City Council Agenda Packet 11-25-1985AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Monday, November 25, 1985 - 7:30 p.m.
Mayor: Arve A. Grimsmo
Council Members: Fran Fair, Bill Fair. Jack Maxwell, Dan Blonig en.
1. Call to Order.
2. Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting Held November 12, 1985.
3. Citizens Comments/Petitions, Requests, and Complaints.
Public Hearings
C. Public Hearing on Modification 02 to the Central Monticello
Redevelopment Project and Plan.
5. Public Hearing on Establishing Tax Increment District 07.
6. Public Hearing - Proposed Amendments to the Monticello Zoning
Ordinance.
Old Business
7. Consideration of Adoption of Revised Zoning Ordinance.
8. Consideration of Approving a Concept Plan for Replotting and
Rezoning The Meadows - Applicant, John Sandberg.
9. Coneidoration of Roopreading Special Aesoeamonto in The Meadows -
Applicant, John Sandberg.
10. Review of water System Analysis and Consideration of improvements.
11. Report from Councilmembor Bill Fair on City Hall Reroofing
Issue .
12. Conoidoration of Change Order Request for Monticello Firs
Ilall.
Now Busirseas
13. Conaidoration of Executing a Contract for Lav Enforcement
Sorvicoo with Wright County Sheriff's Department.
1/. Conoidoration of a Motion to Cancol the Second Regularly Scheduled
Council Mooting in the Month of December.
15. Conoidoration of Dills for the Month of Novombor.
16. Adjournment.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, November 12, 1985 - 7:30 p.m.
Members Present: Arve Crimson, Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Jack Maxwell,
Dan Blonigen.
Members Absent: None.
2. Approval of Minutes.
Motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Bill'Fair, to approve the
minutes of the regular meeting held October 28, 1985. Voting in
favor was Arve Grimsmo, Bill Fair, Jack Maxwell, Dan Blonigen.
Fran Fair abstained due to her absence at the last meeting.
G. Consideration of Adopting a Tax Increment Finance Plan and District
Approval - Raindance Properties.
Atthe previous Council meeting, a public hearing was hold on the proposed
adoption of a Tax Increment Finance Plan for Raindanco Properties to
construct a 33,000 sq. ft. retail center on Block 15. No comments
were heard from the public; and since that time, the HRA and the developer
have met and agreed to execute a development agreement which stipulates
that in any year that the tax increment falls short of the required
payment on the bonds for this project, the developers will pay to the
HRA an amount sufficient to make the necessary payment as that a tax
levy in not necessary by the City.
Gas Voit, representing Raindanco Proportion, appeared before the Council
to affirm the developer's agreement with the HRA and also noted that
as part of the agreement, Raindanco Proportion will give 12 months'
effort toward finding an occupant to fill the vacancy of the old Maus
Foods Store. It was noted that if an occupant is not able to be found
during the 12 months, Raindance Properties will Contribute $16,250.00
to the HRA to help the City entice a now tenant for the vacated Maus
Foods Store.
An part of the Tax Increment Finance Plan, the City will Boll Tax Increment
Bonds in the amount of 5350,000.00 and use the proceeds to acquire
Block 15 for $229,000.00 and construct Sixth Street from Highway 25
to Coder Street. The HRA shall than Bell the land to Raindanco Properties
for the oum of 562,000.00, at which time tho developer will make the
site and soil corrections and construct the building with full parking
facilities and landscaping.
Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Bill Fair, and unanimously
carried to adopt Resolution 1985 023 establishing Tax Increment Financo
District 46 and Financing Plan for said District.
ME
C
Council Minutes - 11/12/85
Motion was also made by Bill Fair, seconded by Dan Blonigen, and
unanimously carried to adopt Resolution 1985 #24 requesting the
County Auditor certify the original assessed value of the property
within the Tax Increment District q6.
5. Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing the Sale of Tax Increment
Finance Bonds - Raindance Properties Project.
Mr. Jerry Shannon of Springsted, Inc., the City's Fiscal Consultants,
reviewed with the Council the proposed Tax Increment Bond sale
in the amount of S350,000-00 to finance the Raindance Properties
Project. Mr. Shannon no ted that the bond sale amount included
capitalized interest to cover the bond payments due until the
year 1988, at which time the tax increments from the project should
be sufficient to cover all debt payments. It was recommended
that the sale of the bonds take place on December 9 at 12:00 noon,
with the possible awarding of the sale at the Council meeting
that evening. December 9, 7:30 p.m.
Motion was made by Maxwe 11, seconded by Bill Fair, and unanimously
carried to adopt a resolution authorizing the sale of Tax Increment
Bonds in the amount of $350,000.00 for the Raindanco Properties
Project. See Resolution 1985 #25.
6. Consideration of Making Final Payment to Greg Vetsch Construction
for City Hall Raroofinq.
Recently, the City Attorney has been negotiating with the City
Holl roofing contractor's attorney in an effort to resolve damage
that has occurred at City Hall during the roofing project and
the final payment due the contractor for the roofing project.
It is the recommendation of the City Attorney that a roprosentativo
of the City Council be appointed along with the City Administrator
to negotiate directly with Mr. Greg votach, the roofing contractor,
and hie attorney ragardi ng a final settlement.
Although it is uncertain at this time whether the City will recover
any damages or whether the final payment for the labor contractor
will be made, a motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Maxwell,
and unanimously carried to appoint Councilmombar Bill Fair as
the representative of the City Council to moat with the City Administrator
and Mr. Votach to nagotiato soma typo of Battlement and to report
back to the Council on their rocommandationo to resolve the matter.
7. Consideration of Waivin q 30-dav waitinq Period for Issuance of
Bingo License - Legion Club.
The American Legion Club has applied to the State Charitable Gambling
Board for a license to conduct bingo operations at the Legion
Club to be manned by tho Legion Softball members.
�2.
IN
A
Council Minutes - 11/12/85
The State Charitable Gambling Board has indicated that the license
request would be granted provided the City Council does not have
any objections to the issuance of the license and agrees to waive
its 30 -day waiting period.
Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Sloniqen, and unanimously
carried to authorize a letter to be written to the Charitable
Gambling Board indicating no opposition to the Bingo License application
submitted by the Legion Club.
8. Consideration of Resolution Setting a Public Hearing on Redevelopment
Plan Modification, Tax Increment District 02 Modification, and
the Proposed Tax Increment District 47.
Recently, the HRA passed a resolution to modify the Redevelopment
Plan area to include Blocks 38 and 39 of Lower Monticello, along
with an unplatted area consisting of the former Rand Mansion and
Little Mountain Settlement property. The main purpose of the
redevelopment area modification was to include the property now
consisting of the Nursing Home into the redevelopment area to
allow for possible Tax Increment District to be entablished for
the Nursing Homo property an a proposal for developing the Nursing
Home into an intermediate care rental building consisting of 25
ono-bodroom units for elderly people in the age range of 75-85
years old.
The Monticello HRA, as part of the modification approval, requested
that the City Council hold a public hearing on November 25, 1985,
to consider this expansion of the Redevelopment Plan.
Motion was made by sill Fair, seconded by Fran Fair, and unanimously
carried to adopt a resolution Dotting a public hearing regarding
the modification of the existing redevelopment project area and
public hearing for proposed Tax Increment Finance District 07
for the Nursing Homo Project on Monday, November 25, 1985. Sao
Resolution 1985 026.
Also, the HRA recently approved a modification to Tax Increment
District 02 tMetcalf & Larson Project) which would onlargo the
district to include additional parcels of property in Blocks 50
and 51 in the City of Monticello. The enlarged area mooto all
of the state requirements and consists of some blighted land and
buildings. The proposed modification of District 02 would provide
an added incentive for future HRA projects within the District.
Motion was mad* by Sionigon, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously
carried to adopt a resolution Dotting November 25 as the data
for a public hearing to consider modifying District 02 to include
the additional percale of land. Sao Resolution 1985 027.
ME
v
Council Minutes - 11/12/85
9. Consideration of Setting a Special Meeting to Discuss Salary Negotiations
and Policy.
Previously, the City Council has met during November or early
December to determine salary negotiations for all non-union personnel
for the upcoming year.
Currently, the City of Monticello is involved in a comparable
worth study which is reviewing all City positions, which is expected
to be completed in the near future. The completed study may indicate
that some salary adjustments between different classifications
of eeployees may be nec essary,to meet the State mandated comparable
worth laws. As a result, it was the general consensus of the
Council that salary negotiations for 1986 be discussed by the
Council after the comparable worth study is completed to avoid
duplication of efforts. It was noted that any salary adjustments,
if made, would be retroactive to January 1, 1986.
10. Consideration of Acquiring Lot 1, Block 12 (Fire Hall Site).
The now City Hall Fire site consists of Lots 2-5, Block 12, which
was purchased in Docembor of 1984 from Mr. Jean Brouillard. The
remaining lot within that block is Lot 1, which is divided into
two parcels and owned by two separate individuals. Although Lots 2-5
were sufficient for the Fire Hall project, the two owners of Lot 1
have indicated a willingness to sell their property to the City
1 if the City was interes tad. The north half of Lot 1 contains
a tin ahed, and the asking price was $12,500.00. The south half
consists of a small home, and the owner estimated the value at
approximately $38,000.00.
It wan the general consensus of the Council that the asking prices
appeared to be quite high and that at the present time, the City
was not in need of additional land at the Fire Hall site and directed
the staff not to pursue any further negotiations at this time
regarding purchase.
11. Consideration of a Conditional Use Request to Allow a Duplex Addition
to an Existing House - Applicant, Ken Larson.
Mr. Ken Larson requested a conditional use permit to allow for
the construction of a duplex addition to his oxicting home in
Block 32, located at the intornection of Third Street and Washington
Street. The Planning Commission hold a public hearing on the
conditional use request and received a number of comments from
abutting property ownors opposing the proposed duplex duo to traffic
congestion that will occur and because of the proaant business
use being conducted at the property concioting of a carpet oaloo
showroom.
An a.rosult of the existing non -conforming businona use being
conducted at the property, it wan the racommondation of the Planning
Commission that tho dupiox addition be denied.
-a-
0
Council Minutes - 11/12/85
Mr. Larson appeared before the Council requesting that the conditional
use permit be allowed, as he felt he is supplying all of the needed
off-street parking requirements of the City Ordinance. The Council
reviewed the site plan and City Ordinances and noted that at least
one enclosed parking space would be required for the duplex to
be allowed. Mr. Larson noted that he has currently a 3 -car garage
and that one space would be available as required by City Ordinances
for the duplex parking requirements. The Council also, in response
to neighbors objections, indicated that if the permit was granted,
screening of the parking lot areas would have to be provided consisting
of trees and/or fencing to meet City Ordinances.
After further review and discussion, motion was made by Bill Fair,
seconded by Fran Fair, and unanimously carried to approve the
conditional use permit to allow for the duplex addition provided
all conditions of the Zoning Ordinance are met regarding the conditional
use request and that the two following additional restrictions
apply:
1. That screening consisting of plantings and/or fencing
shall be constructed on the west and south sides of the
outdoor parking areas.
2. That two stalls of the garage would have to be permanently
open and available for parking at all times for occupants
of the dwelling and could not be used for carpet storage
or sales.
12. Consideration of a Conditional Use ReQUeat to Allow open and Outdoor
Storage and Rental Etjuipment in a B-3 (Highway Business) Zone -
Applicant, Suburban Gas.
This item was withdrawn from the agenda as a result of the request
being tabled by the Planning Commiaaion for lack of complete information.
If the item is reconsidered by the Planning Commission at a future
data, the request will then be considered by the Council.
13. Consideration of a Roaueot for Rozoninq and Preliminary Plat Approval -
Applicant. John Sandberg.
Mr. John Sandberg had proposed to rezone and roplat portiono of
the existing blocks and lots in the Meadows Addition. since the
Planning Commission had not completed its review of the project
and had not taken formal action on the proposal, a motion was
made by Bill Fair, seconded by Dan Blonigon, and unanimously carried
to table this Stam until a future Council meeting to allow for
written comments and background to be presented from the staff
and to allow for Planning Commiaoion comments to be reviewed.
-5-
v
Council Minutes - 11/12/85
( 14. Additional Quarterly Department Reports.
,A., -
Sergeant Don Lindell of the Wright County Sheriff's Department;
Mike Melstad, representing the YMCA; and Karen Hanson, Sr. Citizen
Center Director, appeared before the Council to review quarterly
department reports.
15. Consideration of Gambling License - Cystic Fibrosis Society.
City Administrator informed the Council that the Cystic Fibrosis
Society of Minneapolis has applied for a Claes B Gambling License
from the State to allow raffles, etc., to be conducted at Charlie's
West in Monticello. The State Gambling Board allows city councils
to supply comments regarding the license applications before issuance.
Concerns were expressed by the Council members over organizations
from outside of Monticello having gambling licenses and felt that
approving this license would not be in the best interest of the
City.
An a result, motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Blonigen,
to adopt a resolution recommending to the State Gambling Board
that this application be denied. Voting in favor was Maxwell.
Blonigon, and Grimsmo. Opposed was Bill Fair and Fran Fair.
Sao Resolution 1985 #28.
Rick Wolfetell of
Assistant Admi latracor
C
-6-
O
Council Agenda - 11/25/85
4. Public Hearing on Modification #2 to the Central Monticello Redevelopment
CL Project and Plan. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
The Central Monticello Redevelopment Project is the empowering
district created by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority where-
in the City may utilize tax increment financing to achieve its
redevelopment goals and objectives. The original boundary was
established in the fall of 1982. The boundary was established
at that time based on the findings of fact of the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority and the City Council. This empowering
district is created under Minnesota Statutes 462. The major objectives
of creating such an empowering district is toeliminate blight
or blighting conditions, to arrest deteriorating development,
to coordinate compatible land uses, and to assist with the development
and redevelopment of economically obsolete lands and uses.
The impetus for generating modification b2 is the interest expressed
by John Bergetad in converting the existing Monticello -Big Lake
Nursing Home upon its discontinuance as a nursing home. The block
where the nursing home is situated had boon excluded from the
empowering district in the original drawing. As noted at the
last meeting, the HRA is investigating utilizing tax increment
financing to assist Mr. Bargstad in hie efforts to convert this
/t structure. The hearing on the tax increment finance plan follows
this hearing. It should also be noted that Mr. Bergetad had not
W conclusively decided to use tax increment financing, but the next
hearing is being hold in ordor to keep that option open.
With respect to the empowering district than, if the HRA is to
use tax increment financing for Mr. Borgatod'e project, the property
in question must be included in the empowering district. In essence,
it moans expanding the boundaries to incorporate blocks 38 and 39
of lower Monticello. If Mr. Borgstad elects not to use tax increment
financing, the City has neither gained nor loot by including those
blocks into the empowering district.
It in my opinion that the nursing home conversion is one of the
boot examploo we have soon for utilizing the powers granted in
Minnesota Statutes 462. The abandonment of the nursing home as
a nursing home, in oaaanco, makes this structure "functionally
obsolete". Any assistance which can be generated to help implement
thio project will be beneficial to the community overall.
After the close of the hearing, the Council will be asked to adopt
a resolution modifying the Central Monticello Redevelopment Project.
For your information: Modification 01 was dons in conjunction
with the Fulfillment Syatoma Project, and did not involve boundary
changes. Rather, the attornoye felt it was essential to opocify
Iota 6, 7 and 8 in Lauring Hillside Addition as selected for acquisition
and roaalo for industrial uaoa. In tho original redevelopment
i project plan, we did not opocifically oito those three Iota.
fM
L
I
Council Agenda - 11/25/85
Consequently, this is proposed modification q2, but it is the
first boundary modification to the district.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Adopt the resolution modifying the redevelopment project plan -
this will include blocks 38 and 39 of Lover Monticello in
the empowering district. This will generate the option to
utilize tax increment financing, but does not require its
use.
2. Do not adopt the resolution - this will leave blocks 38 and 39
excluded from the empowering district, and will preclude the
use of any of the HRA -s powers.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the resolution adopting modification 02
to the Central Monticello Redevelopment Project Plan be passed.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
Copy of the resolution, copy of a map indicating the existing
redevelopment project and the area proposed for inclusion.
-2-
' b
CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROTECT
AREA (as Modified)
l._./' ,�, ./• F /4 PARCELS ADDED BY: J
/// .: //• MODIFICATION NUMBER TWO
/.. /
7�i/
444
1 `,+
CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
Modification No. Two
Dated. 12 November, 1965
Pursuant to M.S. 462.521 Subdivision 6, it is hereby found to be in
the public interest to modify the Central Monticello Redevelopment Plan,
dated 23 November, 1982, by extending the boundaries to include Blocks
38 and 39, Lover Monticello. It is further found to be beneficial to
achieving the goals and objectives as stated in the original to designate
additional lands as suitable for "conditional" acquisition. Lands suitable
for "conditional" acquisition are those lands within the Redevelopment
Project Area which shall be found to be unfeasible to develop but for
the intervention of the Authority. Such lands suitable for "conditional"
acquisition are shown on attached Exhibit A.
As modified, the boundary description (page 2) shall read as follows:
B. BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION
Commencing at the northwesterly corner of Lot 15, Block 50, Original
Plat, City of Monticello, thence southeasterly along the southerly right-of-way
line of River Street to the northeasterly corner of Lot it, Block 53,
Original Plat, City of Monticello;
Thence in a southwesterly direction along the westerly right-of-way D
line of Cedar Street to the southeasterly corner of Lot 5, Block 33,
Original Plat;
Thence in a southeasterly direction along the northerly right-of-way line
of Fourth S troot to the northeasterly corner of Lot 6, Block 39, Lower
Monticello;
Thence in a southwesterly direction along the westerly right-of-way
lino of Washington Street to the northoaotorly corner of Lot 4, Block 42,
Lower Monticello;
Thence in an oanterly direction 166 fact along the northerly right-of-vay
lino of the Burlington Northern Railway;
Thence duo a ouch along the easterly right-of-way line of Old Copeland
Road to a point whore the northerly right-of-way lino of Interstate 94
and the easterly right-of-way lino of Old Copeland Road intersect;
Thence southwastarly across Intarotato 94 to the northeast corner of
Lot 6, Block 1, Oakwood Industrial Park;
Thence south along the wont line of the right-of-way of Industrial Drive
to the eoutheaot corner of Lot 7, Block 3, Oakwood Industrial Park;
Thence west along the corporate limits of the City of Monticello to
the easterly right-of-way lino of Trunk Highway 25;
Thence northeasterly following tho easterly right-of-way Sine of Trunk
Highway 25 to the southwootorly corner of Lot 1, Block 15, Original
Plat;
9
Thence in a northwesterly direction to the southeasterly corner of Lot 4, j
Block 14, original Plat;
Thence in a northwesterly direction along the northerly right-of-way
line of 6th Street to the southwesterly corner of Lot 1, Block 12, original Plat;
Thence in a northeasterly direction along the easterly right-of-way
line of Linn Street to point of beginning.
RESOLUTION 1985 0
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING MODIFICATION NO. 2 TO
THE CENTRAL 14ONTICELLO REDEVEL4DPME^1T PROJECT
T
/T PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF MINNESOTA
STATUTES, SECTION 462.411 at 2M. AND ADOPTION
OF MODIFICATION NO. 2 OF THE MONTICELLO
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY HE—
DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Monticello has
hold a public hearing to receive input regarding the Monticello
Redevelopment Plan Modification No. 2; and
WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the
City of Monticello by Resolution has requested approval of the
Monticello Redevelopment Plan Modification No. 2; and
` WHEREAS, the City Council has received a finding from the
City of Monticello Planning Commission that the Monticello Redevelopment
Plan Modification No. 2 is in conformance with the City -e Comprehensive Pian.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Monticello finds
that the redevelopment project described in said Redevelopment
Plan dated November 17, 1985, contains blighted and deteriorated
areas as defined in the Minnesota Municipal Housing and Redevelopment
Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.421, Subdivision 13 and constitutes
a blightinginfluence and contributes to the de toriorating physical
character of these areas in the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Monticello finds
said redevelopment plan and project modification will carry out
the purpose and policy of the Minnesota Municipal Housing and
Redevelopment Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.411 to 462.715
as oat forth in Section 462.415 and in the Congressional Declaration
of National Housing Policy contained in the Housing Act of 1949
as amended; and
WHEREAS, the City Concil of the City of Monticello finds
that the designated redevelopment project area in the locality
will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with tho sound need*
of the locality as a whole, for the development and redevelopment
of such areas by private enterprise; and
NOW, THEREFORE, 8E IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Monticello finds: (1) that the redevelopment plan
conformo to a ganaral plan for the development of the locality
an a whole, and said plan: (i) will afford maximum opportunity,
consistent with the sound needs of the locality as a whole, for
redevelopment by private enterprise; (ii) conforms to a general
plan for the locality an a whole; and (iii) that tho plan for
relocation of individuals and businesses displaced, if any, in
carrying out tho project is feasible and can be reasonably and
timely affected to permit the proper execution and completion
Lof the redevelopment proposals; and
0
Resolution 1985 1!
Page Two
(2) that the City Council of the City of Monticello
does hereby approve Modification No. 2 to the Central Monticello
Redevelopment Plan, dated November 7, 1985.
Adopted this 25th day of November, 1985.
Arve Grimsmo, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas A. Eiden
City Administrator
Council Agenda - 11/25/85
`r
5. Public Hearing on Establishing Tax Increment District 07. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As noted at the last meeting, this request for tax increment financing
may be withdrawn. To date, Mr. Bergstad has not made his final
determination. If this request remains active, we will have to
supply you with all pertinent documentation on Monday. If it
is to be withdrawn, we will advise you as such prior to the meeting.
T
7
Council Agenda - 11/25/85
6, Public Hearing - Proposed Amendments to the Monticello Zoning
Vii Ordinance. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
This is the public hearing that is required to be held by the
City Council under Minnesota Statutes 462. The public informational
meetings that have been held on two occasions in the past, did
not meet the statutory requirements since they were primarily
administrative hearings. This is the hearing that is required.
Minnesota Statutes 462 allows for this hearing to be held in front
of either the Planning Commission or the City Council. I have
elected, based on the posture taken by the Council as we have
moved through this process, to act the hearing directly in front
of the City Council. It is obvious that this is a contraversial
issue. AS such, I felt that holding the hearing in front of the
Planning Commission would do little to alleviate the need for
a hearing before the Council. As an advisory body, the Planning
Commission can only recommend to the City Council the adoption
or rejection of the proposed ordinance. It has been my assumption
that oven if the Planning Commiasion held the hearing and then
recommended the ordinance adoption, the members of the public
would still attend the meeting of the City Council and request
to be heard. Thio,of courso,is logical since it is the City Council
who must make the ultimate decision on adoption. Hance, I opted
to set the hearing before the City Council so that they may receive
public commant firothand prior to making their decision. At the
November 12 mooting of the Planning Commission, the Commissioners
adopted the zoning ordinance and recommended passage by the City
Council.
I have available an outline of the proceedings of the public informational
meetings that were hold over the Summer, and I have the written
commonte on file. Rather than copy all of this information, planes
be advised that this is available to you at any time if you wish
to review or refresh your memories from those hearings. I realize
that all of you attended one or the other or both of those informational
meetings and are aware of the concerns that had boon expressed.
Through this entire process. I have attempted to keep the Council
apprised of all judgements and rationale, and have attempted to
keep the public wholly informed of our decision making process.
While this ordinance can not possibly satisfy everyone, I believe
It addresses those issues that have boon of concern to staff,
Planning Commission and City Council. I also believe that it
will land itself to the City accomplishing the goals and objectives
as laid out in the comprehensive plan.
I will not write a second agenda supplement for the adoption of
the zoning ordinance. Adoption of the zoning ordinance, according
to Minnesota Statutes, requires a two-thirds (2/3) veto to pass.
Having a five member Council, you can not achieve two-thirds (2/3)
and must instead have a four-fiftha (4/5) passage.
-4-
Council Agenda - 11/25/85
In essence, if there are two dissenting votes the ordinance will
not pass and things will remain the same.
Another situation might also arise. There may be comments which
in the Councils estimation warrants an additional change to either
the map or the text. If the Council wishes to order another revision,
in any form, then the public hearing should be continued to the
December 9th meeting and it should be ordered that further public
notice be given. The rationale behind this action is that an
individual property owner who maybe unaffected by the draft being
considered at this time, and who is not in attendance, may become
affected by the suggested revision, and should be given proper
notice and opportunity to attend the hearing. It is my opinion
that the only exclusion to this process would be the ordering
of typographical corrections. I bolieve I noted it in your original
memo that the text of the ordinance has been proofread twice,
but we aro aware that there are still typographical errors that
need to be corrected before going to final printing.
If, at the conclusion of public comment, the Council Is satisfied
with the text and map as proposed, then action can be taken.
Upon complotion of public comment, the hearing must be formally
closed. Debate on the zoning ordinance amongst the City Council
can then occur. The final action should be the motion and second
to adopt. If the vote does not receive four affirmative votes,
the ordinance does not pace and shall not be adopted. If the
I� motion should fail, and revisions are ordered by the Council,
V�9 than a second public hearing with proper notice will have to be
ordered. Thio, of course, amoumon that the first hearing was
officially closod before any direction was decided upon.
If the motion passes and the zoning ordinance is adopted, it
will take full force and affect upon publication. I am requesting
of the City Council to authorize a ounmary publication of the
zoning ordinance, which itself will probably be a half to a full
page in the newspaper. Summary publication of ordinances aro
now permissible under Minnesota Statute. Preparation of ouch
a summary would take approximately two to throe wookc.
D. ALTEANATZVE ACTIONS
1. Open the hearing, accept cement, close the hearing, adopt
a motion adopting the now zoning ordinance and map - again,
the motion should include an order to publish a summary of
the ordinance am moon am possible and that the now ordinance
will tako affect upon publication.
2. Open the hearing, accept comment, order rovialono to the ordinance,
and continuo the hearing - this action should occur only if
the hoaring has not boon formally closed prior to ordering
the roviciono. The continuation of the hearing should be
not for a specific data (probably December 9) and will require
C,1 added notice.
ZM
C
Council Agenda - 11/25/85
3. Open the hearing, accept comment, close the hearing, order
revisions to the proposed ordinance - this will require a
second formal hearing which, depending on the extent of the
reviaions ordered, could still be hold December 9 with proper public
legal notice being given. If major revisions are ordered
by the Council, it is more likely that the next public hearing
would have to be held on January 13.
4. Open the hearing, accept comment, close the hearing, do not
adopt the ordinance - this will put the matter to rest, and
will keep the City operating under its existing zoning ordinance.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that at the conclusion of the public hearing,
a motion be passed by four-fifths (4/5) vote to adopt the revised
and amended zoning ordinance and map, and to order summary publication
to occur as soon as possible.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
A copy of the zoning text wan provided to you at an earlier time
under separate cover, copies of the map have been published in
the Monticello Times, and are available at City Hall for review,
the entire zoning ordinance review process file is available for
your inapoction (as wall as public inspection) at City Hall. 121
-6-
- Zc�
Yes/,
Testimony of: Michael Erkel
424 East Ri ver St.
Monticello, MN 55362
I wish to state my opposition to the proposed zoning,: change for
the River Street area from R1 to PZ -R1.
1 . If the proposed zoning changes are adopted, there needs to be
an environmental iinpac t study as to cne overal 1 effect, especially
in regards to cutting down toe :raas an,; shrubs along the river.
2. If the proposed zoains cnringas oa adopted, the size and number
of units shoul.: ue reasonaole with no more than four units per
lot.
3. I think it would be nice to nave a few blocks of Monticello
preserved and not developed just for the sake of development.
There already are townhouses with a river view near the River
Plaza area.
4. Architecture should blend with cne surrounding structures. This
very building (City Hall) you are now in, is a n,excellent example
of what you get if thi s principle is not followed.
5. The figures for the overall plan for development of the Monticello
area call for 35% of the proposed construction to be for ,nultiple
habitation dwelling. I believe the ouilding p emits issued so
far for IM for multiple dwelling is 74%. Uo we really need
more apartments and condominiums? Especially on ,fiver Screec?
6. I think there is a conflict of interest with council members
voting for tnese proposed zoning changes in areas where they
own property. Those weinbers should abstain from voting in
tnese matters to avoid possiole future litigation.
Lastly, the spirit of the Wild and Scenic River Act was to preserve
a diminishing natural resource. I nope that the wembers of cne council
will also consider this before they vote. Once the area is destroyed
with tree removal and large ouildings are put in their place, it
will never again be the same. I am not against progress, but I really
feet we needto preserve sometning for our children and our children's
children.
Thank you.
A
iv f-4.0
Q1
Council Agenda - 11/25/85
j( 8. Consideration of Approving a Concept Plan for Replatting and Re -zoning
`i. The Meadows, Applicant - John Sandberg. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
A formal request for approval of a preliminary plat and re -zoning
appeared on the Planning Commission Agenda and the City Council
Agenda on November 12. The public hearing was held before the
Planning Commission at the same time the City Council was meeting
in its regular session. Substantial opposition from the area
of The Meadows appeared at the Planning Commission hearing to
voice their objection to the proposal. Due to the length of the
hearing, the matter was never passed from the Planning Commission
to the City Council, and the City Council tabled all action.
At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing, one Planning
Commission member had to leave thus leaving the Commission without
a quorum to take action. The matter consequently received neither
approval nor denial.
Mr. Sandberg spoke with me the day following the hearing and expressed
his disappointment in not being able to be heard or to have a
decision rendered by either body. Part of the Planning Commissions
reluctance to act came from a position that more information was
required. I went over that information with Mr. Sandberg on the
day following the hearing. He has now taken the position that
he would like to have his request heard as a concept plan rather
than as a preliminary plat and formal re -zoning request. His
rationale is that to engage an engineer and/or surveyor to prepare
a preliminary plat in the detail I have laid out would be very
expensive. In light of the opposition to hie proposal, he in
attempting to gain a typo of preliminary approval before going
to the expense that we would require him to make to complete the
preliminary plat. I find thio to be a very reasonable request,
and as such have placed him on this agenda. Plaaso be assured
that this is not a preliminary plat review since the preliminary
plat must go back to the Planning Commission at their December
meeting. Mr. Sandberg has indicated that if his proposal moots
with substantial opposition at the Council level, he will more
than likely withdraw the preliminary plat application and proceed
with development as an R-2 Zone. In oananco, he is looking only
for the Councils tendency towards approving or disapproving the
proposal, not a final action. It is simply a matter of economics
in that if it does not appear that the ro-plat and ro-zoning request
will be reviewed favorably, he simply will not spend the money
to propane a plat for later rejection.
It should be noted that Mr. Sandberg approached the City Council
at an earlier time with the general concept as presented hero.
During the zoning informational meetings and at a subsequent City
Council meeting, Mr. Sandberg appeared to request that this area
be re-zonod an part of the overall zoning plan. From a otaffla
perapactiva,we opposed that rezoning unless the plat accurately
reflected R3. The timing not being bonoficial, it was my position
that his re -zoning request should accompany a proliminary plat
and should be considered as a separate Issue from tho overall
zoning ordlnarco revision.
-7-
Council Agenda - 11/25/85
with respect to the requeat,I offer the following comments: The
Qconcept has merit with respect to land use and zoning decisions.
Under the now zoning ordinance The Meadows will be zoned partially
R1, partially R2, and these zones will abut an I2 zone. It is
good planning that allows phasing of zones from less intense uses
to more intense uses. If this ro-zoning were granted, The Meadows
would have 'R1 at its center, it would then have a ring of R2,
and finally R3 before going into the I2 zone. Each zone of more
intense use tends to be a buffer between two uses of even greater
dissimilarity. The major negative factor with this proposal is
the fact that it abuts directly on the rear property lines of
existing single family homes. It would be absolutely essential
to require a major screening, buffering effort to mitigato this
negative impact. The other major negative influence of this project
results from traffic generation and the resulting congestion.
The major mitigative aspect of the development proposal is that
Marvin Elwood Road would be opened as a through street to River
Street allowing traffic circulation. Currently, Pairie Road and
Marvin Elwood Road both dead end in this subdivision. 'In general
then, the concept makes planning sense, but only if the negative
aspects of the development can be minimized. It is the City's
obligation to protect the property rights of those persona abutting
on the project. This concept review should not take on the tone
of a preliminary plat review, but should respond solely to the
land use planning concepts involved in cc -zoning. If the concept D
appears to be reasonable, but requires special attachments to _
any �proposal, I recommend that the Council explicitly state those � requirement.. If the concept does not appear to have merit to
you, than I think it would be beneficial to all parties to clearly
state that so that Mr. Sandberg can got on with whatever alternate
davolopment he may have planned.
Occauao there ware a number of people at the Planning Commission
public hearing, and that we did receive petitions expressing opposition,
I will nand letters to the people attending the public hearing
advising them that this matter will bo on the Council agenda.
This should not be a public hearing, and the floor should not
be opened to the public. That public hearing has boon hold in
front of the Planning Commicoion and formally closed by the Acting
Chair of the Commission. Any further discussion at this time
would be repetitive. The concept review needs to be a puro land
use dociaion, not a neighborhood public opinion poll. I do fool
it is absolutely cocantial,howovor,to notify the concerned property
owners so that they may attend and hoar the rationale, either
for or against, behind Council action. Such awaranosa will allow
them the opportunity to act in the future ac is their right.
0. ALTERNATIVE. ACTIONS
1. Civa goncral approval to the Concept plan, and stipulate specific
areas of concern that need to be addressed in the preliminary
plat. This will allow Mr. Sandberg come reasonable comfort
to incur oubotantial expanse to complato tho preliminary plat
to the satisfaction of staff, consultants, and Planning Commiooion.
Q:In
Council Agenda - 11/25/85
2. Indicate clear opposition to the concept - this will again
1_ allow Mr. Sandberg to proceed in one way or another, presumably
with the alternative development plan.
CI
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff has not formed a recommendation on this particular issue.
It should be noted that based on professional experience, the
concept makes good land use planning sense, provided that the
mitigative aspects have been built in to protect the property
rights of the people currently residing in the area. without
the proper protective measures assigned to the project, the overall
density, traffic congestion, and other negative aspects would
generate more problems than could justify the finding in favor
of rezoning. Please remember that all zoning districts abut on
a differing zoning district, and that the property owners along
those zoning district linea may have concerns. Along ovary zoning
line there is likely to be opposition on the side of the less
intense abutting on the zone with the more intense. In every
such case, the attempts to mitigate the negative aspects are essential
to protecting the property rights of existing residentb and promoting
development within the community.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
Copy of the proposed preliminary plat, copy of the map indicating
proposed zoning changes, copy of my letter to persona registered
at the public hearing.
-9-
\ S
gq>ar \
+ \ \, \
I ~
�!• ...• r• 2 8� ` •rte \ r` \ ,\ \ \ \ \
r t r ?r •�\ \ \•4.r=• \ \
• 3 ,, � w ,'fib 1` > , \ \ O
V r/1�
(2', t0
a �•.r�f \
w 3••«a,:S 7 ` n,�i {'d ` r� +r495 f % ^� 1 �� di� c.�•'a�•• c�d3C
W
i .....,r..•+ '' ' ,fin • `'�'b J ,j 1 i!
10
. ! r•ur9, ; " f + ..o {,1• ? ns•�,i'� /v ayr'
9y4+� �` }�{�'`Q'�wr X �•�'
a'f � r ;y� �� v.°yi• .,,,7's" "� „•y.
1
2 :}% , '�.ttax.a $ �'L q 7 �j` �_ l 4\� .fid rov, r� •d�Y•�� I .
r q
19 c
..w,�� 4.¢ r.a• q $ j'iY' � aia 1
't•��, x.rta �a �'j' E ..w •� •.., 44,` �,ti•, (( ia- � i7 as`L •p x���°;5.. �
x555 l U ' ' �. .F.A4alt, c j %6t+ •4 't:iro'.Ea L _ s9 as _ i s - "' �4e}Jrom~nt 9' -•i.
li / 1,� ji:�l•�1 1�. �• ��+"�� �¢ 4: �' , •ii {tr 'ipxet•pi4la $
'xvu ta.. ao n p, y ( S • �^ ° Jir 7 I4 7, 0>C I e
r aer. L�''S iLYie :..'.'• 5 1"]aj'L � � � •a, •nM � \ yit Y.—.iaao- � $'
9 e3 ,a""d�, ai 3 `G t qyi�� r�'dd r4.n�.. �'� 1^ 'uwry u'r' ' r 'inetr't' ti
•� IS
�.J _ i `r iY.ie i i t l— —�•o ao. L a ua5
10 n Ig n noo"1 1'1ii r •eau r •.e,to1 +' •oeool :IS �' m
$'q $ a 8'a g`q
220 8'qq B 1 $1 8 5
23 i 22 ` r� r ; g = 19 g 10 = p 17 i g 10 q �• i 3 `�
..em' 1 t, . .1 a.._ 05 . t '1 e8 l.. .I W, . _ ..I io so . l 'mora• 5
i; ^i9N n PRAIRIC ..� n j A
`�` iRbIf11G � p •-589'19`22"W 181r,33�� ///�•n,��yx
4), &� •-� ut`Y� �C�� ??tis _.N
/ t
- r
DEV \c�ED � t
ry i
F
to •"''• O °�
' ;an• z � j��yt�. n'
r ,
%1
�• Ar:ER
� ' • � � O.ekn.9'
•�„ a r•'% . r ,,• a ,
sEPr. 1985
TOi Tomfldem (City Administrator) and the Monticello City Council.
This petition contains signatures of people living in the Meadows
area who are opposed to the zoning of R-3 multiple housing in their
neighborhood.
l . �rf vi 1 R n&e2&�
29.
2. 69&&�2/
20,
3.11uS'L4iU_S A
21.
�kUr1(
4. %Yi'.Li .`1!=Clhtn
22.
�'%t.iPOC
24.
26.
•
27.
10.
,
�LS1nL\
29.
)S.��S�;��
3.2 �£
30.
3.3
31.
.g� o � Z: �,.�yt�
,
33•
16. l
34.
lei. fern ,�/&OrM
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
45.
46.
$0.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
19•
54.
S$Ff. 1995
T0, TomEIdem (City Administrator) and the Monticello City Council.
This petition contains signatures of people living in the Meadows
area who are opposed to the zoning of rR-3 multiple housing in their
neighborhood.
37 •
2.tJ._�t(1 M' (.rt. �.: ft, t 20.---,;„.•r,� , �'� /'” 38.
�3 21- 11ji� r •.�.i �it�)V/P�39•
11. t 22. .;ll %� 1Jf 4o.
3.
i-
6. �LI' �,1t1.i, . r�� i'J�•�nr, 42.
<6 10�.
`/y_" • C7.I( �„ ' 7l !,•y+�.2ss�lc`••�•.1,45.
S. C j �- :�S„' 116.
29. t{ .
31.
<3 49.
50.
51.
tjif•tj�L+'—� 311 • 52
LOU
SEPT. 1985
T0: Tom Elden (City Administrator) and the Monticello City Council.
This petition contains signatures of people living in the Meadows
area who are opposed to the zoning of R-3 multiple housing in their
neighborhood.
Xlltn ) 19. -- CL., - 39.
rill 20. R-ff 38,
21 67) If 39,
40,
cl a1y�,tJ '_ 41,
42.r
c .•
29 r , /,f 44.
27. Lor Ii, 45
4
�.
40 46.
12. 30. zlrs—x-== 48.
7-3. .. , Y,: 49_
1�}'
r, j�-Etr �e� 50.
15.`x: 33'%1 �i%1:c��t 51.
52.
17. 35, 3j•
36. 54.
City 4M--&-&
Ocoee of ev Phone: (612) 2952711
City AdMiStrettx Metro: (612) 3339739
November 19, 1985
Dear Property Owner:
A short time ago the City of Monticello mailed to you a Notice
of Public Hearing on a request to replat and rezone a portion
• < of the Meadows Subdivision. The request was made by Mr. John
Sandberg.
On Tuesday, November 12, 1985, the required public hearing was
duly held before the Monticello Planning CommLesion. After the
close of the Public Hearing, the Planning Commission delayed final
action on the grounds of insufficient information. The following
day Mr. Sandberg approached City staff to determine what additional
information would be required for thorough review. After reviewing
the additional information required, Mr. Sandberg requested an
opportunity to present his concept to the City Council before
incurring the additional expanse of completing the preliminary
plat. His desire is to learn, in a general way, the Council's
position on the proposed rezoning. If the City Council fools
the rezoning would be detrimental to the City, despite any mitigative
measures, then it is likely that Mr. Sandberg will withdraw his
request and pursue alternative development. If the Council finds
that the rezoning, if properly controlled and limited, would not
be harmful, Mr. Sandberg may choose to pursue his request. It
Is also possible that the extent of the mitigative measures proscribed
by the Council could render the project financially unfeasible.
In essence, Mr. Sandberg is requesting some type of indication
with respect to his request prior to expending more monies in
plat preparation.
Please be advised that this agenda item is not intended to constitute
a public hearing. The Council will not review the preliminary
plat as such, but simply a conceptual layout. The preliminary
plat, if there is one, must return to the Planning Commission.
This letter is not a legal notice, but rather, informal notification
that this item will be considered by the City Council at their
regular meeting on November 25, 1985, sometime after 7:30 p.m.
vary truly yours,
owe A. Eldem
City Administrator
TAE/bs
250 East Broadway a Monticello, MN 55362.9245
I
Planning Commission Minutes - 11/12/85
8. Public Hearing - A Re -zoning request to re -zone from R1 Single
Family Residential to R2 (Single and Two Family Residential),
and R-2 Single and Two Family Residential to R-3 (Medius Desity
Residential). A Request to Reclat Existing R1 and R2 Lots into
R-3 Lots - Aoolicant, John Sandberg.
Mr. John Sandberg was present to propose a re -zoning of existing
Ri Lots into R3 Multiple Family Lots. Zoning Administrator Anderson
showed to concerned citizens that were present, the area affected
by the re -zoning request and the re -platting request. Mr. Sandberg
entered into his presentation indicating the need for such development
of an existing now devolep ant which is approximately five years
old and very little construction activity already at this site.
What he is proposing to do is to be allowed to ra-zona portions
of the Meadows Addition. If allowed to re -zone portions of the
Meadows Addition, he would like to re -plat it into multiple family
housing lot3 for placement of apartment buildings on said lots.
Acting Chairman Richard Carlson opened it up for any input from
the public and Mr. Jeff warvae, spokesperson representing the
group of 79 concerned homeowners was present to present a petition
of the aignature of these 79 concerned homeowners. Mr. Warwas
questioned whether or not there had been a study sada to indicate
that there was a need for multiple family dwellings. Colleen
Mikkelson, concerned resident, spoke of her concern for the traffic
turning lanes stopping for traffic being compounded more by the
additional traffic. Mr. Jeff Housaiags spoke of his concerns
in regarda to closing of this street diverting the traffic to
Marvin Elwood Road. Mr. Bob Bayles spoke of his concern in regards
to the apartments, if they have any kids and there not being any
parks available for those. Mr. Ed Smith expreaned his concern
of the property value of his current dwelling should aportmento
be built, as well an, increased crime in the area with the influx
of renters into these proposed apartment buildings.
Margo Smith related to the accident involving two children already
an Pairie Road. Mr. Sandberg tried to answer as many of the concerns
from the public as he could. Commicaign member Joyce Dowling
having to leave the meeting for another meeting left at approximately
9 :38 p.m. Mr. Sandberg rainterated his concerns for the developing
of hie proposed project indicating the need for apartment buildings
to accommodate the influx of shorting of residential houaing units
available in the City of Monticello and, also, hie concerns for
tiering of the proposed zaning changes which he is looking for.
In the tiering of the use zone as presented he intends to go from
R3 to 11 as being a buffer zona and also the single family :one
to the east being another buffer zone for this proposed re -zoning
request. The recommendation of the two Commission members present,
Mr. Richard Carlson, acting Chairperson, and Mr. Richard Martis
was to table the request until the next regularly scheduled meeting
of the Monticello Planning Commission proposed for December 3,
1985 at 7:30 p.m.
0
Council Agenda - 11/25/85
9. Consideration of Respreading Special Assesments in The Meadows -
Applicant, John Sandberg. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the August 26 Council meeting, Mr. John Sandberg requested
that the City respread the special assessments within The Meadows
Subdivision, which he was in the process of purchasing from Ken
and Jim Maus. At that time, he requested the delinquent assessments
for the years 1984 and 1985, along with the unpaid future balances,
be respread amongst 20 Iota abutting Marvin Elwood Road for the
purposes of eliminating the delinquencies and equalizing the assessments
amongst the lots that were available for development. The respreading
request included eliminating 12 assessments on interior lots that
were undeveloped, which were proposed for multiple family zoning.
Upon recommendation by the City staff, it was the consensus of
the Council to table any action on the special assessment respreading
to allow Mr. Sandberg to prepare a preliminary plat first.
Due to the opposition Mr. Sandberg has encountered in his proposed
replotting for multiple housing, and in an effort to complete
the respreading prior to the and of the year, Mr. Sandberg again
requested that the reaproading be considered by the Council regardless
of the outcome of his proposed rezoning and roplatting request.
If, under the previous agenda item, the Council did not give Mr.
Sandborg a favorable approval of his concept for multiple housing
within The Meadows, Mr. Sandberg proposed to resproad the delinquent
assessments and unpaid assessments within the entire undeveloped
Meadows to 20 lots still unsold along Marvin Elwood Road and two
Iota at the wont and of Prairie Road that would be immediately
available for building. The entire subdivision has approximately
$184,992.00 in delinquent and unpaid future balances of assessments
that if rooproad to the 22 loin would equalize the assessments
at $8,409.00 each. Of this amount, approximately $13,500.00 is
owed against the 12 interior lots that are currently unavailable
for development and consisted of storm sovor assessments. Mr.
Sandberg requested that the unpaid balances be rooproad to the
22 Iota rather than have small outstanding balances against the
interior of the development that is not currently suitable for
development. An part of the rooproading of the assessments,
Mr. Sandberg would bring currant all real estate taxes owing within
the development on all 46 lots, which total $2,965.00, which would
be paid to Wright County immediately upon approval.
If the Council has given Mr. Sandberg gonoral concept approval
of rezoning and replotting for multiple family dwellings on the
previous agenda item, the rooproading of the assessments could
still take place based on his now roplat and would be placed over
19 single and two family lots with doublo assessments being placed
against the throe largo multiple family Iota proposed to front
l� on Marvin Elwood Road. This would amount to 25 assessments, making
each approximately $7,400.00 par lot, with the multiple family
altos having $14,800.00 in assessments. The current outstanding
-10-
Council Agenda - 11/25/85
assessments against all of the lots along Marvin Elwood Road immediately
available f or development range from approximately $6,000.00 to
$9,000.00. It is the staff's opinion that the proposed respreading
under either situation appears feasible and could be accomplished
by the end of the year.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. If concept approval for multiple housing and rezoning is not
given to Mr. Sandberg, the Council could approve the request
to respread all unpaid and delinquent assessments within The
Meadows Subdivision to the 22 platted lots improved along
Marvin Elwood Road and Prairie Road, which would amount to
equalized assessments of approximately $8,400.00 each. The
assessments would be payable over the remaining 6 years at.
an interest rate of 138.
2. If concept approval is granted for multiple housing within
The Meadows, the assessments could be resproad to the 15 lots
for single and two family residences along Marvin Elwood Road
and the four Iota propoocd along Prairie Road, along with
double aosenamenta for the three proposed multiple iota fronting
Marvin Elwood Road. This would amount in the single family
lots having an assessment of $7,400.00 each, and the three
multipio family lots having an assessment of $14,800.00 each.
�r 3. Deny all resproading requests and leave assessments as they
currently exist.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
In reviewing the roquost of Mr. Sandberg, the City staff fools
that the reoproading of the assosaments under either ocanorio
appears feasible and may result in the City collecting all assessments
within The Moadowo at an oarlior date than presently anticipated.
Since it appears that a final replotting, even if concept approval
is granted by tho Council, could not be accomplished until 1986,
the rosproading of the aaaoasmanto can still take plata by the
and of the year. It also appears roaaonablo to create oquaL assessments
for all bulldablo Iota rather than having the assessments vary
from $6,900.00 to $9,000.00 when all Iota are fairly oqual in
Giza, atc. The rooproading would also eliminate small assassamnts
against the interior Iota that currently aro not improved with
streets or sower and water,, and by placing those assessments against
the improved lots, it appears moro likely that the assessments
will be paid at an oarlior data.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the present Meadows plot indicating which Iota would receive
the proposed aaoaaamonts: Copy of the proposed roplatting concept
of The Meadows and which lots would than recoivo assessments.
CIM
F35SESSA+Ea�T RES�QEAG p��bsAL /9
\\\ \ \\ �� /HuaniaB zo,v.Nb Cb..c.Pr•` � Loss 6+,•s.0
\ \ \ \ :s Rpp�•�eo strrr.,ewrs YG
\ \ ,7,399.&7
�,•-+:FT �"".•"'r� •\ \ y wstrsS-saf-
rt .<
r
-, •+ � � + -. %.{� !` fib. �b ``��\•yC'T \ \ \ \
_' v\ ♦ ' ♦I cif 4
do 10
Ao 10
.�y .'•.moi ,•l ') \
V4 61_.t �' \
AK
. 11 •e • 10
., ` j ".Ibb Lob+Ar/ �, •..�✓ a �� •.� '9q n cam, +a~ 22
! / 1.01; A..• /,6SP. +:\ res �{+12'\2ynit\
L � /..� �� '•ii -1 a
14
.41 t A"
j' � �„-�(+l4ue. � II ; ����, '��. \--'"�v.c iib' / �'S•L'Lr'rt �
•. + ,� /. I `• '�'I� • L,rf•4.v�wrM,�uY Mr• ��; �O s.' 1 ^; . I ('
}j • rs•1--4lIryy t
A `e,.4AL Cko��____c 777777 iI YLL'AA7•
♦ , .//, / '.iIL r}w 111` . 24 . I.4e.. ,►..,� I a 8 10 a 1
eJJ(__L.-.ti_w_emyJ
; ; L.JO-) rrsgb�QO ...�6 nau 1 , r,�o-t eom-1 L r •eu00 tum'
_}
1=2 pp'' r I
;1+ If.o al e g tt
I.L. .tl y—Iry A 1 • . 1 P5 1 17 r 1 1 ;
1�*J r�J�1„ X1..•7 IL_ _Jt +�,�. 1t not I,. 1� I , 1-ww,
A=-:� � ��-.�.: RAAIRI�r<�.r•�•'}oi-r...a•'-.� .. .r�:E-A�l'SS�4.�
14 1
IF
s+S �Po�aoXiF p drpQ
QQ°�itR7� t, � � .,,,« n�4•�' \ \ \ �` \ I¢SSftt�E•.vrs eF
,� , a + •'i 2 jC+ �p \�3Lr �'•\ �' \\ t 8 YP�':i2 ea.
��. �,7�a� 'c i.e� \;ry •� �y
IN lo>F-r
p1 v ; �d• f `4 . �4 \ \ w TPq mrFf 4 E 6 ro r?.%tuts
1`''v. 4 •{.l a ,iP� `\q, ��� `\ \ ar/Mat�rry RoAp, � Ar�;tri
�t04V
L i E b/ \ • lrffi f %0,w�`r
Ite'\ �``l'•
lb
Yry,� - ti Y � •� \\ S jn V \\
+ •'` 8 a� `$•,0"'r, `�' r}r, J, /• 6IN
}��'. tib •�\8ri'T `\ `
kr
� � /rrr>�a "�rr� "}• yr.,•��• .111. �.% ?• ~�� .tP 14b
$ � �•vr f �•�F � \ \ fffr'h \ \ .
S .rwya +'u-rrrq� yi'� J �r�,,�'r •dt + /`` �4' `"� � i2�``'l � � \
Za �rja jrr'a`r x4S�htiyF. �j�ai% q i6
( j/ � x `� ` ^✓� t "4r "fi t, 4 it
1 r ! tJj���'� r_p ' �°� Z �� n��a �� �:, / i f �} t� � ^✓+� !a �� �N",��yt•r�~• g $g ~``\ \ \
14
LG" k �C� y 'rel.. , 44•:C i �;� �� -•�t� y A X•y��A . f,,�,M �`'
i � /'` ^\, „r ntrcv+•s— � t NYqu• sE �+t
gr•vr= c� P� n ..v. aj ,t✓,r� -'t ...i�E �.•7"i.R N � 3u ii •� i � j
1L�,/a.K�r'fr.�.i r_
ti 1 •c f r""� 3 .� f:,'% �' �� ��' rt".•/'..�"iy`tyq-�ry>t'•• ".etinnr• ^ Fyy ► A 11 ,
,a -_-d • •"
r*
cis
�•+'9•u x'-• f tib "i � �'.e'• � a• \ .:� ji It� 1, mw,'nY �
um
�=uwrr:.=.j �+ 'gR 8R kR ,BtM_ �• a8R_ R', � � R £
ry 23. g EE 21 i p 20 y It q 1f 3 n y If' 2 Q 1
<.. n.r• q A 'ROA'
i
1_
C
SUMMARY
MEADOWS ASSESSMENTS 6 TAXES
1984 Taxes (46 lots) S 1,056.16
Penalty 6 Interest 297.16
Publication Chg. ($10 per lot) 460.00
SUBTOTAL - 184 Taxes S 1,813.32
1985 Taxes (46 lots) $ 1,047.88
Penalty 6 Interest 104.42 $ 1,152.30
TOTAL TAXES PAYABLE S 2,965.62
1984 Special Assessments $34,120.50
Penalty 6 Interest 8,277.38
SUBTOTAL - 184 $42,397.88
1985 Special Assessments $32,041.87
Penalty 3,204.05
SUBTOTAL - 185 $35,245.92
TOTAL ASSESSMENTS PAYABLE 577,643.80
Remaining Futuro Assessment Balances 5107,128.05
Charge for Preparation of Nov Aosasamcnt Roll
(S10 per lot x 22 lots) 220.00
TOTAL ASSESSMENTS TO BE RESPREAD $184,991.85
22
NEW ASSESSMENT PER LOT S 8,408.72
r5)
Council Agenda - 11/25/85
I
10. Review of Water System Analysis and Consideration of Improvements. (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the August 12 Council meeting, John Badalich presented the
Council and staff with the final draft of the Water System Analysis.
This draft included an update to the preliminary report which
was discussed at the Council meeting on April 22 of this year.
The water analysis shows the need for improvements to our system.
Minimal improvements are outlined on page 12 of the report. These
improvements are necessary to provide this community with a reliable
adequate water supply.
On Tuesday, November 19, the City staff met with John Badalich
and Chuck Lepak to discuss the water study. After much discussion,
it was felt that only one item could be deleted from the project
and have the project still be effective. That item was the trunk
water main on Countv Road 118 and County Road 39. Also discussed
at the meeting was the importance of any improvements to any future
annexation of the OAA area. The City's current water system is
extremely marginal at handling that area within the City limits
as it exists today. Mr. Badalich indicated without improvements
to the water system, annexation is not feasible or practical.
As our meeting concluded. we came to an agreement that the project
would consist basically of fivo parts, all of which aro necessary
to the completion of the project. These improvements would moot
the needs of the City to the yoar 2000, with an estimated population
service baso of 5600.
I. Now ground level otandpipo
with 900,000 gal. capacity
at Monti Hill $253,000.00
2. interconnecting piping on
South County Road 1 19 to
Monti Hill $103,000.00
3. Ono now well and pumphoueo
with interconnecting pipoo
at the reservoir site $218,000.00
d. Modification of Well, 01 noor
the old water tower and 2ti
blocks of watormain in tho
downtown area $ 60,000.00
5. Land coot - i acro at Monte Ilill S 5.000.00
CSUBTOTAL $639,000.00
Indirect Coats at 30% 191,700.00
TOTAL COSTS $830,700.00
-12-
Z
Council Agenda - 11/25/85
The above costs would complete improvements to our system to increase
water pressure and flows throughout the community and also provide
additional capacity for further development of the City. It does
not include, however, that construction out on County Road 118
and County Road 39. The cost of the total improvement to have
the water lines run from the Boyle Property on County Road 118
north under the freeway past Jay Morrell, Dahlheimer Distributing,
and down County Road 39 to Mississippi Drive is approximately
$250,000.00. This project would provide additional flow in the
area of Mississippi Drive and MacArlund Plaza and would loop the
water lino recently constructed through Riverroad Plaza. It would
also serve as a connection point for future development on the
east end of town. We do have a small problem in this area in
that County Road 39 is due to be improved in 1987. That portion
of County Road 39 from County Road 75 to Mississippi Drive is
of urban design with curb and gutter. It would be beneficial
to install at least that portion of the water trunk line prior
to street construction. This cost would probably be in the area
of $50,000.00 or loss.
�I If the main improvements to the water system are not made, there
y aro certain minor improvements that would have to be made to maintain
V• the status quo. This year we had intended to pull deep well turbine
pump #1 and refurbish it. We had placed a sum of $11,000.00 in
the budget to accomplish this. Thio Is necessary on a 7 -year
cycle to aeouro reliable operation from the wall and to minimize
the danger of the deep wall turbine pump falling to the bottom
of the wall because of worn casing and/or connecting shafts.
We did not do this work thio year because we felt we could save
several thousand dollars by doing this at the timo of the refurbishing
of wall 01. I would not, however, recommond delaying this work
longer than 1986. If we do not decide to do the improvements,
we should pull wall 01 and refurbish it in 1986.
In addition, there in a problem in tho downtown aroa near the
wells in that when tho wells aro pumping, there is some turbulence
created in the area which causoo air and/or water hammor to exist
on Third Street. If you may recall, one of the residents attended
a mooting earlier this year and requested we improve this condition.
The 2� blocks of larger water pipo to be put on Codar Street with
tho improvement would lower the affect of thio turbulonco in the
area. Wo may have to consider putting this in in the vary near
future.
-13-
C'
-14-
Council Agenda - 11/25/85
(�
`A
ACTIONS-
B. ALTERNATIVE
1. The first alternative would be to make the improvements to
the water system totaling $830,700.00 as previously outlined.
In addition to these improvements, we would lay enough water
main in the area of County Road 39 to negate having to excavate
in the street at a later date. This coat is approximately
$50,000.00 or less, making the total project cost 5887,200.00.
2. The second alternative would be to complete the major improvements
as well as the entire improvement on County Road 118 and County
Road 39. The coat of this total project would be estimated
at $1,080,700.00.
3. Alternative Y3 would be to not make the major improvemento
as outlined above, but only those improvements as necessary
to keep our existing system operating. This would mean pulling
and checking well 01 at a coat of $11,000.00 and making some
improvements on Cedar Street at an eetimated coat of $30,000.00.
The total cost would be around $41,000.00.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the staff recommendation that the Council consider the improvements
as outlined in Alternative 41. These improvements are currently
�!
needed and would be an absolute necessity to future annexation.
Thin alternative appears to provide the boat improvement for the
lowest dollar.
This information is presented for discussion purposes of the Water
Study/Anolyoia and to give some idea of the altornativoo for the
City Council. Bacaueo of the sire and immenseness of this project,
we fool no decision has to be made so to the time table for construction
at this meeting. we would wish to place this item on the agenda
again on December 9, if the Council am doelroo, as to SETA time
table for any improvements to be made to the system.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
There aro copies of a map showing come of the existing water mains
In town at City Hall. Thorn also arc a few additional copies
of the water Study available.
John Badalich, Chuck Lopak, and the otaff will be available at
tha Council mooting to answer any technical or moro detailed Questions
you may have.
C'
-14-
r
DATE: november 20, 1985
TO: Monticello Mayor and City Council
FROM: Council Member Bill Fair
P.E: Settlement of City Ball Reroofing Issue
At the request of the Mayor, I met on November 19, 1985 with the City Staff
and Greg Vetsch of Vetsch Construction and Mr. Vetsch's Attorney, John Cries.
Prior to the meeting I reviewed the complete file on the reroofing project and
the problems that occurred as a result of an inadequate covering of the roof
on the evening of July 23, 1985. The material reviewed included a summary
prepared by Building Inspector Cary Anderson, as well as a summary prepared by
Mr. Cries for Vetsch Construction. On November 19th I questioned both sides
in order to gain further clarification of what transpired, but nothing new was
learned by this. However, our review of both sides has made is clear in my
mind that the City must assume liability for the damage that occurred and
Vetsch Construction is entitled to full payment for the work performed. In
my opinion, the City Council made an error in becoming the general contractor
on this project, since we had no previous experience as a general contractor
to guide us and hindsight indicates that we were not aware of what obligations
we assumed in that role.
First, we gave no direction or outline to our Building Inspector as to what
was expected of him and what his authority was in regard to the projec-. The
project fell outside of the scope of his duties as Planning and Z.)ning Adminis-
trator and Building Inspector.
Secondly, the responsibility for contractor's liability insurance is the
general contractor's. Even though the City contenJs that it was led to believe
Vetsch Construction carried contractor's liability insurance when in fact it
did not, the City as general contractor is still the liable party. Even if
Votsch Construction !led the li-ibility insurance we were requiring, his insur-
ance would not cover any damages because he was only a subcontractor and dict
not have the overall responsibility for the project. So the issue of whether
Vetsch Construction misrepresented its insurance coverage or not is a moot
issue and also the failure of the Building lnspoctor to obtain a certificate
of insurance is not a relavent issue.
The last major error the City made was falling to execute contracts wish each
subcontractor on the project. Such contracts could have specified what pre-
cautions the subcontractor had to take to prevent the type of damage that
ultimately did occur. without such a contract the general contractor again
must assume full responsibility. In my opinion failure in this area lies
essentially with the City Council.
The expertise of our City Staff is not as general contractors and we placod
an unfamiliar task on them.
Based on the above I do not believe we can rightfully withhold payment from
Vetsch Construction. The Building Inspector and i, along with Mr. Votaeh in-
apected the roofing job on November 19. 1905 and advised Mr. Vetsch that the
f job would be recommanded as complete upon the replacement of a few broken or
(` punctured shingles near the East ridge along the banner wall. It should be
-15-
I
Page -2-
DATE: November 20, 1985
10: Monticello Mayor and City Council
FROM: Council Member Bill Fair
RE: Settlement of City Hall Reroofing Issue
noted that one small leak has reoccurred periodically in the council chambers
when the wind is from a certain direction in a storm, but it does not appear
to be any deficiency in the reroofing done by Votseh Construction which can be
attributable to this leak. The leak in the same spot e:cisted prior to the re-
roofing and maybe caused by some other structural problem. Additionally, the
skylights and flashing were inspected and although minor flaws were noted in
one or two places, neither of these affect the integrity of the roof. Therefore ,
again my recommendation is to approve payment in full to Vatsch Construction.
-16-
Council Agenda - 11/25/85
r 12. Consideration of Change Order Request for Monticello Fire Hall. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As you will note on the supporting data, there are five items
listed under Change Order No. 2 for the Monticello Fire Station.
I will highlight them briefly.
Item #1 This matter was verbally approved through the consensus
of the City Council members and is now before you for
formal action.
Item #2 The price is a rather exorbitant amount for this
little project, and we are recommending no Change
Order for this.
Item N3 For the brick allowance we were allowed $500 per thousand
as specified; and as noted, it was only $360 per thousand
as the actual cost, which was a credit of $480.
Item 04 Also shown in your supporting data is a copy of the
area where the architect didn't allow any coiling covering
to hold the blown insulation above the suspended ceiling
tile.
Item #5 The overhead door located in the drive through bay at
the roar of the Fire Hall building, the door off 51,
Street, 1s requiring that the jamba blocks which were
laid up approximately 8 foot off the floor be cut back
to allow room for the door track to fasten securely
to the wall. In looking at the sections of the drawing,
it showed where there is approximately 3 inches of clearance
on which to hang the overhead door track. Mr. Hedberg
from TKDA woe going to chock to see if this was the
minimum amount of clearance that was needed from the
two door companies that were specified in our specifications,
the Raynor Door Company and the Overhead Door Company.
we still fool that the minimum clearance that was allowed
is something that should be rocolvod between the general
contractor and the architect and shouldn't involve the
City at all.
I
D. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve Change Order Items 01, M2, q3, N4, and 05 as submitted.
2. Deny Change Order Items 41, 42, 03, 44, #5 as listed.
3. Approve any combination of Items 01, 02, q3, 04, and 45.
4. Deny any of the Change Order Items.
-17-
Council Agenda - 11/25/85
`l- C. STAFF RECOIMIENDATION:
The staff recommendation goes along with the Fire Hall Building
Committee's recommendation for approval of Change Order Items
#1, U3, and 04. We recommend that Change Order Items 02 and 05
not be approved.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of Change Order No. 2; Copy of the section plan showing the
amount of ceiling area which wan not covered with suspended ceiling
underneath it; Copy of the section showing the minimum amount
of clearance for the fastening of the door track.
-18—
L
Commission No. 8281-03 Change Order No. 2
Page 2
Item #1 Add 4 parking spaces to the north end of the westerly bituminous
parking area, 2 on each side of the bituminous drive. Extend
the concrete curb and gutter around the new spaces and add painted
lines. Provide a 5' sidewalk at the east end of the 2 easterly spaces.
Add 2 parking spaces to the north end of the easterly concrete drive
and parking area. Extend concrete curb and gutter around the new spaces
and add painted line. (Contractor's price quotation dated 10-11-85).
Add $2.085.60
Item 92 Provide a 2-1/2" copper water line extended from the unmetered 6"
supply in Room 102. Extend under conc. floor, through Room 103,
rise through floor and then through east wall of Apparatus Room, in
the recess next to the service sink. Provide a shutoff valve and a
non-ferrous fire hose connection at the end. All exposed piping shall
be insulated. Cost for this installation shall be for actual labor and
materials expended, with the total cost not to exceed $1500.
(Contractor's price quotation dated 10/7/85)
Add $1.500.00
Item N3 Provide credit to the Owner for the brick allowance; $500 per thousand
specified, 360 per thousand actual cost.
(Contractor's price quotation dated 10/7/85)
Deduct S 480.00
Item H4 Provide a 1/2" gypsum board ceiling nailed to underside of trusses
in all areas having a suspended ceiling. This will provide a
support for the blown -in insulation.
(Contractor's price quotation dated 10/7/85)
Add S 480.00
Item H5 At both jambs of overhead door 101M - remove bullnose concrete
blocks on 8'-B" high wall and replace approx. 2" farther away
from door opening to allow side clearance for overhead door
hardware. (Contractor's price quotation dated 10/11/85)
Add S 400.00
Total Add for this Change Order $3.985.60
01-R
Commission No. 8281-03 Change Order No. 2
Page 2
Item 91 Add 4 parking spaces to the north end of the westerly bituminous
parking area, 2 on each side of the bituminous drive. Extend
the concrete curb and gutter around the new spaces and add painted
lines. Provide a 5' sidewalk at the east end of the 2 easterly spaces.
17 NERD Q�r�IL. D.{�. R�fZ(MD�TH DILL)
T54".�•.P GOLUMN I —4' fOHL.
*d PLYWOOD
� i ��
ye • 8 LED^K- -- ' — 2°0 aTuDs
CYC?( IhihU11�TIOH I : WLL t+�E
�5' t:LD'(� ���Efi � k4L� CG �`. • ' ` GaHG. Dl�i�
Y
2 •(o GEDPR TF -;M Ho HE ! L 1
TO GpvEfL Im2lHG / I tf'^IHT TD MJ,TCk
&L k7 -E-9 • DLGr.IL
G£�hK TRIM WEL.7 TW -4- TO
--ULE hh 1zM'
. GKID
7EE �GNEDUL6 FGR _ 0
i-
�8 .-IAMb PE -VI L D.N. P001;-'(HOf TH kLkL.
rt •0 1 0 1 / PIT. .
lYB�— 1M �, �iBcoh ly I AYt^F�'oP:aYP PSC
� Via"' i7RCN'Y�vI.W►? C4'?�. � � - fiElaNt 1•,1'�3�
. �PfF'IIBq�?PP1i
j ! — (Low mp PL7E
i roan z�.
Council Agenda - 11/25/85
/,Y 13. Consideration of Executing a Contract for Law Enforcement Services
with Wright County Sheriffs Department. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
In August of this year, during our budget preparation time, I
received notice from Sheriff Wolfe that the anticipated contract
amount would be S18.00 per hour. The contras t forma were recently
submitted to me and the contract amount is, a s stipulated, S18.00
per hour for all services. The 1985 contract reflected a rate
of $17.00 per hour. The 1986 rate is a 5.889. increase. Under
the current proposal, no conditions are proposed to change in
any way for 1986.
The services provided by Wright County Sheriff under the provisions
of the contract are 24 hour call and general service, dispatching,
and 6,905 hours of patrol coverage annually. The 6,905 hours
break down to 16 hours per day, four days of the week and 19 hours
per day coverage for three days per weak two of which shall be
Friday and Saturday. This leaves a balance of 613 hours annually
to be assigned at the discretion of the Sheriff.
Based on 6.905 hours at $18.00 an hour the total annual contract
fee will be $124,290. Based on the advance notice given to us
in August of this year, the municipal budget reflects a law enforcement
allocation of $124,300. We will stay within budget as projected.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Authorize execution of the agreement - this will retain law
enforcement services virtually identical to the services randored
in the pact. It will also keep us within our budget.
2. Increasohours of coverage - since the contract is projected
at a rata of $18.00 par hour increasing the number of hours
will increase the contract amount. Considoring that we only
have $10.00 to opera in the budget, we would need to generate
revenue from some other source to accomplish an increased
contract.
3. Decrease hours in the contract - again, o into the Shoriff-a
contract fee in based on a hourly rate, d ecroasing hours would
docroasothe expenditure. Presumably, if we aro to decrease
hours, it would be based upon a finding that low enforcement
coverage currently is in excess of what la actually required.
4. Do not execute the contract - this would moan there would
be no law enforcement coverage and/or we would be required
to establish our own police department. This is not a realistic
altarnativo.
-19-
Council Agenda - 11/25/85
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
IStaff recommends execution of the contract as presented.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
Copy of the proposed 1986 contract with appendix A attached.
-20-
fes..
City Of Monticello)
County of Wright 1
State of Minnesota)
/� WRICRT COU:rry - CITY OF MOIrrICE1,1.0
l`I`s LAW EIFORCr.MFTIT ODMTRACr
THIS AGREEMENT, mode and entered into this 3rd day of _Oocmber -
1965, by and between the County of Wright and the Wright County Sheriff, herain-
after referred to as 'County' and the City of Monticello, hereinafter referred
to a. the 'Municipallty't
WIT14ESSEFII,
WMEREA9, the municipality in desirous of entering into a contract with
the County for the performance of the hereinafter described lav onforcemnt
protection within the corporate limit. of .aid municipality through the county
sheriff, and
WHEREAS, the County le agreeable to rendering such seLllaear and
protection on the terms and cenditione hereinafter at forth) and
WI(EREIS, ouch contracts are authorized and provided lo[ by the provision
of Minn. Stat. 1957, Sec. 471.59 and lava 1959. Chap. 172, and Minn. Stat. Ann.
1961 Sac. 474.05,
r ROM THCREFORE, pursuant to the terms of the aforoaald statutes, it la
agreed ea follw.,
1. That the County by way of the Sharif[ agrees to provide police
protection within the coiporate limits of the municipality to the extent and in
manner as here lna/tor at forth,
a. Except sun 011—ls0 herelnattar @pacifically out forth,
such ser vitae al,all ancoapa.a only duties and funCttons of the typo coming
vlthln the juriedlct ion of the Wright County Sheriff pursmnt to
...!."Ota Lawn and Statutes.
b. Except as otherrino harolnafter provldorl for, as a aendeid
10101 of .ervlca provided @hall bo the .ems bas la lave[ of @e rvlce which
la Prov! dad toe the unincorporated areas of U,o County of Mrlght, State
of ninn.sota.
a. T7ie nndl tion of •.t""a. Lha standard of porfotmance, Cha
dlsclpllno of the offiCau, and other marten incident to rho pntlo,mncn
of such ss rvicon and control of pe,sonnel so employed shall rrmaln In
and under the control of the Cho rllf.
d. Ouch services shall include the nnforc.mant of Miuneietn
Stat. Statutes end Lars mid the munlclpal erdl nancon vhlch ern of U'.
came typo and netui. o[ Hlnuosote at-to
Statute. and laws nnforcod by
the Gherlff wiLhln the unincorporated ton!tory of sold County.
1. That It Is agreed that the .horiff ahall have full Coupelatlon and
assistance from the municipality, its officer@, Aponte and employees, @o a■ to
i facilitate the performance of this agreamnt.
/T3,
That the County *hail furnish and supply all 111111Y(��1.•'
Labor, oupervislon, equipment, communieetlon facilities for dispatching, coat
of jail detention. and all supplies necessary to maintain the level of
service to be rendered heroin.
a. The municipality shall not be liable for the direct payment
of any salarie., wages, or other compensation to any personnel performing
oarvice0 heroin tar cold County.
5. The municipality shall not be liable for compensation or
indemnity to any of the Sheriff'a employees for injuries or .trances
'arising out of its employment, and the County hereby agrees to hold harmless
the municipality against any ouch claims.
6. The County, sheriff, him Offlrero, and employees shall
not be deemed to aaaume any liability for Intentional or negligent note
Of said municipality. or any officer, agent, ur employee thereof.
7. This agreement shall be effective free January 1. 1966
to Januar, 1. 1967
a. The municipality hereby agrees to pay to the County the
II
C>
sum of One hundred rwnnty-iaur That.land Two sandrod ninety Dollars (3124,290,001,
for lav enforcement protection as specified In Mpendl. a which in attached '
hereto and made a part hereof during sold term of thio agreement.
9. if the annual salaries of the deputy oherifto are increased,
at any time during the term heroin stated, this contract shall not be
'
inoreasad.
10. The municipality shall have the option of renewing this
t
agreement for an additional successive twelve-month period. To ..excise
this optlon, the Municipality shall notify the county administrator not
later than platy days prlgr to the aapiratlon data of this agreement.
i
11. It Ioand agreed that the Offenses for whish
•
arrests ars uredo pursu.nt to state statutso the county shall stand all
do
costa of the court. and its prosecution. when *creat# ere made under
1
municipal ordlnancoa of the municipality. the municipal attorney shall
i
ptoeacutm such case. Ory end oil fines colloeted shall be paid to the
it)4
Wright County Treasurer's Office.
13. whereasi legislation has been enacted effective July 1, 1973,
making it mandatory that tho County Court remit to all municipalities within
the said county, one half of all fines Ievfad and collected from traffic vio-
lation at ... ts -do io said municipality. And.
Wh.r... r it is undo.. toed that the contract fast. aro is.od upon
Lisa County receiving the entire amount of all fines.
it is uslerPtowd that the Municipality shall return to the
Wright County Sheriff all fine monies received from the County. Said Munici-
pality shall trout by check no let" than thirty (30) days from when said fine
monies, are received by said ttunicipelity.
13. For the purpose of maintaining cooperation, local central and
general Information on eriofilo comptainte and problems in said municipality,
one member of tie municipal council, the mayor, or other porsun or persona,
shall be appointed by said council to act as police crmmisoloear/s for card
municipality, and shall make periodic contact. with and attend .a.tinge with
tho shrtiff or Isla of -lice in rotation to the contract herein.
SM WiTUESS MIEPWF the municipality, by tuaolution duly adopted by its
governing body, caused this agraament to he signed by its mayor and attoated by
it. Adeiniatrator, and the County of Wright, by the County noard of Comsiseionora,
hoe cauaad thoes present• to Is. auh.—itsed by it,. Wright County Sheriff and the
Qatrman of said board and t1h, Baal of raid Ward to be afri..d thorato and
itte.ted by the Clark .f Petri toad, ell on tis. day and yes, first above written.
CITY Of M)NTICELLO
OY
Mayor
Att.0t:
City klmintatrator
BOARD Of Lm1G11T Ctu nTy comISSIOMER9
BY
Chat—
Att.att
Clark, Waad of County Co®Iamionere
Wright County Sheriff
.'1.N
..a •' APPENDIX A
1984 Hourly Rate - S'Iq.00
Annual Contract Pee - $124.290 •00
Services provided by Wright County Sheriff
24 hour call and general service
6, 90S hours annual patrol coverage
as signed as tell— ,
a) 16 hours per day, four days per week (2)20 total hours).
b) 19 hours per day, throe days per weak, two of which
shall be Friday and Saturday (2964 total hours).
c) 613 hour. 80e19ned at discretion of scheduling
authority,
., 0/3
Council Agenda - 11/25/85
1 16. Consideration of a Motion to Cancel the Second Regularly Scheduled
Council Meeting in the Month of December. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Annually the Council has elected to cancel the second meeting
in December since it falls in such close proximity to the Christmas
holidays. This year the second meeting of December falls on Monday,
December 23. The first meeting will be Monday, December 9. The
first meeting in January, 1986, will be Monday, January 13. If
you wish to continue with past practice and cancel the holiday
meeting, then a motion cancelling the meeting and directing public
notice to be given should be made and adopted.
This year, unlike past years, the Planning Commission's December
meeting has been moved up to the first Tuesday rather than the
second Tuesday to allow action to be taken by both the Planning
Commission and the City Council. It seems only fair to the general
public that any Planning and Zoning requests have an opportunity
to be heard in the month of December. Under the old schedule
any applicant that requires hearing before both bodies, would
have to wait until January because of the Council's decision
to cancel the second meeting. The rescheduling of the Planning
Commission is solely to accommodate the Council's decision to
cancel that second meeting.
There aro no alternative actions, supporting data, or staff recommendation
presented with this item.
-21-
C
GENERAL FUND -- NOVEMBER - 1985
AMOUNT
CHECK NO.
Flexible Pipe Tool Co. - Hose
85.00
21394
Olson 6 Sons Electric - Repairs and parts - WWTP - Mtce.
260.00
21395
Anchor Asphalt Co. - Parking lot and street patching
6,080.00
21396
Central Eyewear - Glasses and frames
37.50
21397
Taylor Land Surveyors - Surveying services
250.00
21398
Curtis Industries - Supplies - Mtce.
109.91
21399
Allied Fisher Scientific - Labor at WWTP
107.98
21400
Omann Const. Co. - 2 tons gravel for street patching
54.74
21401
VOID
-0-
21402
Buffalo Bituminous - Imp. project payment - Cty. Rd. 75
62.206.80
21403
Wright County State Bank - C. D. purchase
230,000.00
21404
St. Michael Vet Clinic - Animal control expense
70.00
21405
Wright County Recorder - Copy fees
4.00
21406
Tom Eidem - Travel expense
4.29
21407
Bridgewater Telephone - Telephone
890.61
21408
Willard Farnick - Travel expense b fire school
359.53
21409
Monticello Dep. Reg. - Transfer fee for tree spade
10.50
21410
Anoka County Social Services - Payroll ded.
88.00
21411
Jerry Hermes - Janitorial at Library
172.92
21412
David Stromberg - Animal control
212.50
21413
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded.
225.04
21414
Corrow Sanitation - Garbage contract payment
5.925.00
21415
Monticello Comm. Education - Reg. fees for seminars
72.00
21416
Wright County State Bank - FWT for Oct.
4,916.00
21417
Commissioner of Revenue - SWT for Oct.
2,391.00
21418
MN. State Treasurer - PERA W/H
1,457.59
21419
State Treasurer - FICA W/H
3,542.10
21420
Arve Grimsmo - Mayor salary
175.00
21421
Dan Blonigen - Council salary
125.00
21422
Mrs. Fran Fair - Council salary
125.00
21423
William Fair - Council salary
125.00
21424
Jack Maxwell - Council salary
125.00
21425
YMCA of Mpls. - Monthly contract payment
458.33
21426
James Prousse - Cleaning city hall
308.35
21427
Mrs. Beverly Johnson - Animal control expense
250.00
21428
Dept. of Natural Resources - Dep. Reg. fees
94.00
21429
Dept. of Natural Resources - Dep. Reg, fees
3.00
21430
Dept. of Natural Resources - Dep. Reg. fees
112.00
21431
Wright County State Bank - Loan payment for HRA (Blk. 51)
2.293.68
21432
North Central Public Service - Natural gas
2,713.60
21433
Northern States Power - Electricity
8,215.59
21434
VOID
-0-
21435
Ziegler, Inc. - Londer payment
12.500.00
21436
Wright County State Bank - C. D. purchase
90,000.00
21437
Jerry Bermes - Janitorial at Library
172.92
21438
David Stromberg - ANimal control expense
212.50
21439
Thomas F.ldem - Mileage expense - Nov.
300.00
21440
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded.
225.04
21441
State Treasurer - PERA - ins. premiums
18.00
21442
Fullerton Lumber Co. - Fire Hall construction
104,616.00
21443
Dept. of Nat. Resources - Dep. Reg. fees
98.00
21444
Dept. of Nat. Resources - Dep. Reg. fees
36.00
21445
State Treasurer - FICA W/H
2,710.47
21446
MN. State Treasurer - PERA W/H
1,452.42
21447
Reg.. Dept. of Professional Dov. - Seminar fee for Simola
85.00
21448
Monticello Fire Dept. - Payroll
711.00
21449
GENERAL FUND
A.NOUNT
CHECK NO.
Hartle's Farm Service - Lawn seed and dog 6 cat food
92.79
21450
General Rental Center - Planks, braces for WWTP
79.50
21451
Buffalo Bituminous - Clas s5 gravel
480.00
21452
Coast to Coast - Snow thrower - 359.95 6 mist. expenses
785.08
21453
Curtin Matheson Scientific - Supplies for WWTP
72.27
21454
The Economic Press - Sub.
5.32
21455
Safety Kleen Corp. - Mtce. Bldg.
36.00
21456
Unicog Rental - Uniform rental
142.55
21457
Ziegler, Inc. - Loader repair
676.14
21458
D. H. Repair - Repair clutch on 5020
51.66
21459
Serv1 Star Hardware - Foam ins. - 53.90 d mise.
396.44
21460
Barco Municipal Products - Barricades 6 flashers, pliers
503.14
21461
NB Instruments - Flow measuring Inst. and strip chart
2,212.27
21462
Hoglund Bus - Equip. van parts
40.39
21463
MN.,Fire 6 Safety - 4 fla shlites for Fire Dept.
38.09
21464
Water Products - Water meters
758.58
21465
Phillips Petro. - Gas - Fire, Water and Sewer Depts.
111.75
21466
Century Laboratories - WWTP supplies
121.07
21467
Monticello TW Hardware - Misc.' supplies
30.83
21468
Vesco, Inc. - 2 diaphragms for WWTP
216.15
21469
Wright County Auditor - Police contract - Nov.
9,782.08
21470
SMA Const. - Steel
17.80
21471
Red's Mobil - Gas and repair for Fire Dept.
22.00
21472
Snyder Drug - Film and flash bulbs - WWTP
19.18
21473
Ruff Auto Parts - Hood springs and radio - 25.00
30.00
21474
Harry's Auto Supply - Vice, hose, ign. set, etc. - Mtce.
177.84
21475
Bowman Dist. - WWTP supplies
232.66
21476
Feedrite Controls - Poly, chlorine, etc.
1,798.73
21477
First Bank Mpls. - Public fund charges
4.00
21478
National Bushing - Parts and supplies - St. 6 Mtce.
196.93
21479
J. M. 011 - Gas
706.34
21480
United States Salt - Deicer for streets
720.65
21481
Big Lake Equip. - Snow plow repairs
57.44
21482
Gordon Link - Gas
1,765.45
21483
Ms. Joyce Twistol - Reg. fee for T. Eidem seminar
45.00
21484
Hazard Control - Clothes for St. 4 WWTP Depts.
254.40
21485
Davis Water Equipment - Blind Flange - WWTP
19.46
21486
Transport Clearings - Freight charges for IIWTP
64.18
21487
Gruys. Johnson - Computer charges for October
290.00
21488
Fidelity Bank 6 Trust - 74 Parking Bonds
1.780.76
21489
Dalilgren, Uban Assoc. - Planning fees for Oct.
1,050.11
21490
Purcell Plumbing - WWTP 6 Son. Cit. repairs
191.63
21491
National Chemsearch - Safety paint
211.00
21492
Central MSI. Refrigeration - Furnace repair at Library
126.40
21493
League of MN. Cities - Assessment fee for Tax Inc. study
253.07
21494
Conway Fire 6 Safety - Paeeshteld for Fire Dept.
7.50
21495
Trlppe 011 - Cos for Fire Dept.
12.36
21496
Humana Society of Wright County - Animal control expense
28.00
21497
Central McGowan - Cy, rental
35.29
21498
Banker's Life - Group Ins.
3.017.46
21499
AT 6 T Inf. Systems - Fire phone charge
3.77
21500
Maus Foods - Misc. supplies for all Dept.
153.80
21501
VOID
-0-
21502
National Life Ins. - Ins. premium for T. Eidem
100.00
21503
Monticello Office Products - Office supplies - 143.63 -Lib.
344.61
21504
Monticello Times - Adv. and publishing
150.52
21505
Smith, Pringle, Hayes - Legal for Oct.
1.020.00
21506
Monticello Printing - Office supplies - W/S. - P/0
141.10
21507
Local d49 - Union dues
147.00
21508
GENERAL FUND
AMOUNT
CHECK NO.
Orkin Exterminating - Pest control payment - WWTP
106.00
21509
U. S. Postmaster - Postage
220.00
21510
U.P.S. - Postage fee for return to MacQueen Equip. - St.
5.56
21511
Monticello Chamber of Commerce - Reimb. for phone calls
13.39•
21512
Bridgewater Telephone - Telephone
968.35
21513
Simonson Lumber - Mtce. supplies
493.73
21514
VOID
-0-
21515
Wright County State Bank - Purchase C. D.
500,000.00
21516
Dan Marsh Drugs - Camera and lens for Library
199.95
21517
Great River Regional Library - 2 paperback displayers -Lib.
915.25
21518
McDowell Co. - Furnace repair at Library
1,500.34
21519
Ranger Products - Parts at WWTP
141.27
21520
Gordon Link - Oil
77.66
21521
Monticello Times - Adv. for Library
25.80
21522
Vermeer Sales 6 Service - Parts for tree spade
51.58
21523
Rockmount Research 6 Alloys - Shop merchandise
76.49
21524
Rick Wolfsteller - Mileage expense
61.97
21525
MacQueen Equipment - Shear pin and runner
81.54
21526
Gary Anderson - Mileage expense
68.38
21527
Payroll for October
32,508.84
TOTAL GENERAL DISBURSEMENTS FOR NOVEMBER
$1.117,038.55
C
C
I
6
LIQUOR FUND - NOVEMBER - 1985
AMOUNT
CiEECK
LIQUOR DISBURSEMENTS FOR NOVEMBER
NO.
League of MN. Cities Ins. - Self ins. Work. Camp. program
734.00
12033
Wright County State Bank - C. 0. purchase
25,000.00
12034
Quality Wine d Spirits - Liquor
141.04
12035
Twin City Wine - Liquor
976.09
12036
Ed Phillips b Sons - Liquor
4,086.45
12037
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded.
170.00
12038
Wright County State Bank - FWT - October
638.00
12039
Commissioner of Revenue - SWT - October
240.00
12040
Stare Treasurer - PERA W/H
153.02
12041
State Treasurer - FICA W/H
364.68
12042
Ed Phillips 6 Sons - Liquor
2,818.59
12043
.;Eagle Wine Co. - Liquor
2,447.65
12044
Griggs, Cooper - Liquor
2,299.67
12045
Twin City Wine - Liquor
912.79
12046
Quality Wine d Spirits - Liquor
788.79
12047
Twin City Wine - Liquor
3,462.01
12048
Northern States Power - Electricity
567.77
12049
North Central Public Service - Go-
213.16
12050
Griggs, Cooper 6 Co. - Liquor
4,149.75
12051
Ed Phillips 6 Bons - Liquor
2,392.40
12052
Quality Wine - Liquor
663.67
12053
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded.
170.00
12054
State Treasurer - FICA W/H
274.01
12055
State Treasurer - PERA W/H
160.32
12056
Griggs, Cooper - Liquor
6,524.86
12057
Eagle Wine - Liquor
329.46
12058
Twin City Wine - Liquor
1,226.42
12059
Ed Phillips 6 Co. - Liquor
6,777.11
12060
MN. Dept. of Public Safety - Liquor license
12.00
12061
Cloudy Town Distributing - Misc. purchases
67.65
12062
Catholic Annual - Adv.
35.00
12063
Coast to Coast - Store expense
25.80
12064
All Star Records - Gopher Fever cassettes
37.60
12065
Olson b Sons Electric - Repair at Store
24.00
12066
Old Dutch Foods - Misc, purchases
109.37
12067
Frites Lay, Inc. - Misc. purchases
90.39
12068
Brtdgewnter telephone - Telephone
71.17
12069
Jude Candy S Tobacco - Misc. purchases
640.18
12070
Dav Dist. Co. - Beer, etc.
818.48
12071
Maus Foods - Store expanse
27.72
12072
All Ready Printing - 500 flyers - Adv.
51.33
12073
Monticello Office Products - Office supplies
25.35
12074
Grosslein Beverage - Beer
13,011.09
12075
Thorpe Dist. Co. - Bear
4,015.80
12076
Lund Dist. - Misc. purchases
36.00
12077
Dick Beverage - Beer, etc.
3.752.70
12078
Liefort Trucking - Freight
620.34
12079
Dahlheimer Dist. Co. - Beer
13.590.01
12080
Barnick's Pepsi Cola - Misc. purchases
432.25
12081
City of Monticello - Sewer and water bill
40.24
12082
Gruys. Johnson - Computer charges for October
110.00
12083
Seven -Up Bottling - Misc, purchases
343.25
12084
Yonak Sanitation - Garbage services
91.50
12085
LIQUOR FUND
Payroll for October 4,602.90
•• TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS FOR NOVEMBER $122,364.45
J
AMOUNT
Crr'CK
140.
Commissioner of Revenue - Sales tax for October
5,930.25
12086
Viking Coca Cola - Misc. purchases
585.70
12087
Service Sales Corp. - Pricing guns and tape
268.89
12088
Twin City Wine - Liquor
1,249.90
12089
Griggs, Cooper - Liquor
2,761.28
12090
Monticello Times - Adv.
204.60
12091
Payroll for October 4,602.90
•• TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS FOR NOVEMBER $122,364.45
J