma Council Members were concerned over approving a commercial project such as this for a grocery business that is already established in town when a similar proposal was made previously for a motel that was not approved because it wasn't shown that a need existed for additional motels. Since the granting of a preliminary approval without holding a public hearing does not imply consent that the project will be approved at a later date by the Council, a motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Fran Fair to adopt the resolution granting preliminary approval and allowing the developer to apply for IRB'a through the State Allocation Pool. Voting in favor was everybody but Dan Blonigon who wan opposed. 7. Consideration of Acquioition of Various Public Works Equipment. Public Works Director, John Simola, reviewed with the Council on various equipment stoma that had been budgeted for during 1985 and which he recommondod be approved for purchase at this time. Motion woo mado by Maxwell, seconded by Dill Fair and asked to be carried to authorize the purchase of the following equipment as recommended by the Public Works Director. TOTAL ITEM SUPPLIER COST (1)2 -Door Operators Automatics Door 9 954 1/2 N.P. - 14' x 14' Monticello (2) Pipe Locator Davis Water 1,545 Water Linos. Brooklyn Park (3) Alarm System Sentry Syotoma 1,205 Hi 6 Lo Wator Hugo, MN -3- TOTAL $6,417 B. Consideration of Authorizing Annexation Study. Because of various reasons, including the possible location of a water tower in the orderly annexation area of the Monticello Township, the City Council has considered the possibility of annexing all or a portion of the orderly annexation area. The consulting City Planner, Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban Inc., along with the consulting City Engineer, Orr-Schelen-Mayeron & Associates presented previously a proposal for a review of the orderly annexation area and a study to determine whether the area is now or is about to become urban in nature and suitable for annexation. The estimated cost of the study presented by the consulting planner and engineer was estimated at $40-45,000. The Council again discussed the merits of pursuing a study of the orderly annexation area, or whether to drop the issue entirely at this time. Council Member, Blonigen, was not certain whether the City should be initiating annexation of ( any of the township area at this time but is more concerned \ with the City having more input into the planning and regulating of future subdivisions, otc. within the townships OA area. This additional input would help create smaller lots for residential developments that would be more suitable for connection to City utilities if and when they become part of the City limits. In addition, Mr. Blonigon felt that annexation at this time may result in more cost for the City than the tax baso generated. Council Members, Bill and Fran Fair, felt the study proposed by the consultants is necessary to update the information that is necessary to determine whether annexation is appropriate now or in the nosr future. city Administrator, Tom Eidom, noted that the review of the orderly annexation area as proposed by the consultants should not be considarod just a planning study but as a study to determine whether or not annexation should be pursued at the present time. Mr. Eidem noted that if the Council authorized the study to be commenced, the Council should be ready to act on the recommendations of the study which will either be to pursue annexation or to drop annexation at this time. If the consensus of the Council is at this time not to pursue annexation, the study would be of no use to the City. -4- Council Minutes - August 12, 1985 TOTAL ITEM SUPLIER COST (4) Aux. Heater Olson Elec. $ 720 With 50' Cord Monticello (5) Used Port. - MB Instruments 1,993 Flow Meter Horsham, Pa. TOTAL $6,417 B. Consideration of Authorizing Annexation Study. Because of various reasons, including the possible location of a water tower in the orderly annexation area of the Monticello Township, the City Council has considered the possibility of annexing all or a portion of the orderly annexation area. The consulting City Planner, Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban Inc., along with the consulting City Engineer, Orr-Schelen-Mayeron & Associates presented previously a proposal for a review of the orderly annexation area and a study to determine whether the area is now or is about to become urban in nature and suitable for annexation. The estimated cost of the study presented by the consulting planner and engineer was estimated at $40-45,000. The Council again discussed the merits of pursuing a study of the orderly annexation area, or whether to drop the issue entirely at this time. Council Member, Blonigen, was not certain whether the City should be initiating annexation of ( any of the township area at this time but is more concerned \ with the City having more input into the planning and regulating of future subdivisions, otc. within the townships OA area. This additional input would help create smaller lots for residential developments that would be more suitable for connection to City utilities if and when they become part of the City limits. In addition, Mr. Blonigon felt that annexation at this time may result in more cost for the City than the tax baso generated. Council Members, Bill and Fran Fair, felt the study proposed by the consultants is necessary to update the information that is necessary to determine whether annexation is appropriate now or in the nosr future. city Administrator, Tom Eidom, noted that the review of the orderly annexation area as proposed by the consultants should not be considarod just a planning study but as a study to determine whether or not annexation should be pursued at the present time. Mr. Eidem noted that if the Council authorized the study to be commenced, the Council should be ready to act on the recommendations of the study which will either be to pursue annexation or to drop annexation at this time. If the consensus of the Council is at this time not to pursue annexation, the study would be of no use to the City. -4- Council Minutes - August 12, 1985 Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Bill Fair to authorize the consulting planner and engineer to prepare a review and study of the orderly annexation area as to whether the City should pursue annexation. Voting in favor was Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Arve Grimsmo, opposed were Maxwell and Blonigen. 9. Consideration of granting an Off -sale 3.2 Beer License - Riverroad Plaza. Motion was made by Dan Blonigen, seconded by Maxwell and asked to be carried to approve the ..issuance of a non -intoxicating malt liquor off -sale license to the Riverroad Plaza Convenience Store. 10. Adjourn. Rick Wolfstolla�" Assistant Administrator -5- Council Agenda - August 26, 1985 4. Consideration of Reimbursement to Mol Wolters for a Portion of the Meadows Pond Construction. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND. In early 1979, Mr. Jim Maus began preparation to plat an area north of Prairie Road to be known as The Meadows. Mr. Jim Maus hired Moyer-Rohlin from Buffalo, to prepare the plat and do the grading and drainage plans. The preliminary plat of The Meadows was received on March 30, 1979, and reviewed by John Badalich, the City Engineer. The original proposal by Jim Maus and his engineering firm, Moyer-Rohlin, showed a proposed detention pond to be located in the dedicated park area of the plat. In an April 4, 1979 letter, Mr. Badalich made reference to the City's comprehensive storm -drainage plan for the area which showed a storm sewer system draining the proposed Meadow area across Highway 75 into the creek north of the Hillcrest First Addition. Mr. Badalich stressed that the pond would be a temporary measure since it was without an outlet, and the storm sewer would have to be constructed in the future. During the May 3, 1979 meeting with Mr. Jim Maus and all those people involved with the Meadows plat as wall as City Staff, it was decided that the Meadows should have a storm sewer system built, rather than the detention pond, since the detention ponds would be of a temporary nature. During 1979, Moyer-Rohlin revised their plat to include a ldrainage plan which showed a drainage plan that would eventually drain into the crack behind Hillcrost Addition. During 1979 it was determined that a storm sower system at this time would be too costly. Early in 1960, Jim Maus and his engineer, Moyer-Rohlin, opted to utilize the ponding concept to hold the storm water drainage. In a January 24, 1980 letter, John Badalich reviewed the ponding concept and indicated that it would be feasible as an interum solution if it were designed to a minimum of oix acre-foot, four foot deep and one and one-half acres of surface area. If the pond is to be landlocked with no outlet, and the drainage of the pond after each rainstorm will depend solely on evaporation and saopago, Mr. Badalich recommended additional ponding area to lesson the chances of flooding. The actual amount of additional ponding area required was to be determined by Mayor-Rohlin, Mr. Maus's engineer. With Mr. Bodalich' o approval of the propocud plans, the developer Jim Maus and his engineer Myor-Rohlin, opted to use a larger detention pond for storm water, rather than provide an outlet to the river. The size woo determined by Mayor-Rohlin. Whilo all of those changes and approvals were taking place during 1979, Marvin Goorgo Builders constructed sower and water mains on Prairie Road. Ila approached the owners of the moadowo property with the possibility of sharing the coat of the sanitary sower and water mains. The owners of the ( meadows declined, and Mr. Marvin George paid for the entire coat of the water and sower mains on Prairie Road as wall as the ditching and atraot construction. Council Agenda - August 26, 1985 After the completion of the 8albowl Project and Prairie Road, Mr. Mel Wolters entered the picture as a devoloper and/or owner (by contract for deed or some other document) of The Meadows �• property. Mr. Wolters requested building permits on all of those lots adjoining Prairie Road. He asked to hook up to the existing sewer and water mains put in by Marvin George with no assessment. The City allowed those connections, to be made with no assessment to Mr. Mel Wolters for sower, water, or street construction. We did, however, inform Mr. Mel Wolters that the ponding facility which would collect the runoff from all of the lots along north aide of Prairie Road would have to be completed prior to occupancy of those homes - Since Mel Wolters needed fill for those lots in the northerly portion of The Meadows, he excavated the pond within the park property. On September 2, 1980, we requested and received certification that the pond was constructed and graded to an elevation of 914 in concurrence with the grading plan. This certification was provided by Moyer-Rohlin and the City then took over maintenance of the detention pond as it existed at that time. 1980 also saw the installation of the 1980-2 project which included a wasterly extension of Prairie Road to servo portions of The Meadows and the Brothers Plate. Additional lots were therefore developed with thin project along Prairio Road. Storm sower for those lots consisted only of driveway culverts to got the drainage back to The Meadows pond. Thin project wan put in by the City and was assessed back to the benefitting property. In 1981. Mr. Mol Wolters petitioned for the construction of Marvin Elwood Road, north of Prairie Road. This Construction would include the street construction as well as sanitary sewer, water and a small amount of storm sower loading into the already existing Meadows detention pond on the westerly aide. This projoct181-1 was put in completely by the City without upfront money and assessed back to the bonefitting property owners. Early in 1984, 1 was approached by the engineering firm of Moyer-Rohlin in regard to the small amount of drainage on ti,d westerly and of the proposed Par West plat. Mr. Ken Ashfold, the project engineer was looking at the possibility of running thin drainage north into the railroad ditch and regrading the railroad ditch to got this drainage all the way easterly down to Otter Crook; this appeared to be a costly procedure. 1 diccusoed with Kan Achfold and later with Norm Gardner, also of the firm of Mayor-Rohlin, the possibility or alternative of running this small amount of drainage from Par Wast into the meadows pond, as the Meadows pond woo oxtromoly largo. Irt a February 27, 1984 letter, I indicated to Mr. Norm Gardner that at that time we did not have sufficient information to indlcato whether an outlet Into The Meadows pond would be faaolblo . In phone convoreationa after the roccipt of my lottor by Mr. Ken Aahfold, I ouggsotod that his firm look into the foaofbility of the additional drainage into Tho Moadowe pond, as his firm had danignod The meadows pond and also afnca they were the onginoor for the Par West project, they had all the pertinent calculations and data. Council Agenda - August 26, 1985 I then contacted John Badalich, the City Engineer, to ask his thinking on this proposed drainage of the small amount of Par West into The Meadows pond. John indicated that he had no problems with this as long as there was adequate capacity in the pond itself to take the additional flow. Mr. Ken Ashfeld called me after his review of the design data for The Meadows holding pond. He informed me that the pond had adequate room for the small amount of runoff expected from that short portion of Kevin Longley Drive on the westerly end of the Par West plat. Mr. Ashfeld determined that the Par West discharge would be approximately 6% of the total flow into The Meadows pond. Mr. Ashfeld informed me that even with the additional flow, the total discharge in The Meadows pond would allow for the pond to adequately hold a 100 year storm event, which is the current standard of design for the City of Monticello. I then talked to Mr. Sandberg and informed him it looked feasible to discharge the small portion of Par Wast into The Meadows pond. I told Mr. Sandberg that there would be a small storm sewer charge for the City to allow such a discharge, I also informed Mr. Sandberg that he would be responsible for all the cost in diverting the storm drainage across Prairie Road, down the railroad ditch, into the pond. In addition, Mr. Sandberg was to perform all the restoration in that area and contact the railroad for the necessary permission to use the railroad ditch. Mr. Sandberg agreed to all those terms and performed the work. in order to determine a charge for the use of The Meadows pond, I contacted Mol Woltaro since he had constructed the pond and paid for those construction costs. At this time it was my opinion that the original dovolopor of the pond may have a rebato coming for the additional drainage going into the pond. I used as the logic for this oconario, the fact that if the pond had boon purposely dovolopod for The Meadows and a email portion of Par West, that the costa would have boon shared between the two developers. I did not take into consideration the fact that the City of Monticello had indeed owned the park property on which the pond was located since the time of the original platting and had taken over maintenance and operation of the pond on September 2, 1980 when we received certification as to its completion. Mr. Mol Wolters provided mo with the construction costa of the pond on May 18, 1984; his estimated costa were 660,198. he did,howavor, throw in the land costo for the park dedication which hoplacod the value on of $36,000. Since these costa were irrelevant to the coat of the pond; I subtracted thin from the amount and came up with a total of $24,198. Thins of courso,did not take into consideration the valuable fill material removed from the pond itself and utilized to raise those proportion within The Meadows plat. Council Agenda - August 26, 1985 Taking the 88 figure as provided by Ken Ashfeld, I arrived at a figure of $1,935.86. This is the amount which we charged John Sandberg to utilize the City of Monticello's drainage facility. At the completion of the inlet to the pond from the Par West property, the Public Works Department made an inspection of the other portions of the ponding area. We found significant erosion problems behind the duplexes built by Mr. Mal Wolters in the area of The Meadows inlet to the pond. This erosion problem needed immediate attention, City crews performed the repairs to the inlet pipe from The Meadows development at a cost of $572.80. After discussing the possible rebate to Mel Wolters with Mr. Rick Wolfsteller and Tom Eidem, they both agreed with my rationale for a refund or partial refund to Mal Wolters for the pond construction. I am, however, totally to blame for this fiasco; I can only say that I had good intentions in what I thought was a fair and just rebate. On Docembe r 17, 1984, I sent a check to Mr. Mol Wolters made out in the amount of $1,363.04 and explained to him the $572.80 repair bill to The Meadows development inlet to the pond. Mr. Mel Wolters took offense at the offer of $1,363.04. He informed us that we had no right to deduct anything from the amount we received from John Sandberg and that he Should receive all themoney. we attempted to explain to him that the deduction an for maintenance of a City pond, that we felt this was a proper deduction from the amount received from John Sandberg for the discharge for the same pond. Mr. Wolters then immodiatoly contacted his attorney who returned the check indicating that it was ontiroly a City pond, that the City was entirely responsible for it, and an owner of the pond had no right to reduce a rebate to Mol Wolters. After a few lattore had changes hands, Mr. Tom Eidom contacted Bradley Larson on at least two occasions that I know of in an attempt to Got up a meeting to discuss the matter. After Mr. Lareon failed to show for those mootinga, the matter just dropped, until Mr. Woltoro appearance before you at the August 12 Council Meeting. In retrospect, I fool that thio matter probably Should have boon brought before the Council in. that there wan no precedent for thin proposed rebate and that if there was to be any chargo to John Sandberg, that charge ahould have boon totally used for ongoing maintenance and repair of The Meadows pond, and the amount sot by Council action. H. ALTERNATIVE ACTIO148 1. Firat alternative as I see it is to lot all matters drop and utilize the amount wo collactod from John Sandberg for ongoing maintenance and repair of The Meadows pond. 2. Refund the $1,935.80 to John Sandberg totally. Council Agenda - August 26, 1985 3. Set up a policy or guideline whereby future developers who use City facilities, pay for utilities installed by another developer, by reimbursing the City or the developer for the appropriate share of construction cost. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Since there are currently no guidelines for the collection of ouch moneys that we collected from John Sandberg for maintenance and ongoing repairs of the pond, it is the recommendation of the Public works Director that we return the money to John Sandberg as outlined in alternative 02 and that you either decide not to collect from future developers or set up a policy by which to do so is outlined in alternative q3. then reasses John Sandberg. D. SUPPORTING DATA February 27, 1984 letter to Moyer-Rohlin from the City. May 18, 1984 letter from James and Gruber. July 12, 1984 letter from the City to John Sandberg. December 17, 1984 letter to Mel Wolters. December 19, 1984 letter from Metcalf b Larson to the City of Monticello. December 27, 1984 letter from the City of Monticello to Metcalf 6 Larson. City a/ 1 l MONTICELLO, MN 55362 February 27, 1984 Phono (912) 295-2711 Marro 19121333.5739 Mr. Norman Gartner Moye r-Rohlin, Inc. Mayo: 1111 Highway 25 N nrveGrimsmo Buffalo, MN 55313 city council: Dan Bionigen Fran Fair Re: Par West Improvement Project, Monticello, Minnesota Kennom Mous Jack tMrwau Dear Mr. Gartner: We received your proposed plans and specifications for the nd ora Ei lam ism Eidam above referenced project. At q prompt P j your request, we made a rem t rinanco Moclor: review and have the following cotmnonts. Rick Woiletouer Public Works: 1. The typical street section for that portion of Jerry Liefert John Sonora Drive located out of the plat boundary shows a shoulder width Planning a Zoning: Gary Anderson of 1 .0 feet. The minimum shoulder width should be 3.0 feet. We also request the use of 100% crushed aggregate on these shoulders to prevent blow out of the material from traffic. 2. Tho culvert located on Kevin Longley Drive near the intersection of Prairie Road should have the aprons wrapped with bituminous material to prevent washout from the water coling off of Kevin Longley Drive. 3. Where the top soil is removed in the plat, sufficient soil should be sot aside for resproading after grading. The top soil should be restored to a depth of 4 inches and should be of a quality at least equal to the top soil prior to the development. 4. We ask that the sanitary sewer on Kevin Longley Drive be extended to station 13 plus 75 oo that the largo bot 1 and the park property can be nerved. we auk that the sewer and water services for the park property be located at approximately stations 13 plus 50 and 13 plus 60. In addition, a hydrant should be located on the south side of Kevin Langley Drive nit approximately station 13 plus 30 for the purpose of flushing this deadend manhole and also for maintenance of the park property itself. 5. Tho hydrant specifications rhould be rovised to allow only KaLurOU3 or the N.uollor Centurion hydrants to be used within the City of Monticello. Special care should be taken to Geo that these 2S0 rill Oroodwsy Houle 4. Eloy 83A Monhrsub, MN 65362 TO: Mr. Norman Gartner, Meyer-Rohlin, Inc. RE: Par West Improvement Project, Monticello, Minnesota DATE: February 27, 1984 PAGE: Two hydrants are set at the proper bury depth so that the breakoffs will function correctly. 6. The sanitary and storm sewer manhole castings identified as Neena-R-1642 should have the Type B lid and be labeled with the applicable name, such as sanitary sewer or storm sewer. 7. The City of Monticello requires that the service Y in the sanitary sewer main and the connecting fittings for the services be encased in concrete. A detail plate of this procedure is available from our engineer, Orr-Schelen-Mayeron and Associates, Inc. B. Prior to final acceptance of the sanitary sewer main, we request that you perform a closed circuit L.v. inspection of the sanitary sewer mains and furnish a report and video tape documenting same. Your specifications should indicate that no sags greater than 5E of the pipe diameter or no out of roundness in the case of PVC pipe exceeding 5% will be allowed. 9. When the City of Monticello installs improvements, it installs the necessary street signs and assesses the cost back to the property owners. In this particular case, it would not be practical to make asuessmonts out for all of the lots for such a small item as street signs. We, therefore, request that you include the installation of the necessary street signs with your project or contract with the City of Monticello and re- imburoo us for the cost. Pleaso contact me for a list of the actual requirements. 10. The last comments we have are in regard to the water runoff or storm sewer for Par west plat. As we sea the plans and specifications, you basically have two outlets. Ono is to the north end of the plat In which a significant portion of Kevin Wngloy Drive as wall as several lots drain. The plans show this water to be carried through the culvert across Prairie Road into a short section of ditch and then drain into the detention pond built for the Meadows Project at an earlier data. At this time, we do not have nufficiont information to indicate whether or not this outlet will be feasible. The second outlet, of course, Is shown to the southeast cornor of the plat into the railroad ditch henced southerly into Ottor TO: Mr. Norman Gartner , tfeyer-Rohlin, Inc. RE: Par West Improvement Project, MonLieellu, Minnesota DATE: February 27, 1984 PAGE: Three Creek. The City has as of yet received no information as to the potential problems which could occur frum such a discharge. If the discharge proves not to be a problem to Otter Creek, we have a couple of comments regarding the 30 inch outlet itself. The distance from manhole 5 to the end of the outfall is 485 feet. We would request that a manhole be installed approximately half way due to the difficulty in maintenance of long flat storm sewers. In addition, the riprap installed at the end of the outfall should be grouted. And we have a question as to whether the hay bales will provide a permanent erosion control baui�--r. We would expect that the City's eonsulLantengineer, Orr-Schelen- Mayeron s Associates, Inc - ,will send their comments to you under separate cover. If you have any questions or if we may be of any additional assistance, please contact Illi. Wu will be waiting Lw hear frau you in regard to the drainage questions raised ill Lhic letter and our letter of Fehruary 17, 1984. Thank you. Respectfully submitted, �4�6ia John E. Simola Public Works Director JLS/ kad CC: Tom L'idem John Dadalich Par West Filr_ JI:S City o� /t'/onEice[[o MONTICELLO, MN 55382 December 27, 1984 Phono(612)295-2711 Metro 16121333.5739 Metcalf 6 Larson Attorneys at Lav Mayor: P,0. Box 446 ANe Grimsmo City Counnl: 313 west Broadway Dan Banigen Monticello, MN 55362 Fran Fah, Kenneth Maus Jack Me=woU Attn: Mr. Bradley V. Larson Attorney at Law Administrator: Re: Meadows/Parwest Drainage Pond Refund Tom Eidom Finance Dtrector: Dear Mr. Larson: Rick Wonstduor Pubes Works; John Sunota We received your letter of December 19 in regard to the Planning 6 Zoning; deduction of $572.80 from the Meadows drainage system rofund. Gary Anderson As stated in our lettor of December 17, the repairs were made to the -'Meadows drainage structures". The structure which was repaired lies on the vont aide of the detention pond between Lot 1, Block 5, and Lot 14, Block 1. This structure earvan only the Meadows dovelopmont itself, not Parwast. The drainage structures for the Parwest development conoiat of a culvert underneath Prairie Road, which is proporly riprappod,and a shallow ditch along the Burlington Northern Railroad leading to tho northeast aide of the pond. This drainage structure, riprapping, and ditching wore totally paid for by John Sandberg in connection with tho construction of the Parweot development. In your letter, you make reference to the pond boing accepted by tho City of Monticallo during the platting process for the Meadows. This in correct. The City of Monticello owns and maintains the detention pond. The City has the right to maintain and modify the pond using sound engineering practices to accommodate the existing development and futura developments in the immediate area. The City has the right to charge or season any new davolopmants that use drainage atructuroo a fee to recover a portion of construction coeta or maintenance costa. In this particular incidence, the City staff thought it would be proper to return all or a portion of the foe from Mr. John Sandberg for the Parweot development to the developer of the Moadowa pond, Mr. 11x1 woltoro. At the time of Mr. Sandberg's application to 250 East Broadway Route 4, Sar 83A MonUce9o, MN 55382 Metcalf 6 Larson December 27, 1984 Page 2 J drain into the Meadows pond, the condition of the pond as well as the engineering capabilities of the pond were thoroughly reviewed. At that time, deficiencies were noted in the drainage structure for the Meadows side of the pond. It was felt by City staff that the fee, or a portion of the fee, should be used to maintain that portion of the, pond used for the Meadows subdivision. By making a refund to Mr. Mel Wolters, the City of Monticello may be setting a precedent for future developments. The City staff has no knowledge of any previous such refund. In fact, the opposite has often been true. I givo you the inotance of the construction of the Balboul development by Mr. Marvin George. At the time of this development, sanite ry sever and water were placed on Prairie Road totally paid for by Mr. Marvin George. It is our understanding that the ownero of the Meadows property were approached by Mr. Marvin Goorgo in an attempt for them to pay their fair share of the construction costs of the sanitary cower and water. The owner or owners of the meadows property at that time would not share in -the cost of that construction with Mr. Marvin George. The Meadows property, however, did hook into the water and sever system along Prairie Road at a later date. These properties were not assessed for any portion of the construction costo, nor vas any refund made to Mr. Marvin George. It is our opinion that the City of Monticello, Eo owner of the meadows detention pond, has the right to aesoso any new developments for the use of the pond and keep the entire cum for the ongoing maintenance of the pond. wo hope that this latter will offer tho ovidonco you requootod in your letter and promote a better underatanding of the attempted refund. Thank you. Rpectful John C. Simole Public Works Director City of Monticello JES/kad cc: The hoedown Imp. Pile R. Wolfotollor T. Eidom Voucher Pilo Mol Wolters 'J `• City of I//onliAo MONMELLO. MN 55362 Phone (812) 295.2711 ', December 17, 1984 broom (et 21333.5739 Mr. Mel Wolters Box 655 - Mayor: Monticello, MN. 55362 Ar" Ortrnemo city CWTA Rgr "Meadows' Drainaqe Pond. Dan 9bnlpen Fran Fair Kenneth Mao Jack MaawoS Dear Melt Mr. John Sandberg recently paid to the City $1,935.84 for a AdnrNf� Tn Ekins Torn rtion of the "Meadows" Pendin Construction to cover the Po 9 FarceOtrecmr: expected drainage from "Parwest" Subdivision that was allowed Rtk Wmdateder to enter the Meadows Pond. Pupae wens: John611111ft Public works Director, John Simola, noted that the following Pianning & Zoning: ? a OaryMnaareon repairs had to be made to the Meadows Drainage Structures: 18 cu. yda.fill material 0 81.00 cu. yd. $ 18.00 6 cu. yde.rip rap 8 $30.00 cu. yd. 180.00 3 cu. yde.concrste 8 $50.00 cu. yd 150.00 1 hour cat loader 930 0 $30 per hour 30.00 2 hours int. 2500 loader 0.520.00 per hour 40.00 12 hours labor 8 $12.90 par hour 154.60 $572.80 These repair costs totaling $572.00 have been deducted from the $1,935.84 leaving a balance duo you of 61,363.04. Should you have any Questions, please give John Simola or myself a call. rely, Rick Wolfateller Assistant Administrator RW/mh cc: Parwsat Improvement Pilo J8 Voucher Pile ✓ 250 Eul Broadway Rab 4, Boa 83A Monaceb, NN 65382 Imetca!/ A ,Carsaif ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.O. am ae 313 rrti1 B m«" Mglflta0o, M"em 55.782 JAMES 0. METCALF BRADLEY V. LARSON City of Monticello 250 Fast Broadway Monticello, Minnesota 55362 Attention: Mr. Rick Wolfsteller Assistant Administrator Dear Rick, Decanber 19, 1994 TELEPHONE (512) 295-3232 METRO (912) 421-M IN HE: Meadows - Parwest Drainage Pond Mel dropped off a copy of the letter you sent him dated Decmber 17, 1959, a::; uull as the City's check number 19856 in the amount of $1,363.03, with reference to the Meadows Drainage Systen refund. It would appear that the $1,935.84 that Mr. Sandberg paid to the City for the portion of the "Meadows" Ponding Systen to cover the expected drainage frau the 'Tarwest" Subdivision should not have been subject to any deducts. Your letter goes on to elaborate that the repairs evidently nude to the "Meadows" Pond to accom xiate the 'Tur%vest" Drainage amounted to some $572.80. Mr. Wolter's pond was initially constructed and oversized to accnrandate an additional influx of drainage from such now developments as "Patwest". The pond was accepted by the City. It was built to City spocifications and accepted by the City during the platting process. • At this point in time, it would appear to be inappro- priate to back charge Mal for modifications made that were necessary to aceemnodate /// John's developnent. ( I herewith return the City's cheep number 19856 and would ask you to reissue jl a new clunk for $1,935.84, unless there is steno understanding, agreement or vviduuse which would i.ndleate otherwise. 'ALanks for your consideration. 11 1n a ' cp jt C Respectfully, JO� p RQs�wl \ MUICAF& UJW \A '0� s Dy r e Irson j Attorney at law lNL: knp utclo ca: Rr. Mr.. Mel Wolters; P. 0. Dox 655 Monticello, Minnesota 53362 0 1.50 East WeAct-ey Route 4,.00. 83A Monticello, MN 55382 City o/ W.na'.1 o MONTICELLO, MN 55362 July 12, 1984 Phone(612)2952711 Metro (612) 3335739 Mr. John Sandberg Box 396 Monticello, MN 55362 Mayor: Arve Grime. City Council: Re: Storm Drainage from the Northerly Portion of Kevin Dan Btonlgen Longley Drive Fran Falr KennethMaue Jack MU.011 Dear Mr. Sandberg: We have reviewed the possibility of discharging the storm Administrator: run-off from the northerly portion of Kevin Longley Drive Tom Eldom into the holding pond for The Meadows plat. Mr. Ken Ashfield Finance Director: of Mayor-Rohlin, Inc., has determined, based upon design nick woitsioner calculations, that The Meadows holding pond has adequate Public Works: John Sm01n room for the small amount of run-off expected from that Planning t Zoning: short portion of Kevin Longloy Drive referenced above. Gary ArulaMon Mr. Anhfield has determined that the Par want discharge would he approximately 88 of the total expected flow into The Meadows pond. Mr. Aohfield has informed me that even ` with this additional flow, the total discharge into The Meadows pond would allow the pond to adequately hold a 100 year storm evunt, which in the current standard for design in Monticello. I discussed this possible discharge into The Meadows pond with the City Engineer, Mr. John Badalieh. Mr. Badalich indicated that he foresaw no problems with the incroaso in discharge so long as the pond would still hold a 100 year storm event. After it was determined that the pond could hold the additional flow, I contacted Mr. Mol Wolters of Wolters Construction Company, as they had performed the original development of the pond. Mr. Wolters, through hia public accountant. James 6 Gruber, informed me that the development costs of the pond were as follows: Excavation Cost 9 22,000.00 Surveying Coot S 1,641.00 Landscaping Coat S 957.00 Total Development Cost S 24,198.00 1.50 East WeAct-ey Route 4,.00. 83A Monticello, MN 55382 TO: Mr- John Sandberg RE: Storm Drainage from Kevin Longley Drive DATE: July 12, 1984 ` PAGE: Two Mr. Joel Winkelman of James 6 Gruber also included a cost of $36,000.00 for the land. This, however, will not be included in the calculations, as this piece of property is City park and was dedicated for such purposes. If we, therefore, take the 89 of the development cost of $24,198.00, the resulting figure is 51,935.84. This would be the cost to Par West development for discharging into The Meadows pond. The discharge from the Par West development shall enter The Meadows pond via a concrete cross gutter of shallow depth across Kevin Longley Drive, through a ditch ,along the south edge of Prairie Road, hence through a culvert crossing Prairie Road into the north ditch of Prairie Road. At this point, it will be necessary for you to construct a ditch entirely on City property along the north edge of The Meadows plat and gradually drop into The Meadows pond. Th ie ditch shall be properly eloped and graded with black dirt and then seeded and mulched. If you have any questions or if we may be of any additional assistance concerning this proposed project, please contact us. Roe oc uilvy, (/�✓ ?. La ohn B. Simola Public Works Director J ES/ked cc: Tom Eidem, CA John Dadalich, City Eng. Ken Aahfiold, Mayor-Rohlin, Inc. Mol Wolters, Wolters Construction CO. Par West Pilo is .i `) Phone (812) 295.2711 Metro (912)333.5739 Mayor: cey counce: Dan B"on Fran Falr Kenneth Maus Jack Maawet Adm411etrator: Tom Eldem Finance Director: Rick WOtlateeer Public Wake: John Strnom Ptannln0 A zonae: Gary AMenon 250 East 9roadu1Y Roule 4. pea 83A Monticaa0. MN 55382 (..it$" of lmontice[[o MONTICELLO. MN 55362 December 17, 1984 Mr. Mal Wolters Box 655 Monticello, MN. 55362 RE: "Meadows" Drainage Pond. Dear Mel: Mr. John Sandberg recently paid to the City $1,935.84 for a portion of the "Meadows" Ponding Construction to cover the expected drainage from "Parwest" Subdivision that was allowed to enter the Meadows Pond. Public works Director, John Simola, noted that the following repairs had to be made to the Meadows Drainage Structures: 16 cu. yde.fill material @ $1.00 cu, yd. $ 18.00 6 cu. yde.rip rap @ $30.00 cu. yd. 180.00 3 cu. yde.concrete @ $50.00 cu. yd 150.013 1 hour cat loader 930 @ $30 per hour 30.00 2 hours int. 2500 loader @ $20.00 per hour 40.00 12 hours labor @ $12.90 per hour 154.80 $572.80 These repair costa totaling $572.80 have been deducted from the $1,935.84 leaving a balance due you of $1,363.04. Should you have any questions, please give John Simola or myself a call. rely, e 4(1- Rick Wolfstollor Assistant Adminiatrator RW/mh cc: Parweat Improvement Pile JS W--' voucher Pile John Simola Public Works Director Monticello, MN 55362 Dear Mr. Simoln: Mel Wolters, Wolters Construction Company has requested that I summarize in a letter to you his ponding cost at the Meadows Additions. The total costs approximate S60, 198 itemized as follows: Land cost - three acres $ 36,000 Excavation cost 22,000 Surveying cost 1,641 Landscaping costa 557 If you hnve any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Joel Winkelman James and Gruber, CPA' s 311 So. Walnut Street: Monticello, MN 55362 cc: Mel Wolters MEMBER OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CPA'S MEMBER OF THE MINNESOTA SOCIETY OF CPA'S JAMES AND GRUBER CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS 311 So. Walnut Street, P.O. Box 755 Monticello. Minnesota 55382 Offices; In: Jerald J. James, CPA Monticello, Minn. Richard M. Gruber, CPA 295.5070 Joel V. Winkelman, Principal Maple Lake, Minn. Mary C. Carlson 983-6414 St. Cloud, Minn. 2527188 May 18, 1984 John Simola Public Works Director Monticello, MN 55362 Dear Mr. Simoln: Mel Wolters, Wolters Construction Company has requested that I summarize in a letter to you his ponding cost at the Meadows Additions. The total costs approximate S60, 198 itemized as follows: Land cost - three acres $ 36,000 Excavation cost 22,000 Surveying cost 1,641 Landscaping costa 557 If you hnve any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Joel Winkelman James and Gruber, CPA' s 311 So. Walnut Street: Monticello, MN 55362 cc: Mel Wolters MEMBER OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CPA'S MEMBER OF THE MINNESOTA SOCIETY OF CPA'S Addendum to Item 44 Relating to Mel Wolter -s Reimbursement Request. (T.E.) Due to conflicting schedules, and John Simola taking his scheduled vacation, we on staff did not have an opportunity to discuss a staff position with respect to this item. John Simola prepared his agenda supplement prior to his going on vacation, and consequently, I am adding this addendum to expand on the City's position. I wish to also note that I am indeed sorry that this item has developed in the way it has, and the resulting frustration tends to lend a rather acerbic overtone to my writing. In my estimation, the City has three options in situations such as this. 41) The City could not charge Sandberg at all for the Par West drainage. The pond is extent and can accommodate the runoff. There really would be no genuine need for charging for construction. This would be not unlike the fact that we did not charge Mol Wolters for sower and water assessments along Prairie Road. The first developer installed the improvements at his own expanse. Latter developers simply got free rides on the investment of earlier developers. However, 42) had the City built the pond as a public improvement, we probably would have deferred a certain amount of assessment relating to Par West until that development occurred. This is virtually identical to our oversize in policy. Under this method Sandberg - Par West would be assessed and the City would recover its money. The City owns and maintains the pond. We clearly have the right to assess or charge for entry into that pond. We simply could have kept all of the money, oven though we did not construct the pond. We own no one anything. However, 43) In an effort to be just and equitable, and to demonstrate that Government is not corrupt, vicious, malicious, groody, and, in general, "out to got everyone", we concluded that a rebate could be justified. We attempted to do something good and fair for an individual in the community and were treated with a latter from an attorney informing us that we were "back charging" that individual. On the contrary. We aro not deducting money from an amount rightfully owed Mr. Wolters, but rather, we offered to reimburse him out of monies which is rightfully the City's. We attempted to make a rotund; it was refused; we withdraw the offer. Counter to that of the Public Works Director, it in my rocommondation that no robots be made, and that we continuo to collect from dovoloporo,acososmonts or charges that will help offset the City -a ongoing maintenance efforts and expenses. Council Agenda — August 26, 1985 This attempt at being fair and equitable was unsuccessful, andcertainly could set a precedent for later developers. (Parish the thought that City Staff should ever got the reputation as being fair and responsive to developers.) As a matter of fact, it is perhaps beneficial that this issue has come to a head. Such a rebate could lead other developers to expect, perhaps even demand, reimbursement for public improvements installed for their own development when a later development occurs: that will utilize some of those same improvements. I suggest we simply withdraw the offer, or if it seems appropriate, honor the original offer and then adopt a clear policy stipulating that such - rebates, refunds or reimbursements shall not be granted under any circumstances. The following is a brief, capsulized summary of events and conditions surrounding this issue. Fact: Pond was designed by developer's engineer, not City Engineer. Fact: Pond design was reviewed and approved by City Engineer as an acceptable alternative to more expensive storm cower design. I Fact: Pond was constructed by developer at developer's (� expense. Fact: The City allowed the Pond to be inside of the dedicated Park land rather than requiring I) a park and 2) a pond. Fact: Developer was allowed to mine the fill for use in the building lots, when City could have either charged for the fill or required that it be used on publicly owned laude. Fact: The City has full and unrestricted owns rahip and control of the Pond, with all the maintenance rosponoibilitioe and exponso attendant to that ownorship. Fact: Pond dosign can adequately accommodato storm run-off from a portion of Par west. Fact: It is the exclusive right of the City to allow access to the Pond from a portion of Par Want. Fact: The City allowed access to the Pond for a portion ' of Par West and established a change for said access (right to discharge). i I Fact: City offered to the original developer a portion of the Par Want charge collected. The difference between what was charged and collected and what was !. offered for reimbursement wan utilized for Pond maintenance. •I Council Agenda - August 26, 1985 FINANCIAL OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THE CITY #1 - Grant free access to Par West. Seems contrary to practice of "if one uses a service or facility, one pays for such use." 02 - Charge Par West for access; Retain all monies in City Public Works Department. Perfectly legal, but seemed somewhat unfair to charge for portion of construction coat when City incurred no construction cost. Maintenance, however, being ongoing would be ample justification to retain all funds. 03 - Charge Par West for access; offer to reimburse original developer an amount after repair. Seemed to us to be fair to the original developer, and would allow City to eliminate tax levy for repair. Future maintenance monies shall be raised by tax levy resulting in the actual users paying the coat. It seemed to us that the Par West change came at an opportune time so that such a levy would not yet be required. Council Agenda - August 26, 1985 5. A Conditional Use Request to Allow Minor Auto Repair and Outdoor Sales in a B-4 Zone - Applicant, Monticello Auto Sales. (G.A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND. Dr. McCarty is proposing to lease the former K 6 H Auto building and lot from Kenny Sto 1p. Mr. McCarty is proposing to be allowed to have a sales lot for his automobiles and also to be allowed to have the cleanup of his vehicles to be done within the existing building. Also, in a portion of the existing building, he would li)te to have an area for his auto sales office. By ordinance we do all.ov as a conditional use, Outdoor sales in a B-4 zone, but it is limited to five separato conditions. Under section 10-14-4 subsection B condition number 1, the Outdoor Sales area be limited to 306 of the gross floor area of the principal use, which would be the existing building. The existing building Is currently 30 fact by 50 feet, which is equal to 1500 square foot loss 106 for wall area, would amount to 1350 square feet. 306 of 1350 square fact is equal to 405 square feet in which he would be allowed to display his automobiles. 405 square feet would be equal to about 2 spaces to park 2 vehicles. Also, as a condition under agenda item 41, does allow this percentage to be increased as an additional condition to the conditional use. Mr. Stolp was ollowad to sell autos under hie current conditional use permit which allowed Mr. Sto 1p to display six vehicles. Also as a condition, when a proporty abuts a roaidantial area, a screening fence would have to be installed. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. To approve the conditional ueo request to allow Outdoor Solos, in a B-4 zona. 2. To approve the conditional use request to allow Minor Auto Repair in a 8-4 zone. 3. To deny the conditional use request to allow Outdoor Sales in a B-4 zone. 4. To deny the conditional use request to allow Minor Auto Repair in a B-4 zono. 5. To approve the conditional use raquoat with the five conditions noted in section 10-14-4 subsection B. under 13-4 zoning. 6. To allow the conditional use with the five conditions as addressed in section 10-14-4 Subsection B, with additional conditions which aro as follows: Council Agenda - August 26, 1985 a. The City has the right of removal of this business, which would supersede any lease agreement that he has with the owner of the property. b. As at this time of the year,that he would have to vacate the property within 10 - 15 day notice, however, as we got into the winter months we could see the vacation notice be extended to 30 days. C. That he have available on site seven off street parking spaces. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff takes the position of,with the new downtown study being proposed for the City of Monticello and this type of activity only allowed with certain conditions, and that we are trying to create a good image of our downtown, we would like to see the conditional use request denied. However, if you would like to approve the conditional use request, that you do address several conditions over and above the the five which are stated in section 10-14-4 subsection B. That the conditions be as listed under alternative action number 6, letters a - c. D. SUPPORTING DATA A copy of the proposed location of the conditional use request, s copy of the sits plan for the conditional use request, a copy of the B-4 zoning ordinance, section 10-14-4, subsection B. r 1 I _ OFF XX 1 ST/N4 IL Dlive— I ?PRR�N� 3o x So-- A�fPcay / (, cnPs GPKS ADDi7' IONAL- OFf - vet-tr ;-I ?A p It/ 416 ARE; • cele 1 � DI IPAA'l ARGA iOR 9 TO /O CAIeS I � I j*Ae!5E:Air (- y 1( 4 N, A rl0 RL/RWhe. ,A PT -0 {Si re Council Agenda - August 26, 1985 6. Regueet for a Revised Stage Development Plan for a Planned Unit Development - Applicant, Mike Reher. (G.A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Mr. Reher has been in several times to discuss ways to plat his portion of the planned unit development which was known as Victoria Square. The City Staff has come up with the recommendation of changing the planned unit development to a straight subdivision, and are suggesting a zoning change for the entire property from B-3 (highway business) to 8-2 (limited business). With the proposed rezoning change, it does allow all of the activity which he does have, and the different uses for the property. It does also allow uses which are only allowed as conditional uses. As of the Planning Commission meeting held on August 13, 1985, Mr. Reher had met several items on a punch list prepared by City Staff. He did address all those punch list items onto the proposed preliminary stage of a subdivision request. All those changes have been put onto the development stage form by a professional engineer. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. To approve the preliminary plan of a subdivision. A subdivision to be known as Victoria Square Addition. 2. To deny the preliminary plan of a subdivision to be known as Victoria Square Addition. 3. To approve the preliminary plan of a subdivision to be known as Victoria Square with certain conditions and they may be attached by City Council members and/or staff. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Mr. Rohor has all of hie plane in order for a preliminary subdivision to be known as Victoria Square, we do recommend approval at this timo. Mr. Rchorla preliminary plans have boon reviewed by consulting plannor and consulting engineering firma, and have mot their approval. D. SUPPORTING DATA A copy of the proposed location of Mr. Roher-o oubdivis ion request, a copy of the preliminary plan of a subdivision. 5 J - ,. �, LI/� �� If DATE: August 1. 1985 FROM: Victoria Square TO: Planning Commission Minnesota Exchangors, Inc. City Council of Monticello Mike L. A. Reher We wish to re-establish the previously proposed Victoria Square Project in the SLY k of the NW h Section 14 to Monticello. The project has to have some revisions made, due to the erosion of time, to its previously stated plans and objectives, and change from a P.U.D. to a B-2 Subdivision Development Project. The business environment in the last two years has drastically reduced the need of office condos, as well as the need for any more motels at this time. Therefore, it is our intent to introduce the following; some with no changes, some with minor changes, and one with a complete change, probably for the better of the project and the City also. The following are our recommendations: A. Parcel "A" - "New 81k. I" No changes - project is ready for final orawings as it was 2 years ago. We are ready to sign with Engineering for roads, water, sewer and other utilities. We are also ready, after "permits," to start contraction October 1985 for Phase I (units 01-8). to be finished by September 1986. B. Parcel "B" - New Outiot "A" - B-2 Request elimination of "Office Condos" and leave Residential Apartment. Topo and elevations to be the same. Multiple Residential - B-2 zoning. C. Parcel "C" - New Outl of "8" Previously proposed Commercial - change to B-2 zoning. D. Parcel "D" - New Outlots "C" and "D" 1. Originally a 98 unit Hotel and Restaurant - not feasible, just B-2 zoning. 2. Propose: a. A "Day Care Center" - NE Quadrant, Outlo t "C" . B-2 zoning. b. Two Quad Units - SE Quadrant, should be Office Density part of Outlot "D". c. WSTLY k to remain Commercial with nothing designated other than B-2, balance of Outiot "0" Commercial. 3. Construction would like to commence on September 20 or October 1, 1985 on "Day Care Center." E. Outiot "E" We are submitting Engineering Drawings of our proposed areas which we are in a Fee or CO position. The proposed "New Cedar" (now Victoria Street), both north and south of Dundas Road. will be dedicated by us to the City. We are making this a matter of public record again, as we did in the past, and will sign the appropriate documents to the City when the City is satisfied with the surveys and documents to consummate said dedication and transfer. F. The proposed extension of Victoria Street going south to the south property line has to be addressed in the following matter. Mr. John Lundsten had no opinions either way about Victoria extending south through his property and running parallel with Minnesota Highway 25. Should he object to such an ingress, we would have no choice but to go west on the southern 80 feet of Block 1 back to Highway 25. unless the Minnesota Highway Department has other ideas for its direction. G. We have shown "In 81 ue-Green Options (cross -hatched)" to pick up the parcels owned by Malvern Wal tors and Robert Danner which, if we are successful in acquiring, will add to the two contiguous commercial properties. Respelly submitted, lt4Lx-t.n�wjl �Z- A. Reher ,Minnesota Exchangors, Inc. VICTORIA SQUARE REVIEW, 13 August 1985 Page 2 office structures require considerably more parking. This area would have to be redesigned then in compliance with all the conditions of the zoning ordinance. 5. Outlot E is the future proposed alignment of relocated Cedar subject to the review and documentation of the City planning process. Adjacent to Outlot E will be future commercial activities. All setbacks to Outlot E should be the same as if Outlot E were a street right-of-way. These setbacks under the ordinance for lots adjacent to the outlot could be considerably less than that of a right-of-way. Any proposed use should maintain appropriate street setbacks. In particular Outlot C, in which a daycare center is proposed, should maintain a thirty foot setback along Dundus and Outlot E. 6. Outlot C is proposed to be a daycare center but may or may not be the right size and configuration to accommodate the proposed development. The proponent should have a site plan prepared prior to final platting of Outlot C into a lot. 7. With this plat and requested rezoning the City should take into consideration the impact on the properties to the south. This area is being proposed for future development quite possibly similar to the mobile home development directly south. The City at this point is considering a study and possible annexation of areas on the border of Monticello which would include the land directly south of Victoria Square. That study and decision making could include the appropriate alignment for Cedar Street as relocated as a frontage road to State Highway 25. f Consulting Plannem One Groveland Terrace 16121377.3536 Minneaooiiq ll4jnne=1a 554ni Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban/Incorporated MEMORANDUM DATE: 13 August 1985 TO: Monticello Planning Commission FROM: C. J. Uban, Principle Planner BE: Review of Preliminary Plat for Victoria Square 1. The Comprehensive Plan should be amended to accommodate the proposed uses. I believe that the last time this project was reviewed several years ago, it was found that a form of multiple family was appropriate south of Dundous Road, considering that either commercial or industrial uses were proposed on the north side of Dundous. 2. The realignment of Cedar Street should also be reviewed and decided upon as a matter of comprehensive planning. The future alignment of Cedar Street as a frontage road along State Highway 25 should be studied and agreed upon by the City so that each individual property owner affected by such a change will have an alignment given to them through the planning process. Mr. Reher will be able to pursue actual street dedication realignment once the City has made a commitment on Cedar Street. 3. The proposed plat of primary outlots with the proposed street realignment showing up as private outlots is a method Mr. Rehe r is using to proceed at this point without pursuing the relocation and rededication of streets that may delay him further. The townhouse portion of this project has been previously reviewed and approved and no changes have been proposed. What is indicated as Outlot A multiple family on the plat will have a future arrangement of buildings proposed for your review. The remaining outlots will be replotted as those uses are finalized. 4. The multiple family plan previously shown for Outlot A also included offices and parking for those office condominiums. Should this area go all multiple family more units could be established in the area since the I1 Council Agenda - August 26, 1985 7. Request for Development Stade Plan Aporoval of a Planned Unit ,{ Development - Applicant, Ultra Homes, Inc. (G.A.) 1 A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Dickman Knutson, current owner of the Meadow Oak Development, is proposing a development stage approval of outlets C, D, & H. In looking at the request, the consulting planner and the consulting engineer see no problems with the development stage of the Planned Unit Development of these outlets. We do, however, see one problem if this should go on to final stage approval of Outlot C vhich is Meadow Oak Estates 2nd Addition; Outlot D, which is the Meadow Oak Estates 3rd Addition; and Outlot H. which is the Meadow Oak 4th Addition. If these outlets were granted final approval (the lots currently have no utilities in to service them), the lots could essentially be sold to individual property owners with no assessments on them. If the owners of those individual lots, would come in to petition the City for water and sewer improvements to their vacant lots, we would at that time have to consider bonding to have water and sewer improvements brought into those vacant lots. we do not want to got into that position of having to bond for public improvements for a residential vacant lot. It has boon our policy with the last two additions that were brought into the City, the Par West Addition and the Club view Terrace Addition, that the developers boar all of the cost of the public improvements. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS i. To approve the development Otago of a Planned Unit Development for Outlot C. 0. & H. 2. To deny the development Otago for a Planned Unit Development for Outlot C. 0, & 1i. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff rocommonda approval of the development Otago for a Plannod Unit Development for Outlot C to be known as Meadow Oak Estates 2nd Addition; Outlet 0 to be known as the Meadow flak Estates 3rd Addition; Outlot H to be known as the Meadow Oak 4th Addition. We do, however, rocommond no approval at final Otago plan of a Planned Unit Development for Outlets C. O, & 1i until Ouch time when the developer puts into written documents as to when the public utilities would be put in for those Outlets. 0. SUPPORTING DATA A copy of the location of the proposed davolopomont Otago plan request of a Planned Unit Devolepment. Copy Of Outlet C. Meadow Oak Estates 2nd Addition; Outlet D. Meadow Oak Eatatee 3rd Addition; Outlot 11, Meadow Oak 4th Addition. .sequest!for :flaal etage..piam•of, a -- P18naed'Uait:Developmeat: r, r i i I I . /•. wf>r ALL IF;Y 6'I TM:Y PP mnaretim. C—Ir'ed O In 1M 0xnly of Iemm, 1 • 126 �\ " -/1 ,I 11 Ntlot 0. W -Am om 81 �� st M.0 trn s9ee to t _ 1001111" •rd does I IMI forever the thOf9Yd,1erl 6�' �— 7 Im , _, e -109 ,, , , - , �j \\ �. I I 1, ,�'• 1 In •Itn— oneml 691E these PtOmLs to 91951 1V (- _b m L --� � /Y IL: i.,l v It" Utc—In C. wutsm. ••ol STATE TXNIIY o—' 3. 8 t. _ _ _ ae_xr oo•e _ - J 1 1 ', ^ i m1 mrewl^7 leteruse 19 _ 117-2i-- U I PII Inc.. e n me:ota mr9 L —-!Ia'1 nurr NAItC.�, — — — lel e•ot}ee 2 1 1 u r , 1 J r--- �e�•er �7•----v c... . O L---i(o.ae---� fee•ar oo•• - j �.� Q i 10 •/^h \\ � 10 ^ L IL ly NtiJ I / i� N• J O I 1 Nes )0• m•C � O - j i - 117.!0 \ - Q•11 1 ,W O 1^ -I G IY of a 71 25 \ 11 �0., 00 p�'00 .32 32 99y cp 75.9 1, 09•. LAN -^\ OAK ' p 5.0 ICMEACOW \ -__� 1 \ II I I 11 11 •� e I m 1 II 11 11 11 \ \ 1 8 I II II II LIJ \ ?v F" lu el I f- I I el 1 11� 5 ��^1 '1^•111w � �•�\ O \ J\ N ;�11�. 51 Ig 111 $I I• 'mt rl I I 1 � 1 1 LJ 11 II 11 • 1 I I I I I I 1 1 \ s• Te 91..9 •e,•e ee_•• 110.19 111.11 t Y19.1I' I !• 9 1 X1.01 }rror9!!11!'ss ion line eoselnenf. file No. 269,626 - �6 s OUT LOT C • �. �•>, •17.1 ■ 91.7 7nef�&U 04A CdAte-5 riUT'/ef %' - ' 7 4 n 188. 14• 00•E 179.59 dti I N89'00' 00'E NBa•52'00'E 285.31 1. ' 81 ' 81 r - , *' - - '"1e2. -ox- - - - -�•/ ie-xe'1 , 1� 1 - t 2-. e0 _ - I 4 _ •��•� �•!_ .._ � S N1 1 !/'/ �. 1 ]ee•N'004 $I 2 I$ 2 el I Plt Y / nee•tn•Op! I i :i i c d 25 11! u i ,"LARKSPUR KCIRCLE'4• _ � _eee—------ TI _—--TI I I I I I i rJ 1 12 14 I , _1 OAK _— LANE" __ w F.,= ib 10 ki 1 Iq 11 �I I 12it -i V i . 1 1 l i 1 1 1 1 I _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ .. _ _ _ .. -, _ _ ... _ « _ L I- _ _ _ _ _ 111I ... - t L _ _ _ _ - _ 1 - t /1-7 • I __ �a.w----_.•``___ �.a.:r----' L_ ae.a F, t_ ast _ 1 �_.a_:'__. a__+tane__; , wn•fr lr• w1..e >T'J'anSm:strpn Aae terse mani O U T L O T 1,r� Na. �A26?424 a �T 17• Elf. !�lef+�doy,�; �A � S* es Qd°Add� f,aN : � LN 04 lot D `- MtC�MBS� a,fesarK!i? I /le..idow OAk yfh Addifim Ir• A.W a� � ��''. !� iii o'.�oa°v: i°:ii • • .• '•cn a •e.•°ve i ,oi•iv ave ii:m .a oe `� Pa•� per, ��_^ -I 9 u� 1aa, r ---------- -- -�- l[1� 1.1 J',i Q � - -ui - ip• � . -? M,i,'ai':� ~ •1e'la' W'e l9S.1 f ! e 12 F' ,1 1• 1 �' ;3 01 9 411: C,, L, `- , , , , 1 1�w S. -1'� •1' I3 J;8 • ,L _i,.W�=, -SIL--��"-' 0;--; i. iv A '1 -`1 ',� '�,'`/T _�1�-'-J` ��• Q 5 0'I ;16 - I t � a s l•ANE � • �I��c - ^, '1� -- X1:7; ^• __ `�.f ,`,� 4,,a a —A� �� '•;a -- — '" ;MEADOWS 6 ',•a ;, .�i_-_ 4 t' 9jL �.. noe/•Ir n.n_• I i A •] �'',C 3 �',11, ° _ ' O p` 110 L k�1 ,•�. ,� .�•�1 `L3-' - _ , /°iI, e._ - 1','Wb 1,1 . I n. �°- --� F1,3 .•� • t�lfgl �1' -J1-. 1 - 1,1_ ..,.•' � � ;p w I 1 � _ 1',i _ -It �'. ' Ii III -I-` 1� _n•e�- • (` ~ IL D• ' :J� � 1�ps•N• •Z. Y•�. � near 1 :!'� .4 11-P%P� '' --' le•• esa.el• •� 7 1 _ J �� 1 u•• _ ' ��, C� � n�ee•!r° •' e.,Iy- .� ,fl7Lµ��yl, ��alaaa .�C_►_,}.,.�i_1�S\y�_l+ jr•••�'�?;�„Y,tt.�a��-moi _ Mc COMBS -7-_KNUTSON, _ASSOCIATES. INC, /le..idow OAk yfh Addifim Consulting Plannp- One Groveland Terrace {612}377.3536 Minnesota 5540:1 Dahlgren. Shardlow, and Ubanhncorporated MEMORANDUM DATE: 6 August 1985 TO: Monticello Planning Commission FROM: C. J. Uban RE: Review of Meadow Oaks Estates, 2nd and 3rd Addition and Meadow Oak 3rd and 4th Addition Review of Plats: 1. The Meadow Oak Estates 2nd and 3rd Addition are larger lot single-family plats with an approximate minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. The minimum lot width is 79 feet with a range generally in the 80 to 90 feet for lot (� widths. Minimum lot depth is 116 feet with most of them at least 130 feet or more. The lot width around the cul-de-sacs is a minimum of 45 feet. I believe all of these lots meet the agreed upon minimums at the time of the preliminary plat. That approval should be checked against any other concerns that the Planning Commission or Council may have. I believe the lot that needs additional consideration is in the Meadow Oaks Estates 2nd Addition, Block 1, Lot 11 which has 116 foot depth on a corner lot. Because of setbacks on two sides, there may be some difficulty in siting a larger home on this lot with a reasonable rear yard. 2. It appears that the appropriate outlets for -the purpose of trails are being dedicated on these plats. Outlot A within the preliminary plat has yet to be dedicated to the City. This will be done as I understand it in a future platting. According to documents signed in 1983, the developer will submit individual site plans for each lot indicating which trees will be saved, the site grading, and other boulevard street plantings. 3. Meadow Oak 3rd and 4th Addition plats are comprised of smaller lots with a minimum lot size of approximately 8100 square feet. The minimum lot width appears to be 61 feet 1 with 44 feet on Cul-de-sacs. The minimum lot depth appears to be 120 feet. These plats continue the road system previously established and provide for trail MONTICELLO PLANNING REPORT, 6 August 1985 Page 2 outlots associated with the preliminary plat. One-third of these buildings are to have basements which is consistant with earlier agreements. The front lawns should be sodded and the remainder of the landscaping is to be installed by the homeowner. It is assumed that these plats will be able to adhere to the tree preservation and planting plan previously submitted and will provide grading, street plans, drainage systems, erosion control, utility plans as previously agreed upon. Council Agenda - August 26, 1985 8. A request for Development Stage Plan Approval and Final Approval 11 of a Planned Unit Development - Applicant, Ultra Homes, Inc. (G.A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Dickman Knutson, current owner of the Meadow Oak Development LB proposing development stage and final stage approval of Outlot G, which is to be called the Meadow Oak 3rd Addition. In the development stage, the current assessment records will show an assessment for the water, sewer and storm sewer. However, the hard surfacing of the street, curb and gutter, rough grading of the lots, and the surfacing of the Outlots for trail system, have not been put in at this time. Before considering approval of the final stage approval of the Planned Unit Development for Outlot G, to be known as the Meadow Oak 3rd Addition, we must consider a written document as to when the public utility improvements for the hard surfacing of the streets, curb and gutter, rough grading of the lots, and the surfacing of the Outlots for the trail system be put in. with a written agreement in hand approved by the City, we could at that time consider approval of the final stage plan of a Planned Unit Development for Outlot G to be known as the Meadow Oak 3rd Addition. Also as an attached condition, that the punch list be completed for the Meadow Oak 2nd Addition which is nearing its final stages of completion. �. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTION 1. To approve the development stage plan of a Planned Unit Development for Outlet G. 2. To deny the proliminary plan stage of a Planned Unit Dovolopmont for Outlet G. 3. To approve the final stage plan for a Planned Unit Development for Outlot G. 4. To deny the final plan stage for a Planned Unit Development for Outlot G. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the development stage of a Planned Unit Development for Outlot G. to be known as the Meadow Oak 3rd Addition. Before consideration of approval or denial of the final stage plan of a Planned Unit Development for Outlet G, to be known as the Meadow Oak 3rd Addition, you must consider a written agreement to be mat with the approval of thoCity as to a firm commitment from the developer and a subcontractor as to when the hard surfacing of tho atroata, curb and gutter, rough grading of the Iota, and the surfacing of the Outlota for the trail systems when they would be put in and completed. Council Agenda - August 26, 1985 Also as a condition, we must note that a definite written contract between the developer and the subcontractor as to when the punch list items will be completed for the Meadow Oak 2nd Addition subject to the approval of the City. D. SUPPORTING DATA A copy of the location of the proposed development stage and final stage plan requests of a Planned Unit Development for Outlot G. to be kiovn as the Meadow Oak 3rd Addition. A copy of Outlot G Meadow Oak 3rd Addition. co Request for final stage plan of a planned Unit Development. d Add � t►oN MCA dow oAk 3 R o�^ aa,•e v �- y �: •!ry ...•.°a•"• •y•cTt Tt.�o se -T9 ; ; +, f �"I" 1 .e r�fla.95_ ns�"ltsri per Jina�p64626'��, i - " -1• t' Itc�l , I$ nt � � s Erle _ � �• t� Q $ �t IN 61 � ,T!•�S „ '.' jrd S n,,n „•I. ,rW- e, f ' e4 ��•" 1• .1 ito �1 to i ° -1 1 • 9 1 = o CI t" 6 1 1 t t iw �1 5 • �G�, c" �04 �'Ti \ \•a• 1 1 A� i 1� "T t t 1 1 1 1 i Rt �\ vy4<rr} �\ \'�' 2 �we t t t ' J a.s•si'oo•� `°c �� ti}•y it °q { 1 t IA.3'!6'001 0, 4.10 •! 1 �..4.53.T•�5. `.A `'YO 4SF \ 6•A• 1 .) L4•T°N�I� 4\sf04i� V ^I M \ c•e�.o=, —56.00-1 l- ".00- �..os E»I ,�; , ��..�•s Nt »•ro5.36 .c,+�Nw r s , :1 t, N� OAK ° 5w �. �.�. INS tib .• a C © xet ti 4p•� , . w.0i is fit. `SOi . P,•,r , d 4• .S � !a � tti.W � l•Sl.3! /•� • is C .06 Li ' p` q9 GD .� .- i aLOS� ,.� - {,• GpS_ta .� Y .•, i a•6't6'D!• 1� It 61 1 Sv�i , L► E at a5 «tow + Q ¢5 h 06. P 2 s W of ' %1 6 a' t .�•.6n\ , �� C � r riy �, � ��• !� J t e ac Consulting Planners One Groveland Terrace (612)377-3536 tCrineano is Ataaesg n 55An't Dahlgren,.Shardlow, and Ubanllncorporated MEMORANDUM DATE: 6 August 1985 TO: Monticello Planning Commission FROM: C. J. Uban HE: Review of Meadow Oaks Estates, 2nd and 3rd Addition and Meadow Oak 3rd and 4th Addition Review -of Plats: f 1. The Meadow Oak Estates 2nd and 3rd Addition are larger lot single-family plats with an approximate minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. The minimum lot width is 79 feet with a range generally in the 80 to 90 feet for lot widths. Minimum lot depth is 116 feet with most of them at least 130 feet or more. The lot width around the cul-de-sacs is a minimum of 45 feet. I believe all of these lots meet the agreed upon minimums at the time of the preliminary plat. That approval should be checked against any other concerns that the Planning Commission or Council may have. I believe the lot that needs additional consideration is in the Meadow Oaks Estates 2nd Addition, Block 1, Lot 11 which has 116 foot depth on a corner lot. Because of setbacks on two sides, there may be some difficulty in siting a larger home on this lot with a reasonable rear yard. 2. It appears that the appropriate outlots for'the purpose of trails are being dedicated on these plats. Outlot A within the preliminary plat has yet to be dedicated to the City. This will be done as I understand it in a future platting. According to documents signed in 1983, the developer will submit individual site plans for each lot indicating which trees will be saved, the site grading, and other boulevard street plantings. 3. Meadow Oak 3rd and 4th Addition plats are comprised of smaller lots with a minimum lot size of approximately 8100 square feet. The minimum lot width appears to be 61 feet with 44 feet on cul-de-sacs. The minimum lot depth appears to be 120 feet. These plats continue the road system previously established and provide for trail MONTICELLO PLANNING REPORT, 6 August 1985 Page 2 outlots associated with the preliminary plat. One-third of these buildings are to have basements which is consistant with earlier agreements. The front lawns should be sodded and the remainder of the landscaping is to be installed by the homeowner. It is assumed that these plats will be able to adhere to the tree preservation and planting plan previously submitted and will provide grading, street plans, drainage systems, erosion control, utility plans as previously agreed upon. Council Agenda - August 26, 1985 9. Conditional Use Request to Allow Construction of a 24 Unit Apartment Building in an R-3 Zone - Applicant, Wayne Wieber (G.A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Mr. Wayne Wieber is proposing to build a 2 1/2 story conventionally financed 24 unit apartment building upon Lauring Lane. Mr. Wieber-s apartment building will consist of 24 apartments unite with 24 detached garage unite. Mr. Wieber also is proposing to exceed the minimum parking spaces required as the minimum parking spaces is 48, and Mr. Wieber will have a total of 57. The Planning Commission will be considering this conditional use request prior to the Monday night City Council Meeting. Any additional comments brought up at the public hearing of the Planning Commissfon4will be aired also at the City Council meeting. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTION 1. To approve the conditional use request to allow construction of a 24 unit apartment building in an R-3 zone. 2. To deny the conditional use request to allow construction of a 24 unit apartment building in an R-3 zone. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff rocommonds approval of the conditional use request to allow construction of a 24 unit apartment building in an R-3 zone. We would also recommend approval of a variance for a 30 foot driveway access width and also the use of lanscapod timbers for the curbing on the oaot, vest, and north aides of the parking lot. D. SUPPORTING DATA A copy of the location proposed for the 24 unit apartment building and a copy of the site plan from the proposed 24 unit apartment building. Photos to be presented by the developer at the Monday night City Council meeting depicting existing buildings which have boon built by the develop 1 0 Conditional Use Request to allov construction of a 24 Unit Apartment Building in a R-3 Zone. �A Applicant: Wayne Wleber L "4 F ILI Council Agenda - August 26, 1985 10. Consideration of Approving an Assent to Land Registration - Applicant, Michael Soltis. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Michael Soltis, who resides along Hart Boulevard, has engaged Tom Hayes, Attorney, to prepare the necessary documents for the registration of title of his property. I have talked with Tom Hayes on numerous occasions to try and clarify what precisely this means for the City, and have been given the answer that it virtually has no effect on the City, it is simply a matter of clearing title for Mr. Soltis. He indicated that the reason the City was informed is that Mr. Soltis's property lies on both aides of River Street (or First Street according to old plat maps), and thus we needed to be notified. I am not entirely clear on all of the ramifications of land registration, and have asked City Attorney Pringle to investigate the matter and advise me. It was brought up in one staff discussion that such a registration may be one mechanism to wipe away all liens and assessments against parcel of property. This of course is of concern to us since thin property was just assessed for the construction of Hart Street, the assessment of which was challenged by Mr. Soltia. Pringle, having boon on vacation for the last several weeks, indicated that he would provide me as much information as possible by Monday afternoon. I requested that he got full detail from Mr. Hayes, his partner, so that an informed decision could be made by the City Council. Pringle noted that Hayos was now on vacation and would not return until Monday. If we aro able to acquire full and accurate information by Monday night, I believe the only action necessary will be a motion to allow the registration of lands and directing the City Administrator to sign tho aeeant to rogistration form. For this writing, there aro no alternative actions nor staff recommendation. D. SUPPORTING DATA A copy of a map showing the lands to be registered. r,-. .. Ir I�MR•'+'w �h�•yyr,..f:�..�y;,/•r.M:,gyes.�r.r:t 1•y`.'y'}�ar•n•+•..t••--. •..• •w!'1,�}oNf t • — t 7 P A R K TST ! Vf ! S �• "tet •^�!'.r•� , •i Z .. „ —. _ [ t\ HART 4-- LL r/•"� J r 1 1 fl. • 4.1 1, �I + • 4II� / C0pp RALE u s: T Council Agenda - August 26, 1985 11. Consideration of a Request to Respread Special Assessments in The Meadows - Applicant, John Sandberg. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Recently, Mr. John Sandberg has been negotiating with Ken and Jim Maus, the owners of The Meadows Subdivision to purchase the remaining 46 undeveloped lots within the plat. There are currently 20 lots serviced with street curb and gutter, and sever 6 water along Marvin Elwood Road within the plat that could be developed without further improvements. An additional two lots front along the westerly end of Prairie Road that also have services available and could be developed. The remaining .24 lots within the interior of the subdivision do not currently have any improvements, but some of the lots do have storm sewer assessments as part of the previous improvements along Marvin Elwood Road. Mr. Sandberg hopes to close the deal by September 1, and has met with City Staff regarding his proposal to respread delinquent assessments and unpaid assessments within the development to the 20 lots fronting along Marvin Elwood Road that would be immediately available for building. To briefly summarize, the entire subdivision has approximately $180,617 in delinquent assessment payments and unpaid balances of future assessments against the lots. Of this amount, approximately $23,000 is owed against the interior lots that aro not currently developed �. and usable. Ptr. Sandberg proposes to rospread this $23,000 assessment amount to the 20 lots fronting along Marvin Elwood Road that would be immediately available for housing. The now assessments against the 20 lots would amount to approximately $9,030 each, which Mr. Sandberg fools is feasible. As part of the rosproading of the assessments, Mr. Sandberg would bring curront,all real estate taxes owing within the development on all 46 lots in the amount of $2,863.50, which would be paid to Wright County immediately upon approval. Although this request may sound similar to the one recently approved for Ultra Homos within the Meadow Oak Estates development, the difforenco is that Mr. Sandberg is proposing to take the assessments from the undeveloped Iota and apply them to the Iota that he plans on selling and developing with homes within the next 2 1/2 yoora. This to the opposite of what was done in the Meadow Oak Estates whore assessments were taken from improved lots and placed against unimproved property. The assessments as propoeod would be reoproad over the remaining six years of the original term, which Mr. Sandberg Poole would not be a problem as ho plane on developing the Iota within two years. The current outstanding asaosamonta against tho 20 lots improved along Marvin Road rango in assessments from approximately $6,000 to $8,900, and Mr. Sandberg felt that having each aceosomont equal at approximately 89,000 would be feasible for reoalo. It is the City Staff'o opinion that this proposed rooproading of n0000amants to feasible and could easily be accomplished by September 1, 1985. Council Agenda - August 26, 1985 Additionally, Mr. Sandberg discussed with the City Staff the possibility of extending Marvin Elwood Road through the northeast corner of the Edgar Klucas property, approximately 200 feet to connect with River Street. Mr. Sandberg felt this road extension would be beneficial not only to his development but also would provide additional access to the subdivision. The proposal requested by Mr. Sandberg would be to dedicate the easements and roadway necessary to extend the road to River Street but he requested that the City pay all cost involved in improving the road which has been estimated by the Public Works Director to cost $10-12,000. A request was also made by Mr. Sandberg to rezone the interior lots within the plat to R-3 multiple families owning from the current R-2 single and two family district. Mr. Sandberg's intentions would be to replat the interior property into larger multiple family building lots in the near future. It is the City Staff's opinion that possibly R-3 zoning may be appropriate for this area, but recommended Mr. Sandberg that a preliminary replatting design be prepared before final recommendations are made. If the preliminary plat would be approved, the higher density within the area may make it desirable to have an additional access by extending Marvin Road to River Street, but it is still the opinion of the Staff that this coat of the road extension should be the developer's expense and not the City's. If the City was involved in extending Marvin Elwood Road at all, possibly the cost of the improvement could be assessed to Iota within the Meadows subdivision, but it is not recommended that the City pick up the construction coat as requested by Mr. Sandberg. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Approve the request to resproad all unpaid and delinquent assessments within the Meadows subdivision to the 20 platted Iota improved along Marvin Elwood Road. As part of this request, all unpaid and delinquent taxes amounting to approximately $2,800 be paid by Mr. Sandberg. Also approve Mr. Sandberg's request for tho City to pay for Marvin Elwood Road extension to River Street and to recommend approval of the replotting of tho interior Iota for multiple family residences. 2. Approve the reoproading of asseosmonto as requested, but take no action on the request for City paying for the extension of Marvin Elwood Road or the rezoning of the intortor Iota at thin time. 3. Deny all requests and leave aosesomanta, zoning, and road extension as is. Council Agenda - August 26, 1985 C. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS In reviewing the request of Mr. Sandberg, the City Staff feels the respreading of the assessments as proposed to the 20 lots along Marvin Elwood Road is feasible and may result in the City collecting all asse Saments within the Meadows at an earlier date than presently anticipated. By leaving the assessments as originally placed aga inet each lot, approximately 523,000 in outstanding amounts owed against the interior lots would not likely be paid until future improvements are put in by Mr. Sandberg. The City Staff does not agree that Marvin Elwood Road extension should be paid for by the City as the benefit of the road extension would be primarily to the developer of the property and at the most should be assessed to the development if it is extended. In addition, the rezoning of tho property to multiple family zoning may be reasonable in the future after a preliminary plat is presented showing how the proposed layout will occur. D. SUPPORTING DATA A copy of the Meadows plat indicating lots that are already sold along with the 20 Lots being proposed for assessments. k C. MEADOWS Proposed New Assessment Roll 9/1/85 1984 Delinquent Assessments Including Penalties S 40,922.23 1985 Assessments Including Penalties 33,391.63 Sub -Total S 74,313.86 outstanding Unpaid Assessment Balances 5106,303.25 Total Assessments to be Respread 180,617.11 • 20 Lots New Assessment Per Lot $ 9,030.85 Proposed Payment to Bring Current All Taxes on (46) Lots 1984 R.E. Taxes Including Penalties S 1,763.64 1985 R.E. Taxes Including Penalties 1,099.86 Total R.E. Taxes Due $ 2,863.50 Lots PRO Posct� r~or� ° ,/1�".'x\.`Fv��tft 2 � �•�C`... � v:. \\ \ \ l7LG Stirr�y TS � rte ' r ' �,:p h /.-• 3 ia.. ayr \ `y., \ \\ \ � Lo f-t w r il, w V ,'w_•y+.,r>SFRf 6 to ?O tis ,Q li ",.4!4,Py �qo~ `<' 1 • '". `",pro �'• i,3 `> r �' � `�- \ � 4 � do �' -p��,%.' ,.a•3 \ <�,..� � ��i; FNTu,tee' ,�. ��("M1 �� .b 'Q 0•v • 6 .7 ;;b 'b• \,\ \ \" \ RE QuasrF p r d 8> • s^ \ lit, t7 +~^«fir ,L.E"� .� •r `�\ Ct �tb SQ 8 °j i;�j Apr `+'ss �`•r. 4^ A 4 e� b R 9 J` ,t0 «, T\ 00. f �l ,aY. t—�«,-"' nr-•..'s � r,r:' sr !' d \ e '�" t(,b� � `'4. `� �/�1 1P � , sdg` \ \ � \ \ � 1 rM. tt^- �'` � �IFt •Mira `,K' P v�! rb 9r J i8_ 11 d: .ib :'�`\4� (�i�„ qti �l�F �\ `\� . i '•b as r^.R �r �a°t i •!.'6 �4s0 �° }a' 4 9j grr +S'' 'r�'P t t': yfr Js' 12 w. ...irr ora ft l 1,1{3 4 %ta ' IP d" r"u"aa..f f ij Ir .., ; :n� ti''�./dj ..;,6�4'�Cj1 ,Q,�i" � �� 8 �� .. • IS t1s8 �'s�i t:,i:iror`tit'?.+� �. 8 k5� t{ Amt. µ�p0o`Na,.6"''..W '�%+� '�. fQ�`Jg el4 ....n.r.___�� ti ,: �n r-•- e X {�� ....+".. � ' +, •. !� ._.r.-v O - roa ;^..roe•. � ar p a•',Q:+ ,t-jj«n'ec.ia __� f'•NVa t>• sa �Y �4 rui�--• dr»..C, irh ~ti , 2fc � YE•t�,' �*C-',7•pi «tr•,rur i it ^ :.»n •'�'':+»� 1 vee ,fit xx*�� ,P,,I� Af 1„ rg 14 �,,j bg to =�h�.r»7 �:t:++ • Y\ : air^.,a h:r� .,� rQ t ro�ib 8.�'� .r. 7L • q q-i��r.vJ3�~i C-n. �•.'!aM1 ... I_.«IrNeA'f"^ �� P 6 �arrnrYr� k � . � '��'� aa• ��{ n' S M ,r; � r \_\e 1 r� '� � � 2 � jt� • 0 r-rs"�'� at 8 b 4t1 to � r_ . y -. ,11 r • j M q n a n' ._ - __..-- "'•174 yaTo.,. � ..«m. Hatt lrad' d--J_�:a.t_ '^«sv.,,/JJ �y(�. rau'., .«.» Council Agenda - August 26, 1985 12. Consideration of a Resolution Establishing a Portion of Marvin Road as a Minimum Maintenance Road W .S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Marvin Road was in the southcentral portion of the community. It extends from Oakwood Drive in the southeasterly fashion connecting with Hwy 25 just south of the Mortis's Feed Store. This road was turned over to the City by Township through its annexation in 1972. The road has received extremely minimum maintenance by the City of Monticello. Summer maintenance consisted of an occasional blading, and until recently the road was not plowed at all in the winter. With the building of Olson's Electric on the north end, the Powers' Health Club in the central portion of the property, and the Maus Tire Store and Martie's Feed Store on the south end of the property, the road is beginning to see more use. Kent Kjellberg connected with the Powera'+ Health Club, has requested that the City plow this road in the wintertime and keep it in better condition than it is now. Mr. Kjellborg said he would be willing to upgrade tho road by doing soma grading, straightening and some ditching. If the City wore to place a few inches of gravel on the road, it may be maintained in a passable condition after Kjellborg completes hie work. The heaviest use now is that portion near Olson Electric and that portion on the south and leading into Maus Tire. Those areas we have boon plowing in the winter. Chapter 215 (S.F. 675) clearly authorizes counties and townships, and may permit cities as road athorities,to designate by resolution, minimum -maintenance roads within their jurisdictions. At the present time, there is no nand to fully upgrade Marvin Road. There is, however, some responsibility on the City to either blockade this road or maintain it in a passable condition. With the cooperation of Kant Kjollborg, the City could upgrade this road slightly to the minimum maintenance road standard as the low dictates at minimum coat. After adopting the resolution, it would be necessary to post a sign just south of the drivoway to Olson Electric and just north of Maus Tire indicating that tho road is a minimum maintenance road and that the public travels at its own risk. Properly posted signs aro evidence that the authority provided adequate notice making the road authority and its officers employees exempt from liability for tort claims arising from travel on tho minimum maintenance road. You can rofor to the August, 1985, Loaguo of Cities magazine for a description of this now law which took effect August 1, 1985. A Council Agenda - August 26, 1985 B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. The first alternative would be to discontinue maintenance of this slow use road, just south of Olsons driveway and just north of the Maus Tire Store. At these pointe we would blockade the road. 2. The second alternative would be to request that Kent Kjellberg and Mr. powers completely develop the road, bringing it up to City standards at his own expense prior to his using it as anaccess road to the rear of his building. 3. Alternative number three would be to cooperate with Mr. Kjellberg and Mr. Powers in upgrading this road slightly, and clearly posting it as a minimum maintenance road by adopting the enclosed resolution. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is the recommendation of the Public works Director that we establish this section of Marvin Road as a minimum maintenance road as outlined in alternative number three. It is further recommended that we clearly state to Mr. Kjellberg and Mr. Powers that should this road become impassable due to high drifts of snow in the winter or broken up vet areas in the spring which would be contributable to its minimal design, the City would stop maintenance on the road until conditions improved. D. SUPPORTING DATA A copy of the August, 1985, League of Cities magazine, page number 33. RESOLUTION 1985 # 16 RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A PORTION OF MARVIN ROAD AS A MINIMUM MAINTENANCE ROAD WHEREAS, pursuant to MinnesotaStatutes Chapter 215 authorizes cities to designate certain streets/roads within their jurisdiction as minimum -maintenance roads, and WHEREAS, it has been determined that Marvin Road, beginning at Oakwood Drive and extending southeasterly to T.H. 25 is used intermittently for passenger and commercial travel, and WHEREAS, a request has been made to the City to provide minimum maintenance of Marvin Road as described above. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA THAT: 1. Marvin Road beginning at Oakwood Drive and extending southeasterly to T.N. 25 is hereby designated a minimum maintenance road. 2. The Public Works Director is hereby directed to place appropriate signs providing notice to vehicle operators that said road is designated minimum maintenance and that the public travels at its own risk. 3. The Public Works Director notify all jurisdictions that may be affected by said designation. Adopted this 26th day of August, 1985. Arve A. Grimsmo, Mayor Thomas A. Eidem City Administrator tnaKoponta&u Minimurn-maintenance roads Chapter 215 (S.F. 675) dearly authorizes counties and town- ships. and may permit cities, as road authorities, to designate by resolution minimum -maintenance roads within their jurisdictions. Road authorities must determine that the road is used only occasionally or intermittently for passenger and commercial travel, and identity the beginning and end points of the designated road in the resolution. After adopting the resolution, the road authority must post signs at entry points and at regular intervals to notify the public that the road is a minimum•maimenance road and that the pub5c travels at its own risk. Properly posted signs l are evidence that the authority provided adequate notice, making the road authority and its officers and employees exempt from r liability for ton claims arising from travel on the minimum• f maintenance road. The road authority must also notify adjoining jurisdictions of r minimum -maintenance road desigrutioon. Trunk highways cannot be mirdmum•maintenance roads. The law prohibits designations which would resuh in reduction of federal -state aid to Minnesota. Road authorities cannot acquire additional rights-of-way or f easements by eminent domain for constructing or designating a minimum -maintenance road, except where necessary for drainage or public safety. Authorities may maintain minimum -maintenance roads at a level less than the minimum maintenance standards for cute -aid highways, roads, and sueets. but must maintain them 3 at a level necessary to serve occasional traffic. The staruta does not. however. exempt road authorities from duty to maintain bridges. Effective Aug, 1. 1985. Trac: Unmarked T intersections a Chapter 2e9 (S.F. 19) requires that at an uruontroged approach s to a T intersection, the driver required to tum shall yield to cross „ traffic. C Council Agenda - August 26, 1985 17. Consideration of Ordinance Amendment - Animal Impoundment Length (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND The City of Monticello's current dog ordinance regarding length of impoundment states that dogs shall be housed for at least seven days unless sooner reclaimed by its owner. The City currently contracts for impoundment services with various surrounding townships and cities who have used the state requirement of holding dogs for a five day period only. After the five days, our dogcatcher is disposing of the animals either by euthanization or through the Humane Society for adoption. in order to provide a consistent time period for keeping dogs that are not claimed, it is recommended that the City Council adopt an ordinance amendment changing the length of impoundment for City of Monticello dogs to five days from the seven currently indicated in ordinance 6-2-14. This change would provide uniformity for our dogcatcher in that all dogs would be kept just five days. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Adopt ordinance amendment changing the length of impoundment from seven days to five days to be in conformity with length of impoundment used by surrounding communities at our dog pound. 2. Leave length of impoundment at seven days which would require no action by the Council. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS In order to make it easier for our dogcatcher to dispose of unclaimed dogs and cats, it is recommended that the ordinance be amended to indicate that dogs will be kept for only five days. D. SUPPORTING DATA A copy of proposed ordinance amondmont. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 147 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO DO HEREBY ORDAIN THAT ORDINANCE SECTION 6-2-14 REGARDING LENGTH OF DOG IMPOUNDMENT SHALL BE AMENDED AS FOLLOWS: 6-2-14: LENGTH OF IMPOUNDMENT: Any dog which is impounded in the City Pound shall be kept with kind treatment and sufficient food and water for the dog's comfort. If such dog is not known or suspected of being rabid and has not bitten a person it shall be kept in the Pound for at least five (5) days unless sooner reclaimed by its owner. If such dog is known to be or suspected of being rabid or has bitten a person it shall be kept in the pound for at least fourteen ( 14) days. Passed by the City Council this 26th day Of August, 1985. Arve A. Grimmoo, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas A. Eidem City Administrator Council Agenda - August 26, 1985 14. Consideration of Six-month Liquor Store Financial Report. (R.w.) CLA. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Liquor store manager, Mark Irmiter, should be available at Monday's meeting to review with the Council the six-month comparative financial statements for the liquor store operations. In reviewing the financial statements, you will note that total sales for the first six months were up approximately $7,000 over 1984 with the coat of goods sold also being up close to $8,000 resulting in a gross profit of $8,829 which is very close to the same figure as last year's first six months period. As far as operating expenses are concerned, three items show substantial increase over last year and reasons for the increases aro as follows: 1. Professional services (audit) is currently $2,010 compared to $660 last year but this is because the audit fee of $1,350 is included in this year's statement whore last year it did not show up until the third quarter. 2. Insurance expenses have increased over $5,600 which is almost double last year's premium. This trend will continuo throughout the year duo to largo increases in liability and dramshop insurance for all communities. 3. Under maintenance of equipment, approximately $1,G00 included in the first six month'a figures Ora the result of a maintenance agreement on the two cash registors which loot year did not show up until the third quarter also. As a result, the operating expenses show an increase of approximately $8,700 over lost year, which aro primarily accounted for in the above three items. Overall, it is expected that the total 1985 salon will continuo to moot or exceed loot year's salon and the resulting not income still may show a decline duo to the approximate $10-12,000 increase in liability insurance. No action is nocooeary by the Council other than review and acceptance of the six month financial report. D. SUPPORTING DATA A copy of financial statements. MANTIcFI,I,O MUNICIPAL I.IAIIOR BAI.ANCF SHFFT MIINICIPAL I.IAl1AR RIORF. .IIINF 30. 1985 ANO 19W ASSETS CIIRRFNT ASSF.TR CHANF.E FUND f 1,000.00 • 1.00D.00 CA 9M IN BANK - rHFF,KINA 1 i• %21.10 73,942.911 CASH IN BANK - RFSTRI CTF.O 1. 614.80 ( ^0.540.701 INVFSTMENTS 1111.9,12.47 22L743.3A l CTFD INVFSTMENTS - RFBTRVAF. 47.540.70 47,r,40.20 NSF OFM - RFEFIBI.48•&0 1 11.R.S INVENIARIF.B 06. AFIR.7" 117,R14.OA PREPAID INSIIRANCE 1&•&.14.7.1 7,942.9" IINAMA IMI BONE, DIBCAIINT 34.27 444.79 ------------- MAL rilRRFNT ARRF.TS • 4SO.734.95 f 419,920.02 PROPERTY AND EAIIIPMF,NT LANB f 6•".19.99 • 6,FI39.99 B1111-BINAR AND IMPROVFMFNTR 151, 471.04 151,A71.04 PARKIN0 tni pry}3,90 8,313.50 1 FIIRNIIIIRF. AND FIXTUREB 98.4"0.31 5".4180.31 ACC"M'F PR-FIIRNITI IRF 8 FIXTIIRF, 1 36.027.1.7) AMIN. DFPR. - BUILDINAR 1 39.301.001 1 .11,291.9"1 1 ACCIIM. DFPR. - PARKINA I.OT 1 h. 071.501 1 3.370.481 TAIA1. PROPERTY ANO FI1111PMFNT • 148.106.63 • .._--------_- 19R.9A3.17 , TATAL ASSETS ------------- f 5%8,841.58 • ;78,""3.1• .r 1 MONTICFI.1.0 MUNICIPAL 1.10111IR PALANCF SHUT MUNICIPAL I.IOIIOR SIM JUNF .10. 19R i ANTI 1994 .........ru...........................rrarrurrrr.rrr.r.rrrvrrur..........rruv..uruvrr.u......... rr:.rwco................ LIARILITIFB ANP FRIIITY CURRFNT IIARILITIES ACCOUNTS PAYAPLF. • PAYROI.I WIN - FFOF.RAt. SALARIF.R PAYAPI F PAYROLL WIN - TNSIIRANC.F. PAYROLL WIN - PFRA PAYR01.1 WIN - FICA PAYR(111 WIN - RTATF POND INTFRFRT PAYARIF. ACC.RUF.P RICK 1 FAVE • UACATIRNR RAI,FR TAX PAYA81 E TOTAL CIIRRFNT LIAPILITIF.R I ONR-IFRM LIAPILITIFR OONPR PAYARI.F. • TOTAI. I.ONR-TFRM LIABILITIES TRTAI. LIATIMITIF.R F0111 TY RETAINFP FARNTN(I" • REVENIIF" RVFR F%PFNPITIIRFR TRTAI. FRIIITY TRTAL umm.ITIF8 ANP FOIIITY 49.617.25 2.'.3.00 743.60 .164.91) 1'8.70 279.72 744.00 1.237.50 1.306.93 3.053.04 ------------- 57.2911.11M 45.000.00 ------------- 45,000.00 • ------------- • 45.05R.Ah .00 707.81 .An .nP .00 .0.0 1.787.30 1.74.38 4.4^6.59 • A5.000.00 459."76.11 • 4t5.A21 .f• 3A.AAA. 39 45.007.06 ---------- ------------- ♦ 490..542.70 ------------- 59".841.5" • 5.1.:54.94 • 6,.-00.00 • -__118.254.94 • 460.6^8.25 ------------- • ;f7"."".1.19 MONTICFI.LO MUNICIPAI- l.IODOR REVENUE ANO EXPENSES MUNICIPAI. I.I011OR STORE. FOR THE SIY. MONTHS FNOFD .IIIRF. 30, 19RS AND 1904 t CURRENT -PERIOD CIIR-PD TEAR -TO -DATE. Y -T -O SAMF-PO-I-ST-YR PO -I -YR Y -T -D -LST -YR YTn-I.Y AMOIINT RATIO AMOIINT RATIO AMOUNT RATIO AMDIINT RATIO SALFR LIQUOR S 66,58A. 54 .16.16 1 121,955.23 28.4, 6 67,1113.51 27.69 S 124.999.93 29.66 SFFR 149,310.05 911.27 23R. SA7. 24 55.72 142,307.55 5".11 2.14,073.311 55.73 NINE, 27,199.06 10.69 49.19,.29 11.4" 24..15A.61 9.95 45.463.55 10.79 OTHER MDRF. 7,220.OA 2.04 11.078.64 2.77 6,A19.21 2.70 11,420.17 2.71 M18C. NON-TAKAPI.F. HALF" 4.A95.57 1.04 6.69A.37 1.56 3.749.35 1.53 5.2AD.44 1.25 DEPOSITS AND RFFIIND9 562.40 22 14.06 .00 f 12A.77) ( .05) f 763.32) ( .18) DOTTI,E OFPOSIT - MIRE. l 5.64) ( .0D) 144.29 .03 109.24 .O" 1"9.24 .04 DISCOUNTS t 59. tp1 < .071 t 64.40) 4 .0:) ------ f _____-•_--... 19.9R) f .01) f _..-__ 19.911) f --____•__••_� .00) --__•_ TOTAL RALES • _---_•---�__• 254.509.46 ----_- 100.00 1 ------------- 4,!8.706.72 99.99 • ^44.890.72 100.00 6 421.431.41 100.00 COST OF GOODS SOLD •( 202.704.60) ( 79.651{( 340.677.30) f 79.47) •( 19.3,929.41) f 79.19)1( 332,52R.00) f ------------- 70.91) -.-.._ GROSS PR0F1T f --------- ---- 51, 204.70 ----__ 20.31{ ------------- RS.029.42 ------ 20.32 ------------- • 50.9A1.27 ------ 20.81 4 110,89.3.41 21.09 OFNFRAI. AND A07M. EKPENRER PF.RIONAL RFRVICES SALARICS. RFOULAR • 15.510.1" 6.09 1 30,422.53 7.10 • 15,077.34 6.16 • 29.864.27 7.09 PCRA 507.90 20 1.011.73 .24 629.011 .211 1.290.59 .31 INSURANCE, MF,PICA1, AND LIFE 739.02 .779 1.1124.55 .41 1,08.1.78 .44 2.167.56 .Sl SOCt1U. SFCIIRITY "50.61 .13 1.714.6.3 .40 8A5.27 .35 1,652.01 .39 TOTAL PFRSONAI. RFRVICFS • 17.5911.55 6. •1 { 14.995.44 11.17 • 17.655.49 7.21 • 14.90.7.211 0.30 SIIPPL I F0 OFFIFE SUPPL IFS • 36.49 .01 • 92.04 .02 • 10.77 .01 • 59.01 .02 0ENFRAI. OPFRATINO SUPPLIES 6R1.OR .27 1.443.94 .34 N07.00 .33 1.7.30.17 .41 TOTAL SUPPLIES • 717.57 .211 { 1.511.98 ..16 • 1137.77 .14 • 1,819.18 .43 t 4 MDNTIFFILO MUNICIPAL I.IRLIGR REVENUE AND EXPENSES MUNICIPAL LIDIIGR STORF. FDR THE SIX. MONTHS FNDFD JUNF 30. 19R5 ANI) 1994 .....o........................ora.r--........r.......................a.......................rrr.r............................. F.IIRRENT-PFRIDD CUR -PD YFAR-TG-DATE. Y -T -D SAMF-PD-1ST-YR PD-LYR Y -T -D -LST -YR YTD-I.Y AMOUNT RATIO AMDIINT RATIO AMDIINT RATIO AMDIINT RATIO OTHER SF.RV1f.FS AND C14ARGES 1'ROFESSIGNAI SERVICES 1AUDiT) • 1.AR0.00 .66 • 2.010.00 '-' .47 • 330.00 .13 • 660.00 .16 COMMLINICATiDN 152.29 .OA 306.67 .07 140.97 .06 ?71.83 .06 TkAVEI: CDNFERFNCF-RF.HGGLB .00 .00 153.00 .04 .00 .00 .00 .00 ADVERTISING 44R.00 .10 493.00 .11 494.60 .20 713.91 .17 1NS11RANf.F.. F.FNFRAI. 8.596.23 3.38 11.575.96 1 2.70 2.966.3A 1.21 5.913.34 1.40 UTII.ITIFS. FIFCTRICAI_ 1.664.60 .h5 3.199.45 .75 1.516.95 .62 2.1176.14 .69 UTII ITIER, HFATING IRi.5A .07 1.ORR.26 .2:i 7.02.59 .08 1.113.91 .26 UTIL.ITIFR. S 9 Y 136.08 .05 293.81 .07 164.38 .07 301.59 .07 MAINTF,NANCF GF EDLIIPMFNT 242.96 .10 1.955.57 ✓ .46 373.09 .15 373.09 .09 DUES. MEMBERSHIP. RIIBRf.RTPTIDN .00 .00 .00 .00 10.00 .00 40.00 .01 TAXF5 AND LIFFNRFS 79.25 .03 91.21; .02 79.25 .03 84.25 .02 GARBAGE 7AS.30 .10 513.00 .12 247.5.0 .10 495.00 .12 DEPR. - AF.GIIIRFD ASSETS 2.693.114 1.06 5.387.66 1.26 2.734.44 1.12 :5.4611.78 1.30 ------------- ------------------- ------ ------------- ------ ------------- ------ TOTAL OTHER SERVICER S CHARGFR• 16.144.31 6.34 6 ^7.067.63 6..3:1 • 9.2AO.1.3 3.77 • 18.311.84 4.34 DEBT RFRVICF. INTFRFST 9 845.13 .33 • 1.800.26 .42 • 1.175.13 .48 • 2.460.2A .5O PAYING AGFNT FEES .00 .00 10.00 .00 .00 .00 10.00 .00 ------------- ------------------- ------------------- ------------------- ------ TOTAL DEPT RFRVICFR s 845.13 .33 • 1.810.26 .42 • 1.175.13 .48 • 2.470.26 .58 ------------- ------------------- ---------- --------- ------------------- ------ TOTAL DFNFRAL S APIM. EXPFNRFR• 35.305.5A 13.86 • 61.409.31 15.27 • 28.928.52 11.80 • 57.584.51 13.65 --------- ---- ------------------- ------------------- ------------------- ------ TOTAL OPFRATINR INCGMP • 16.499.22 6.49 • 72.A70.11 11.25 • 72.032.75 9.01 • 31.30M.90 7.44 OTHFR INCOME (FXPFNRFR) INTFRF_ST INCOME 6 6.975.99 2.74 • 14.081.75 3.28 • 7.002.77 2.86 • 13.649.78 3.24 GTIIFR INF.GMF, 140.00 .06 164.0D .04 45.00 .02 4'1.00 .01 CASH LGNO/SHORT l 147.591 ( .06) l 199.27) i .05) 11A.03 .05 3.36 .00 ------------- ------------------- ------------------- -----------------» ------ TOTAL. OTHFR 1NFONE (FXPFNRFR) • 6.168.40 2.74 • 14.046.48 3.27 s 7.163.80 2.9.1 • 13.0698.16 3.25 ------------- ----------- -------- ------------- ------ ------------- ------ NET INCOME • 23.467.A2 9.2.1 • 36.AAh.59 8.32 s 29.196.55 11.94 • 45.007.06 10.69 ............. ..o.. ............. o.... ............. ..o.. ..o......... ...... Y 4 t 1 MONTICF•Ll.n NIIN[fiPAl. I.Tn11nFt PMlr 1 frR05S PROFIT pY PROOIICT flnl.O For t.Mn Parinrl 04/0)/81 to 0h/30/R1 f...rrnnt. - Pr1•In0 Trmr - to - "" fl4mr,-Pr•rlr.A-1 Ant: Yr YRMI'-10-P410-LMF.1.-Yr Amount, 2 A.nunf. 2 Amnunl. Y ,.n"n -L 1.1011OR SALEF ff 66.58A.541 1^ 23) 100 67,813.51 100,03 0 124.999.911 100.02 DI80UNTF 5938 f100 :(,9"" 64.0 05 9 981 .0:f) 1998 )A f 02 COST OF SAI.F9 - 1,I O110R 52.616.98 79.09 96.855.19 ---_�'..----- 79.46 53.4134.23 78.89 ------ ------------- 98.304.17 76.66 ------ GROSS PROFIT __-_•_�__-__- f 1.1.910.18 --__•- 20.91 • 25.035.64 ------------------- 20.34 f 14.309.30 21.11 • 26.675.78 21.34 "ER SAI ES 148.310.05 99.1.2 21R.R87.24 90.99 142.307.51 100.09 234.873..10 100.33 OCPOSITR ANT) RF,FHNT)B 5A2.40 ,3fl 14.06 .01 ( 126.77) f .09) f 76r.. 32) f .3.11 COST OF FALFB - RF.FR 170.575.33 80.99 392.730.77 RO.67 114.999.27 80.88 169.41A.14 80.91 GROSS PROFIT ___--__------ • 2R. 797.12 ------ 19.01 6 ----�-•------ 46.170.53 ------------ 19.13 • 27.181.56 ------------------- 19.12 • 44.691.12 19.09 WINF. SALES 27.199.0A 100.00 .19.195.29 too on 24.358.61 100.00 4;1.463.51 100.00 COLT OF BALER - WINE 19.972.25 73.43 14.f170.A2 70.88 1A.54A. 21 67.93 30.007...".9 66.00 GROSS PRnFIT --••-------- • ?.7,7/..81 -.-..- 26.17 • .-.�-...___•- 34.324.A? ----_- _•----._-�« 29.1? • 7.912.40 ------------------- 32.07 • 15.455.96 -__•-_ 34.00 OTHER Bill FR 7. 7.70.RA 100.08 114178.64 98.80 6.6) 9.21 97.2? 11.420.17 98.37 OOITI,F. PEPORIT - HIFO f S.A4) 4 .ONI 144.29 1..70 IA9. 24 7.78 189.74 1,63 COST OF SALCB - nTHF,R 2.701.!2 37.44 11.281.74 An."" 7.943.44 116.67 12.962.23 111,65 GAPRB PROFIT • 41513.70 A2.5A • 3.741.t9 31.12 •f 1.134.991 4 16.67)14 1.357.671 1 11.65) 11I8C. NON-TAIARI C SALES 4.695.57 100.00 6.69A.37 100.00 3.749.1/ 100.00 5.260.44 100.00 COR - MISC. NON 11A2ASIX 5.635.60 120.02 1.635.60 64.16 .00 .00 .00 .00 GROSS PROFIT __••---____-- •1 940.031 --•--- ( 70.02)• -_.�-..-__-•• 1.060.77 ------------------- A11.R4 • .1.749.31 ------------------- 100.00 • 1.740.44 ---..- 100.00 TOTAI Rhl FR 714.574.48 471.99 4:{N.6.A.63 4AO.8R 944.7 1 .4A 517.044?l.?5?.IS 007.93 101 AL COLT OF 6A1 FR 207. 704. AM 31A.VA 540.677.30 047,49 193.929.41 172.311 .137.5IR.00 321.30 TOT Al, nRnAS PRnrIT _-_.._-___-•- f -�I.069.R0 -''--- 104.65 • -___-...----- 117.949.53 ------------------• 313.39 f N0.792.01 --------------•---- 314.69 • 88.7?4.11 606.63 t 1 LIQUOR FUND -- AUGUST DISBURSEMENTS AMDUNT CHECK B0. AUGUST DISBURSEMENTS 4,166.37 Payroll for July Old Dutch Foods - Misc. mdse. 66.26 11880 Eagle Wine Co. - Liquor purchase 242.57 11881 Griggs, Cooper 6 Co. - Liquor purchase 507.40 11882 Ed Phillips 6 Sons - Liquor purchase 4,612.14 11883 St. Cloud Fire Equipment - Recharge fire extinguisher 14.75 11884 MN. Department of Revenue - Balance due on June sales tax 3,853.01 11885 Griggs, Cooper b Co. - Liquor 3,850.18 11886 MN. State Treasurer - Para W/H 72.54 11887 State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded. 20.00 11888 Twin City Wine Co. - Liquor purchase 521.75 11889 MN. State Treasurer - Para W/H 99.64 11890 MN. State Treasurer - FICA W/H 294.25 11891 Wright County State Bank - FWT - July 462.00 11892 Commissioner of Revenue - State W/H - July 225.00 11893 Ed Phillips 6 Sons - Liquor purchase 4,690.52 11894 Griggs, Cooper 6 Co. - Liquor purchase 2,794.15 11895 Twin City Wine - Liquor purchase 1,992.95 11896 Eagle Wine Co. - Liquor purchase 954.15 11897 MN. State Treasurer - Para W/H 73.07 11898 N. S. Power - Utilities 745.37 11899 Eagle Wine Co. - Liquor purchase 87.70 11900 Ed Phillipa 6 Sone - Liquor purchase 250.19 11901 North Central Public Service - Utilities 14.92 11902 Ed Phillips 6 Sons - Liquor 59.78 11903 MN. State Treasu-er - Para W/li 99.64 11904 MN. State Treasurer - FICA W/H 295.16 11905 Ed Phillips 6 Sons - Liquor purchase 711.09 11906 Ed Phillips 6 Sons - Liquor purchase 7.166.57 11907 Twin City Wine - Liquor purchase 2.496.94 11908 Eagle Wine Co. - Liquor purchase 362.02 11909 Griggs, Cooper 6 Co. - Liquor purchase 1,227.13 11910 Gruys, Johnson - Computer fee for July 110.00 11911 Bernick's Pepsi - Misc. aides. 1,446.25 11912 Viking Coca Cole - Misc. aides. 787.55 11913 Grosslain Beverages - Beer 20,500.90 11914 Minneapolis Star and Trib. - Ad for Store manager 110.00 11915 City of Monticello - Raimb. to General fund for postage 63.44 11916 Banker's Life Ins. - Group Ins. 364.91 11917 Frito-Lay - Misc. aides. 184.20 11918 Seven Up Bottling - Misc. mdea. 406.25 11919 Dick Beverage - Baer 3,853.05 11920 Century Labs. - Mat for Store. 341.80 11921 Ashwill Ceramic Tile - Replacment of front entry in Store 1 D 150.00 11922 Thorpe Dist. Co. - Beer 6,497.76 11923 Monticello Office Products - Office supplies 26.15 11924 Dahlheimer Dist. Co. - Beer 24,577.83 11925 Day Dist. Co. - Beer 1,306.27 11926 Bridgewater - Telephone 50.60 11927 Lovegren Ice. - Purchase of ice - July 729.45 11928 Old Dutch Foods - Misc. purchase 240.62 11929 Jude Candy i Tobacco - Misc. sides. 951.67 11930 Liefart Trucking - Freight charges 666.90 11931 Yonak Sanitation - Garbage service 91.50 11932 City of Monticello - Sever/water - 2nd Qtr. 136.08 11933 Monticello Times - Adv. - July 60.20 11934 TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS 7106.682.59 GENERAL FUND -- AUGUST DISBURSEMENTS AMOUNT CHECK M0. Empire Memorials - Setting compound 33.17 20929 VOID -0- 20930 MN. State Treasurer - Dep. Reg. fees 103.00 20931 MN. State Treasurer - Dep. Reg. fees 36.00 20932 St. Cloud Fire Equipment - Recharge fire exts. 62.00 20933 State of MN. - Dist. Center - Supplies for Mtce. 85.25 20934 Walters Cabinet Shop - Mowing and trimming in parks (Chas. ) 71.00 20935 Maus Foods - Supplies 27.53 20936 IXI Corp. - Refund of overpayment on land purchase 100.00 20937 PERA - Interest charge 5.00 20938 Commissioner of Revenue - Sales tax for April, May 6 June 218.84 20939 Monticello Office Products - Library supplies 43.20 20940 Mobil Oil Corp. - Gas for Fire Dept. 64.45 20941 Holmes d Graven - Professional services 3,762.50 20942 Companion Pets - Animal control expense 71.61 20943 Wright County State Bank - Investment purchase 170,000.00 20944 Petty Cash - Reimb. petty cash fund 39.25 20945 Corrow Sanitation - July contract payment 5,849.00 20946 MN. State Treasurer - PERA W/H 438.24 20947 MN. State Treasurer - Dep.. Reg. fees 95.00 20948 MN. State Treasurer - Dep. Reg, fees 36.00 20949 State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded. 160.04 20950 Jerry Hermes - Janitorial at Library 172.92 20951 Mary Ramthun - Animal control expense 212.50 20952 Mrs. Beverly Johnson - Animal control expense 250.00 20953 Mr. Arve Grimsmo - Mayor salary 175.00 20954 Mr. Dan Blonigen - Council salary 125.00 20955 Mrs. Fran Fair - Council salary 125.00 20956 Mr. William Fair - Council salary 125.00 20957 Mr. Jack Maxwell - Council salary 125.00 20958 James Preusse - Cleaning city hall 308.35 20959 YMCA of Mpls. - Monthly contract pnyment 458.33 20960 MN. State Treasurer - PERA W/H 1,004.32 20961 MN. State Treasurer - FICA W/H 2,760.29 20962 PERA - Ins. payments - Reimb. 18.00 20963 Internal Revenue Service - Payroll ded. 150.00 20964 Wright County State Bank - FWT - July 4,365.00 20965 Commissioner of Revenue - SWT - July 2,300.00 20966 Eric Moinstma - Payment for services rendered 100.00 20967 Fire Chief Conference - Reg. fee for Willard Fornick 80.00 20968 Anoka County Social Services - Payroll ded. 176.00 20969 AMI: Randy Mix - Sand 58.90 20970 Country Lumber - M'hito annd 101.25 20971 Simonson Lumber - Materials for City Hall roof repair 11,010.29 20972 Curt Hoglund - Reimb. for watermain const. - to be assesset 2,800.00 20973 MN. State Treasurer - PERA W/H 441.60 20974 Northern Stntea Power Co. - Utilities 8,677.89 20975 MN. State Treasurer - Dep. Reg. face 136.00 20976 MN. State Treasurer - Dep. Reg. fees 40.00 20977 Thompson Insulation Service. Inc. - City Hell insulation 97.00 20978 Thomas P.idem - Car allowance for August 300.00 20979 Griefnow Sheet Metal - Flashing for City Hall roof repair 2,158.00 20980 Janette Lecrssen - Inf. Center salary 65.25 20981 Wilma Hayes - Inf, Center salary 157.50 20982 I.nTour Construction - Payment #2 on interceptor sewer conal. 15,571.23 20983 Mnrlin Caliber - Clonn up city hall 1,275.00 20984 GENERAL FUND AMOUNT CHECK NO. Fullerton Lumber Co. - Fire Hall const. costs - Payment Ill 84,075.00 20985 North Central Public Service - Gas 1,262.17 20986 MN. State Treasurer - Dep. Reg. fees 103.00 20987 Janette Leerssen - Inf. Center salary 99.00 20988 Wilma Hayes - Inf. Center salary 101.25 20989 State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded. 160.04 20990 Internal Revenue Service - Payroll ded. 150.00 20991 Jerry Hermes - Janitorial at Library 172.92 20992 MN. State Treasurer - Pera W/H 927.59 20993 State Treasurer - FICA W/H 2,568.24 20994 Monticello Fire Dept. - Salary for Firemen 866.00 20995 Dahlgren, Shardlow 6 Uban - Planning fees - July 3,348.27 20996 TKDA - Fire Hall fees 1,477.61 20997 Fricke 6 Sons Sod - interceptor sewer project sod 106.40 20998 Earl F. Andersen - Traffic paint and street signs 698.73 20999 North Star Waterworks Products - Water Dept. supplies 323.00 21000 First Trust St. Paul - '84 tax increment bonds expenses 123.11 21001 LaTour Construction - Rental of sheepsfoot - Fire Hall exp. 150.00 21002 State Treasurer - Surplus Prop. Fund - Membership fee 30.00 21003 Monticello Office Products - Supplies for office d WWTP 166.92 21004 Moon Motor Sales - Portable gen. - Fire Dept. -5429. 6 mise. 535.62 21005 Arvig Phone Center - Tapes and discs 51.44 21006 Seitz Hardware - Wheelbarrow- $107.95 and Misc. for all Depts. 570.17 21007 Coast to Coast - Misc. supplies 209.26 21008 National Bushing - Generator for Cub - Battery - 6 Misc. 302.73 21009 Olson 6 sons - Lightpole on Brdwy., conduit on roof, etc. 586.22 21010 Amoco Oil - Gas for Fire Dept. 54.15 21011 Robert Krautbauer - 60 yards sand 30.00 21012 Wright County Treasurer - Police contract payment 9,782.08 21013 Al 6 Julie Nelson - Sub. renewal 11.72 21014 Orkin Exterminating - Monthly contract payment - WWTP 106.00 21015 Monticello Times - Printing and publishing notices 874.66 21016 Local 1149 - Union dues 147.00 21017 Taylor Lund Surveyors - Surveying on River St. Blks. 19-24 172.50 21018 Riffs, inc. - Latrine rental at Softball fields 135.24 21019 Walters Cabinet Shop - Mowing cemetery - Charles Walters 71.00 21020 Davis Electronic - Repairs for Fire Dept. 283.19 21021 Dnve's Sport Shop - Volley bull net for park 28.99 21022 Marco Business Products - Paper for copier 92.90 21023 Audio Communications - Radio repair 68.00 21024 Safety Kleen - Equip. mtce. at Mtce. Building 34.00 21025 Midway Industrial Supply - Parts for paint stripper 29.48 21026 National Life Ins. - Tom Eidem Ina. premium 100.00 21027 Gould Bro. - Repair on Fire Truck 218.30 21028 Snyder Drug - Film and band aids 20.51 21029 0. K. Hardware - Sprinkler, washers, etc. for Parka 44,08 21030 A T S T Information Systems - Phone charges 3. 77 21031 Omnnn Construction - Sand and gravel 294.70 21032 Millerbernd Mfg. - Freight charges 30.50 21033 Campbell Abstract - Deeds - Territorial Road 34.00 21034 Congressional Staff Directory - 1985 Staff Directory 40.00 21035 J M Oil Co. - Gas WWTP 6 Streets 2,263.00 21036 OSM -Misc. eng. fees 4,649.52 21037 Heuer, Madden 6 Gruesner - Legal services rendered 347.80 21038 Smith, Pringle, Hayes - Legal for June and July 3,054.00 21039 Midwest Computer Services - Disc testing and cleaning 179.00 21040 Northern Hydraulics - Water pump 175.00 21041 GENERAL FUND AMOUNT CHECK NO. MacQueen Equipment - Gutter broom for street sweeper 435.00 21042 Central Eyewear - Glasses for employees 353.16 21043 Davis Water Equipment - Vaporooter Plus for WWTP 222.00 21044 Eningeered Conveyor Systems - Faggot kit for root control in sea. 1,250.00 21045 Big Lake Equipment - Supplies 18.76 21046 Feed Rite Controls - Chlorine 6 Feed -rite 1,786.24 21047 Glidden Coatings 6 Resins - Blockaid block filler 61.28 21048 Central McGowan - Gas and rental of cyl. 11.95 21049 First Bank Mpls. - Public fund charge 16.00 21050 Figs It Shop - Misc. supplies for equip. 47,18 21051 Phillips Petro. - Gas for Water Dept. 17.76 21052 Water Products - Meters, valves, etc. for Water Dept. 681.72 21053 Syneco Systems - Drum of Ultra Bac for WWTP 690.00 21054 Gruys, Johnson - Computer fees for July 290.00 21055 Braun Eng. - Testing at interceptor sewer project S Meadow Oak 524.75 21056 Mobil Oil - Gas for Fire and Water Depts. 159.26 21057 Sherburne County Equip. - Shaft and belt for equip. 104.14 21058 Monti Truck Repair - Repair road grader 1,104.35 21059 Buffalo Bituminous - Payment on 85-1 project 29,693.34 21060 Bowman Barnes Dist. - Misc. bolts for St. Dept. 48.10 21061 Wright County Highway Dept. - 4 bands for Fire Hall 24.00 21Ub2 Ziegler, Inc. - Labor on repair of loader 246.00 21063 Team Laboratory Chemical - Root destroyer 256.04 21064 Seelye Plastics - Small tools at WWTP 63.28 21065 Curtin Matheson - Batteries, tubes, etc. for WWTP 191.00 21066 Buffalo Refrigeration - Service call at WWTP 32.00 21067 Bridgewater Telephone - Telephone 977.52 21068 Fox Valley Systems - Marking paint for St. Rept. 51.61 21069 League of MN. Cities - Membership dues 1,285.00 21070 Sentry Systems - Telephone lease for alarm at Reservoir 90.00 21071 Norwest Bank Mpls. - P 6 I on '73 C. 0. Imp. Bond 6,005.05 21072 Centra Sota Coop. - Steel posts for parks 13.75 21073 Treasurer, MCFOA - Membership dues - for Finance Officers 15.00 21074 Hoglund Bus Co. - Install rear nux. heater in equip. van 579.18 21075 Ace Lock 6 Safe co. - Extra keys for City Hall 73.00 21076 Dept. of Profess. Dev. - Reg. fee for Assessor Sem. 75.00 21077 VOID -0- 21078 General Rental Center - Vacuum and dol Ito rental for city hall 11.00 11079 Viking Pipe Services - Televising San. 6 St. sewers - 025 2,180.00 21080 Lindberg Decorating - Pnint for dog pound 73.42 21081 Banker's Life Ins. - Ins, premium 3,299.39 21082 Maus Tire Service - Tire repair 34.95 21083 Maus Foods - Supplies for all Depts. 263.49 21084 MonticelIn Printing - Mice. books, S/W, envelopes, etc. 338.00 21085 Int. Inst. of Mun. Clerks - Membership fee - T. Eldem 42,00 21086 Pyle Backhoe - Digging and replacing water service - Cty. Club 75.00 21087 Ilnrry's Auto Supply - WWTP supplies 167.81 21088 Unitog Rental Services - Uniform rentals 218.60 21089 MN. State Treasurer - PERA W/H 464.34 21090 Allen Polvit - Mileage expenan 70.10 21091 Humane Society of Wright Cty. - Services rendered at dog pound 40.00 21092 Rick Wolfstoller - Milenge 99.66 21093 State Agency Revolving Fund - Cost of ndm. Sac. Sec, coverage 28.26 21094 Schillewnert Landscaping - Tree and stump removal 1,295.00 21095 2ep Mfg. Co. - WWT'P supplies 220.66 21096 Cary Anderson - Misc. mileage 88.78 21097 Payroll for July 29,854.68 TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS - AUGUST $446,119.04 Special Meeting September 9, 1985 - 6:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order. 2. Liquor Store Applicant Interviews. a. Sandra Tanner 6:00 P.M. b. Timothy Henline 6:30 P.M. c. Joseph Hartman 7:00 P.M. 3. Ballot. G. Adjourn. l