Loading...
City Council Agenda Packet 10-15-1985ClNDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL �l���lll Tuesday, October 15, 1985 - 7:30 P.M. 1. Call to Order. 2. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting Hold September 23. 3. Citizens Comments/Petitions/Requests- PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Public Hearing - 1986 Budget & Revenue Sharing. 5. Public Hearing - A Proposal to Issue Industrial Revenue Bonds - Raindance Partnership. 6. Public Hearing - Assessment Roll for Delinquent Accounts. OLD BUSINESS 7. Consideration of a Resolution Granting Preliminary Approval for the Issuance of Industrial Revenue Bonds for a Commercial Development Project - Applicant, Raindance Partnership. S. Consideration of a Resolution Setting a Public Hearing Concerning a Tax Increment District and Tax Increment Finance Plan - Developer, Raindanco Partnership. 9. Consideration of a Resolution Adopting the 1986 Annual Budget and Setting the Tax Levy. 10. Consideration of Change Order 1 - Fire Hall Construction. 11. Consideration of Making Final Payment of Public Improvement Projects 84-1, 84-2, 64-3 and 85-1. 12. Consideration of Entering a Lease with Northern States Power Company for the Development of Softball Fields. 13. Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing Submittal of a Final Grant Application for Logislativo Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCMR) Grant Funds. 14. Consideration of a Proposal to Extend Sanitary Sower Interceptor Linea in 1966. NEW BUSINESS 15. Consideration of a Request for a Conditional Use Allowing a Day Cara Cantor - Applicant, NRM Partnership. 16. Consideration of o Request for a Two Family Dwelling Expansion in an R-2 Zone - Applicant, Kan Larson. 17. Adjourn. MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - CITY COUNCIL Monday, September 23, 1985 - 7:30 P.M. Members Present: Arve Gri msmo, Fran Fair, Dan Blonigen. Jack Maxwell. 'Members Absent: Bill Fair. 1. Call to order. 2. Approval of Minutes. A motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously carried to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held September 9, 1985. 4. Consideration of a Resolution Establishing Marvin Road as a Minimum Maintenance Road. The Public Works Director discussed with the Council the present unimproved condition of Marvin Road located south of 1-94 that extends from Oakwood Drive in a southeasterly fashion connecting to Hwy. 25 juat south of Martin's Food Store. The City has in the past done minimum maintenance to this road and until recently ha a not plowed the road at all in the winter. The road hoe soon a little more usage the past few years since Olson's Electric hoe built on the north and of the road and Martin's Feed Stora on the south and near Hwy. 25. Mr. Jim Powers and Kent Kjollborg partners in the now health club being built, have raqucated that the City upgrade the road a little as that it would provide access to the back of their health club. Recently passed legialation may allow cities to designate certain roads as minimum maintenance roado within their jurisdictions which would allow the city after posting a sign to thio effect, maintain the road in a minimum standard. The Public Works Director indicated that if the road was established as a minimum maintenance road, approxi cnatoly S2,300 worth of Class 5 would have to be installed, but without major improvements in ditching and grading, the road may cause problems in the winter and early spring. It was the general consaneue of the Council that unions thin road is brought up to bettor standards, such as proper grading, ditching, otc., they didn 't think it was a good idea to Sabel the road as a minimum ami ntananco road and keep it open. It was felt that as the area develops further in the future, this road may be brought up to City standards at which time the Council would be rscoytiva a petition by the landowners requesting improvements. As a result, a motion was made by Blonigon, seconded by Fran Fair, and unanimously carried to install road closed signs on Marvin Road and to not maintain the road at this time past Martials road Store or Olson Electric's drivoway. Council Minutes - 9/23/85 5. Consideration of Approving Final Plat for Victoria Square - Applicant, Mike Reher. Mr. Mike Reher presented his final Victoria Square Addition Plat requesting final approval as submitted. The plat consists of four parcels, one being currently subdivided for townhouse construction. The Planning Commission at their previous meeting recommended approval of the subdivision plat as presented. It was noted by the City Staff that the developer would have to pay all current fees for consulting services provided by the City before final plat is approved. A motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Dan Blonigen, unanimously carried to approve the final plat for Victoria Square Addition as presented provided all City charges have been brought current for subdivision fees. 6. Consideration of Granting a Simple Subdivision with Rep)atting Descriptions - Applicant, Harold Ruff. Mr. Harold Ruff presented a proposal to subdivide a 2.96 acro tract of land located along Elm Street into a 100 ft. by 330 ft. lot containing .76 acres that would be sold to his son, Randy Ruff. The balance of the property would not be developed at the present time and would consist of 2.2 acres. The property is currently described by motes and bounds description and approval of this subdivision is required by City Council action. Mr. Ruff would be required to provide a hard aholl copy that can be recorded along with park dedication fees for the newly created lot. A motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Blonigen, unanimously carried to approve the simple subdivision as proposed by Mr. Harold Ruff. 7. Approval of Bills. A motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Fran Fair, unanimously carried to approve the bills for the month of September as presented. B. Consideration of Economic Development Director Position. Mayor Grimamo noted that recently the HRA committee along with the IDC and Chamber of Commerce have all mot and discussed the position of a now Economic Development Director for the City of Monticello. All three committees felt an individual should be hired with the cost split amongst the throe committees. Mayor Grimemo noted that No. 011ie Koropchak has boon interviewed by the three committooe and rocommonded that the Council hire this individual for the position. -2- Council Minutes - 9/23/85 A motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Jack Maxwell, and unanimously carried to hire 011ie Koropchak as the new Economic Development Director at an annual salary of $22,900. 10. Miscellaneous Items. A. Fire Department Burning Policy. Mayor Grimsmo noted that recently the Monticello Fire Department had been contacted by the Burlington Northern Railroad about the possibility of the fire department burning, down the old depot located in Monticello. Mr. Grimsmo felt that all burning of buildings within the City limits should be approved by the City Council or City Administrator prior to any agreements being made by the fire department with individuals. As a result a motion was made by Blonig en, seconded by Fran Fair, and unanimously carried to Get a policy prohibiting the fire department personnel from burning any buildings in the future within the City limits without Council approval of such activity. B. Preliminary Budget Workshop. By Council consensus, a special meeting was set for 8:00 a.m. Saturday, September 28, for the purpose of reviewing the preliminary budget for 1986. C. Public Hearing on Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map. By Council consensus, a public hearing on the adoption of the zoning map and comprehensive plan have been scheduled for November 25 at 7:00 a.m. as part of the regular Council meeting. D. Review of City Hall Roof Damage. The City Council discussed with the staff the status of the damage that occurred during the City Hall roof replacement project during July. It was noted by the staff that apparently the labor contractor did not have proper insurance coverage to cover the City -a damages and that the matter had boon turned over to the City Attorney for action. It was the consensus of the Council to have the City Attornoy pursue any legal action that would be necessary to onabla the City to recover damages from a labor contractor. C_ Rick WolfstoL;VC Aasimtant Administrator -3- 0 Council Agenda - 10/15/85 4 & 9. Public Hearing - 1986 Budget & Revenue Sharing - Consideration of a Resolution Adopting the 1986 Annual Budget and Setting the Tax Levy. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND As required by law, the City Council must hold a public hearing on the annual budget and on the proposed revenue sharing uses and how they relate to the entire budget. No action should be taken during the course of the public hearing and upon the completion of testimony, the hearing should be formally closed. Since we have a number of hearings and related actions, this hearing is being held first with the formal adoption not coming until later in the agenda. This agenda supplement item is meant to address both issues. If there is some valid comment that arises during the public hearing, a final change can be made before adoption providing we have some time to make sure that any addition is in compliance with statute. Concerning the budget proper, we did mako the following alterations. We deleted a $60,000.00 expenditure from the Mayor and Council Department and created a new Insurance Department within the General Fund. The Insurance Department shows only one expenditure, that being the purchase of insurance for the City. Similarly, we removed the estimated payment of $37,000.00 from the Mayor and Council's Department and placed that payment into the Orderly Annexation Fund. In the pact, this payment has been loco than $10,000 and has fraquontly boon paid out of Revenue Sharing. This year Revenue Sharing is dedicated primarily to capital expenditures and the contribution to the Community Education Program. Further, when the levy for the General Fund, the Water Fund, the Contingency Fund, tho Capital Improvement Revolving Fund and the Sower Interceptor Fund aro totaled together, the City then approaches its Mill Levy Limit. If we were to leave the $37,000.00 Township payment in the General Fund, we would have to levy for that amount in the General Fund which would than require a reduction in levy in one of the other funds. By moving this payment into the OAA Fund it becomes an exempt or apacial levy which can be levied in excess of the State Mill Levy limit. In light of the diroctivo to ottompt to generate at least $100,000.00 in the Sower Intorcoptor Fund, we Colt it would be essential to put this Township payment into a Spacial Lovy Fund. Further, oinco we were directed $100,000.00 in revenue for the Sower Intorcoptor Fund, we could levy approximately $68,000.00♦ to roach our Mill Levy limit, and the balance of the fund is generated by interest and liquor store transfer. If you wish to have the entire nowor Interceptor funded by tax levy, than we will be required to cut 830,000.00 from coma other fund levy. Council Agenda - 10/15/85 The most likely candidate for cut would be the Capital Improvement Revolving Fund which has a proposed levy of $148,000.00 with no proposed expenditures. Such a move would not reduce the overall tax levy to the City, it would simply be a change on paper. What I have provided under the supporting data for your review is really a type of executive summary of the final budget document. There is a summary of all funds, there is a summary of all tax levy by fund, there is a summary of departments whithin the General Fund and finally a photocopy of the page that will represent the Sewer Interceptor Fund. Please note in the General Fund summary of expenditures that the department of Mayor and Council has been reduced from $107,000.00 to $10,350.00. Further, there is now an insurance department which reflects an expenditure of 560,000.00. On page 1, the Fund Summary please nota that the General Fund has boon reduced by $37,000.00 overall and the OAA Fund has been increased by $37,000.00 overall. I have provided those summary sheets because it seemed that it would be easier to work with for adoption purposes rather than for staff to put in many, many hours creating individual line item pages since most line items did not come under criticism. Rather, the Council directed us to make departmental or structural changes and those changes are clearly reflected in the summary. The final budget document is not needed until January 2, and this time lapse will allow staff to assemble the major document without compromising other important work efforts. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Adopt tho resolution establishing the 1986 annual budget and setting the annual tax levy. 2. Order alterations to the budget and than adopt the resolution as amended. 3. Not adopting a budget is not a real possibility at thio time. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the adoption of the budgot no presented. Tax levy has reached its Mill Levy limit. Capital Improvement Revolving Fund is building a surplus. Sower Interceptor Fund is scheduled to receive $100,000.00 as directed by the Council. The payment to the Township has boon moved into the OAA Fund which in fact is whore it should have boon all along to accurately rofloct the City's contribution / to that area. Insurance hoc boon established as its own ( department within the General Fund. D. SUPPORTING DATA Copy of the resolution of adoption; copy of a budget executive summary. RESOLUTION 1985 #18 RESOLUTION ADOPTING 1986 BUDGET AND SETTING THE TAX LEVY WHEREAS, the City Administrator has prepared and submitted to the City Council a budget setting forth therein his estimated needs of the City of Monticello for all operations and the debt service for the fiscal year commencing January 1, 1986, and; WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the same, and has made such changes therein as appeared to be in the best interest of the City of Monticello; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COU14CIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, that the budget so submitted by the City Administrator, together with the changes made therein by the City Council be, and the name hereby is, adopted as a budget for the fiscal year commencing January 1, 1986, and; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of Monticello, that there be, and hereby is, levied for the fiscal year commencing on January 1, 1986, the following sums for the respective purposes lndicatad therein, upon the taxable property of the City of Monticello to wit: REVENUE General ................................. 5 555,000.00 Contingency ............................. 60,000.00 Library ................................. 22,950.00 Shade Tree .............................. 18,750.00 OAA ..................................... 39,300.00 HRA ..................................... 10,000.00 DEBT RETIREMENT Debt Service Fund ....................... 661,100.00 ENTERPRISE Water Fund .............................. 5,650.00 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Capital Improvement Revolving........... 138,750.00 Bower Interceptor Construction.......... 68,250.00 TOTAL TAX LEVY .......................... 51,577,250.00 Resolution 1985 018 Page Two The above Resolution was introduced by Councilmember was duly seconded by Councilmember with the following voting in favor thereof: The following voting in the opposition: The City Administrator is hereby instructed to transmit a certified copy of this Resolution to the County Auditor of Wright County, Minnesota. Dated: 15 October, 1985 City of Monticello Arve A. Grimamo, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas A. Eidem City Administrator M FUND GENERAL LIBRARY SHADE TREE REV. SHARING OAA HRA DEBT LIQUOR WINTER SEWER r.. I.R. CONTINGENCY SEWER INTERCEPTOR TOTAL REVENUES 5902,915.00 20,900.00 17,000.00 91,000.00 1,500.00 0.00 45,250.00 1,169,650.00 1,007,925.00 79,300.00 255,350.00 158,700.00 35,000.00 100.000.00 BUDGET SUMMARY 1986 BUDGET 1985 EXPENDITURES S 902,915.00 20,900.00 17,000.00 91,000.00 1,500.00 0.00 47,500.00 1,340.161.00 951,575.00 79,300.00 255,350.00 89.650.00 35,000.00 0.00 $3,884,490.00 $3,831,851.00 ME 1986 REVENUES EXPENDITURES $ 980,400.00 23,550.00 24,550.00 96,000.00 39,700.00 55,000.00 83,250.00 1,284,950.00 999,200.00 81,300.00 267,150.00 158,000.00 40,000.00 100,000.00 980,400.00 23,550.00 24,550.00 99,600.00 39,700.00 55,000.00 41,350.00 1,466,650.00 983,300.00 81,300.00 267,150.00 0.00 40,000.00 100,000.00 $4,229,166.00 $4,198,664.00 TAX LEVY SUMMARY 1986 BUDGET ALL FUNDS E`und Payable 1985 Payable 1986 General 5 525,065.00 5 555,000.00 Library 20,100.00 22,950.00 Shade Tres 12,700.00 18,750.00 OAA 1,110.00 39,300.00 LAM 0.00 27,500.00 HRA 37,700.00 10,000.00 Debt 666,278.00 641,100.00 Water 11,050.00 5,650.00 Cap. Imp. 100,000.00 148,750.00 Contingency 35,000.00 40,000.00 Savor Interceptor 100,000.00 68,250.00 TOTAL $1,509,003.00 $1,577,250.00 am GENERAL FUND SUMMARY 1986 BUDGET REVENUE Taxes 1511 Current Ad Valorem 1514 Panalty/Interest 1601 P 6 I Assessments Licenses and Permits Business 2020 Liquor 2021 Beer 2025 Set Ups Non -Business 2027 Building Permits 2028 Variances/Conditional Uses 2029 Bingo 2030 Dog Licenses 2034 Others 2032 Cable Franchise Fes Inter -Governmental 2542 L G A 2546 Fire Department Aid 2547 Police Department Aid l 2554 Cats, Grants, Etc. 2554 Civil Defense Grant Charges for Services 3061 General Government 3062 Public Safety (Township Contract) 3063 Streets - C.S.A.H. Maintenance 3064 Deputy Registrar 3066 Other 3090 Initiation Foes, Applications 3069 Subdivision Face 4591 Adminiatration/Inspection Projects 1 Fines 3080 Miscellaneous Revenue 3582 Interest and Investments 4085 Rants 4086 Sale of Property 4087 Contributions/Donations/Park Dedications 4088 other Refunds and Rolmbureamonto 4590 Refunds 6 Reimbursements TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE 51! $ 555,000.00 25,900.00 200.00 S 581,100.00 18,500.00 1,100.00 250.00 $ 19,850.00 30,000.00 1,500.00 100.00 100.00 500.00 4,000.00 S 36,200.00 171,400.00 19,750.00 11,100.00 750.00 1,900.00 S 204,900.00 400.00 11,450.00 4,500.00 57,000.00 400.00 500.00 4,000.00 1,000.00 5 79,250.00 4,500.00 S 4,500.00 35,000.00 3,600.00 1,000.00 11,000.00 100.00 S 50,700.00 4,000.00 3 4,000.00 S 980,500.00 GENERAL FUND SUMMARY 1986 BUDGET EXPENDITURES 5100 Mayor and Council S 10,350.00 5200 Administration 90,050.00 5300 Finance 88,200.00 7400 Election 2,550.00 4900 Insurance 60,000.00 5400 Audit 8,750.00 5500 Legal 8,500.00 5600 Planning 6 'Zoning , Building 22, 900.00 5000 Assessing 13,900.00 5700 Deputy Registrar 22,650.00 5800 City Hall 21,100.00 TOTAL GENERAL GOVERNMENT TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES 5900 Lav Enforcement 124,300.00 6000 Piro 55,250.00 6100 Civil Defense 9,650.00 6200 Animal Control 12,300.00 TOTAL PUBLIC SAFETY 6300 Administration 6 Engineering 54,900.00 6400 Streets 6 Alloys 133,650.00 6500 Snow 6 Ica 13,400.00 6600 Street Lighting 29,800.00 6700 Public Parking Lots 2,800.00 6800 Shop and Garage 10,250.00 6900 Refuse collection 76,000.00 TOTAL PUBLIC WORKS 7000 Senior Citizens, Museum 24,750.00 7100 YMCA 6,350.00 TOTAL HEALTH 6 WELFARE 7200 Parka 6 Recreation, Cemetery 45,650.00 TOTAL PARKS 6 RECREATION 7300 Community Development 28,500.00 Cable Communications 4,000.00 TOTAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES -4- S 348,950.00 S 201,500. 00 $ 320,800.00 S 31,100. 00 S 45,650.00 S 32,500.00 S 980,500. 00 SEWER CONSTRUCTION FUND SEWER INTERCEPTOR 1986 BUDGET Fund No. 89 REVENUE 1511 Current Ad Valorem S 68,250.00 3582 Interest Income 1,750.00 4595 Transfer In from Liquor 30,000.00 5 100,000.00 TOTAL REVENUE EXPENDITURES S 100,000.00 Capital Outlay 7575 Improvements Other Than Buildings (Savor Interceptor; 5 100,000.00 S 100,000.00 TOTAL EXPENDITURES -46- S 100,000.00 PROPOSED CAPITAL OUTLAY 1986 BUDGET FUND: Legislative Commission on Minnesota's Resources (LCMR) REVENUE LCMR Grant Special Levy TOTAL REVENUE S 27,500.00 27.500.00 S 55,000.00 S 55,000.00 EXPENDITURES Softball Field Construction S 55,000.00 $ 55,000.00 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 5 55,000.00 ..................................................................................... FUND: Shade Trac REVENUE Spacial Levy TOTAL REVENUE EXPENDITURES S 13,700.00 $ 13,700.00 S 13,700.00 Loador (final pymt) S 12,500.00 2 Chain Savo 700.00 Replacement Trace 500.00 S 23,700.00 TOTAL EXPENDITURES .................................................................................. 5 23,700.00 FUND: GENERAL REVENUE Tax Levy $ 2,017.00 Civil Defense Grant 1,913.00 S 3,930.00 TOTAL REVENUE $ 3,930.00 EXPENDITURES 2 Protable Radios 5 1,570.00 1 Mobile Radio 780.00 1 Portable Generator 1,350.00 1 Mobile Antenna 55.00 Install and Relocate 175.00 S 3,930.00 TOTAL EXPENDITURES ••••••••..••••.•...••••••.•••..•••••..•.••••••••••••••.•.•.....•.•.....•.•.....•.•••• $ 3,930.00 FUND: REVENUE SHARING REVENUE U.S. Treasury S 91,000.00 Interest 5.000.00 S 96,000.00 TOTAL REVENUE $ 96,000.00 EXPENDITURES Scalcoating $ 14,500.00 Rubber Tire Loader 23,000.00 Pick -Up 5,000.00 Equipment Trailer 1,300.00 St. Light Install -Meadow Oak 1,500.00 Saalcoat-Commutar Lot 5,600.00 Metal Shear 300.00 Industrial Vacuum 400.00 2 String Trimmers 400.00 Sun Sholtor-Par West 1,500.00 Bakt 01. Ct.-Soft 81. Fld. (Cntry Club) 2,450.00 Misc. Plantings 1,500.00 4 Pk. Benches (W. Bridge) 350.00 4 Picnic Tablo 550.00 Mower 450.00 4th St. Rehabilitation 6,000.00 Plan Filo 350.00 Air Blower Control 2,000.00 Mower 2,500.00 Telephone System 10,500.00 Filing System 2,500.00 Spiral Binding Machine 700.00 Security Fila/Safo 800.00 Snow Blower 450.00 Sia lev Public Addroon/Taping Rohab 1,500.00 S x',100.00 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ JW. 100.00 N( 161i•V Total Capital Outlay $ 158,730.00 The above figure excludes projects which may be undertaken in 1986, but which will require a bonding effort. This figure also excludes that equipment which may be considered capital expense, but which have been built into the operating budget of the Fire Department and the Liquor Store. All other capital expenses are accounted for in the above amount. C Council Agenda - 10/15/85 5 & 7.. Public Hearing - A Proposal to Issue Revenue Bonds - Raindanco Partnership and Condiseration of a Resolution Granting Preliminary Approval for the Issuance of Industrial Revenue Bonds for a Commercial Development Project for Raindance Partnership. (T E. A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND As was done for the budget hearing and budget adoption I am combining the supplement items. The public hearing that is being held is required under Minnesota Statute and requires no action during the course of the hearing. The Council should accept public comment and an explanation of the project during the hearing, and when comment is complete then close the hearing with action to follow later in the agenda. Again, as I noted earlier because there are three public hearings the action part of the agenda comes at a later date. In August the Council gave approval to Raindanco Partnership to make application to the State of Minnesota for allocations of monies in the competitive pool for the authority to issue industrial revenue bonds for their project. The allocation was granted by the State of Minnesota. Briefly, the project io intended to be a 33,000 square foot commercial facility situated on Block 15, a parcel which lies between the comotary and the railroad on the north and south and trunk Highway 25 and Codar Street on the coot and wont. The industrial revenue bond issue is for an amount of $1,500,000.00. Incorporated with the overall project in a proposed tax increment district which will allow for the Housing and Redevelopment Authority to acquire the parcolo currently owned by Wilbur Eck and tho parcels currently owned by the City, and call them to Raindanco Partnership at a reduced rate. Soila correction would be done the developer. Also under the tax increment proposal would be the construction of 6th Street according to City urban design which would boar no assessments against oithor of the abutting property ownara, those being Raindanco Partnership to the north and the City comotary to the south. The tax incromont proposal, which will be presented for a public hearing resolution following thin itom proponoo to acquire tho unimproved land from the City for an amount of $90,000.00. That trannlatoo to approximately $2.25 par square foot which is the adjuotod amount down from $2.75 duo to the substandard soils. With specific attention to tho IRB, the project is worthwhile, it does generate additional tax space and is intended* to generate additional jobo. The matter of creating a vacancy on Locust Strout next to Coast to Coast is still of concern. Undor the provisions of the davolopmont contract provided for through tho tax incromont proposal, we will require that the dovolopor, Raindanco Partnership, maks every concoivablo effort to fill the vacancy being created by Choir project. Council Agenda - 10/15/85 After a specified amount of time, as yet to be determined, if the building still stands vacant, we will request a predetermined amount of money be paid by the developer into the City's Economic Development Fund explicitly dedicated to the filling of this vacant building. The essence of theme provisions are intended to mitigate the negative factors of building this project. Essentially, it brings a third party into the joint effort of gotting the original building, filled with a new business. I have also clearly stated that it would be unacceptable to simply move a business from Broadway up to the existing Maus building thereby creating a vacancy in the downtown. The ultimate resolution of this issue is to find a business from outside of our community to move into the vacant building. Efforts by Raindance Partnership are already under way trying to find a perspective tenant. It ie conceivable that a tenant will be found oven before we complete all of the processes for the industrial revenue bond and the tax increment finance district. After hearing the formal proposal during the public hearing and closing said hearing, the Council will be requoeted to adopt a resolution granting preliminary approval to the developer. This resolution is also known as the inducement resolution, and is basically a signal to the developer that they may commit funds to the project and may begin expanding those funds. This resolution basically states that the Council oupports the project and barring any unforoacn or unusual circumstances that radically alter the nature of the project, the project will be approved in its final stagom. The preparation for the issuance of the industrial revenue bond and the cor1fication of the tax increment finance district will happen concurrently. It is also important to note that for this industrial revenue bond issuad to work it must be completed boforo the end of the year. The allocation granted by the State in only good for 1985. In order to complete that process and the bond solo, the dovolopor must gain ownership of the land before the and of the year. That acquisition procmas will occur through the tax increment procedure. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Adopt the resolution granting preliminary approval - has noted, this is emsontially given the nod for the developer to procood and expend funds in full anticipation that tho project will receive final approval. Such a projoct is essential for the completion of the proposal and bamod on the conditions of the land and the expense to make ouch moil corrections the developer claims that the project would not happen without industrial revenue bonds. By virtue of ouch statement, tho "butfor" claumo has boon mot. 2. Do not adopt the resolution - this essentially ends the project and a rationale should be stated for the record. 3. Delay adoption of the resolution - the adoption could conceivably be delayed until after the tax increment finance plan is complete and executed, but such a delay could jeopardize the success of the project. From a staff perspective I have no objections in granting the resolution and doing the tax increment plan concurrently. If the tax increment development contract cannot be fully agreed upon, that would justify a radical alteration to the plan such that the City could withhold final approval of the industrial bond. Renco, since we do have a fail safe mechanism, I see no reason to delay beyond this coming meeting. C. STAFF RECOMMENDAATION Staff recommends that the inducement resolution be adopted. D. SUPPORTING DATA A copy of the inducement resolution for adoption. The project presentation will be given during the hearing on Tuesday night. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO A PROJECT UNDER THE MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT, REFERRING THE PROPOSAL TO THE MINNESOTA ENERGY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR APPROVAL, AND AUTHORIZING PREPARATION OF NECESSARY DOCUMENTS WHEREAS, the welfare of the State of Minnesota (the "State") requires active promotion, attraction, encouragement and development of economically sound industry and commerce through governmental acts to prevent, so far as possible, emergence of blighted lands and areas of chronic unemployment, and it is the policy of the State to facilitate and encourage action by local government units to prevent the economic deterioration of such areas to the point where the process can be reversed only by total redevelopment through the use of local, state and federal funds derived from taxation, with the attendant necessity of relocating displaced persons and of duplicating public services in other areas; and WHEREAS, technological change has caused a shift to a significant degree in the area of opportunity for educated youth to processing, transporting, marketing, service and other industries, and unless existing and related industries are retained and new Industries are developed to use the available resources of the City of Monticello (the "City'), a large part of the existing investment of the community and of the State as a whole in educational and public service facilities will be lost, and the movement of talented, educated personnel of mature age to areas where their services may be effectively used and compensated and the lessening attraction of persons and businesses from other areas for purposes of industry, commerce and tourism will deprive the City and the State of the economic and human resources needed as a base for providing governmental services and facilities for the remaining population; and WHEREAS, the increase in the amount and coat of governmental services requires the need for more intensive development and use of land to provide an adequate tax base to finance these costs; and WHEREAS, a representative of Haindance Partnership, a Minnesota general partnership (tho "Developer"), has advised this City Council that it desires to acquire the land and construct a new 39,000 square foot supermarket and commercial retail facility (hereinafter referred to as the "Project"). The project will be located at the Northeast corner of the intersection of Pine Street and Sixth Street in the City of Monticello; and WHEREAS, the existence of the Project in the City will contribute to more intensive development and use of land to increase the tax base of the City and overlapping taxing authorities and maintain and provide for an increase In opportunities for employment for residents of tho City, including economically disadvantaged or unemployed individuals; and WHEREAS, the City has been advised that conventional, commercial financing to pay the capital cost of the Project is available at such costs of borrowing that the economic feasibility of operating the Project would be significantly reduced, and, therefore, the City finds that but for the aid of municipal financing, and its resulting lower borrowing cost, the Project would not be economically feasible; and WHEREAS, this Council has been advised by a representative of the Developer that on the basis of information submitted to them and their discussions with representatives of area financial institutions and potential buyers of tax- exempt bonds, industrial development revenue bonds of the City could be issued and sold upon favorable rates and terms to finance the Project; and WHEREAS, the City is authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474, to issue its revenue bonds to finance the cost, in whole or in part, of the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, improvement or extension of capital projects consisting of properties used and useful in connection with a revenue producing enterprise, such as that of the Developer, and the issuance of such bonds by the City would be a substantial inducement to the Developer to construct its facility in the City; and WHEREAS, on the basis of information given the City to date, it appears that it would be in the best interest of the City to issue its industrial development revenue bonds under the provisions of Chapter 474 to finance the Project of the Developer in an amount presently estimated not to exceed $1,500,000. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: 1. The Project is hereby given preliminary approval by the City and the issuance of the revenue bonds for such purpose and in such amount is preliminarily approved, subject to approval of the Project by the Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development and to the mutual agreement of this body, the Developer and the initial purchaser of the bonds as to the details of the bonds and provisions for their payment. In all events, it Is understood, however, that the bonds of the City shall not constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance legal or equitable upon any property of the City except the Project, and the bonds, when, as, and if issued, shall recite In substance that the bonds, including interest thereon, are payable solely from the revenues received from the Project and property pledged to the payment thereof, and shall not constitute a debt of the City. In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 474.01, Subdivision 7a, the Mayor of the City is hereby authorized and d eeted to submit the proposal for the Project to the Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development for approval of the Project. The Mayor and other officers, employees and agents of the City are hereby authorized to provide the ,Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development with any preliminary information needed for this purpose, and the City Attorney is authorized to initiate and assist in the preparation of such documents as may be appropriate to the Project, it it is approved by the Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development. 3. The taw firm of Holmes dr Graven, Chartered. is authorized to act as Bond Counsel and to assist in the preparation and review of necessary documonts relating to tho Project and bonds issued in connection therewith. The Mayor, City Attorney, and other officers, employees and agents of the City are hereby authorized to assist Bond Counsel in the preparation of such documents. d. In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 474.01, Subdivision 11, the City Administrator and other officers, employees and agents of the City are hereby authorized and directed to encourage the Developer to provide employment opportunities to economically disadvantaged or unemployed individuals. Such individuals may be identified by such mechanisms as are available to the City, including a first source agreement in which the Developer agrees to use a designated State employment office as a first source for employment recruitment, referral, and placement. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSED PROJECT UNDER THE MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT, MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER 474, AS AMENDED THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the governing body of the City of Monticello, Minnesota (the "City"), will meet on October 15, 1985, at 7:30 p.m. at the City offices in Monticello, Minnesota, for the purpose of conducting a public hearing on a proposal that the City issue its revenue bonds under the Municipal Industrial Development Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474, as amended, in order to finance the cost of a project. The proposed project will consist of the acquisition of land and construction of a new 33,000 square foot supermarket and commercial retail facility located at the Northeast corner of the intersection of Pine Street and Sixth Street in the City of Monticello. The proposed project will be owned by Raindance Partnership, a Minnesota general partnership for use in its business. The estimated total amount of the proposed issue is $1,500,000. The bonds shall be a limited obligation of the City and the bonds and interest thereon shall be payable solely from the revenues pledged to the payment thereof, except that such bonds may be secured by a mortgage and other encumbrance on the project. No holder of any such bond shall ever have the right to compel any exercise of the taxing power of the City of Monticello to pay the bonds, or the interest thereon, nor to enforce payment against any property of the City except the project. A draft copy of the proposed application to the Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development for approval of the project, together with all attachments and exhibits thereto, is available for public inspection at the City offices. All persons Interested may appear and be heard at the time and place set forth above. Dated: ,1985 BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO By City Administrator Council Agenda - 10/15/85 6. Public Hearing - Consideration of Adopting Assessment Roll for Delinquent Sewer and Water Bills. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Annually, the Council is asked to adopt an assessment roll for those accounts which are delinquent (amount is over 60 days past due) on the assessment roll to be certified to the County Auditor for collection the following year with their real estate taxes. Minnesota Statutes 429.101 and 444.075, subdivision 3, allow for special assessments to be collected for various types of current services that are delinquent. Those people whose accounts aredelinquent have been notified of the public hearing and are given an opportunity to present input if they so desire. The following are the delinquent accounts that are over 60 days past due and unpaid as of the date this agenda item was prepared: 6-.r�i-'�iS-tip=__ 8 'li.�? rycgacai.�aMe+w� -,T-drtr96 Tracy Foss 67.28 James Collette 87.30 Gerald Foley cc: Nick Kampa 248.06 „ _... , _.•r {ql David Munson 30.69 •b B David Munson 56.78 •• ""-' "' • �_ „ ", .., d., • Gerald Bergeron 107.75 •••�.,,..,.: ,4er,23ia..., .1339 •• Michael Slogtor Stephen Schnabol 36.95 """'� "" �♦ Richard Colo 89.89 Donna Allen 29.25 Eugene Bland 59.34 "' �'`yrr''' -@owni Christopher Maao 123.94 Michael Klein 80.03 • Current owners •• Previous Owners All of the above aro charges for cower and water accounts except Monti Motors which is for a cover and water hookup charge for his now buoinose. It should be pointed out that throe of the individuals listed above noted by an asterisk aro currant ownaro of property whore delinquent cower and water billo have accumulated by previous owners. The City has the right to place an aoeosomont against the property owner of record regardless of who initially was easponciblo for the bill. Although it may not seam fair to season a now property owner for a pact owner's responsibility, the now owners of tho property should have had an assessment search C ) or have contacted City Hall to coo if thoro were any dolinquant bills prior to their purchasing the property. Council Agenda - 10/15/85 It is recommended that these delinquent accounts be put on an assessment roll for collection in 1986 at an interest rate of 88 which is the highest rate allowable for assessments that have not been financed through bond sales. if any of the above accounts are paid by Tuesday night's meeting, they can be eliminated from the assessment roll. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that any individual who has not paid their account in full by October 15, 1985, be certified to the County for collections with their taxes in 1986. D. SUPPORTING DATA Copy of resolution adopting assessment roll. I RESOLUTION 1985 916 RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ROLL WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by lav, the Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for delinquent sever and water billings and tree removal charges. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA: 1. Such proposed assessment, a copy of which is attached hereto and made part hereof, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessments against the parcels named herein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the assessment levied against it. 2. Such assessment shall be payable in one (1) annual installment payable on or before the first Monday in January, 1986, and shall bear interest at the rate of Bi par annum from the data of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of thin resolution until December 31, 1986. 3. The owner of the property so assessed may, at any time prior to cortification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay tho whole of the assessment on ouch property with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the City Treasurer, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of this resolution. d. The City Administrator shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment roll to the County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax list of the County, and ouch assessment shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. Adopted by the City Council this 15th day of October, 1985. Arvo A. Grimamo, Mayor Thomas A. Eidom City Administrator Council Agenda - 10/15/85 8. Consideration of a Resolution Setting a Public Hearing Concerning Tax Increment District and Tax Increment Finance Plan - Developer. Raindance Partnership. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND On Thursday, October 10, 1985, The Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority approved a Tax Increment Finance Plan for Raindance Partnership. Their adopting resolution also requests that the City Council set a date for a public hearing for final adoption. The basic activities to occur in this district are as follows: The City of Monticello will authorize the sale of $350,000.00 in Tax Increment General Obligation Bonds. The proceeds of that Bond Issue will be utilized by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority to acquire all of Block 15 from the respective property owners, i.e., Wilbur Eck and the City of Monticello. Total land acquisition is $230,000.00. The HRA under the auspices of the City will order the improvement of 6th Street at an estimated coat of $75,000.00. The Balance of the Bond proceeds will be used for legal and administrative oxpenso and for approximately $70,000.00 in capitalized interest. The Housing and Redevelopment Authority will sell all of Block 15 to Raindanco Partnership for a price of approximately $65,650.00 in an unimproved condition. Raindance Partnership shall construct a 33,000 square foot building with appropriate parking on the site. The building shall house a 25,000 square foot supermarket and the remaining 8,000 square foot shall become available for other commercial enterprise. Upon completion of the project and annual tax increment of approximately $41,000.00 shall be collected off of the project, said increment to be 100% dedicated to the retirement of the $350,000.00 Bond Issue. No tax levy in required for said retirement. No action should be taken by the City Council at this time other than to not a public hearing for October 28. Proper notice will than be published so that the plan will become available to the public for review. On October 28, prior to adoption of the plan it will need to be decided whether or not the City will accept $90,000.00 for the land they own in this block. A purchase agreement has already boon entered into for Wilbur Eckes property between Mr. Eck and the developer. For the HRA to derive benefit from that purchaoa agreement, and assignment of the purchase agroamont will be drawn up transferring the intoroeto of Raindance Partnership to the HRA. C �' Council Agenda - 10/15/85 B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Adopt the resolution setting a public hearing and ordering published notice - considering that the HRA has granted approval to the project, it would seem appropriato to proceed in this manner. 2. Do not adopt the resolution - if the previous action with respect to the Industrial Revenue Bond Inducement Resolution did not pass or if there are reasons to believe that the HRA acted improperly, you may wish to not hold a hearing. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Presuming that the IRB Inducement Resolution was adopted. I think that the Tax Increment Plan is well structured and will be beneficial to the City. Again, the butfor clause has been addressed by virtue of the severe conditions of the land. The advantage of this method allows for the City to sell the land and receive the cash proceeds immediately rather than wait to collect their cost recovery till the and of the Tax Increment District. The estimated $90,000.00 sale proceeds could then be dedicated to sewer interceptor work tharoby eliminating any tax burden on the general public for that construction. The other major advantage of this particular system in the construction of 6th Street without any assessments required of any party. There was an earlier time some debate of vacating 6th Street, but the developer was not particularly interested in said vacation. They have expressed more of an interest in loaning a part of the undeveloped right-of-way for additional parking facilities. This item will be explained at greater dotail during the meeting and staff can present greater rationale as to why it is not a problem and would be beneficial to the community. D. SUPPORTING DATA A copy of the HRA minutes, a copy of the resolution to be to be adopted, copy of the Tax Increment Plan adopted by the HRA. RESOLUTION 1985 M RESOLUTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTIONS 273.71 TO 273.78 INCLUSIVE, THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING ACT. WHEREAS, The Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority has adopted a Resolution approving a Plan for the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District Y6, dated October 10, 1985, pursuant to the provisions of MS Section 173.71 to 273.78 inclusive, and WHEREAS, said resolution requests the City Council to sot a public hearing on said Tax Increment Financing Plan 66. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO. MINNESOTA THAT: 1. A public hearing shall be held at 7:30 P.M., on Monday, October 28, 1985, in the City Council Chambers. 2. The City Administrator shall cause proper notice to be given in the official newspaper. Adopted this 15th day of October, 1985. Arve A. Grimamo, Mayor Thomas A. Eidam City Administrator RESOLUTION 1985 Y �I A RESOLUTION APPROVING A TAX INCREMENT FINANCE DISTRICT AND FINAI:CE PLAN AND REQUESTING THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MO NTICELLO TO SET A PUBLIC HEARING WHEREAS, The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Monticello (the "Authority") is carrying out the Monticello Redevelopment Project (the "Project") and Redevelopment. Plan (the "Plan"), pursuant to the approval of the City Council of the City of Monticello (the "City"); and WHEREAS, Raindanco Partnership has proposed development of a 33,000 square foot commercial building on Lots 1-10 of Block 15, Original plat, and WHEREAS, said parcel is situated in the Redevelopment Project Area, and WHEREAS, said parcel is found to have substandard soils ouch that tho cost of corrections of the soil when added to the Pair market Value will exceed the Fair Market Value of the improved lands, and WHEREAS, the Authority recommends that the Raindanee ( Project be undertaken as rapidly as possible and be financed l with local funds including tax increment financing as authorized by Minneoota Statutes, Sections 273.71 through 273.78; and WHEREAS, there was presented to this maoting of the governing body of the Authority far its consideration and approval, a copy of a tax increment finance entitled Tax Increment Redevelopment District g6: and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the governing body of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Monti cello: 1. That the project described in said Tax Increment Finance Redevelopment Plan No. 6 contains blighted and deteriorated or deteriorating ocean as daftnod in the Minnesota Municipal Housing and Redevelopment act, Minnesota Statutes, $action 462.421, Subdivision 13, and requires public assistance in ardor to eliminate said blighted , deteriorating and economically obsoloto areas. Resolution 1985 g Page Two 2. The said Plan and Project will carry out the purpose and policy of the Municipal dousing and Redevelopment Act of the State of Minnesota, Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.415 to 462.711 as set forth in Section 462.415. 3. The said Tax Increment Redevelopment District and Tax Increment Finance Plan hereby in all respects approved and the Secretary is hereby directed to file said Redevelopment Plan with the Minutes of this meeting. 4. Application is hereby made to the City Council of the City of Monticello, the governing body of the City in which said project is located, for the approval of said Plan and project area, and the staff of this Authority is authorized to transmit said Plan to said City Council, together with a copy of this Resolution, a plan for financing the project including the adoption of the tax increment financing plan and to tako such other action as the said staff may deem necessary and advisable in order to secure from said City Council its approval of said Plan and project. Said City Council is hereby requested to hold a public hearing on said Tax Increment Finance Redevelopment Plan No. 6 after giving published notice of the date, C time place and purpose of ouch hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Monticello, such notice to be published at least ton days and no more than 30 days prior to the date of the hearing. Said City Council is hereby requested to approve said Plan and to find by Resolution that: (1) the land in the project area would not be abailable for redevelopment without the financial aid to be sought; (2) the plan for the redevelopment district in the locality will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the locality as a whole, for the redevelopment of ouch areas by private enterprise: and (3) the tax increment redevelopment district and tax increment financing plan conforms to a general plan for the development of the locality as a whole, and (4) that the project will result in increased employment in the municipality and will result in the proservationand enhancement of the tax bass of the municipality. Resolution 1985 0 Page Three Said staff is hereby authorized and directed to transmit to the State Department of Energy and Economic Development, Office of Local Government, certified copies of this Resolution, of said Plan, and other papers and documents described or referred to in Mimnesota Statutes, Section 462.445, Subdivision 8 of said Municipal Housing and Redevelopment Act. Adopted this 10th day of October, 1985. Gary wieber, Chair HRA ATTEST: Olive M. Koropchak Director of Economic Development -Tax Increment Redevelooment District Pimlico Pian A.. Statutory,,Authority' The Monti dell a Housing and Redeveiopment Authority (the "Authoeity"j and, the City of Manticelo are authorized to, establish a tax Increment district; pursuant'to Minnesota'Statutes.Section 273.71-78:' l Statement of Objectives" " 1. To provide opportunities for development and expansion of new business; - 2. To provide employment opportunities through the creation of,new. Jobs; 3. To provide opportunities for .growth_in the tiax b6i 4.. To` assist with st:eei construction; sanit3ry;;sev,er end .vete^naL r construction, . storm,"sewer and :other :puolc Irtiprove heats to'_ encourage" redevelopmelt'•in the-irea: -To.:encourage,the-development of additional -commerical. enterprise in the City. ,C. :Develop mentprogram .1. Mescaptien of ihe'Development_Activitiess'. :&aindance Partnerstiip:(the "Developer")• pians.,to.eonstruct, a. concrete Uilding-with a' -total 33,000 square fast. 23,000 square feat Is, proposed, for a„super _market and the remaining _ a 000, square feet for speculation. Subetanciat;soil correction laraquiied._ he developer yill_eomplati sn& piy..fcri tha soil, Correction., The dsvalopar"vill'ba 'assisted "with- pub improvements to'•sardi-s chi building, with tax-iaciamant revenues.. 'The-buildin is�,expetted, to 't:omplite construction In, 1986. The second addition ia•the construction of a.4.0 foot urbandesigned street -(Sixth,Street) by, tho City., n 1 U D. Description of Property In the Tax increment Financing District Loco 1-10, Block 15 original plat within the City of Monticello, including 20 feet Highway right-of-vay easement. E. Classification of the Tax Increment Financing District The Monticello City Council and Housing and Redevelopment Authority In determining the need to create a tax increment financing district In accordance with bnne tisota Statutes, Section 273.71-78 inclusive, find that the district to ba estaolisned is a redevelopment district pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.73, Subdivision 0(a)(3). Less than seventy percent of the parcels In the district are occupied by ,buildings, streets, utilities, or other improvements, but due to unusual terrain or soil deficiencies requiring substantial filling, _grading or other physical preparation for use at least 80 percent of the total acreage.of such land has a fair market value upon inclusion in the redevelopment district which, when added to the estimated cost of preparing that land for development, excluding costs directly related to roads as defined In Minnesota Statutes, Section 180.01 and local Improvements as described trr Section 429.021, Subdivision 1, clauses 1 to 7, 11 and 12, and Section 430.01, If any, exceeds Its anticipated fair market value after completion of said preparation{ provided that no parcel shall be Included within a redevelopment district unless the authority has concluded an agreement or agreements for the development of at lout 50 percent of the acreage having the unusual soil or terrain deficiencies, which agreement provides recourse for the authority should the development not be completed. Since, of the parcels proposed to be placed Into a tax increment district, less than seventy percent are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities or other Improvements, and the total acreage (60 percent or more) of the area has a fair market value when added to ttte estimated cost of preparing the land for use exceeds its anticipated fair market value after completion of the preparations, e-xcluding costs directly related to roads and local Improvements, and a development agreement for at last SO percent of the acreage having the unusual soil deficiencies and including recourse for trio City should the development not be completed, will have been concluded, prior to bond sale, the area qualifies as a redevelopment district. The description of the parcels that have been used to establish oUgNUty u a redevelopment district are described below. Lots 1-10, Block 15 original plat within the City of Monticello, including 20 feet Highway right-ofway easement. F. • Parcels in Acquisition Lots _1-1Q as scheduled to be acquired by the• HRA; A G. Estimate of Costs The estimate of public costs associated with the tax increment financing redevelopment district are.outlined in the following line item budget. BUDGET Land Acquisition $230,000 . Street Construction 75.000 Plan Preparation 2,500 Document Preparation 3,000 Issuance 13.500 Administration 15,000 * Capitalized Interest 70,000 Bond Discount 6.650 $415,650 *The amount of capitalized interest will be equal to an amount sufficient to pay interest on the bonds from the date of issue until the date of collection of sufficient tax increment revenue to meet scheduled interest payments when due, but not exceeding 3 years as required by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475. Predicting capitalized interest prior to issuance is extremely difficult as it is a function of interest rates, constuction schedules and tax timing; therefore, the above figure is only an estimate of capitalized interest and is subject to change. H. Estimated Amount of Loan/Bonded Indebtedness CAnimate of the amount of bonded indebtedness is expected to be $350,000. The term of the issue is 18 years and the interest rate is expected to be 9 percent. The amount of two and one—half to three years capitalized interest is extimated to be $70,000. Debt service on the bond will be met through a combination of tax increment revenues. The difference between the project cost ($415.650) and the indebtedness ($350,000) is $65,650. I. Sources of Revenue There are two sources of revenue to be used to finance public coots associated with the development projects within the redevelopment project. The majority of the public costs are to be paid with tax inermant revenues in combination with land sale proceeds. The tax increment is generated as a result of the taxation of the land and improvements in the tax increment redevelopment district. Tax increment financing refers to a funding technique that utilizes incroses in assessed valuation and the property taxes attributed to new development co finance, or assist in the financing of public development costa. The facilities are expected to be fully assessed beginning in 1987 at which time the development will generate an annual tax increment of $41,000 collectable in 1988. The tax increment estimate for 1988 is based upon the assumption that cho building is fully completed in 1986 and fully assessed on January 2,. 1987. A partial assessment in 1987 will produce a partial tax increment payment in 1988. Net proceeds from cho project are 365,650. J. Original Assessed Value , Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes. Section 273.74, Subdivision 1 and Section 273-76, Subdivision 1, the Original Assessed Value (OAV) for the C!ty of .Monticello tax increment financing redeve!ooment district is based on the value placed on the prooerty by the Countv Assessor in 1985. 'chis assessed value is 52.795.00. Each year the Office of the County Auditor will measure the amount of increase or decrease in the total assessed value of the tax increment redevelopment district to calculate the tax increment payable to the !Monticello redevelopment district fund. in any year in which there is an increase in totp-1 assessed valuation in the tax increment redevelopment distr !ct above the adjusted original assessed value, a tax increment will be payaole. in any year in which the total assessed valuation in the tae increment financing redevelopment district declines below the original assessed valuation, no assessed valuat!on will be captured'and no tax increment will be payable. The County Auditor shat certify in each year after the date the Original Assessed Value was certified, the amount the CAN has increased or decreased as a result of: 1. change in tax exempt status of property; 2. reduction or enlargement of the geographic boundaries of the district; 3. change due to st!pulations, adjustments, negotiated or court-ordered �. abatements. K. Estimated Captured Assessed Value Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.73, Subdivision 1 and Minnesota Statutes. Sec -ton 273.10, Suocivislon 2, the estimated Captured Assessed Value (CAV) of the tax. -increment financing redevelopment distiict will annually approximate $510,462. It Is expected that the estimated WO. 462 will be captured as a result -of the Improvements to be constructed by Raindance. 7hIs amount will be captured for up to twenty—five years -or until•tne project debt is retired. The Authority requests 100 percent of the aysil3ble increase In assessed value fcr repayment of debt and current expenditures. L. Duration of the District Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes. Section 273.75, Subdivision 1. the duration of the tax increment district within the Redevelopment Project must be indicated within the finance plan. the duration of the tax increment district will be 25 years from the data of receipt of the first tax increment. Thus, It is estimated that the tax increment district, (nclud!ng any modifications to the finance plan for subsequent phases or other changes, would terminate twenty-five years from the collection of the first tax Increment. C Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions The impact of the loss of tax dollars represented as tax increments is estimated below for each taxing jursidic:ion. This estimate is based on the existing redevelopment proposals and does not include the possible tax increments derived from any other future development, mill changes, or inflation factors. Total Assessed Value Tax Increment Finance District 1/2/85 S 2, 795.00 Latest Assessed Value of Each Government Bodv: %of District to Total Wright County $ 358,798,000 .00004 School District 4882 101,129,476 .0001 City of Monticello 79,954,554 .0002 Other 115,919,820 .0001 Considering all the districts, it can be seen from the above that the school, city and county districts will have over 99% of each respective district availaole for normal growth of tax base or valuation. applying the percentage of the total mill rate in 1985 levied by each taxing jurisdiction to the projected mill rate and the estimated tax increment received reveals the annual loss of tax dollars by each taxing jurisdiction as listed in the table below assuming development would occur without public assistance. The finance plan indicates we anticipate a tax increment at build out as follows: Captured Assessed Estimated Tax Valuation Increment Received Tax Increment Finance District $510,462 $ 41,000 d Based on the current mill rote, the estimated taxes received would be as follows for the taxing bodies: Mills Percent Tax Increment City 18.874 23.2 S 9,512 County 19.719 24.2 9,922 School District 0882 39.714 48.9 20,049 Other :.998 3.7 1,517 Total 81.305 100.0% $41,000 I no following table represents the additional mills that would have to be levied to compensate for the loss of tax dollars in estimated tax increments for each taxing jurisdiction. no tax Increments derived from the 5 cammetical;:i.: facility .: - _• alluded to in the tax increment district would not be available to any of the taxing jurisdictions were it not for public intervention by the Authority. Although the increases in assessed value due to development will not be available for the application of the mill levy for the duration of the tax increment financing district,.this new assessed value could eventually permit a mill levy decrease. if it could be assumed that the captured assessed value was available for each taxing jurisdiction, the non -receipt of tax dollars represented as tax increments may be determined. This determination is facilitated by estimating how much the mill levy for property outside of the tax increment financing district would have to be increased to rase the same amount of tax dollars in each taxing jurisdiction that would be available if the projects occurred without the assistance of the Authority. Adjusted* Required Taz Assessed Value Mills Increment School District 101,125,681 .198 $20,049 County 758,781,249 .027 9,922 City 79,937,799 .118 9,512 *Tax Increment District assessed valuation subtracted. N. Modifications of the Tax Increment Financing District In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.74, Subdivision 4, any reduction or enlargement of the geographic area of the project or tax <_ increment financing district, increase In amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred, Including a determination to capitalize interest on debt if that determination was not a part of the original plan, or to increase or decrease the amount of interest on the debt to be capitalized, increase In the portion of the captured assessed value to be retained by the Authority, Increase in total estimated tax increment expenditures or designation of additional property to be acquired by the authority shall be approved upon the notice and after the discussion, public hearing and findings required for approval of the original plan. The geographic area of a tax increment financing district may be reduced, but shall not be enlarged after five years following the date of certification of the original assessed value by the county auditor. The tax increment financing redevelopment district may therefore be expanded until 1990. 0. Limitation on Administrative Expenses In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.73, Subdivision 13 and Minnesota Statutes. Section 273.75, Subdivision 3, administrative expenses means aU axpenottures of an authority other than amounts paid for the purchase of Land or amounts paid to contractors or others providing materials and services, Including architectural and engineering services, directly connected with the physical development of the real property In the district, relocation benefits paid to or services provided for persons residing or businesses located in the district or amounts used to pay interest on, fund a reserve for, or sell at a discount bonds issued pursuant to Section 273.77. Administrative expenses includes amounts paid for services provided by bond counsel, fiscal consultants, and planning or economic development consultants. No tax increment shall be used to pay any administrative expenses for a project which exceed ten percent of the total tax increment expenditures authorized by the tax increment financing plan or the total tax increment expenditures for the project, whichever is less. Limitation an Duration of Tax increment Financing Districts Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.75, Subdivision 1, "no tax increment shall be paid to an authority three years from the date of certification by the County Auditor unless within the three-year period (1) bonds have been issued pursuant to Section 273.77 or in aid of a project pursuant to any other law, except revenue bonds issued pursuant to Chapter 474, prior to the effective date of the Act; or (2) the authority has acquired property within the district; or (3) the authority has constructed or caused to be constructed public Improvements within the district ... " The City or Authority must therefore issue bonds, or acquire property, or construct or cause public improvements to be constructed by 1988 or the Office of the County Auditor may dissolve the tax increment financing district. Limitation on Qualification of Property in Tax Increment District Not Subject to Improvement Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 273.75, Subdivision 8, "if, after four years from the dateo certification of the original assessed value of the tax increment financing district ..., no demolition, rehabilitation or renovation of a parcel or other site preparation Including improvement of a street adjacent to a property but not installation of utility service including sewer or water systems, has been commenced on a parcel located within a tax increment financing district by the authority or by the owner of the parcel in accordance with the tax Increment financing plan, no additional tax Increment may be taken from that parcel and the original assessed value of that parcel shall be excluded from the original assessed value of the tax Increment financing district. If the authority or the owner of the parcel subsequently commences demolition, rehabilitation or renovation at other site preparation on that parcel including Improvement of a street adjacent to that parcel, in accordance with the tax increment financing plan, the authority shall certify to the county auditor in the annual disclosure report that the activity has commenced. The county auditor shall certify the assessed value thereof as most recently certified by the commissioner of revenue and add It to the original assessed value of the tax increment financing district. Limitation on the Use of Tax Increment All revenues derived from tax Increment shall be used In accordance with the tax Increment financing plan. The revenues shall be used to finance or otherwise pay public redevelopment costs pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 472A. These revenues shall not be used to circumvent existing levy limit law. No revenues derived from tax increment shall be used for the construction or renovation of a municipally owned building used primarily and regularly for conducting the business of the municipality; this provision shall not prohibit the use of revenues derived from tax Increments for the construction or renovation of a parking structure, a commons area used as a public park or a facility used for social, recreational or conference purposes and not primarily for conducting the business of the municipality. S. Notification of Prior -Planned Improvements Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 273.76, Subdivision 4, the Authority has reviewed and searched the properties to be included in the tax increment financing redevelopment district and found no properties for which building pzrmits have been issued during the 18 months immediately preceding approval of the tax increment financing plan by the city. If the building permit had been issued within the IS month period preceding approval of the tax increment financing plan by the city, the county auditor shall increase the original assessed value of the district by the assessed valuation of the improvements for which the building permit was issued, excluding the assessed valuation of Improvements for which a building permit was issued during the three month period immediately preceding said approval of the tax increment financing plan, as certified by the assessor. Excess Tax Increments Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.75, Subdivision':, in any year in which the tax increment exceeds the amount necessary to pay the costs authorized by the tax increment plan, including the amount necessary to cancel any tax levy as provided in Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.61, Subdivision 3, the Authority shall use the excess amount to: 1. prepay the outstanding bonds; 2. discharge the pledge of tax increment therefore; 3. pay into an escrow account dedicated to the payment of such bond; 4. repay any loans Including interest on these loans; or 5. return the excess to the County Auditor for redistribution to the respective taxing jurisdictions in proportion to their mill rate. Requirement for Agreements with the Developer Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 273.75, Subdivision 5, no more that 25 percent by acreage of the property to be acquired by the Authority within a project which contains a in the redevelopment district shall be owned by the Authority as a result of acquisition with the proceeds of bonds Issued pursuant to Section 273.77 without the Authority having prior to acquisition in excess of 25 percent of the acreage, concluded an agreement for the development of the property acquired and which provides recourse for the Authority should the development not be completed. Sea Section E for the development agreement requirement due to soil deficiencies. V. Assessment Agreements Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 273.76, Subdivision 8, the Authority may, upon entering into a development agreement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 273.75, Subdivision 5, enter into an agreement in recordaole fornr•with the developer of property within the tax increment financing district which establishes a minimum market value of the land and completed improvements for the duration of the tax increment redevelopment district. The assessment agreement shall be presented to the county assessor who shall review the plans and specifications for the improvements to be constructed, review the market value previously assigned to the land upon which the improvements are to be constructed and so long as the minimum market value contained in the assessment agreement appears in the judgment of the assessor, to be a reasonable estimate, the assessor may certify the minimum market value agreement. W. Administration of the Tax Increment Financing Redevelopment District and Maintenance of the Tax Increment Account Administration of the tax increment financing redevelopment district will be handled by the Executive Director of the Authority and the Office of the City Administrator. The tax increment received as a result of increases in the assessed value of the tax increment financing redevelopment district will be maintained in a special account separate from all other municipal accounts and expended only upon sanctioned municipal activities identified In the finance plan. X. Annual Disclosure Requirements Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.74, Subdivision 5, an authority must file an annual disclosure report for all tax increment financing districts. The report shall be filed with the school board, county board and the Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development. The report shall include the following information: 1. The amount and source of revenue In the account; 2. The amount and purpose of expenditures from the account; 3. The amount of any pledge of revenues, Including principal and Interest on any outstanding bonded indebtedness; 4. The original assessed value of the district; 5. The captured assessed value retained by the authority; B. The captured assessed value shared with other taxing districts; 7. Tho tax increment received. The annual disclosure report is designed to be a two-way medium of Information dissemination for both the Office of the County Auditor and the Authority. Should the auditor want additional information from the Authority regarding Its tax Increment financing activities, such Information should be requested prior to submission of the annual disclosure report by the Authority. Similarly, the city council may utilize the annual disclosure report as a means for requesting information from the Office of the County Auditor. Additionally, the Authority must annually publish a statement in a newspaper of general circulation in the municipality showing the tax increment received and expended in that year, the original assessed value, the captured assessed value, amount of outstanding bonded indebtedness and any additional information the city deems necessary. Assumptions It was necessary to make certain assumptions regarding income, costs and timing of the tax increment redevelopment district. These assumption are based on discussions with Authority, County, and fiscal consultant staff. Z. ;Municipal Findings Pursuant to :Minnesota Statutes. Section 273.74, Subdivision 3, before or at the time of approval of the tax increment financing plan, the municipality shall make the following findings and shall set forth in writing the reasons and supporting facts for each determination: 1. The proposed development or redevelopment, in the opinion of the city, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private Investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and, therefore, the use of tax Increment financing is deemed necessary since Construction Five could not economically construct the present facility without the provision of the necessary public improvements to the site and without the use of tax Increments to assist with the financing of these public improvements, the developer would not have constructed the apartment building and manufacturing facility In the City; and 2. The tax increment financing plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development by private enterprise as It will enable the City to provide the necessary public Improvements for development; thereby encouraging redevelopment In the area. 3. The tax Increment financing plan conforms to the general plan for the development of the city as a whole as it will result in construction of an apartment building and a manufacturing facility which will provide needed housing, create new jobs and Increase the tax base of the City. 4. The tax Increment district to be established is a redevelopment district pursuant to Winnesota Statutes. Section 273.73, Subdivision 10ta1(3) in which thecoditionsdesc`rtbad In Section E of this plan exist. 10 MINUTES y Housing and Redevelopment Authority Thursday, October 10, 1985 - 7:00 PM Members Present: Chair Gary Wieber, Bud Schrupp. Ren Maus, and Roger Hedtke. Members Absent: Ben Smith Assisting as Staff Representative was: Tom Eidem, City Administrator Chairperson Wieber called the HRA meeting to order. Schrupp moved to approve the September 5, 1985 Minutes, seconded by Hedtke. Vote was three in favor, and one abstention. Maus indicated his abstention because of absentee from meeting. The first item on the agenda was the adoption of the Tax Increment Finance (TIF) Proposal and Veit's "Raindance" Plan Proposal; and requesting the City Council to set a Public Hearing. Chairperson Wieber highlighted the history of the Veit Project. Tom Godlewski (Veit Construction) presented a proposal site study of the Raindance Project. The site study indicated building plans. parking, and traffic patterns. Concern from Godlewski was sufficient parking space. Eidem presented a street proposal, defining the construction of Sixth Street and installation of an interceptor sewer. Eidem responded to questions of congested traffic on Highway 25. Flow of traffic will be controlled by the planned installation signal lights at the Perkins intersection and signal lights at Highway 25 and Broadway. Reconstructed Highway 25 will be a two-lane through street. Responding to Schrupp's question of a possible left turn lane from north Highway 25 at 51 Street entrance. Eidem explained Min/DOT's refusal as traffic congestion and construction difficulties caused by a short distance between the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks and the Parkins intersection. Maus expressed his opinion that community traffic would adapt to the most efficient traffic pattern benefical to themselves through the use of Cedar Street entrance/axis to; Parkin controlled intersection; and Sixth and Five and one-half Street entrance/exists on Highway 25. Maus inquired about a possible traffic signal at Highway 25 and Sixth Street if the community would support a projected increase of traffic on Highway 25. Eidam responded that Min/DOT warrants traffic signals by ADT studies, not by future projections. Eidem reported the interceptor sewer would be installed from Highway 25 east across said property, south of BNR to Cedar Street before construction of the building site. Schrupp inquired to whom the interceptor sewer would be budgeted? The installation of the interceptor sewer being included i in the City Budget, not part of the Tax Increment Finance. HRA Minutes - October 10, 1985 Eidem explained the need to carry the interceptor sewer under the BNR track at the Cedar Street intersection then continuing along the north side of the railroad tracks connecting at Washington Street to help eliminate the interceptor overload along Front Street. Hedtke questioned the possible vacancy of the Maus Building. Eiden stated Raindance's personal interest in finding a replacement, noting this is a key issue at the Tuesday night City Council Meeting for receiving levy bonds. Eidem continued to explain property taxes are not lost on this particular property because of the County's formula of assessment. Said property is assessed the same in Howard Lake as in Monticello. The Raindance project increases employment potential for Monticello. Correction on the Tax Increment Finance Proposal were approved. Corrections as follows: Land Cost (Eck) $139,000.00 Administration 12,500.00 Total Cost of Project 412,150.00 Bonds 350,000.00 Required from Developer 62,150.00 With no further discussion, Chairperson Wieber asked for a motion to adopt the Resolution approving the Tax Increment Finance (TIF) proposal and requesting the City Council to set a Public Hearing. Sch rupp moved to adopt the resolution, seconded by Ned tke. Passed 3-0. Maus abstention was due to personal interest. Second item on the agenda was the adoption of the HRA 1986 Operating Budget. Discussion resulted around the reduction of $10,000 for 1986 Ad valorem from the $31,000 in 1985. Eidem explained this to be a comfort zone, noting the $69.000. collectible fees from Tax Increment. The committee agreed they'd like to see a reserve of around $100,000. for the HRA projects allowing for more flexibility. Motion was made by Mous, seconded by Hedtko to adopt the NRA 1986 Operating Budget. Passed 4.0. Other Business: Committee agreed to meet after next regular HRA meeting to discuss objectives for 1986. Maus asked about the City's possibility to purchase the land and building north of Moon Motors along Highway 25. Staff would need to contact owner, Cliff Olson. Maus asked.for an update on industrial development. Eidem _p_ HRA Minutes - October 10, 1985 reported on positive industrial activity of eight firms, along with the staff time involved in the Veit "Raindance" Project. Koropchak reported on her activities since employment October 1, indicating the four new industries she had contacted. Chairperson Wieber asked for a motion to adjourn. Motion made by Schrupp, seconded by Maus. Passed 4-0. Meeting was adjourned. Olive M. Koropchak Executive Secretary, Housing and Redevelopment Authority -3- Council Agenda - 10/15/85 10. Consideration of Change Order 01 - Fire Hall Construction. W.S.) tA. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND As you may recall, the high efficiency furnaces that we asked for as a alternate bid with the Fire Hall, are not available as of yet. we therefore received no bid for this alternate from any of the bidders. Recently, however, we learned that there was a slightly higher efficiency furnace on the market than the standard furnace originally specified to be delivered with the Fire Hall. These two furnaces are of the induced draft type and approximately 5-10% more efficient than the standard furnaces. we have received a proposal from the general contractor, Fullerton Lumber, to supply these higher efficiency furnaces in lieu of the standard furnaces for a price of $61.00 each or a total of $122.00. The Fire Hall committee has unanimously approved the change order. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Approve change order #I in the amount of 5122.00. 2. Not to approve the change order #I, and use the existing standard furnaces. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS It is the recommendation of the staff and Fire Hall committee that you approve change order 01 in the amount of 5122.00. D. SUPPORTING DATA A copy of the change order. CHANGE ORDER TOLTZ, KING, DUVALL. ANDERSON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Engineers and Architects St. Paul, Minn. Spot. 11 19_U_. Comm. No. 8281-03 Change Order No. ; To Fullerton Lumber Co, for Monticello Fire Station for City of Monticello You are hereby directed to make the following change to your contract dated Mav 28 , 19 85 . The change and the work affected thereby is subject to all con. tract stipulations and covenants. This Change Order will (increase)baes=easxti (xu=xahxmgo0 the contract sum by ONE HUNDRED TWENTY-TWO AND NO1100 --------------- Dollars $ 122.00 Provide two Lennox Madel G16-RQ4-100 furnaces in lieu of the two Lennox Model G12-RQ2E-100 units specified. Add S122.00 Per Contractor's Price Quotation dated Sept. 10, 1485 Amount of original contract $_46.4(1(1 Additions approved to date (Nos. None ) $ - Deductions approved to date (Noe. None ) $ - Contract amount to date. $ 456,400 Amount of this Change Order (Add) $ 117 Revised Contract Amount $ 457.022 TOLTZ, KING, DUVALL, ANDERSON AND ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED Approved city of Monucall- Owner By By Date Arnold W. Hedberg Approved Fullerton Lumber C o. Contractor By Date White - Owner Pink - Contractor Blue - Office Yellow - Field Goldenrod - Municioal Council Agenda - 1 0/15/85 I. Consideration of Making Final Payment of Public Improvement Projects 84-1, 84-2, 84-3 and 85-1. W .S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND All of the above projects have been completed. We have the final quantities in and the contractors have requested final payment. Project 84-1 County Road 75 This project consisted of Schedule A, which is the two lane rural sections east and vest of the four lane portion, and Schedule B which in the four lane portion. The total construction cost for Schedule A is $104,315.07. The City does not participato In the cost of this construction. For Schedule B, the four lane portion, the total cost of construction was $339,337.70. This includes Change Order B1 for sidewalk work and Change Order 3 for the manholes on Broadway. Of this amount, the City's share is $110,914.55 leaving the County'a share at $228,423.15. Based on those figures, the City share of the reconstruction of the four lane portion is approxi matoly 32.78. These figures aro approximately $9,000.00 lose than was originally estimated after bid opening. Project 84-2 Cedar Street The total cost for the construction of Cedar Street amounted to $51,371.90. This included a small change order for a hydrant extension, riprapping and coma driveway apron. The orlgi nal estimate after bid opening for this project was $42,932.50. Thera was an $8,439.40 overrun on thio project or approxi mately 19.76. Majority of the overrun vas duo to there actually being 32 trace in the clearing and grubbing area rather than the 6 noted in the contract. Thin was paid for on a unit price of $150.00 par treo. In addition, we decided to and along the apartments on the cast aide of Cedar Street as this area had boon ooddod previously, consequently the nodding overran also. Project 84-3 Hart Boulevard The total coot for construction of Hart Boulevard was $92,072.00. This included a change order for come additional boulevard grading and one hydrant extension. The original antimata after bid opening for this project vas $01,741.00. The total price is an overrun of $11,131.00 or approximately 13.6% over the estimated coat after bid opening. The majority of thio coot in duo to the extension of the urban typo section on the cast and of the property. The original bid opening rofloctod a rural typo unction on the oast and. After talking to the Council and talking to Mr. Kruaa, we added additional curbing and street width in thio area. Since the above throe jobs had the came contractor. Buffalo Bituminous, a single payment will be made to them. Council Agenda - 10/15/85 The total for all of the projects amounts to $587,896.67. �\ The final payment to be made at this time is $110,882.00. The City will make final payment to the contractor upon receipt of the County's portion of $62,117.20. Project 85-1 Interceptor Sewer This project consisted of only that portion of the interceptor sewer crossing Hwy. 25. The remainder of the interceptor sewer crossing the Wilbur Eck property which was originally budgeted for was omitted. The budgeted figure was $100,000.00. The total contract price with the reduced project was $65,813.00. The actual construction including the $4,500.00 change order, due to the error in elevations was $67,322.81. Balance owed the contractor, Ted LaTour Construction, Maple Lake, $2,500.00. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Make final payment to the contractors in the amount as stated above. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS It is staff's recommendation that you authorize final payment to the contractors in the amounts listed above. D. SUPPORTING DATA Copies of the final payment requests. CONSTF.UCTIO4 PAYMENT VOUCHER Estimate Voucher No. di Final -- ------------- Date October 2, 1985 For Period -- -.-- -- Ending : September 30, 1985 ;ecl Number Bkl C.A.S.H. 1 75 S.A.P. 86-675-02; 84-2 : Cedar Street ` ------ ------------------- -- -- --- — ---- — --- _ -- — — ---- — 84.3 Hart Boulevard - - ----------- ------------------ -------••------------------•-------------------------------------------------------------------------- Class of York Street Construction and Appur tenant Uork To Buffalo Bituminous, Inc. -------••-------•----------•-•--•------------------•-- P.O. Boa 126 Location -------•------•-------------•-••------•--------------- Buffalo, Mo. 55313 For City of Monticello, Uright county, Minnesota --------•---------•--••----••-•--------•---------•---- A. Original Contract Amount f 611083.50 •--------•-------------- B. Total Additions 1 5266.40 ------ --...-------•----- C. Total Deductions 1 0.00 •--------•-------------- D. Total FundsEncumbered 1 616349.90 E. Total Valueof Uork Certified to Date to ---------- •-------- 587896.67 ------------------•----- F. Lots Retained Percentage Q)K 7. f -;i;z:rir- o ............ ..------•---•-•--•---•-• 6. Less Total Previous Payments f 477014.67 --••---------•- H. Approved for Payment, This Report f .•.. 1 102.00 ........................ l 1. Total Payments Including This Voucher 1 �'•;0-rim 58?�L�(p,(• J. Balance Carried Forward •.... f iW-24 ' 4,451a APPRDJALS ORR-SCHELEN-MAYEROf 8 ASSOCIATES, INC. ...................................... Pursuant to our field obervalion, as performed in accordance With our contract, We hereby etrlifr that the naleriah are satisfactory and the work properly peeformd in accordance with the plans and specifications and that the total work is ilk j00 % completed as of September 30, 1985 . Ur hereby retomnd payment of this voucher. --------------- ............................... Signed t Signed t Construction Observer This is to certify that to the best 04 my knowledge, information, and belief, the quantities and values of wort certified heroin is a fair approximate estimate for the period covered by this voucher. Contractor s Buffalo Bifuninous, Inc. Signed By .................................... ........................................ gate t Title City of Montlttllo Approved for Payment her..... —•—........................ ................................. _.•........ — s.ncked By t ».--•--•-.-•••----•_.......•-•.... Dab t Authorited Representative Datet ................... .............................. Page 1 of 4 068-3475 Estimate Voucher No. 6 6 Final Contractor: Buffalo Bituminous, Inc. Date 716 October 2, 1985 Box 337 10 25.00 250.00 Buffalo, Minnesota 55313 Street Construction and Appurtenant Uork Quantity Project MD. 84-1 - C.S.A.H. 175 - S.A.P. 86-675.02 S.Y. '-oiect No. 84-2 - Cedar Street 0 rojecI No. 64-3 - Hart Boulevard 5.00 City of Monticello, Uright County, Minnesota Ton Contract Date August 13, 1984 Uork Completed September 30, 1985 Spec. Ref. No. Item ---------------------- Street Construction - Schedule 'A' ------------------------------------ C.S.A.H. 175 - S.A.P. 96-675-02 --------------------------------- 001 2104.505 Rmove Bituminous Pavement 002 2211.501 Aggregate Base Class 5 003 2331.504 Bituminous Material for Mixture 004 2331.512 Leveling Course Mixture 005 2331.504 Bituminous Material for Material 006 2331.514 Base Course Mixture 007 2331.504 Bituminous Material for Mixture 008 2331.516 Shoulder Mixture 009 2341.504 Bituminous Material for Mixture 010 2341.508 Dearing Course Mixture ( Modified ) 011 1357.502 Bituminous Material for Tack Coal O1` v. 11 Seeding ( Intl. Topsoil, Mulch, a Fertiliser ) 013 Diu. 11 Rock for Driveway Total for Schedule 'A' Schedule '0' ------------ C.S.A.H. 175 - S.A.P. 86-675-02 ------------------------------- 014 2104.505 Remove Curb 6 Gutter 015 2104.501 Remove Concrete Median 016 2104.505 Remove Concrete Driveway Pavement 017 2104.505 Remove Bituminous Pavement OIB 2112.501 Subgrade Preparation 019 2211.501 Aggregate Base Class 5 020 2331.504 Bituminous Material for Mixture 021 2331.510 Binder Course Mixture 022 2331.504 Bituminous Material for Mixture 023 2331.512 leveling Course Mixture 024 2331.504 Bituminous Material for Mixture 025 2331.514 Base Course Mixture 026 2341.504 Bituminous Material for Mixture 027 2341.500 U►aring Course Mixture l Modified I 020 2357.502 Bituminous Material for Tack Coat 029 2506.522 Adjust Manholes, Catch Basins Page 2 of 4 068.3475 I 10944D.00 6 104315.07 L.F. York Started August 20, 1984 2070.00 716 2148.00 Completion Date October 31, 1984 10 25.00 250.00 Contract Total to Dale Unit •-------------------------------•------------------------------- Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost Quantity Total Cost S.Y. 2000 1.00 2000.00 0 0.00 Ton 500 5.00 2500.00 880 4400.00 Ton 70 200.00 14000.OD 61.15 12230.00 Ton 1070 11.00 11770.00 1223 13453.00 Ton 9 200.00 1800.00 6.71 1342.00 Ton IBO 12.00 2160.00 134.26 1611.12 Ton 100 20D.00 - 20000.00 92 18400.00 Tan 1700 11.00 18100.00 1533.45 16867.95 Ion 80 200.00 16000.00 87.76 17552.00 Ton 1230 12.00 14760.00 1358 16296.00 Sal. 2500 .50 1250.00 2076 1038.00 At. 2 1500.00 300D.OD .75 1125.00 Ton 100 15.00 1500.00 0 0.00 I 10944D.00 6 104315.07 L.F. 690 3.00 2070.00 716 2148.00 L.F. 10 25.00 250.00 10 250.00 S.Y. 72 5.00 360.00 131.6 658.00 S.Y. 41000 1.00 41000.00 43863 43863.00 Rd.Sla. 109 200.00 21800.00 109 21800.00 Ton 4900 5.00 24500.00 1015 5075.00 Ton 215 20D.00 43000.00 168.6 33720.00 Ton 3900 11.00 42900.00 3572 39292.00 Ton 15 200.00 3000.00 0 0.00 Ton 225 12.00 2700.00 0 0.00 Ton 260 200.00 52000.00 223.5 44700.00 Ton 5200 11.00 57200.00 4707 51777.00 Ton 173 200.00 35000.00 186.1 37220.00 Ton 2690 12.00 3228D.00 2926 35112.00 Gal. 5000 w 2500.00 4763 2381.50 Ea. IB 200.00 3600.00 20 4000.00 Estimate Voucher No. 6 & Final Total for Schedule '8' Schedule 'C' ------------ Hart Boulevard .............. 037 2104.501 Removr Cc.crete Sidewalk 038 2104.505 Date October 2, 1985 039 2105.501 Cannon Excavation 040 2211.501 Aggregate Base Class 5 041 2221.501 Aggregate Shouldering Class 5 Street Construction 6 Appurtenant UorN Bituminous Material for Mixture Ci 2331.514 Base Course Mixture 044 2341.504 Bituminous Material for Mixture 045 2341.508 Project No. 82-1 C.S.A.H. 175, S.A.P. 86-675-02 046 2357.502 Bituminous Material for Tact Coat 047 2501.515 Install 24' R.C.P. Apron (Incl. Trash 5.00 Guard ) I Project No. 84-2 : Cedar Street 21' R.C.P. Class 111 3006 049 2503.541 24' R.C.P. Class 111 30D6 050 2503.541 15' R.C.P. Class 111 3006 41.25 l- Project No. 84-3 : Hut Boulevard 051 Stnd.Spec. Const. Catch Basin Manhole 1 052 Stnd.Spec. Eire ss Manhole ( Depth over 8' ) 053 2506.509 Const. Type 'A' Catch Basin w/Castings City of Monticello, Wight County, Minnesota ( See Detail Plate ) 054 2511.507 Grouted Rip -Rip 055 2521.501 4' Concrete UaIN 056 2531.501 Spec. 057 2531.507 6' Concrete Driveway Pavement Contract Adjust Gate Value ( All Size ) Total to Date Ref. No. Iter ------------------------------------------------------------------...- Unit Quantity -•----•------------------------------------------------- Unit Cost Total Cost Quantity Total Cost 030 2506.522 Concrete Curb 6 Gutter B-624 L.F. 690 10.00 6900.00 721 7210.00 031 2531.505 Concrete Median L.F. 10 25.00 250.00 10 250.00 032 2531.507 6' Concrete Driveway Pavement S.Y. 50 25.00 1:50.00 76.2 1905.06 033 2531.507 B' Concrete Driveway Pavement S.Y. 22 30.00 660.00 55.4 1662.00 034 2504.6DI Adjust Gate Valve ( A11 Sires ) Ea. 16 100.00 1600.00 19 1900.00 035 2575.505 Sodding ( Incl. Topsoil ) S.T. 500 2.00 1000.00 224 448.00 036 Div. 11 Saw -cut Bitesinous L.F. 230D .50 1150.00 1998 999.00 Total for Schedule 'C' Page 3 of 4 068.3475 s 376970.00 4 336370.50 S.F. Total for Schedule '8' Schedule 'C' ------------ Hart Boulevard .............. 037 2104.501 Removr Cc.crete Sidewalk 038 2104.505 Remove Bituminous Pavement 039 2105.501 Cannon Excavation 040 2211.501 Aggregate Base Class 5 041 2221.501 Aggregate Shouldering Class 5 041 2331.504 Bituminous Material for Mixture Ci 2331.514 Base Course Mixture 044 2341.504 Bituminous Material for Mixture 045 2341.508 Waring Course Mixture ( Modified ) 046 2357.502 Bituminous Material for Tact Coat 047 2501.515 Install 24' R.C.P. Apron (Incl. Trash 5.00 Guard ) 048 2503.541 21' R.C.P. Class 111 3006 049 2503.541 24' R.C.P. Class 111 30D6 050 2503.541 15' R.C.P. Class 111 3006 41.25 Catch Basin leads 051 Stnd.Spec. Const. Catch Basin Manhole 1 052 Stnd.Spec. Eire ss Manhole ( Depth over 8' ) 053 2506.509 Const. Type 'A' Catch Basin w/Castings Ton ( See Detail Plate ) 054 2511.507 Grouted Rip -Rip 055 2521.501 4' Concrete UaIN 056 2531.501 Concrete Curb A Gutter 8.610 057 2531.507 6' Concrete Driveway Pavement 050 2504.602 Adjust Gate Value ( All Size ) 059 2575.505 Sodding ( Incl. Topsoil ) 060 Div. 11 Seeding (Intl. Topsoll,Mulch 6 Fertilizer) 061 Div. 11 Sw-cul Bituminous 062 Div. 11 Clearing 6 Grubbing 063 Div. 11 Rock for Driveway l 064 2611.7A1 6' D.I.P. Class 52 ( Incl. Fittings 1 01 611.27 6' Gate Valve Ode 1611.28 Hydrant Total for Schedule 'C' Page 3 of 4 068.3475 s 376970.00 4 336370.50 S.F. 400 .50 200.00 400 200.00 S.T. 3700 1.00 - 3700.00 3410 3410.00 C.Y. 1600 4.00 6400.00 1970 7880.00 Ton 1850 5.00 925D.00 2202 11010.00 Ton 280 5.00 1400.00 0 0.00 Ton 46 200.00 9200.00 41.25 8250.00 Ton 900 11.00 9900.00 825 9075.00 Ton 20 200.00 4000.00 23.4 4680.00 Ton 300 12.50 3750.00 360 4500.00 Gal. 270 .50 135.00 250 125.00 Ea. 2 600.00 1200.11D 2 1200.00 L.F. 84 35.00 2940.00 95 3325.00 L.F. 38 52.00 1976.00 38 1976.00 L.F. 45 32.00 1440.00 42 1344.00 Ea. 2 750.00 1500.00 2 1500.00 L.F. 2 50.00 100.00 0 0.00 Ea. 2 500.00 1000.00 2 1000.00 C.Y. 1,5 50.00 375.00 7.5 375.00 S.F. 300 1.70 510.OD 356 605.20 L.F. 1500 6.00 9000.00 2574 15444.00 S.Y. 55 23.00 1265.00 67 1541.00 Ea. 1 100.00 100.00 2 200.00 S.Y. 1000 2.00 2000.00 715 1430.00 At. 1 1500.00 1SOO.OD 1.3 1950.00 L.F. 70 1.00 70.00 130 130.00 Trey 6 150.00 900.00 15 2250.00 Ion 10 15.00 150.00 0 0.00 L.F. 360 10.00 6480.00 304 6912.00 Ea. 1 300.00 100.00 2 600.00 Ea. I 1000.00 1000.00 I 1000.00 f 01741.00 91912.20 Page 4 of 4 040.3475 Contract Total to Date Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost Quantity Total Cost S.Y. Estimate Voucher No. 6 a Final 1.00 Date : October 2, 1985 400.00 Street Construction a Appurtenant Uort 800 Project No. 82-1 C.S.A.H. 175, S.A.P. 86-675-02 `-Project No. 84-2 Cedar Street 4872.00 Project No. 84-3 Hart Boulevard 1100 City of Monticello, Urigbt County, Minnesota 5500.00 Sol(. 5025.00 ---------------------------------------------------------- Ret. No. Item 3600.00 Schrdult '0' - Cedar Street ------------------------------ 067 2104.505 Remove Bituminous Pavement 068 2105.501 Conon Excavation 069 2211.501 Aggregate Base Class 5 070 2331.504 Bituminous Material for Misturt 071 2331.514 Bast Cours► Mixture 072 2341.504 Bituminous Material for Mixture 073 2341.508 Waring Course Mixturt ( Modified I 074 2357.502 Bituminous Material for Tack Coat 075 2503.541 12' R.C.P. Class 111 3006 32.00 1440.00 Catch Basin Leads 076 2506.509 Const. Type 'A' Catch Basin w/Castings 500.00 1000.00 ( Set Wei) Platt ) 077 2506.522 Adjust Manholes, Catch Basins 078 2531.501 Concrete Curb a Gutter 8-618 079 0504.602 Adjust Gate Valve ( A)I Sixes I 080 '575.505 Sodding ( Incl. Topsoil I 08:, .v. 11 Seeding {Intl. Topsoil,Muicb a Fertilizer) 082 Diu. 11 Saw -cut Bituminous 083 Div, 11 Clearing a Grubbing 084 Div. If Connect to Existing Manhole 085 Div, 11 Rock for Driveway 086 2611.241 6' O.I.P. Class 52 ( Incl. Fittings I 087 261I.2C2 6' We Value 088 2611.5 Remove a Reinstall Rydrant 089 2621.2A6 8' P.V.C. SDA 35 090 Div. 11 12'16' Dry Tap for Uster Main 4800.00 E1. Total for Schedule '01' 300.00 600.00 Grand Tots) ( Schedule A,B,C a Dl I 600.00 Ton Change order 15.00 345.00 Change Order No. 3 0.00 L.F. Total 77.00 2430.00 82 Page 4 of 4 040.3475 Contract Total to Date Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost Quantity Total Cost S.Y. 400 1.00 400.00 400 400.00 C.Y. 800 4.00 3200.00 1218 4872.00 Ton 1100 5.DD 5500.00 1005 5025.00 Ton 18 200.00 3600.00 17.25 3450.00 Ton 360 12.00 4320.00 345 4140.00 Too 12 200.00 2400.00 13.98 2796.00 Too 185 12.50 2312.50 215 2687.50 Gat. 170 .50 85.00 160 80.00 L.F. 45 32.00 1440.00 46 1472.00 Ea. 2 500.00 1000.00 2 1000.00 Ea. 5 150.00 750.00 3 750.00 L.F. 1500 S.00 7500.00 1550 7750.00 Ea. 2 100.00 200.00 0 0.00 S.T. 600 2.00 1200.00 1808 3616.00 Ac. .7 1500.00 1050.00 .3 450.00 L.F. 150 1.00 150.00 BO 80.00 Trot 6 150.00 900.00 32 4800.00 E1. 2 300.00 600.00 2 600.00 Ton 23 15.00 345.00 0 0.00 L.F. 90 77.00 2430.00 82 2214.00 Ea. 2 300.00 600.00 3 900.00 Ea. 1 1000.00 1000.00 1 1000.00 L.F. 60 20.00 1200.00 60 1200.00 fa. 1 750.00 ..--- 750.00 1 ..... 750.00 _...-- +< ----- 42P32.5 1 50032.50 / 611083.50 f 58�263D�71 3841.40 3841.40 1425.00 1425.00 / 616349.90 1 507096.67 Change Order No. 8-1, C-1 6 D-1 Dale October 2, 1985 Street Construction and Appurtenant Uork ,roject No. 84-1 - C.S.A.H. 175 - S.A.P. 86.675-02 Project No. 84-2 - Cedar Streit Project No. 64-3 - Hut Boulevard City of Monticello, Uright County, Minnesota Spec . Rif. No. Items ---------------------...-.---------...-------------- Change Order No. B-1 - Schedule 'B' C.S.A.H. 175 - S.A.P. 86-675-02 2104.501 Remove Concrete Sidewalk 2521.501 4' Concrete Sidewalk Change Order No. C-1 Schedule 'C' Hart Boulevard Hydrant Extensions Equipment ( 7D7 ) Equipment f 950 ) Forman Change, Order No. D-3 Schedule 'D' l'e der Street 1531.507 6' Concrete Driveway Pavement Rip Rip Hydrant Extorsions Pape 1 of 1 068-3475 Contractor : Buffalo Bitnoinous, Inc. Box 337 Buffalo, Mn. 55313 Total to Dale Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost Quantity Total Cost ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Total for 8-1 Total for C-1 Total for D-1 Total for 8-I, C•1 6 D-1 S.F. 701 .50 350.50 701 350.50 S.F. 701 1.70 ------------------------ 1191.70 701 1191.70 S 1542.20 f 1542.20 Ea. 1 462.30 462.30 1 462.30 Hrs. 4.5 45.00 202.50 4.5 202.50 Hrs. 2.5 55.00 137.50 2.5 137.50 His. 4.5 35.00 157.50 4.5 157.50 ------------ f 959.81) ............ 1 959.60 S.Y. 27.2 23.00 637.10 27.7 637.10 C.Y. B 30.00 240.00 S I40.00 Ea. 1 462.30 462.30 1 462.30 6 1339.40 1 1339,40 6 o 3841.48 1 a 3841.40 Changr Order No. 3 Contractor: Buffalo Bituminous, Inc. , rate :October 2, 1985 floe 337 Buffalo, Minnesota 55313 Street Construction and Appurtenant Work Project No. 84-1 - C.S.A.H. 175 - S.A.P. 86-675-02 Project No. 84-2 - Cedar Street Project No. 84-3 - Hart Boulevard City of Monticello, Wright County, Minnesota Spec. Contract Total to Date Rei. No. Item Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost Quantity Total Cost ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Adjust Manhole Frames on Broadway Street Ea. 19 75.00 1425.00 19 1425.00 11 1425.00 6 1425.00 Page 1 of 1 068-3475 l- ' CONSTRICTION PAYMENT VOUCHER Estimate Voccher No. 3 6 Final --------------- Date September 27, 1985 act Number 85-1 ----------------------------------------- Class ---.-....- ................Class of Work Sanitary Sauer and Appurtenant Work Loci t ion For Period Ending : September 26, 1985 To : LaTour Construction Route I , Boa 76 Maple Lake, Mn. 55358 For City of Monticello, Urioht County, Minnesota » A. Original Contract Amount» »f 658)3.00 B. Total Additions f»» 4500.OD C. Total Deducttions s 0.00 D. Total Funds Enturbered f 76313.00 E. Total Value of Work Certified to Date f 67322.81 ........................ F. Less Retained Percentage 0 % f 0.00 ------------ ............•••......... S. less Total Previous Payments f 64822.81 ...........•••.......... M. Approved for Payment, Ibis Report f 2500.00 ........................ 1. Total Payments Including This Voucher f 67322.61 ...............•..... — J. Balance Carried Forward f 2990.19 ......................... APPRO ALS ORR-SCRELIN-MYERE N 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. Pursuant to our field observation, as performed in accordance with our contract, up hereby certify that the materials are satisfactory and the work properly performed in accordance with the plans and specifications and that the total mark is 100 X completed as of Srpinabor 26, 1985 We hereby recomind payment of this voucher. Signed cSigned s -•.......... ........................•.-----•- --- ............. ......... . --• ------ Construction Observer ..•--........................................•--.....................................---................................. This is to certify that to He best of ray kaa ltdge, Infornation, and belief, the quantities and values of work certified herein is a fair akproalaale estimate for the period covered by this voschlr. Contractor c LaTour Construction Signed BY .................................... ...................•............................. Dtae c Title NOY of Date Page I of 2 11611-3111 ................................................. Approved for Payment~�..� .•_ » .AYthaired Reprlsln1a11V1•-.�.».-.-.»- ... Date a ................................................. Council Agenda - 10115185 l' 12. Consideration of Entering a Lease with Northern States Power Company for the Development of Softball Fields. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND It has been previously agreed upon between Northern States Power and the City that the lands lying west of the training center would be the site for the softball field development. For the purpose of submitting the final grant application, we need to have entered the lease in order to demonstrate property control for softball field development. The lease which requires adoption is quite standard with one exception that being paragraph number two at the bottom of page one. we are guaranteeing that Northern States Power will have the unrestricted use of the ,softball field for their corporate tournament at the end of July each year. Currently, this annual tournament is hold in Big Lake I believe, and the company would like to move it to Monticello. I sea no difficulty with this guarantee, it being merely a scheduling matter. The lease also contains no provisions for payment, except that we do carry all of the Hold Harmless Insurances required. In connection with entering this lease, we will release our holding of the land whore the softball fields presently are situated. It is my understanding that NSP will allow this area to be used for a Model Airplane Club. Materials at the existing site which aro considered to be basically unusable at the now site will stay behind for NSF to use. That involves some fencing which for softball purposes is in poor condition and would not be used at the now field anyway. Any other site alterations that have been made for softball will be rostorod to their original condition if NSP requests us to do so. The main question here is the entering of the lease for the now lands along the freeway. The fact that the lease can be terminated originally presented some problem to the State, but realizing the importance of Northern States Power the State has concurred that they will allow this lease to stand valid, providing we guarantee to the State that should we lose the land than the softball fields will be restored at another site. I think that that is vary reasonable since we would want to provide softball fields if we should less the lease. That seems to be reasonable even if we were not receiving grant monica. Council Agenda - 10/15/85 B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Adopt a motion authorizing the execution of the lease agreement - this is essential for submitting the final application for grant monies. It would also put us in a position where we can commence construction in the spring. 2. Do not adopt the lease - this would in essence stop us from submitting the grant since we would have no site for our proposed project. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the lease be adopted and its execution be ordered. D. SUPPORTING DATA Map highlingting the area in question, copy of the lease to be executed. L C LEASE AND AGREEME147 This LEASE AND AGREEMENT, made this _„_ day of 1905, by and between NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY, a Minnesota corporation, hereinafter referred to as "NSP" and the C17Y Of MONTICELLO. a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as `City"; WHEREAS, NSP Is the owner of certain land located in the City of Monticello, Wright County, Minnesota hereinafter referred to as "Leased Premises" and described as follows: That part of the NE 1/4 of the NM 1/4 of Section 4. Township 121. Range 25 described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the South line of sold NE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 with the Northeasterly right-of-way, line of Interstate 94; thence north- westerly along said northeasterly right-of-way line for a distance of 800 feet: thence northpesterly at right angles to said Northeasterly right-of-way line for a distance of 700 feet; thence southeasterly at right angles to the last described line for a distarce of 400 feet;thence southerly to a point on the South line of said NE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 which point is 550 feet east of the point of beginning, as measured along sold South line. thence west along said South line to the point of beginning. WHEREAS, NSP owns and operates a nuclear power generating plant in the general vicinity of the leased Premises and also owns and operates a train. Ing facility on land Immediately east of and adjoining the leased Premises; and WHEREAS, the City desires to use the Leased Premises to develop a bail field complex in accordance with the plans submitted to NSP; NOW. THEREFORE. NSP hereby grants to the City of Monticello a lease to construct, control, supervise and maintain ball fields, concesslon stand, parking area and the necessary appurtenances thereto on the Leased Premises subject to the following terns and tondltlons: 1. The term of this Lease, and Agreement will be on a year-to-year basis beginning on the _ day of , 1985 unless it is cancelled Or terminated as hereinafter set forth: 2. As consideration for this Lease, the City agrees to allow NSP, at no cost, the unrestricted use of the entire complex located on the Leased Promises the last weekend of JUIY of each and every year this lease Is In force. LEASE - CITY Of 14ONTICELLO Page 1 Of 4 7. City accepts the Leased Premises in their present conditions without 1 any promises, agreements or obligations, express or implied, on the part of l75P to make any improvements or repairs thereon. All refuse, or other waste of any kind shall be promptly removed at no cost or expense to NSP. City shall take good care of the Leased Premises and fixtures. If any, and shall quit, and surrender said premises at the end of the tern of this Lease, or any previous termination thereof. In as good condition as when received, with all improvements removed. d. City agrees to maintain all improvements placed on the property in a condition acceptable to NSP. S. city, inthe use of the property. shad comply with all pertinent laws. codes and ordinances and shall maintain, supervise and police the premises. 6. City shall indemnify and save harmless NSP and the Leased Premises from any lien or encumbrance which shall or may occur from or by reason of any use of said premises by City. 7. City shall keep and maintain said Leased Premises, and any public areas adjacent thereto, in a neat, safe and orderly manner and free of hazardous or objectionable condition. City shall Indemnify and hold NSP harmless from all loss, damage or Injury to persons or properly. Including NSP's property and employees, occasioned by or arising from or In Connection with the use of said Leased Premises by City, its employees, customers, agents or invitees, and City agrees to defend, indemnify and hold NSP harm- less against all actions, proceedings, claims, debility, damage, demands, or expense, including attorneys' fees, in any manner caused by or arising from the use and occupancy of said Leased Premises or any act or omission of City, its employees, agents, customers, or invitees upon said Leased Premises or in the exercise or purported exercise of any of the rights, privileges, or duties herein specified. 8. City shad maintain such insurance as will protect NSP from claims under wori,men'a compensation acts and from claims for damages because, of bodily injury, including death, and property damage, which may In any way arise out of or being any remote or proximate manner connected with the performance of this Lease, whether such claim arises out of the act or ` failure to act of City or of NSP or of the direct or Indirect delogee, LCASt . city or NONiICCLLO Page 2 of 4 appointee or employee of either of them. This insurance shall be written in the kinds and minimum limits of liability specified below: a) Employer's liability insurance in conformity with the workmen's compensation laws of the State of Minnesota. b) Public liability insurance in the following minimum amounts: Bodily Injury $ 500,000.00 per person $1,000,000.00 per accident Property Damage $1,000,000.00 per accident Contractual to include coverage for hold harmless agreement. City, within five days prior to the commencement of the period of this Lease, must complete the attached Certificate of Insurance form AA -101 and deliver to NSD at 414 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401, Attention: Insurance Department. 9. City shall not assign this Lease or sublet said premises without the written consent of NSP. 10. NSP reserves the right to Cancel and terminate this Lease and Agreement if, in the sole judgment of NSP, the use of the Leased Premises Interferes with the operations of any NSD facilities or If the Leased 1 Premises are required for any purpose related to NSP's operations. In any event, NSP shall give the City 1B0 days notice in writing of its intent to cancel the Lease. iN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said NSP and City have caused this instrument to be duly executed this day of , 1985. C NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY By is Vlc i'yesydent - , a ss s an re ery CITY Of MONTICELLO. MINNESOTA By its And is LEASE - CITY Of 14ONTICILLO Page 3 of 4 C STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this )j day of :.C-rlc�- , 1985, by Roland J. Jensen, Vice President and Rosanne Giombolini, Assistant Secretary of NORTHERN STATES POVIR COMPANY, e Minnesota corporation, on behalf of the corporation. ' `a�Nt�, wJIAt'1 ?t2uC mm43m► •.,,1)t a(YnEPma W 19aµ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) sir cmc 0n act 1.p ss. • COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of 1985, by of the CITY OF MONTICELLO. a municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation. This Instrument was drafted by: Northern States Power Company ala Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, Minnesota 55101 LEASE - ciTY OI MONTICELLO Pagn 4 of 4 / `— __--- sxmrwo oorroALL FIELDS_ __---- PROPOSED SOFTBALL COwPLIE.L °mnCEU, Council Agenda — 10/15/85 13. Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing Submittal of a Final tGrant Application for Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCMR) Grant Funds. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND As I noted earlier, we received notice in August that Monticello had been approved for funding for the Softball Field Project. This grant program is a two stage application. The preliminary application was the one that was approved in August. Upon approval, we are required to submit a final application, the deadline for which is October 25. As I noted at the budget meeting the project, for the purposes of grant funding has been reduced from $80,000 total to $55,000 total. That means the City will receive $27,500 in grant monies and will match that amount in local monies. In order to submit this application there is a required resolution. The essence of the resolution is authorizing the filing of said application, thus committing local funds to the project, and ordering the Mayor and Administrator WiL to execute a contract for the grant funds. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTION 1. Adopt the resolution - thio means we will continue on with the grant proposal to commence construction of softball fields in the spring of 1987. 2. Do not adopt the resolution - this means that we are rejecting the grant money offer. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommands the adoption of the resolution. D. SUPPORTING DATA A copy of the resolution being submitted for adoption. RESOLUTION 1985 @17 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO AUTHORIZING �{ FILING OF APPLICATION AND EXECUTION OF `l PROJECT AGREEMENT TO DEVELOP SPACE U14DER THE PROVISIONS OF THE STATE NATURAL RESOURCE FUND. WHEREAS, the State of Natural Resources Fund provides for the making of grants to assist local governments in the acquisition and evelopment of outdoor recreation projects; and WHEREAS, the City of Monticello desires to develop certain land known as the.Monticello Softball Field complex, which land is to be held and used for permanent open apace; and WHEREAS, in order for the proposed project to be eligible for approval, there must be proof that it is part of a comprehensive outdoor recreation plan and five year action program (capital improvement); u and WHEREAS, it is estimated that the coat of developing said interest ahall be $55,000.00; and WHEREAS, upon project approval, the City of Monticello must enter into formal grant project agreements with the State for the specific purpose of developing the Monticello Softball Field Complex. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO: 1. That an application be made to the State of Minnesota, Department of Energy and Economic Development, Parka and Recreation Grants Section for a grant from the Natural Resources Fund (Minnesota Laws, 1985, Chapter , Section , Subdivision , Paragraph ) for an amount presently estimated at $27,500.00 and the applicant will pay the balance of the coat from other funds available to it. 2. That the Mayor and the City Administrator aro directed to execute and file: (a) Such application and the five year action program with the state of Minnoaota, Department of Energy and Economic Development, Parka and Recreation Granto Section and to provide additional information and furnish such documento as may be required by said department; and (b) To act as the authorized corroapondonto of the applicant. Resolution 1985 #17 Page Two 3. That the proposed development is in accordance with plans for the allocation of land for open space uses and that should said grant be made, the applicant will develop and retain said land for the use designated in said application and approved by the Department of Energy and Economic Development. 4. That the United States of America and the State of Minnesota be and they hereby are, assured a full compliance by the applicant with the regulations of the Department of Interior, effectuating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 504; Age Discrimination Act of 1975; and Executive Order 11246, Equal Employment Opportunity. 5. That the City of Monticello enter into an agreement with the State of Minnesota, Department of Energy and Economic Development, Parks and Recreations Grants Section, to provide such grants as are specified in numbered paragraph 1 above for the years 1986-1988. 6. That the Mayor and/or the City Administrator are authorized and directed to execute such agreement and any supplemental agreements thereof. Adopted this 15th day of October, 1985. Arve A. Grimamo, Mayor Thomas A. Eidam City Administrator � O R Itt * at yt � ttt State briefs m W YF,soTA A recent decision in the Minnesota court of appeals could make cities liable for damages caused by sewer backups. The case imotses a city sewer that backed up in the basement of a resident's house. 1 he backup damaged the carpeting, fur- niture, claihc;. and other property in the resident's house. There had been no pre• sinus difliculiics with the sewer nor with the precious maintenance program for the sewer. Prior to the sewer's backup. the cnv had added nursing homes and hospuah to the same sewer line as the residc"i's but had not Changed the sire or the spcsifications of the sewer line. As a result of the backup the resident took the city to coup and was awarded S Ifl.fl(KI by a jurv','l he city lost the ludg. mctit because the Couri decided that cscn though the utv did not insure the sewer system, it .ould be found liable if its lack of maintenance Contributed to the nMuusuon of rhe pipe. In this case the City was found [table because it did not uumtam or deiefop a plan to in. .reale the sewer's capability when the load was mcreased, Council Agenda 10/15/85 14. Consideration of the Construction of a Portion or all of the ;Q Interceptor Sever. (J.S.) 1� A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND For the past several years, the construction of an interceptor sewer running west to east through our community has been a topic during many discussions. I personally became aware of the need for the interceptor sewer in 1979 when problems arose at the lift station in Bridge Park. A significant portion of our community comes into this lift station. Much of the flow coming into this lift station comes down Front Street through a ten inch diameter sewer. Other portions of the flow come directly into the lift station from Highway 25 at the intersection of River Street. In 1983, we were able to take a substantial load off this lift station by diverting Wrightco around the lift station directly to the East River Street trunk sewer. We were not, however, able to reduce the loading on this preexisting ten inch line located on Front Street. The City staff performed a small amount of flow testing on this line during the winter 1982-1983. it was determined at this time that the ten inch line had a maximum flow capacity of approximately 510-520 gallons per minute, before it would operate in a surcharged condition. In this particular area, operating in a surcharge condition could mean back up of sewer into the residences along Front Street as wall as the potential for other related problems. We determined during the winter of 1982-1983, that the lino was flowing a maximum of 338 gallons per minute, or about 66% of its maximum flow capacity. We did not take into account increased flow during the spring and early summer months which could have shot this higher. We know at that time, however, that the interceptor Bawer would have to become a reality to alleviate this condition. To got things started in 1984. I suggested that we begin work on the interceptor sewer. The Council authorized the installation of that portion of the interceptor newer under Highway 25, and also authorized the staff to begin acquiring casements for the construction of the interceptor sewer east of Highway 25. To alleviate soma of the financial problems, I thought it might be bast to do the intorcoptor sewer over s period of two years doing approximately one-half of it at o time. This also began to appear feasible no the Wilbur Eck property has a possibility of being developed and the interceptor newer would servo this property. During recent budget meetings I learned that there was discussion among the Council about delaying the installation of the interceptor sewer to a point to whore it could be funded through Ad Valorem taxon rather than a Bond issue, this may moan delaying the interceptor sower installation until it could all be put in or money could be saved. It became more clear to me that there was a possibility C that the Council may not have a total group of the problem down on Front Street. Council Agenda 10/15/85 I, therefore, did some additional research here and will attempt to give some additional insight into the actual need for the interceptor sewer. Since a great deal of time had passed since our original investigation of the flows in that line on front street, I asked Gary Anderson to look up the amount of building permits issued for residences and commercial establishments in an area from which the sewage flows into the Front Street sewer. If one can comprehend the immenseness of this area, one can see the magnitude of the problem developing on Front Street. Everything on Lauring Lane west of Wright Street flows down through Front Street. Everything lyingnorth of I-94 and west of Highway 25 (except the downtown area) also flows into Front Street. As stated earlier, the Wrightco Products Co. and that area immediately surrounding Wrightco does not go into the lift station or into Front Street. Gary's report as to the number of unite is enclosed for your review. I personally was quite surprised at the amount of development which has taken place in this area. By referring to the list, just come of the highlights aro 72 single family homes, 7 duplexes, 2 fourploxes, 2 eight -unit townhousca, and, of course„ the, now 32 unit Americ Inn Metol. The list goes on. On Friday, October 4, the City staff took some flow measurements in the ton inch lino on Front Street to determine what affect these additional building unite add on the flow. We found that the flow rate at mid-aftornoon was approximately 430 gallons par minute, or approximately 80% of our designed flow. This design flow, as I stated, is a condition which we fool the oxiating 25 year old lino can handle without being surcharged. In order to determine what the flow in this line may have boon on other days, we correlated come of the figures at the Wastewater Treatment Plant during this period and found that we had approximately 530 gallons per minute of wastewater coming into the Wastewater Treatment Plant shortly after the time frame we tested the Front Street sower. This moans that approximately 801 of the flow into the Wastewater Treatment Plant is coming down the Front Street sower. Using thin figure of 801, it is possible to assume that when the Treatment Plant is receiving 840 gallons or more per minute, there is a possibility that the Front Street sower could be overloaded or in a'aurchargod condition. It would take extensive study to determine the actual times that this has occurred. For our purposes we went back in to the Wastewater Treatment Plant records and found that the months of January through July were the most critical in that we had anywhere from 5-21 days per month during which a surcharged condition could have existed in the Front Street sower for a half-hour or more. M Council Agenda 10/15/85 Searing the above information in mind, it appears that the need for the interceptor sever has grown over the past few years. It is conceivable that we could begin having problems in the near future if something isn't done to alleviate this condition. The interceptor sever is a planned project to alleviate this condition. The completion of the interceptor sewer from Washington Street to Elm Street would remove a significant amount of the flow off the Front Street sewer. Short of the completion of the entire interceptor cower, completion of the sower from Lynn and Minnesota Streets on the west aide of Highway 25 to Washington Street would alleviate some pressure and allow for some additional growth to occur. If we do not alleviate the pressure and the condition worsens, we could be faced with emergency measures. Those emergency measures could be bypass pumping or the installation of the interceptor sower under emergency conditions which can be costly, or the rationing of water in this community. The usage of wastewater Is not such an exact Science that I can predict when the overloading of the Front Street sower will reach the critical moment. It is safe to say, however, that in the last three years that critical moment has grown ever closer. We have given some rough figures as to the cost of the interceptor sower east of Highway 25, this cost including engineering cost and contingencies is estimated at $400,000.00. To build portion of the interceptor savor on the wast aide Clanother i of Highway 25, wont down 5 1/2 Street then south down Lynn Street to 6th Street would coot approximately an additional $180,000.00. This does not include the cost of upgrading 5 1/2 Street. This coat including pavement and concrete curb and gutter could run from $20-25,000.00 per block. 0. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS I. To build approximately 701 of the interceptor cower to alleviate part of the problem on tho Front Street cower, this would also facilitate the development of the Wilbur Eck property. To this alternative, one could attach the upgrading of 5 1/2 Streator just the replacement of the axiating syrfaco The project could be bid no early as February with conatruction completed in 1986. Funding, of course, would havo to be through a bond issue. 2. Build the complete interceptor cower from Washington to Elm Street. This could include tho reconstruction of a Chestnut Strout lift station with its discharge into the interceptor savor or this part of the project could be delayed a year. Currently I have no coat ontimatae of the total project coat, but it would probably be in tho area $1,000,000.00+. Council Agenda 10/15/85 3. Put off the construction of the interceptor sewer until some time in the future. I do not believe, however, that r.- this would be in the best interest of the City It appears that this is an easy thing to put off and forget about for another year. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that you consider alternative number one as the minimum requirement for this project. The City has been planning to install this interceptor sewer for years. The residents on Front Street have been told many times that the interceptor sewer is a priority and will be constructed in the near future. I got calls from various residents along Front Street periodically and have kept those who called abreast of the situation. I will notify them of Tuesday evening's meeting. I believe I have pretty. well covered the subject and my opinions on it. If there are any additional questions, please contact me before Tuesday evening's meeting, as I will not be present at the meeting. D. SUPPORTING DATA Map showing area of influence of Front Street sewer. Gary Andorson'a report on building construction in the area the last 2 1/2 years. C o/, •1' ••u�.1._' .: '-• •�' �y�„ nkat -�Jj! r� A: ItA Totale June 1, 1982 to September 30, 1985 By Gary Anderson 1. 72 Homes 2. 7 Duplexes 3. 2 4Plexes 4. 2 8 Unit Townhouse 5. 1 10 Unit Upstairs Apartments 6. 2 12 Unit Apartment 7. 1 24 Unit Apartment (Wieber) 8. 1 Motel 9. 2 Banks 10. 1 Professional Office Building 11. 1 Cafe with 5 Apartments 12. 1 Fast Food Restaurant 13. 1 Fabric Shop/Barbarahop 14. 1 Go-cart 15. 1 Mini Mall 16. 1 Fire Station Council Agenda - 10/15/85 T 15. Consideration of a Request for a Conditional Use Allowing �I a Day Care Center - Applicant, NRM Partnership. (G.A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND NRM Partnership, a St. Cloud based firm is proposing to construct a 46 foot by 64 foot, 2,944 square foot day—care center. The proposed location of the day-care center is in the new Victoria Square Addition. Building as proposed meets the minimum setback requirements in B-2 Zoning and also meets the minimum parking spaces as required in the parking ordinance. The proposed parking area does allow for future expansion. The proposed day-care center will be a learning center for children. The entire area around the proposed day-care center will be fenced in with a playground to the rear of the property. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1• To approve the conditional use request to allow a day-care center in a 0-2 (limited business) Zone. 2. To deny the conditional use request to 4110. d day-care canter in a B-2 (limited business) Zone. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the conditional use request to allow this day -caro center to be built in rho B-2 (limited business) Zone. This proposed building site, .Like other now building sites, will meet the now proposed landscaping ordinance. we are recommending approval of this conditional use request contingent upon the recording of the Victoria Square Addition with the appropriate foes paid to the City of Monticello. D. SUPPORTING DATA A copy of the proposed location of the conditional use request, and a copy of the cite plan of the conditional use request. L -A 11 X q 4.:: .4 A Con I tional use WX to All"W a day care in 5-2 (lici zbne. Appli�iant: NRM Partn r NO 94 OAK 9 ,35 2 7-71 Council Agenda - 10/15/85 16. Consideration of a Request for a Two Family Dwelling Expansion ^r in an R-2 Zone - Applicant, Ken Larson. (G.A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Mr. Ken Larson appeared before Planning Commission members at our Tuesday night, October 8, Planning Commission meeting. A decision on hie request was duly rendered by Planning Commission members. There decision was to table Mr. Larson's request until sufficient information was submitted to him and presented on a site plan showing where he is proposing to accommodate off-street parking. As of the writing of this supplement, Mr. Larson has been unable to contact all the Planning Commission members which were present at the Tuesday night Planning Commission meeting, to ask for their approval to waive the tabling of their motion in order to have it considered at the Tuesday night City Council meeting. Thin in entirely up to Council members for your decision. If you would like to hear his request, he will be on before you at agenda item #3 for you to consider his conditional use request. If you choose to consider his request, you can then consider it at the and of the meeting agenda. Following is some background in regard to Mr. Larson's request. Mr. Larson ie proposing to build a two story addition onto his existing house. The upper and lower units of this addition will accommodate additional rental units. In R-2 Zoning, single and two family dwellings are allowable uses, but with Mr. Larson's existing house plus the proposed two unite would necessitate a conditional use request. Mr. Larson's prop000d lot does exceed the minimum lot area requirement, and also, does moot the minimum setback requirements. The problem in which Planning Commission members had some question with was whore he was going to place his off-street parking. On his site plan on submitted at the Planning Commission mooting, he did not show where the off-atreat parking would be. Ito has, since then, submitted a now site plan showing proposed off-street parking and has mot with staff to consider the staff's opinion of this propocod off-street parking, before inquiring as to which other route he could go. His proposed off-street parking plan does moot the minimum requirements of our off-street parking section of our ordinance. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTION 1. To acknowledge the Planning Commiooion'a action of tabling Mr. Larson'a conditional use request and to consider approval of a conditional use request to allow a duplex addition to be built onto hie existing house. 2. Acknowledge the Planning Commiooion'a action of tabling Mr. Larson'a conditional use roquoot and to deny Mr. Laroon'o conditional use request to allow a duplex addition to be built onto hio existing house. C Council Agenda - 10/15/85 3. To send Mr. Larson's conditional use request back to Planning Commission meeting to be held on November 13, 1985, at 7:30 P.M. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Follow proper procedure for the Planning Commission's actions on tabling Mr. Larson's request, by procedure the Council should deny hearing Mr. Larson's request and send it back to Planning Commission members for their review at their next Planning Commission meeting. we do however look at the applicant's request in the timetable in which he is in with approaching winter construction Ln that he has met with City staff and come up with a off-street parking proposal to his proposed conditional use request, you could choose to acknowledge the Planning Commission members' concern for tabling the matter but also, hear Mr. Larson's request to consider a motion for approval of hie conditional use request to allow him to put the duplex addition onto his existing house. D. SUPPORTING DATA A copy of the location of the proposed conditional use request, and a copy of the sito plan depleting the proposed duplex addition onto the existing house with all off-otroat parking apace as indicated. C 930 R to 6. Goma.GTA 4 tion . 441 on tsA %of, aA IT orlto 93s-OSAIL. it W,Cl � 61 IL LI NO. 94 f i'I;• :•iI..IE?1,.. ' I �I�?'C.PLAN 0.1 I'AOORE99 - . NC;J •' i f • N •''J �,QP.� • PERMIT WF®ER GAL •RIPTION ;iWTC.,•�/it/��y• ""• .I BLOOt ADDITIONI�C!/O.////.i/fi•P17 n.. . so. rY. or 3 T AREA ,�I'• I'V /1 SO 90. rt. Of AREA OCCIPIED BY BUILDING INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICANT IN" ro"m N((o HOT It ODEo NMCN PLOT PLANS DRAWN To SCALE AMC rILCO WITH THE PERMIT APPLICATION. •OR MCV 011 IN03. PROV IOL THE rOLLOVING INrONCNAT 10M1 LOCATION 0/ PROPO3C0 CONSTRUCTION .ENO Lut3TINO IA+P ROV (N C NT3. 3NOV 3UILDINO DIT( AMO DCT.ACR DI MEN310NS. -INC' CA3HCNT7. rIMISH CONTOURS OR ORAINAOC. •'I RST /IOOA CL(V A110N7. 9TRCCT Le AIIOM AND 3CVCR ELEVATION- SNOW LOCATION Or VATCR. 3CVCR. CAS. %NO ELECTRICAL 3CRVICI LINCO. 3MOV LOCATIONS or 3URVCT /INS. S►CCl/Y INC U3C Or CACH pY1LD1 NC -NO CACN MAJOR ►ORTION TMCRLOr. INOICATEwH EA CIRCLE NORTH INCIRCLE CGRAPH SCWRE EQUALS 10BY 101-0- 1--0' Ie£S 1`3;1E Pnces /u :5ee®mmmmmmmLEMON ®m�'l1 ®Iot��er��er:nr. �I,���e7�. • IIWa CRni Ihat IM Yapbla0 gnnru ctR^ R -II �nlpm 19 tM d1~14RI Iaa U,50Wo,un abwe AM that ata Cnaryat,A,ll ba nwaR w Ima-t — IVllablai tiaOe1w11,. •RaaRaaRaRaaaaRaRlaaaa.Raaaf✓RaIRRaa�aRRRRRRRRRI.RaR.R.Ra�a...RRa RRRRRaaa a....RA.R..R....... R.RIR.R RaA..RR (/OR CI TV YI( e1 L; IL-NED N►RDVCD OT' DATE