Loading...
City Council Agenda Packet 12-09-1985671*1 AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Monday, December 9, 1985 - 7:30 p.m. Mayor: Arve A. Grimsmo Council Members: Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Jack Maxwell, Dan Blonigen 1. Call to Order. 2. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting Hold November 25, 1985. 3. Citizens Comments/Patitione, Requests and Complaints. Public Hearings d. Public Hearing on a Modification of Tax Increment Finance Distrl.ct q2. Old Business 5. Consideration of a Resolution Awarding the Sala of $350,000.00 in Tax Increment Bonds. 6. Consideration of Adopting a Resolution Authorizing the Execution of a Pledge Agreement with the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. 7. Consideration of Encompassing a Request to Rezone to R-3 Within the Overall Zoning Revisions. Now Business 8. Consideration of Setting a Date for a Special Meeting for the Express Purpose of Adopting a Resolution Granting Final Approval to the Issuance of Industrial Revenue Bonds - Applicant, Raindanco Properties. 9. Conaidaration of Bills to Data for the Month of December. 10. Adjournment. MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday, November 25, 1985 - 7:30 p.m. Members Present: Arve Grimsmo, Fran Fair, 0111 Fair, Jack Maxwell, Dan Blonigen. Members Absent: None. 2. Approval of Minutes. Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously carried to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held November 12, 1985. 4. Public Hearing on Modification 02 to the Central Monticello Redevelopment Project and Plan. The Central Monticello Redevelopment Project is the empowering district created by the Rousing and Redevelopment Authority wherein the City may utilize Tax Increment Financing to achieve its redevelopment goals and objectives. Recently, Mr. John Bargatad, a developer, has expressed interest in converting the existing Monticoilo-Big Lako Nursing Homo into an elderly housing project once it is discontinued as a nursing home. The HRA has boon investigating utilizing Tax Increment Financing to anoint Mr. Borgstad in his efforts to convert the structure for this purpose and as a result, recommandod that the boundaries of the Central Redevelopment Project area be expanded to include Blocks 28 6 39 for thio purpose. It was noted that by including those two blocke in the project area, Tax Increment Financing could be used but would not be required. The inclusion of these two blocks in the Redevelopment Project area would allow the HRA possible other alternatives for helping a developer to convert the nursing home oven if Tax Increment Financing was not used. Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimouoly carried to adopt a resolution modifying the Central Monticello Redevelopment Plan to include Blocks 38 G 39 within the boundary area. Soo Resolution 1985 029. 5. Public Hearing on Eatabliohing Tax Increment District 07. A public hearing wan proposed to consider establishing a Tax Incromont District 07 for developer, John Dorgatad, for tho purpose of converting the nursing home. At the request of Mr. Bergstad, this itam wan tabled for the present time to allow Mr. Bargatad to further develop hie plana. -1- Council Minutes - 11/25/85 T 6. Public Hearing - Proposed Amendments to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance. - A public hearing was held by the Council to consider adoption of proposed amendments to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance text and zoning map. The hearing was opened to the public, and the following comments were received from the public. Mr. George Kirscht, property owner in Block 30, requested that the proposed zoning of Block 30 from R-2 to B-4 Commercial be eliminated. Mr. Kirscht noted that the current B-4 property in the area has not yet been developed commercially and wondered why the City would want to enlarge the zoning area for more commercial when the demand was not there at the present time. Mae Hoglund, property owner also in Block 30. opposed the rezoning to commercial and requested that the property remain residential in nature. Cecile Muehlbauer spoke in opposition to the proposed PZ -Ft Zoning along River Street to allow multiple dwellings to exist. Mrs. Muehlbauer noted that the majority of the residents along River Street still. oppose the change from single family residential to PZ -R and requested that if the Council did approve the zoning change that efforts be made to ensure that the Planning Commiosion and City Council keep adequate controls on the types of buildings that could be constructed, including setbacks, sizes, architectural design, to minimize the effects on the neighboring reeidencoa. ll� Other residential property owners along River Street, including Leo Robideau and Lyle Olson, spoke in opposition to the proposed PZ -R rezoning and felt that the area should remain single family residential. Written commonto from property owners Roger Hoot, Don Nicolai, and Mike Erkol were entered into the record opposing the PZ -R zoning along River Street. Mr. John Sandberg presented a petition to the Council listing individual reeidento of Monticello who were in favor of some sort of eultipia zoning along the river. Mr. Sandberg spoke to the Council in favor of the proposed VZ -R zone: and in his opinion, he did not think that the PZ -R zone would change the atmosphere of the praaent residential property along the river in that only a few areas would be suitable for multiple typo housing. Mr. Sandberg noted that the majority of the housing starts in the City during 1984 and 1905 have boon multiple, but currently there is no zoning area along the river allowing multiple housing sitoo. Mr. Sandberg felt that river frontage should not be exclusivaly ainglod out for single family residential property and that multiple structures could be incorporated into the City zoning plan. Hearing no other commonta from the public, the public hearing was closed. The Council than diaaunnod and presented their viowe on the proposed rezoning, including the proposed commercial zona -2- 0 Council Minutes - 11/25/85 in Block 30 and proposed PZ -R zone along River Street. Mayor Grimsmo was in agreement with Block 30 remaining R-2 for single and two family residential and agreed that he did not see the pressure immediately to rezone additional commercial land in this area. In regards to the PZ -R zone, Mr. Grimsmo noted that possibly areas further east of River Street could provide multiple housing sites that would still allow the residents to see the river, but it was his opinion that possibly River Street should remain single family. Council members Blonigen and Maxwell agreed with Mayor Grimsmola comments and recommended that Block 30 remain R-2 in zoning and that the PZ -R zone be eliminated along River Street. Councilmember Fran Fair noted that her original reason for pursuing the proposed PZ -R zone wan to allow for long range planning into the future to allow areas along the river to contain some multiple building sites for Monticello residents who may wish to have access or views to the river. Mrs. Fair felt that a wsll-planned multiple housing development along the river would not be a detriment to neighboring residential properties if proper controls were retained by the City Planning Commission and City Council and felt that some of the vacant property along River Street could be developed for single family purposes and be more of a detriment than a woll-planned multiple development. Bill Fair felt that the proposed PZ -R zoning was good long range planning for the City and that enough controls would be present to minimize any effects a development would have on abutting property ownoro. It was Mr. Fairs opinion that if the PZ -R zone is eliminated, the City will be facing the same question again in the future as more of the larger, single family homes along River Street eventually deteriorate and multiple housing is proposed again. After considerable discussion by the Council members, a motion woo made by Fran Fair, seconded by Blonigon, to instruct the City staff to reviso the zoning map to eliminate commercial zoning on Block 30 and to eliminate the PZ -R zona along River Street with the public hearing to continuo until January 13, 1986, for final adoption consideration. Voting in favor was Crimson. Fair, Blonigon, Maxwell. Voting in the opposition: Bill Fair. B. Consideration of Approving a Concept Plan for Replotting and Rezoning the Meadows - Applicant, John Sandborg. A formal request for approval of a preliminary plat and rezoning appeared on the Planning Commission agenda and the City Council agenda November 12, 1985. The public hearing wan hold by the Planning Commission at the came time the City Council was meeting. Substantial opposition from the area rooidanta of the Meadows development appeared at the Planning Commission hearing to object to the proposed rezoning cad roplating. The matter was never passed on by the Planning Commisoion and as a result the City Council tabled action at the loot mooting. °- o Council Mirautes - 11/25/85 Because formal action wan not ti :en by the Planning Commission or the Council, Mr. Sandberg requested that the Council now consider the concept of multiple housing within the Meadows development and the proposed rezoning that would go with it. Mr. Sandberg noted that his proposed R-3 zoning from a planning perspective is appropriate for the area since it allows for a transition from single family residential zoning in the Anders -Wilhelm Estates and Baiboul Estates area to R-2 zoning surrounding the Meadows to his proposed multiple R-3 zoning in the middle of the Meadows development which would lead to the proposed heavy industrial zoning on the Klucas property. Mr. Sandberg noted that presently it is not feasible to develop the Meadows subdivision as currently platted with the addition of streets and sewer and water that would have to be constructed. His estimated cost for completing the project as currently platted for single family and duplex homes would cost approximately $14,000.00 per lot which he felt would be unfeasible. Mr.,Sandberg's proposal to reply t the interior area of the Meadows would create seven multiple apartment sites that could provide up to 196 multiple apartments. Mr. Sandberg also noted that it was hie intention to purchase the Klucas property lying west of the Meadows plat for the purpose of extending Marvin Elwood Road to River Street and he indicated he would also clean up the site by removing all junk from the property. Mayor Grimemo and Councilman Blonigen questioned whether roplatting for additional 196 units of multiple housing would be in tho boat interest of the City since this would create many more housing sites than the City4o comprehensive plan allows for. The comprehensive plan indicates that multiple housing units should not exceed 3014 of the available single family sites in the City and it was noted by the Administrator that the City has occupied or in the planning stages multiple housing unite that exceed the 301 limitation. The Administrator also noted that the City Planner did not fool it would be unreasonable to increase that percentage to 401 of single family iota since the City has experienced rapid growth and door have low vacancy rates on its existing apartment buildings. Councilman Blonigan felt that the rezoning and replotting of the Meadows for multiple housing sites appeared to be proposed strictly for an economic advantage to the developer and wan not convinced that the additional multiple sites were necessary. Councilman Maxwell and Bill Fair were agreeable to requesting additional detail piano for the roplat but were concerned over how the single family croon adjacent to the proposed replat would be protected from a multiple apartment dwelling. After further discussion, a motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Maxwell to ondocpo the general concept of come additional R•3 zoning to be includa in the Meadows plat and requested further dotall plans on the proposal. Voting in favor woo avor body but Blonigon who opposed. Council Minutes - 11/25185 �. 9. Consideration of Respreading Special Assessments in the Meadows - `: Applicant. John Sandberg. Mr. John Sandberg requested approval of the Council to respread the special assessments within the Meadows subdivision including delinquent and future balances amongst the currently buildable Tote along Marvin Elwood Road and Prairie Road. The proposed reassessment would eliminate 12 assessments from interior lots that were previously platted within the Meadows that are not currently available for development and respread these amounts on an equalize basis on the 22 buildable lots that are currently immediately available for housing. With Mr. Sandberg's proposed replatting to create multiple family lots and additional single family lots, the proposed respreading of the assessments would total $7,400.00 for 19 single family lots with double assessments of $14,799.00 for each of the three proposed multiple family lots abutting Marvin Elwood Road. As part of the respreading proposal, Mr. Sandberg would bring current all real estate taxes owing against the 46 lots within the development which would be immediately payable to the Wright County Auditor in the amount of $2,966.00. A motion was made by Rill Fair, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously carried to approve the respreading of the delinquent and unpaid balances of the assessments in the Meadows against the lots abutting Marvin Elwood Road and Prairie Road per the proposed concept for replatting. 10. Review of Water System Analysis and Consideration of Improvements. Recently, the City Engineer presented a draft of the water system analysis for the City which rocommendad improvements to the system including a now ground level 800,000 stand pipe on Monti Hili with interconnecting piping on County Road 118 along with pump house modifications. In reviewing the report with the Public Works Department and City Staff, it was rocommondod that the improvements totaling an estimated $830,700.00 be constructed in the near future to upgrade the City's water system. The proposed improvements would moot the needs of the City until the year 2000 with an estimated population service apace of approximately 5,600 people. In addition to the water system upgrading, it wan racommondod that a water main be installed under County Road 39 from County Road 75 to Mississippi Drive at a cost of approximately 550,000.00 prior to this segment of 39 being improved with pormananet atroot and curb and guttar. Primary discussion by the Cowlcil concerned how the project could be financed if approved and discussion cantered on the three possible alternatives for financing the project. First alternative could be a 100% revenue bond which would raquiro a substantial increase in the currant water rates. Second alternative for a ganoral obligation bond financod entirely by ad valorem taxes would require �t a raferandum veto of tho residents for approval. A third alternative tC could be to sense* a minimum of 20% of the proposed cost with �i the balance collectable under ad valorem taxes which would not require a referendum. 0 .g_ Council Minutes - 11/25/85 It was the general consensus of the Council that upgrading of G.` the water system appears necessary in the near future and it was the consensus to pursue alternate #1 which would include a water tower on Monti Hill with interconnecting piping and pumphouse improvements in the amount of $830,000.00 with an additional $50,000.00 for County Road 39 improvements. City Engineer was also requested to provide information anthe second alternative which would also include additional water main along County Road 118 connecting under the freeway to Mississippi Drive at an additional $200,000.00. Under alternative #2, a portion of the cost could be assessible to property that would benefit from the water main extension. It was estimated that plans and specifications could be ready for bidding possibly early summer of 86 should this project be pursued. 11. Consideration of Final City Hall Roof Payment. Council Member Bill Fair reported to the Council on a meeting that took place between Mr. Greg Votach and his attorney along with City Administrator Tom Eidem, Building Inspector Gary Anderson and himself regarding the final payment on the City Hall roof project. Mr. Fair, in a latter to the Council, recommended that the City make a final payment for the entire labor contract to Mr. Vatsch as it was his opinion the City was the general contractor on the roofing project and should have been responsible for any liability Insurance. Mr. Fair noted that there may have been some misunderstanding regarding insurance coverage that the contractor was supposed to have but the underlying result was that the City would be responsible as a general contractor and he did not believe the City had the right to withhold payments for any damages that occurred during the project. A motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously carried to authorize final payment bo made to Mr. Grog Voteeh in the amount of $7,200.00 par original agreement. 12. Consideration of Change order Request for Monticello Piro Hail Project. A motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously carried to approve Change Order #2 on the Pira Hall construction project with Fullorton Lumber Company for the following items: 1. Addition of six parking apacas, extension of curb and gutter around the now parking spaces, additional five foot sidewalk and painting of parking spaces in the amount of $2,085.60. 2. Provide credit to the City for brick allowance, a deduct of $480.00. 3. Provide a half-inch gypsum board ceiling under areas having suapondod coiling. Add $480.00. Total Change Order #2 in 82,085.60. Council Minutes - 11/25/85 13. Consideration of Execvtin_9 a Contract for Law Enforcement Services with Wright County Sheriff's Deoartment. The Wright County Sheriff's Department has presented a new law enforcement contract with the City of Monticello for 1986. The proposed hourly rate will be $18.00 per hour which amounts to a 5.888 increase over the 1985 contract. The City is expecting 6,905 hours of patrol coverage annually which would amount to a contract totalling $124,290.00. A motion wa: made by Maxwell, seconded by Fair, and unanimously carried to approve entering into the new contract with the Wright County Sheriff's Department ,for law enforcement services for the City for 1986 in the amount of $124,290.00 for 6,905 hours of coverage at $18.00 per hour. 14. Consideration of Cancelling Second Regularly Scheduled Council Meeting for December. A motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously carried to cancel the second meeting of the City Council scheduled originally for December 23, 1985. 15. Approval of Bills. A motion was made by Blonigon, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously carried to approve the bills for the month of November as presented. 1G. Consideration of Gambling License - Knights of Columbus. The Knights of Columbus, Big Lake Council recently applied to the State Charitable Gambling Board for a Class B gambling license to conduct raffloo, tipboarda, paddlowhoole atc. at Joynor's Bowling Allay in Monticello. The Knights of Columbus currently have a bingo license at the VFW Club in Monticello and request that the additional license for raffloo ate. It has boon Council's previous action to diaeapprovo gambling licences for private establishments, especially for organizations outside of the City of Monticello and an a result a motion was made by Blonigen, seconded by Grimace, to write a latter to the State Gambling Board recommending donial of thio Class B Gambling Application. Voting in favor was Blonigon, Grimamo, and Maxwell. Opposed woo Fran Fair. Abstaining was Bill Fair. Rick wolfatolldr Adsiotant Administrator Council Agenda - 12/9/85 Fi4. Public Nearing on a Modification of Tax Increment Finance District 02. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND At the November 12 meeting you adopted a resolution setting a public hearing for the modification of Tax Increment Finance District q2. Tax Increment District #2 is that district in the downtown that currently encompasses the Hass property, K 6 H Auto, Metcalf and Larson'a property, the old Ford building, the truck repair garage, and Jones Manufacturing. The modification of the boundaries is intended to incorporate into the district the residence occupied by Pat Townsend immediately north of Metcalf and Larson's new building, the three vacant lots owned by the RRA scheduled.for construction of an elderly housing project by Metcalf and Larson, Stelton's Laundromat, and the Maria Gustafson property. The intent of the modification is to capture increment that will be generated by the construction of the elderly apartment house. There will be no tax increment finance bonds issued and, in fact, other than the HRA selling the property at market rate, there is no City participation in the elerly project at all. However, it would be beneficial to the development of the Hase/K 6 H property and even the old Ford garage, if the tax increment generated by the elderly apartment house could be used for downtown redevelopment. For thio excess tax increment to be used by the HRA to assist in downtown redevelopment, the property must be included in the f !, district. In essence then, the proposal to to capturo the increment of now construction within tho area, but not to participate financially in any of the proposals presently before us. The excess increment generated by the elderly project would also help affect the cost of acquiring the Haas property and possibly acquiring K 6 H Auto. An you recall, we did pay relocation expense for the Haes's and we did pay demolition expense. These aro coots that vary likely would not be recovered in a straight land sale, but would be easily recovered by the increment generated from the apartment house. Consequently, we will be able to put the property on the market at a reasonable market rate, oven though our expenses overall may have exceeded that number. Any expense exceeding the sale price to the now developer would be recovered by the various tax increment collected in the district. This is a public hearing since modification to district boundaries require the same procedure as establishing the district in the first plata. I do not anticipate any public comment at this time. Upon the close of the hearing I request that you move the adoption of the resolution modifying the boundaries of District q2. D. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Do not adopt the resolution - this would leave the district established for the romaining 23 years exactly as is. It would preclude the collection of tax increment on any now development that might occur on River Street. 2. Adopt the resolution - thio allows us to Collect increment gonoratod by a now project which we aro not financially Involved In. • C. STAFF RECONNENDATION 4. Council Agenda - 12/9/85 Staff recommends that the Council adopt the resolution modifying Tax Increment District q2. The NRA has already adopted a resolution endorsing the modification of this district. The Planning Commission has adopted a resolution showing that it is in conformance with the comprehensive plan. D. SUPPORTING DATA A copy of the HRA resolution, copy of the proposed Council resolution, copy of a map indicating the property in question (blue is the original district, and orange is the area to be added). -2- HRA RESOLUTION 1985 06 A RESOLUTION BY THE MONTICELLO HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MODIFYING THE EXISTING TAX INCREMENT FINANCING REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 02 PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTION 273.71 TO 273.78 INCLUSIVE, THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCE ACT. WHEREAS, the Housing, and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Monticello (the "Authority") is carrying out the Monticello Redevelopment Project (the "Project") and Redevelopment Plan (the "Plan"); and WHEREAS, the Authority determined in 1983 that is was necessary to create a Cox increment financing redevelopment district pursuant to the Minnesota Tax Increment Financing Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.71 to 273.78 inclusive (the"Act") within the redevelopment project created pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.411 et sec., the Municipal Housing and Redevelopment Act; and WHEREAS, in connection with the undertaking to modify the existing tax increment district by the Authority pursuant to the Act, the approval by the Board of Commissioners (the "governing body") of the Authority of the modification to the existing tax increment plan is required by the local governing body before it will consider for approval said modification to the plan; and WHEREAS, there was presented to this meeting of the governing body of the Authority for its consideration and approval, a copy of a tax increment plan modification for said redevelopment district dated November, 1985 which plan is entitled Modification O1 to Tax Increment District 02 ("Modification No.l"); and WHEREAS, the Authority has prepared Modification O1 and submitted Modification 01 to the City Planning Commission of the City of Monticello (the "Planning Commission") for ice review and opinion; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the governing body of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Monticello: 1. That the tax increment financing district as modified herein is a tax increment financing redevelopment district since the construction of the Metcalf/Larson facilities has resulted in and enhanced the tax base of the City, and the elimination of blight. 2. That the proposed redevelopment within the tax increment financing district no modified herein, would not have reasonably been expected to occur solely through private investment because, in the opinion of the City, Metcalf/Larson would not have located its business within the City without tho use of tax increments to finance the acquisition of a suitable site for development; and 0 3. That the Planning Commission has reviewed the tax increment financing plan as modified herein and it conforms to the general plan for i- the development of the municipality because a whole as it will result in an increase in the City's commercial economic activity. 4. That the tax increment financing plan as modified herein will afford maximum opportunity consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development by private enterprise as it will enable the City to assist the developer with the construction of a commerical facility by providing a suitable site for development. The Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Monticello, Minnesota does hereby approve the tax increment financing plan modification and modification dl to tax increment district B2 as described in said tax increment financing plan, and does hereby transmit to the City Council said plan for their adoption. Adopted by the Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority this day of November, 1985. ATTEST: 1 R Chairperson 04" RESOLUTION 1985 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MODIFICATION OF AN EXISTING TAX INCREMENT FINANCING REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 273.71 TO 273.78 INCLUSIVE OF THE MINNESOTA STATUTES, THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING ACT WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Monticello, Minnesota has determined the need to modify the boundaries of an existing Tax Increment Financing District pursuant to Minnesota Statutes , Section 273.71 to 273.78 inclusive, within the Redevelopment Project area created pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462.411 et 2M, and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Monticello. Minnesota, found in 1983 that the Tax Increment Financing District which is to be modified was a Redevelopment Diatrict pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.73, Subdivision 10, and WHEREAS, the proposed modification to the boundaries will assist in increased housing, increased redevelopment, the sliminat ion of blight, and will rosul t in the preservation and enhancement of the tax base of the City, and �I WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed' v� modification of the Tax Increment Financing Diatrict, and WHEREAS, the members of the School Board of Independent School D 1atrict 0882 and the Board of Commisnlonars of the County of Wright have boon informed of the fiscal and economic implications of the proposod Tax Increment Financing Redevelopment District modification, and WHEREAS, a public hearing was hold on December 9, 1985, at 7:30 o'clock p.m. before the City Council in the Council Chambers in the City Hall, in Monticello, Minnesota, notice of which had boon pubiiahad once in the official n evapaper for the City, not loan than 10, nor more than 30 days prior to December 9, 1985, and WHEREAS, at said public hearing all porsona and partioa were given full opportunity to present written and oral testimony, comments, objections, suggestions, and othor matters, all of which were duly considered by the Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RE00LVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELL0 THAT the City of Monticello does hereby modify the existing Tax Increment Financing Redevelopment District M2, and amonc5a the boundaries for said modified Tax Increment Financing (� Redevelopment District and finds: D Resolution 1985 # Page 2 1) That the Tax Increment Financing District as modified herein is a Tax Increment Financing Redevelopment District since the construction of the Metcalf 6 Larson coumercial facility has resulted in the elimination of blight and will increase the assessed value and thus preserve and enhance the tax base of the City. 2) That the proposed redevelopment within the Tax Increment Financing District as modified herein, would not have reasonably been expected to occur solely through private investment because, in the opinion of the City, the lands available for redevelopment would not have been available without the use of tax increment to finance the acquisition of the site and the demolition of blighted structures. 3) The Planning Commission has reviewed the Tax Increment Financing Plan as modified herein, and it conforms to the general plan for the development of the municipality as a whole because it will result in an elimination of blight and an increase in the City -a commorcial redevelopment and economic activity. d) That the Tax Increment Financing Plan as modified herein will afford maximum opportunity consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development by private enterprise as it will enable the City to aesiet the developer with the construction of commorcial facility and elderly multiple housing facilities by providing suitable sites for development. The City Council of the City of Monticello, Minnesota, does hereby approve Modification #1 to the Tax Increment District q2. Adopted by the City Council this 9th day of December, 1985. Thomas A. Eidam City Administrator N Arva A. Grimamo, Mayor Council Agenda - 12/9/05 5. Consideration of a Resolution Awarding the Salo of $350,000.00 in Tax Increment Bonds. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND On November 12, you adopted a resolution authorizing Springoted to prepare the sale documents for the sale of tax increment bonds in the amount of $350,000.00 which will be used by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority to acquire all of Block 15 and to construct 6th Street. Also included in this amount are all legal and administrative expense and capitalized interest for the first two years. The project benfitting from this sale is the construction of a commercial site by Raindance Properties. The bide for the bond sale will be opened at the offices of Springstod at noon on Monday, December 9. Mr. Ron Langneas of Springsted will be attending our meeting and presenting the bids for Council consideration. Upon presentation and review of the bids as submitted, Mr. Langness will make a recommendation of award. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Award the sale as recommended - this will allow the project to proceed on schedule. As of Monday, December 2, Springsted 1 is anticipating 3 - 5 bide being received. The proceeds of the bond sale, if awarded, will be in the hands of the City prior to the and of tho year. t 2. Do not award the sale - this may atop the overall project since the sale of those bonds may be prohibited after the first of the year duo to federal legislation. The issuance of industrial revenue bonds aro proceeding with document preparation and negotiations between the financial institutions and the developers. This tax increment finance issue is supplemental to the industrial revenue bond proposal. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the bond sale be awarded to the boat bidder. D. SUPPORTING DATA The resolution for adoption will be presented by Ron Langn000 at the meeting. NOTE: we may receive a draft copy of the resolution directly from Holmes and Graven in time to be mailed with your supplement, but the final resolution will be presented by Springatod at the meeting. -3- Council Agenda - 12/9/85 r;. 6. Consideration of Adopting a Resolution Authorizing the Execution of a Pledge Agreement with the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. (T.E.) .1 A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Presuming that you have just awarded the sale of tax increment bonds for the Raindance Properties Project, it now becomes essential to execute a pledge agreement with the Housing and Redevelopment Authority to ensure that the tax increment will be dedicated to the payment of the debt. Under the Tax Increment Law, the tax increment generated by the Project will be issued annually to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. But, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority did not issue the bonds, the City did. It is therefore essential to ensure that the tax increment paid to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority will be pledged over to the City for the payment of bonded indebtedness. This agreement does precisely that. Identical agroements to this have been executed between the City and the HRA on previous tax increment finance projects. The execution of such an agreement is primarily a formality, but needs to be completed to ensure compliance with Minnesota Statute. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Adopt the resolution entering the pledge agreement - This will guarantee that the tax increment generated by the Project will be paid over to the City, from the HRA, for the purpose of retiring the $350,000.00 Tax Increment Bonds. 2. Do not adopt the resolution - this simply means that, while the HRA will more than likely pay the increment over to the City, they aro not required to do so. without the agreement, an HRA (not noc000arily ours) could koop the tax increment generated to do other projects, thereby forcing the City to levy against general property in order to pay its debt. This would be in violation of both the intent of the low, and the Council's intent to make sure the Project pays for itself. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the resolution be adopted and the pledge agreement be executed. D. SUPPORTING DATA A copy of the agreement, copy of the resolution for adoption, copy of the HRA resolution adopted December 5, 1985. -4- TAX INCREMENT PLEDGE AGREEMENT by and between THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA and THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered Into on or as of the day of , 1985, by and between the City of Monticello, Minnesota (the "City"), and The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Monticello, Minnesota (the "HAA"). WHEREAS; the HRA established Redevelopment District No. 6 (the "District"), prepared the Tax Increment Financing Plan #6 (the "Plan") for the District, and approved the Plan on October 10, 1985; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City approved the Plan on November 12, 1985; and WHEREAS, pursuant to authority conferred by Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.77, and Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475, the City has agreed to finance certain public redevelopment costs to be incurred by the HRA in the District through the issuance of general obligation bonds of the City, designated the $350,000 General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1985, and hereinafter referred to as the "Bonds"; and WHEREAS, the HRA has agreed to pledge certain tax increment revenues to the City for the payment of the principal of and interest on the Bonds; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.77(6), any agreement to pledge tax Increment revenues must be made by written agreement by and between the HRA and the City and must be filed with the County Auditor of Wright County; NOW, THEREFORE, the City and the HRA mutually agree to the following: (1) The City will sell the Bonds. (2) The proceeds from the sale of the bonds and the earnings from the Investment of such proceeds will be made available to the HRA to pay or reimburse the HRA for public redevelopment costs paid, Incurred, or to be paid or Incurred, by the HRA In the District. (3) All tax Increment generated by the District from and after the date of this Agreement shall be deposited in a special fund (the "Project Fund") held by the HRA. The HRA hereby pledges to the payment of the principal and Interest on the Bonds, tax Increment from the Project Fund In an amount equal to 105% of the annual principal and Interest due on the Bonds. (4) Before the date of certification of City taxes in each year for collection by Wright County (such date being hereinafter referred to as the 0 "Certification Date"), there shall be transferred from the Project Fund to the Debt Service Account maintained by the City for the payment of the d- Bonds, an amount which when taken together with amounts already on deposit in the Debt Service Account, Is equal to 105% of all principal and interest then due or to become due on the Bonds on the following three debt service payment dates. If, prior to any Certification Date the Project Fund contains an amount In excess of the amount to be transferred to the Debt Service Account maintained by the City for the payment of the Bonds before such Certification Date, then such excess amounts shall be available to the HRA to pay or reimburse the HRA for public redevelopment costs paid, incurred, or to be paid or incurred, by the H RA in the District. (5) Without regard to anything In this Agreement to the contrary, tax increment generated by the District shall be available to pay principal of and interest on both the Bonds and any other obligations issued by the City, HRA or any other public body to finance public redevelopment costs paid or incurred by the HRA in the District. (6) When the entire public redevelopment costs of the District have been paid and all principal and Interest on the Bonds and other obligations Issued to finance the public redevelopment costs of the District have been paid, and the City has been reimbursed from collections of tax Increment from the Project for collections of general ad valorem taxes used to pay principal of and interest on the Bonds, then the HRA shall report such fact to the City Council of the City and the HRA shall submit a final statement of such payments. Upon audit of this statement and approval thereof by the City Council, the payment of the expenditures of the HRA In the Project shall be reported to the County Auditor of Wright County. (7) An Executed copy of this Agreement shall be filed with the County Auditor of Wright County pursuant to the requirement contained In Minnesota Statutes, Section 279.77(a). U IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and the HRA have caused this Agreement to be duly executed on their behalf and their seals to be hereunto affixed and such signatures and seals to be attested, as of the day and year first above written. ATTEST: (SEAL) ATTEST: Clerk -Administrator . Secretary CITY OF MONTICELLO By Mayor THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELL/O. MINNESOTA Chairman HRA Resolution No. 1985 17 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A TAX INCREMENT PLEDGE AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "HRA") has heretofore established Redevelopment District No. 6 (the "District"), prepared a Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "Plan") for the District, and has heretofore approved the Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Monticello (the "City") has heretofore approved the Plan; and WHEREAS, in order to finance the District, it is necessary that the Authority enter into a Tax Increment Pledge Agreement with the City pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.77, securing $350,000 aggregate principal amount of General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1985 of the City and the Interest thereon, Issued to finance the District and any additional bonds that may be issued to finance the District. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by The Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority, 1. That the Chair of the HRA Is hereby authorized and directed to execute the Tax Increment Pledge Agreement (the "Agreement"), on behalf of the Authority In substantially the form attached hereto as Exhbit A and Incorporated herein by reference. 2. Upon execution of the Agreement by the parties thereto, the Secretary of the Authority Is hereby directed pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.77, to file an executed copy of the Agreement with the County Auditor of Wright County, Minnesota. Adopted this 51 - day of �t tG 1985. Attest: Secretary F4 0 RESOLUTION 1985 R ti. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A TAX INCREMENT PLEDGE AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Monticello (the "Authority") created the Central Monticello Redevelopment Project (the "project"), prepared a redevelopment plan (the "plan") for the project, which was approved by the City Council of the City of Monticello (the "City") on December 13, 1985; and WHEREAS, the Authority and the City have adopted a tax increment financing plan pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.74 and the Authority has requested that the County Auditor of Wright County certify the original assessed value of Monticello Tax Increment Redevelopment District N6 describing such plan; and WHEREAS, in order to finance the project, it is necessary that the Authority and the City enter into a tax increment pledge agreement in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.77, pursaant to which tax increment pledgo agreement the Authority will pledge tax increment generated by Monticello Tax Increment Redevelopment District N6 to secure the principal of and interest on the General Obligation Tax Increment q Note of 1985 of the City, issued to finance the project, and any additional �1. bonds that may be issued to finance the project. NOW. THEREFORE, 8E IT RESOLVED 8Y THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO. MINNESOTA: That the Mayor is hereby authorized and directed to execute the tax increment pledge agreement (the "agreement"), on behalf of the City in substantially the form attached harato as Exhibit A and incorporated heroin by reference, and to deliver the signed agreement to the Authority for execution and filing with the Wright County Assessor, Adopted thin 9th day of December, 1985. Mayor ATTEST: City Administrator Council Agenda - 12/9/85 7. Consideration of Encomeassing a Request to Rezone to R-3 Within the Overall Zoning Revisions. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At the last regular Council meeting, John Sandberg came before the Council to present the idea of rezoning a portion of the Meadows to R-3. He indicated that if the idea of such a zoning amendment was not acceptable to the City, he would no longer pursue the replotting of the property. At that meeting, the Council gave their preliminary indication that R-3 in that area was sensible planning, but there were some development concerns. Based on that indication from the Council, John proceeded with the development proposal in order to acquire Planning Commission review on December 3 and return to the Council with both a preliminary plat and the rezoning request on December 9. The Planning Commission failed to have a quorum on Tuesday. Decembor 3; and. consequently, no action was taken on any Planning Commission item. In a poll of each of the Council members (except Jack, who I have been unable to reach ae of this writing), the consensus was to turn all Planning Commission items back to the Planning Commission to be hoard at their January mooting. I incorrectly informed each of you that the Council would very likely have to hear the Sandberg request because 60 days from the time of application had expired, and anapplicant has the right to be hoard within 60 days. What happened is that I transposed in my mind a discussion I had hold with John earlier without chocking the language in the Ordinance. It was John's contention that he had the right to be hoard within 60 days of application; and upon checking the Ordinance, it rondo that the Council shall not act on any conditional use or zoning amendment until it has rocoived a report from the Planning Commission or until 60 days has lapsed s into the data of the first hearing. The first hearing was Novembo r 12, no January 12 will be the 61st day. Because the Planning Commission did not meat as scheduled, no report is forthcoming to the Council; so the Council more than likely will have to wait the 60 days before hearing the requost. Thin croatoo an entirely now problem. Please try to stay with me as I describe the following possible econarioa; they got quite confusing. Lot us begin by aoouming that both the overall zoning ordinance and the Sandberg request for rezoning will be hoard on January 13. If the Council hears the overall zoning ordinanco first, than the property in question under the Sandberg request will be zoned R-2, and the Klucao property will be zoned I-2. Next, if the Council hears the Sandberg request for rezoning to R-3, and that request in denied, then John Sandberg Is loft with an R-2 zone adjacent to an I-2 zone. Ito hao indicated, and I believe justifiably, that if he dean not got R-3 zoning in the area in question, then he wishes to oppose I-2 zoning next to the residential zone. If he receives the R-3 zoning, than the objactions to I-2 aro nil since the tiering or phoning concept GE Council Agenda - 12/9/85 of zoning is in effect. If the R-3 is denied, it is his contention that the lands zoned residential will be cut in value because they are immediately adjacent to heavy industry. So John Sandberg, by being second on the agenda, is somewhat stalled in protecting his property. The other alternative is to put John Sandberg's request on the agenda prior to taking action on the overall zoning ordinance. If that's the case, then this is what could happen: If the Council denies the request for R-3 zoning, then John could oppose the I-2 zoning on the Klucas property when the hearing portion comes to pass. However, if the Council approves the R-3 zoning and then in the next step adopts the new zoning ordinance, the area in question will be R-3 only for about 3 minutes. The adoption of the new ordinance would put the property back to R-2 largely because that is the way the map was proposed and published for the public. The only way around that would be to grant the R-3 zoning to Sandberg, then order still a third public hearing for the overall zoning ordinance scheduled for February, and include the now R-3 zone in it. I'm not sure that further delays in the overall zoning ordinance are desirable. The final alternative the Council can consider was originally suggested by Councilmombor Maxwell at the last meeting. He stated at that time it might be beneficial to simply incorporate this area as R-3 into the overall zoning map as long as it had to be published again. I noted to the Council that I did not want to do that for the following reason. The proposal is already one which has substantial opposition and is delicate in nature. It is my contention that the rezoning can successfully occur if, and only if, the City Council exorcises substantial control in the design and development of the plat that will eventually be developed in the area. 8y rezoning this area as part of the overall zoning ordinance, prior to the approval of a plot, then the City has basically relinquished all control of that R-3 zone, except as what might be available under a conditional use application. Once rezoned, there would be no need to replat, and a number of 12 -unit apartments, which aro permitted uses, could be cractod without any Planning Commission or Council control. Thio, to me, would be the greatest form of negligence of the planning Commission and Council. I think it is far bettor to allow the R-3 to occur provided that performance standards aro built in that will mitigate the negative impact on those porcono who already rooida in the area. Such actiono will demonstrate both support of the development and concern for the current residents. This confusion, generated by the lack of a Planning Commlooion mooting, thus leads me to this final option. Upon explicit direction from the City Council thin coming Monday night, the overall zoning map will be adjusted to reflect R-3 in thio area, and this R-3 4 zone will have a "sunsot provision." In ennonco, this moans that -6- C� Council Agenda - 12/9/85 the language of adoption of the zoning ordinance will state that these parcels shall be zoned R-3 for a period of 60 days, at which time if the City has not received and approved a multiple housing replat, the zoning will revert to R-2. Please understand that the 60 days Is an arbitrary number and could be changed to any number you wish. This action tends to place the burden on the developer. The zoning requested has been granted but will go into effect if, and only if, a plat is fully approved and accepted by the City. In conjunction with this action, I suggest that the City declare a moratorium on building permits in this area that coincides with the time limit placed on the sunset provision. This action tends to address both the City's concerns about establishing performance standards and having a regulated plat, and it addresses the concerns of John Sandberg with respect to his proposal and its relationship to the overall zoning ordinance. I have conferred this morning with the Land Use Attorney at the League of Minnesota Cities, who informs me that this is a legal and acceptable action, although it is a bit unusual. H. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Direct me to amend the proposed overall zoning map to include R-3 zoning in a portion of the Meadows for adoption in January - this can be done with or without the sunset provision. Without the eunnot provision, the R-3 zoning becomes permanent and performance standard controls are relinquished. With the sunset provision, we would put a building permit moratorium on the lots in question and ensure that a satisfactory plat is eventually developed. If that plat Is not developed, then the zoning would revert to R-2. 2. Do not direct me to amend the overall map - this opens up all of the confusion that has boon generated by the concurrence of the individual zoning amendment request and the overall zoning revision. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the overall zoning ordinance reflect an R-3 zone and provloiona for ounsotting be built into the notice and the adoption. D. SUPPORTING DATA: None. -7- Council Agenda - 12/9/85 B. Consideration of Setting a Date for a Special Meeting for the Express Purpose of Adopting a Resolution Granting Final Approval to the Issuance of Industrial Revenue Bonds - Applicant, Raindance Properties. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Raindance Properties is the developer of the commercial site to be situated on Block 15 where Maus Foods will relocate. Several months ago, the Council approved the application for IRB'o and then gave a resolution of preliminary approval. The last act required to close the deal is a resolution of final approval and by law, that resolution must be done after all of the legal documents have been prepared by the attorneys. Primarily due to the lack of final commitment by the financial institutions, the process for developing all documents has fallen behind. Consequently, the final documents could not and will not be prepared in time for action on December 9. Dan Nelson, of Holmes & Graven, has indicated that all documents will be ready by December 16. December 16 is the earliest the Council could hold a special meeting. I also must stress that the special meeting must occur before the end of the year, or the entire allocation of IRB -s will be lost. In talking with Mr. Nelson of Holmes & Graven, the adoption process should take about 15-20 minutes and does not necessarily need to be hold in the evening. It does not involve a public hearing �W and is primarily an adoption formality. I think it would be most beneficial to eat the hearing for a late afternoon on or shortly after December 16. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Set a spacial mooting - thin will ensure that the process completes iteolf within tho allowed time frame. 2. Do not eat a spacial meeting - this, in essence, negates the entire project and all the work we have done to data. C. STAPP RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that we hold the spacial mooting in the late afternoon on the 16th. D. SUPPORTING DATA: None. �J Mr. GENERAL FUND -- DECEMBER AMOUNT CHECK NO. Lindberg Decorating - Paint for parks 71.36 21528 Corrow Sanitation - Contract payment for November 5,985.0 O 21529 OSM - Engineering fees 3,790.87 21530 Dept. of Natural Resources - Dep. Reg. fees 18.00 21531 Dept. of Natural Resources - Dep. Reg. fees 142.00 21532 Dept. of Natural Resources - Dep. Reg. fees 54.00 21533 Jerry Hermes - Janitorial services at Library 172.92 21534 David Stromberg - Animal control contract 212.50 21535 Anoka County Social Services - Payroll ded. 88.00 21536 State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded. 225.04 21537 Mrs. Beverly Johnson - Animal control contract 250.00 21538 U. S. Post Office - Pitney Bows meter fee for stamps 500.00 21539 VOID -0- 21540 Commissioner of Revenue - State W/H 2,127.00 21541 State Treasurer - PERA W/H 1,466.08 21542 Stale Treasurer - FICA W/H 2,733.7 9 21543 Wright County State Bank - FED W/H 4,234.00 21544 Mr. Arve Grimsmo - Mayor salary 175.0 0 21545 Mr. Dan Blonigen - Council salary 125.00 21546 Mrs. Fran Fair - Council salary 125.00 21547 Mr. William Fair - Council salary 125.00 21548 Mr. Jack Maxwell - Council salary 125.00 21549 YMCA of'Mpls. - Monthly contract payment 458.33 21550 James Preusse - Cleaning City Hall 308.35 21551 Dept. of Not. Res. - Dep. Reg. fees 22.00 21552 Dept. of Nat. Res. - Dep. Reg. fees 192.00 21553 VOID -0- 21554 M. Chapter NSWMA - Seminar fees for Jahn Simola 25.00 21555 Purcell Plumbing 6 Heating - WWTP expense 36.00 21556 Hoglund Bus - Vehicle repairs 75.23 21557 Kitowski Auto b Welding Co. - Bolts, for 78 Int. repair 76.75 21558 Simonson Lumber - Misc. supplies 56.82 21559 Earle F. Andersen - Handicap signs 6 posts 196.21 21560 Monti Truck Repair - Air line for 81 Chay. 69.20 21561 Orkin Exterminating - Pest control at WWTP 106.00 21562 Unitog Rental Services - Uniform rental 142.55 21563 Campbell Abstract Co. - Searches for Block 15, Lover Mont. 84.00 21564 Davis Electronic Service - Fire Dept. repairs 128.83 21565 Central McGowan - Oxygen, etc., 27.90 21566 Monticello Printing - S/W itemized sheets 8.65 21567 Marlene Hallman - Mileage to mist. locations - Aug. - Dec. 28.75 21568 Lynnea Cillham - Misc. mileage for 1985 52.00 21569 Whitehill Corp. - Tranquilizer gun for ani -mal control 370.68 21570 Chamber of Commerce - Phone raimb. for Econ. Dev. Comm. 8.40 21571 Karen Doty - Mileage from 5/24 thru 11/27 - '85 18.75 21572 United States Salt. Inc. - Deicing stilt for streets 717.46 21573 Snyder Drug, - Film for Wast County Road 039 project 33.98 21574 Purcell Plumbing 6 Heating - WWTP repairs 126. 14 21575 North Central Public Service - Gas for all locations 3,030.71 21576 Pyle's Backhoe - Repair curb stop in Meadows 50.00 21577 Hazard Control - Eyewash station for Mtco. Bldg. 29.77 21578 Bareness Drug - Photo album for Wast Cty. Road project 13. 78 21579 MacQueen Equip. - Window kit for equipment 168.07 21580 Twin City Testing - Work to determine cause of looks-WWTP 209.00 21581 Smith, Pringle b Hayes - Legal for November 726.00 21582 Monticello Office Products - Misc. office supplies 368.87 21583 GENERAL FUND AMOUNT CHECK NO. Holmes 6 Graven - Legal for Raindance 6 Const. 5 1,225.25 21584 St. Cloud Appraisal - K 6 H Auto appraisal fee 750.00 21585 U. of MN. - Reg. fee for seminar for Gary Anderson 90.00 21586 State Treasurer - PERA - Ins. premium - reimb. 18.00 21587 MN. Coalition of Outstate Cities - Leg. service assmt. fee 585.00 21588 Wright County Auditor - Police contract payment 9,782.08 21589 MN. Assoc. of Civil Def. Directors - Annual dues 3.00 21590 La Dene Walker - Pickup repair - St. Dept. 80.28 21591 MN. Dept. of Energy 6 Econ. Dev. - Seminar fee for 0. Kor. 6.00 21592 Dept. of Natural Resources - Dep. Reg. fees 36.00 21593 Petty Cash - Reimb. petty cash fund 37.38 21594 Bridgewater Telephone - Telephone 890.84 21595 Century Laboratories - Supplies for Mtce. Bldg. 74.53 21596 Syneco Systems - WWTP supplies 680.00 21597 North Central Public Service - Gas 3.00 21598 Pace Laboratories - Soil 6 sludge analysis for WWTP 342.00 21599 Industrial Lubricant Co. - Snow plow blades 374.00 21600 Nelson 011 - Gas for St. Dept. 39.62 21601 Seitz Hardware - Supplies for all Depts. 171.72 21602 Moon Motors - Equip. repair 9.57 21603 Gorelick Steel - Sceel for Mtce. 121.00 21604 Monticello TW Hardware - Push broom, shovel, gloves, etc. 86.22 21605 Monticello Times - Misc. printing and publishing 2,179.41 21606 (Zoning map printing twice at $737.30 6 735.30) Maus Foods - Supplies for all Depts. 161.89 21607 Darlene Sawatzke - OAA meeting 15.00 21608 Mrs. Arlyn Nelson - OAA meeting 15.00 21609 LeRoy Engstrom - OAA meetings 6 mileage 55.20 21610 Marjorie Goetzke - OAA meetings 6 sec. 92.50 21611 Arve Grimsmo - OAA meetings - (5) 75.00 21612 Franklin Denn - OAA meetings - (6) 90.00 21613 Paul McAlpine - OAA meeting 6 mileage 21.30 21614 Tom Salkowski - OAA meetings (6) at 525.00/meeting 150.00 21615 Wright County Recorder - Recording fees - West Cello opts. 20.00 21616 Harry's Auto Supply - Hoses, filters. etc. for equip. 438.72 21617 Coast to Coast - Supplies for all Dopts. 167.71 21618 Diane Jacobson - Misc. mileage - July through Nov. 20.95 21619 Rood Machinery 6 Supplies - Truck rental for Christ. dec. 295.00 21620 Northern States Power - Utilities 7,854.34 21621 Curtin Matheson - WWTP supplies 213.13 21622 National Life Ins. - T. Eidem's fns. premium 100.00 21623 Marco Business Products - Copy machine supplies 151.20 21624 Payroll for November 28,633.72 GENERAL - TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS - DEC. $86,867.30 LIQUOR FUND - DECEMBER - 1985 AMOUNT CF—WCK NO. Ed Phillips & Sons - Liquor 1,997.36 12092 Quality Wines - Liquor 1,372.82 12093 State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded. 170.00 12094 Wright County State Bank - FWF - November 550.00 12095 Commissioner of Revenue - SWT - Nov. 204.00 12096 State Treasurer - PERA W/H 148.67 12097 State Treasurer - FICA W/H 254.06 12098 Ed Phillips 6 Sons - Liquor 5.199.03 12099 Dain, Bosworth, Inc. - Add. amt, due on investments 3,932.27 12100 Lund Distributing - Misc. mdse. 338.25 12101 7 Up Bottling - Misc. mdse. 107.60 12102 Twin City Wine - Liquor 1,940.51 12103 Quality Wine - Liquor 597.50 12104 Day Distributing Co. - Liquor 718.15 12105 Dahlheimer Dist. Co. - Beer, etc. 13,274.45 12106 Griggs. Cooper - Liquor 5,341.55 12107 North Central Public Service - Gas 326.01 12108 Crosslein Beverage - Beer, etc. 10,862.56 12109 Bernick's Pepsi Cola - Misc. mdse. 206.35 12110 Kolles Sanitation - Garbage contract 91.50 12111 Thorpe Dist. Co. - Beer 4,897.24 12112 Bridgewater Telephone - Telephone 55.65 12113 Monticello Office Products - Markers, pens, pencils, etc. 50.70 12114 Granite City Cash Register - Supplies 90.20 12115 Cloudy Town Diet. - Misc. mdse. 22.25 12116 Quality Wine b Spirits - Liquor 44.99 12117 Leifert Trucking - Freight 540.69 12118 Coast to Coast - Store expense 13.77 12119 VOID -0- 12120 Seitz Hardware - Outlet strips 16.98 12121 Maus Foods - Store expense 48.65 12122 Monticello Times - Adv. 180.30 12!23 Northern States Power - Utilities 557.53 _ 12124 Jude Candy b Tobacco - Misc. mdso 479.54 12125 Dick Beverage - Beer. etc. 2,008.05 12126 Payroll for November 3.429.35 TOTAL. DISBURSEMENTS - DECEMBER $60.068,53 CITT OF 1LR7rIC010 • IbnthlyBuilding Dcpartmrnt ReporL Ibnthori rq,,_Lobe, 19.6 PUUUT3 and USES • - leeE-- 7--'11�e- Same Ibn�h "Last Year 11de Tesr� PEMUTS 1SSM HMth seoaaeb4r Ibnthnrtnhnr Leet Tear To Date To Date RMI DMI AL i1 llumber Valuet3 on 17 6 0 O6 81,433,930.00 f 157,]]0.00 197,400.00 13,540,027.00 i 09 3,]76,070.00 F000 6,962.79 675.20 941.95 12,247.74 27,114.76 Surcharges 716.95 76.15 16.65 1,200.77 ' 2,609:50 CUf0471CIAL ' Number 17 -1 32 Valuation 12,700.00 2,251,000.00 16,000.00 1,161,429.00 20 '1,992,660.00 Fees 96.70 10.131.95 116.50 7,96].26 ' I6, 067.43 - Surahnrges 6.39 1,125.50.. 0.00 580.65 I, 996. J0 111R1ST1UAL Number 5 I Valu Lim 1,776,500.00 Fee. 0,316.53 Surcharges 660.65 P W I�I110 , Number IJ 9 3 47 60 Fees 420.00 340.00 71.00 1,736.00 2,436.00 Sureherges 6.50 2.50 1.50 27.50 37.00 on1EPS Ihtmber 2 1 Valuation 456,900.00 Fees 20.00 2,205.02 Surcharges 726.29 TOTAL 110. PFIWI7S _..... .. ..._. I _ .... - JI 14 171 _174-. TOTAL VAIIIATION 9169. X00.00 86,477, 99G.00 BIB 4]0.00 1.4i6.630.00 92.403.330.00 li._. - TOTAL FIDS 7.479.12 _L1.250.39_ 1`179. SQ__ 36.756.53 _ 49 903.21 IWAL SURC11AR4r9 779.00 1.704.19 ec .c + arc+ cc 4,951.09 atulFlrr lural _ - rPT t7luobrr to -Dnta IPDl7UT IIAT1RIg Valuation Umber PFRMiT_..;eMCdARGE. 11114 Yce� Lpst year Single Fatally 7 1 637.40 1 61.99 11 3j 78 Duple. X123,900.01 Ilultl-feedly (I CoZeretal Industrial 3 10,034.99 1,125.50 2,791,F00.01 10 13 p 4 Ras: Garages 1 67.50 3.50 7,000.01 19 16 0 0 51 pts Publk Oulldina4 I 1 7 ALTEILkTIOU OR RUAIR i Mellings / 3 175.30 10.70 I 1.430.& 20 79 Comnercl el 17 17 Industrial I 0 1 I PWIM1110 All types I 5 740.00 7,50 11 60 47 ACCESSOPY 6TRUCTUALS ' 1 evlmin9 Pools 0 0 1 Die Aa 0 0 1 TLHPOAART PEAMIT •0 0.• DEMOLITION , �!;•1� I• 0 7 t . I TOTALS ' 14 .J11.25R.1.1' _ Jj.704. 15 1Z;4n3_y+n.^ 17O_.�7J- INDIVIDUAL PEFMIT ACTIVITY REPORT . MONTH OF October , 198 PERMIT DESCRIPTION I P NAME/LOCATION v1LUaT10N I 1 V ­NUMBER (PERMIT ISURCXARGEI PLUMBING I SLIRCMARG I 65-620 Hmuae Will— AD (Pet Imrtln/318 Cost 4th Street 3 1,430.00 3 14.10 $ .70 8 9 05-621 Bingle Tasily Ora In, St Cyr Cone trust Lori/ 2603 Meador oak lane 50,600.00 284.80 ' 25.30 21.00 .50 85-622 Xowe 6 Ca rage Raaldlnq e Reahingling 4D Lynn Wise/1001 Meet BrOadray 12,000.00 92.50 6.00 85-921 Nureln9 Home Phoma 3 C Mon 41!6110/1119 take Coms. HOepltal 1404 tams elver Straat 1,950,000.00 5,056.00 975.00 235.00 .50 BS -1124 Deurhed Oalage AO.Las Ile L4[eon/825 lost erudray 7,000.00 62.30 3.50 63-025 Bingle r.mlly Duelling BY �Dennle TAyLOr/216 Hisolsslppl Drive 73.300.00 152.90 38.85 j 25.00 .50 65-626 O[r1Ce/Antall Bullding C RLCk Borden 6 Watton Smith/611 6 611 Iralnue Streec ,000.00 I 2:01.000.00 I 861.00 140.00 37.00 .50 i 05-627 IXouse Alold Lng AD -Robert Jameson/6]]7 Tarrl torlal Ad. 8,000.00 1 68.50 4.00 . ; 05-828 Garage jC IMontlt013o/Big Lok. Comm. Hospl sal I ' I (Ambulance !1003 Hart Blvd. B 5 144.00 B I 10.50 13 25.00 8 .50 ' TOTALS $3,403,130.00 B 6,960.21 B 1,201.65 i8 248.00 S 2.SO PLAN PNttu I 11 I i 3 65-023 ( Wareing Nome phase 3 t �Moncicel to/elg Lake Comm. Hospital ' IOrrlee/Aetall 1104 CAot Alver St, at k $3.287.70 I j I 05-826 iHick Gordan 6 Marron Smlth/611 6 611 II • I ' Walnut Street 662.25 I I I I TOTAL PLAW ACVIBW 1 1.949.15 • ' -TOIAL 0.S'VINUC I I 6 12,462.30 _ I 1 I 1