Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
City Council Agenda Packet 11-26-1984
AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL November 26, 1984 - 7:30 P.M. Mayor: Arve A. Grimsmo Council Members: Fran Fair, Ken Maus, Jack Maxwell, Dan Blonlgen 1. Call to Order. 2. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held November 13, 1984. 3. Citizens Comments/Petitions, Requests, and Complaints. Old Business 4. Consideration of a Resolution Setting the Sale of Series 1985 General Obligation Bonds for the Purposes of Constructing a Fire Hall and Acquiring Adjunct Equipment. 5. Consideration of Entering a Contract for Lav Enforcement Services with the Wright County Sheriff 'a Department. 6. Consideration of a Proposal to Vacate River Street in Exchange for Alternate Street Dedication - Applicant, Monticollo-Big Lake Hospital District. 7. Consideration of Bide and Award of Contract for New Snowplow Truck. B. Consideration of Appointment of Now Employee for the Street and Parke Department. 9. Consideration of Entering an Agreement with Minnesota Department of Transportation. Now Businces 10. Consideration of Conditional Use Request to Allow a Nursing Home in an R -B Zone - Applicant, Monticello -Big Lake Community Hospital District. 11. Consideration of a Conditional Use Roqueat to Allow Outdoor Salon in a B-3 Zone - Applicant, Monticello Auto Sales, Inc. 12. Consideration of Conditional Use Request to Allow a Detached Accessory Building in Excess of 1000 SQuaro Fact to be Built Without a Principal Use for the Vacant Property - Applicant, Marvin Scherer. 13. Consideration of Variance Request Appeal for a Simple Subdivision C Request of oResidential Lot, Variance Requests for Loco than the Minimum Lot Width and Lot Squara Footago - Applicant, Harry Stokes. Agenda for the Meeting of the City Council November 26, 1984 - 7:30 P.M. Page 2 14. Consideration of a Subdivision Concept for the Ed Doran/ Rand Mansion Property - Applicant, Ed Doran and Realty Station. 15. Review of 3rd Quarter Liquor Store Financial Report. 16. Approval of Transfers Between Funds. 17. Consideration of Setting a Date for a Special Meeting for the Express Purpose of Discussing 1985 Salaries for Non -Union Personnel. 18. Consideration of Bills for the Month of November. 19. Adjournment. C MINUTES j REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL LNovember 13, 1984 - 7:30 P.M. Members Present: Mayor Arve Grimamo, Fran Fair, Ken Maus, Jack Maxwell, Dan Blonigen. Members Absent: None. 1. Call to order. 2. Approval of Minutes. Motion by Maus, second by Blonigen, and carried unanimously to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held October 22, 1984, and the special meeting held November 7, 1984. 3. Citizens Comments/Potations, Requests and Complaints. Don Cochran, member of both the Housing and Redevelopment Authority and the Monticello Planning Commission, came before the Council to tender his official resignation from those bodies. He expressed hie appreciation for the opportunity to servo the City and stated that he found the operation of the City government to be efficient and admirable. He indicated that he found his time on both ' Commissions to be rewarding and an experience to value. He stated that he would miss Monticello and that he simply wanted to stop in to bid one final farowoll before leaving for the state of Maryland. The Council acknowledged receipt of the resignation and acknowledged an excellent job done by Mr. Cochran. 4. Public Hoarinq - Consideration of Vacating a Portion of River Street. The Mayor opened the public hearing. There being no representatives from the hoopital, the Mayor asked City Administrator Eldem to give a brief introduction with respect to the request. Eidom explained the request that had boon submitted by the Monticello -Big I.ako Hospital for the vacation. Using a graphic provided by the hospital, he shoved that a portion of the proposed construction and the parking lot would lie within the River Street right-of-way. Eidom noted that he had talked to Barb Schwientak of the Hospital District and informed her that he did not want to take an adversarial position to their project, but that he hold a general position that cities should avoid vacations if other alternatives could be presented. F.idem also stated to the Council that he did not vont to take unfair advantage of the hoapital'a absence r to present hie ceso and that he would try and be as objective as p000lblo. -1- Council Minutes - 11/13/84 Eidem went on to explain that the portion of River Street lying behind the hospital would not necessarily be a problem. However, vacating the full extent of River Street until its termination could eventually leave that portion inaccessible. He said in terms of long range planning, it might be valuable to hold the right-of-way even though there are no development plans for street in the foreseeable future. Eidem went on to say that it was that very issue that was at conflict between the City and the hospital. He noted that Schwientek had indicated that part of their desire for vacation was to preclude the possibility that a street could ever be opened on the north side of their building. He went on to say that Ms. Schwientek had indicated the possibility of a compromise by creating a north/south roadway that would join Hart Boulevard and the eastern most extension of River Street. Eidem stated that one of the more attractive alternatives would be to arrange for a vacation of a southerly portion of the River Street right-of-way in exchange for an equal amount of footage on the north aide of the existing right-of-way, thereby allowing the City to retain a full 80 -foot street right-of-way. The Mayor asked a question with respect to the sewer collector line that rune through the center of existing River Street. John Badalich of OSM responded that the proposed building was approximately 10 fact away and that there might be some question as to the stability of the line and the footings, but that matter 1 would have to be resolved with the hospital's architects. Badalich ' noted that the building plane had been altered alightly so that J the City and hospital could avoid a recircuiting or rerouting of the collection line. Councilmombor Fair asked whether or not a construction easement couldn't be granted to allow the nursing home to be built in the street right-of-way without going through the formal vacation. Eidem responded that yea, 'ouch an casement could occur, but once the building is built we have, for all practical purposes, given up that section of right-of-way. The Council unanimously expressed support for the nursing home project and indicated they did not wish to jeopardize the construction in any way, but felt that an exchange of Dome land to the north for the vacation of soma land on the south was a viable alternative. They further agreed that the development of a thoroughfare to the north of the hospital was highly unlikely, but the protection of an 80 -foot right-of-way for the City is important enough to enter negotiations for an exchange. Councilmember Fair also indicated that long-range planning may sea River Street united through to Minnesota Street. Again, the Council agreed that this to highly unlikely to occur in the near future since there are buildinga currently in the route as wall as sections of unplattod areae that separate the two rights-of-way, but the notion was that they may be able to be connected aoveral decades J n the future. It was thin possible connection that the City did not wish to rule out. J Council Minutes -'11/13/84 1�{ There was a brief discussion of snowplowing at the end of existing I' River Street and how that would be accommodated. John Simola IL_ was instructed to try and work out those differences with the maintenance and design people involved with the hospital. At this point the Mayor closed the hearing. Motion by Fair, second by Maxwell, to consider vacation of a portion of River Street favorably provided successful negotiations can be accomplished to regain a similar amount of footage on the north side of River Street. Motion carried unanimously. 5. Public Hearing - Consideration of Adopting Assessment Roll for Delinquent Sewer and Water Bills. A current listing of delinquent sewer and water accounts and other ,sundry delinquent accounts with the City were presented to Council members with a request to adopt as an assessment roll so that they may be certified as a lien against the property with the County Auditor. There was no one present to speak at the public hearing. The Council asked if the list that had been presented to them was up to date and current. Eidem confirmed that all late payments had been recorded and that it was up to date. Motion by Maus, second by Fair, and carried unanimously, to adopt the following resolution. (Sao Resolution 1984 147.) G. Consideration of a Planned Unit Dovolopmont - Applicants. Jim Povors/Kent Kjellborl. The Mayor asked Eidem if all information had boon presented an requested for final review. Eidem indicated that no drainage plan was included in all of the documents, nor wan the narrative statement on the PUD plan, but that all other information now was compiled into a single package. Eidom indicated that, lacking the drainage plan and the narrative, it van then a Council decision whether or not to hoar the matter. Mayor Crimsmo asked John Badalich to comment on what is missing with respect to the drainage plan. Dodalich explained that while the ponding provisions had boon accounted for, there was nothing to account for the outlet. He noted that uncontrolled flow out of the ponds would be unacceptable and the plan could not be approved if it permitted water to run uncontrolled onto an adjacent property. Badalich stated that he would be contacting the developers' engineer in writing so as hopefully to clarify precisely what In missing and what will be required for final review. Mr. Powers, representing the developers, indicated that they were trying to hurry everyone along, including the engineer, in order to accommodate City review. Councilmombor Fair asked If the pond outlet would be an oxpansivo construction project. Badalich responded that { it might be in the $2,000-S3.000 range. He indicated he felt Council Minutes - 11/13/84 that pipes should be able to control the runoff, and in some eases ditching would also control the outlet so that the amount of runoff running into the remote pond would be equal to what is currently going into that pond. Badalich noted that an increase of water would not be acceptable but that it is acceptable to allow equal amount of runoff as what currently exists. Eidem explained that final approval of the Developm,nt Stage was scheduled for this meeting, with final approval of the final plans scheduled for the Planning Commission on November 14, and final approval and plat signing scheduled for November 26 before the City Council. He indicated that the Planning Commission had approved the development plan contingent upon the receipt and approval by the Consulting Engineer of an acceptable drainage plan. This approval then allowed the developers to continue in their development progress. Eidam noted that the Council had the same option open to them and could still halt the entire project on November 26 if all documents were not fully in order. Motion by Maxwell, second by Maus, and carried unanimously to grant final approval to the Development Plan of Plaza Partners PUD contingent upon receipt and approval by OSM of an approved drainage plan and the ordering and compilation of all related documents for the PUD. 11 7. Consideration of Grantinq Final Approval to the Jay Miller Replat. (_ Mr. Jay Miller was present seeking final approval to a townhouse roplat on Lot 9, Block 4, of Par West Subdivision. The townhouse roplat would be known as Colony on the Green. Tom Eidem explained that the plat had bean put in place and that a variance had been granted on a aidoyard setback at some time in the past. He wont on to note that to deny final approval at this point was an exercise in futility since the building, in fact, vas already in place and the zero lot line construction wan transferred to the plat definition. Eldom noted that in a conversation with Jim Ridgeway, Chairman of the Planning Commission, Mr. Ridgeway had indicated that the granting of the varianco carried the significance of approving its final location, although the language in the motion did not indicate as such. From that conversation, Eidam concluded for the Council that final approval had been given by the Planning Commioaion, and the project wan now before the Council for its final approval and directions to record. Mayor Grimomo askod whether or not the confusion and somewhat disorderly sequence of events had boon resolved to prevent future occurrence. Eidom indicated that they had boon and that the main source of the problem was the oversight of exerting the right of conditional use to go beyond strictly the number of unite allowed. Eidem indicated that any future building plans would have to be roviowad as conditional uses with the exception of maximum number of units. Eidom indicated J 4 . Council Minutes - 11/13/84 that such review should thus eliminato a similar circumstance. Motion by Fair, second by Blonigen, and carried unanimously to grant final approval to the replat of Colony by the Green and to process the plat for recording at the County. 8. Consideration of Adopting a Resolution Authorizing the Certification of a Special Levy with the Countv Auditor. Eidem explained to the Council that, based upon recommendations of Springsted, Inc., it would be financially advantageous for the City to certify a debt retirement levy for the proposed Fire Hall bonds that were approved at the most recent General Election. He noted that by certifying the levy at this time, collections would commence in 1985, thus eliminating any need to bond for capitalized interest. Councilmember Fair raised a question concerning whether or not the City could gain a sum equal to the 2% bidding discount in either construction savings or investment interest. Eidem said that they very likely would be able to recover that $17,000 difference. The Council then agreed that the levy should be based on an $860,000 bond sale which was sanctioned by the election rather than the $863,000 plus a 2♦ bidding discount amount as allowed by Statute. Motion by Maus, second by Maxwell, and carried unanimously to 1 adopt the following resolution. See Resolution 1984 048. y� 9. Consideration of Authoriziq the Firm of TKDA to Commence work on Phase II (Plano and Specifications) for the Proposed Monticello Fire Hall. Councilmomber Blonigen raised the question with respect to TKDA's parcentago figure for their cervices. Eidom stated that in their response to the Request for Proposals, they had cited a specific dollar amount in relation to a projected construction amount and that that percentage figure came out to be 7y1k. They did not, he stated, bid on a percentage basis. The consensus of the Council was to pursue negotiation to establish an actual percentage amount of construction cost to serve ao the foes. It was also agreed by Fair and Blonigon, the representatives to the Fire [fall Committee, that TKDA had been responsive, and they should be given the opportunity to complete Phase II. Motion by Pair. second by Maus, and carried unanimously to instruct the Administrator to begin negotiations on the architectural foes for the preparation of piano and spoc'o under Phase II of Pira Hall construction, said architectural face to be brought back to the City Council for ratification at the next regular mooting. OM O Council Minutes - 11/13/84 W. Consideration of Making an Offer for the Purchase of Block 13 as the Proposed Site for the New Fire Hall. Councilmember Maxwell reported that he had made contact with Robert Americk prior to the election and agreed to recontact Mr. Americk after the results of the election were known. He indicated that he does have his Florida address and that he can contact him by phone or by mail. Mr. Maxwell originally suggested making an offer equal to the appraised value with Mr. Americk paying all of assessments. Councilmember Fair raised a question on having Councilmember Maxwell, realtor by profession, represent the City in this real estate transaction. Her question revolved around whether or not the City should utilize Mr. Maxwell as an individual or Mr. Maxwell's company. Councilmember Maxwell said that he would be glad to conduct the transaction without any compensation, but he would wish to be reimbursed for actual out-of-pocket expense. Eidem also commented that the City should probably consider using Mr. Maxwell as the individual, since he is a Council member and real estate is his area of expertise, rather than giving an appearance of trying to cover the transaction and avoid conflict of interest by utilizing a company name. Mr. Maxwell again reiterated the fact that he did not want compensation, only expense reimbursement, and thus felt no conflict of interest was present. Several members had a question about the projected amount of Pill for the site and whether or not the proposed coat makes the land unreasonable. Using comparable values for the sale of Block 32, which does not require fill, the City might consider repurchasing the went half of that block in order to facilitate Fire Hall construction. Eidem raised a question as to whether or not the actual appraisal should be reconsidered when the projected coat of filling the lot is established to be $96,000 while the appraiser reduced the value of the land by a more $20,000 because of the need for fill. Eidem stated that perhaps the appraisal was not entirely accurate or did not take into account the quality and quantity of fill that would be required to make the property comparable to Block 32. Councilmember Maxwell said that was a vary real possibility; and in light of the soils testing and architectural recommendations for fill, the offer for the land should be reduced accordingly. Motion by Fair, second by Blonigon, and carried unanimously directing Maxwell to offer a $2,000 earnest chock to Mr. Amorick and to commence negotiations for land acquisition and further, upon tentative agreement of purchase price,to return to the City Council for final ratification. CML 6.. Council Minutes - 11/13/84 I1. Consideration of Replacement of a 1972 Snowplow Truck, Approval of Specifications, and Bid Advertisement. Public Works Director, John Simola, began by reviewing the data supplied in the agenda supplement. He indicated that the 1972 Chevrolet dump truck was due for replacement. He indicated that a number of items were beginning to show wear and further, at the budget meeting the Council had authorized an allocation for truck replacement. Mr. Simola discussed the research that City staff had done to determine what would be the most effective vehicle for the City. He noted that the budget contained figures based on an original projection that a tandem axle truck would be beneficial but that on further review, it was determined that a single axle would be most effective. Mr. Simola had also provided soma additional cost data at the meeting and reviewed that with the City Council. Councilmember Blonigen stated he had certain objections to the data supplied to the Council. fie noted that it seemed to be a more common occurrence lately that he was at opposite ends with the Public Works Director in determining coat estimates and cost effectiveness for City services. He acknowledged that that was not as it should be but was unable to resolve the differences. He felt that he had clearly explained his objections to the data provided during the budget work sessions with respect to truck replacement and that the data provided at this time did not make him feel any more comfortable with the acquisition. At that point, Mr. Simola agreed to go over the shoot of cost data with the Council in detail. He noted that from the actual records, the four City units have an average mileage of 2.8 miles per gallon. Mr. Simola stated that in talking to dealers of diesel dump trucks, they had projected mileago rates in excess of 4 miles to the gallon, but conceding to Councilmombor Blonigon's concern that dealers do not provide accurate information, Mr. Simola indicated he contacted four other communities that used diesel trucks. Simola noted that the four other governments that he contacted all reported mileage ratings in excess of 6 miles par gallon as opposed to the 4 miles per gallon stipulated by the truck dealers. He fait that the actual records of those other jurisdictions would boor out the fact that diesel was more effective in operations. Mr. Simola also noted that using the statistics prepared by the International Team Data Base, an organization that specializes In compiling statistics for the maintenance and operations of trucks, that there would be a $.098 par mile savings in maintenance cost. In his preparation of statistics, Mr. Simola conceded that oven if the International Team Data Base had made an error of 100%, the savings to the City would still be $196 a year. The $196 par year maintenance savings when coupled with the projected fuel savings totaled $1,232.03 par year in savings for diesel over gasoline operation. Mr. Simola also acknowledged that this figure does not take into accountany down time for wet engines, nor dean it account for man hour time saved by • CuuncII Minutes - 11/11/x•4 12:17 0 having to fuel the truck leas often. Simola noted that the dec kion to purchase a diesel engine for the truck as opposed to a gasoline engine would cost the Clty approximately 55,000 more, but the savings in operations and maintenance would pay for itself in slightly over t years. At that point, Councilmember Blonigen raised the issue about whether or riot they had computed interest lost had the $5,000 been invested rather than spent on a truck. Mr. Simola said that, in fact, they had computed some interest but found that to be nonconsequential in that computing lost interest on potential investments in not an accepted practice within governmental units in gauging capital cost. Simola indicated that Eidem had contacted a couple cities on their financing procedures and cost analysis as well as utilizing the International City Management Association's Management Information -ervices for doing cost benefit analysis. Alonigen countered Simola's statement by saying that interest absolutely had to be computed, that it was irresponsible to not include interest analysis in the cost. Blonigen vent on to say that he felt the numbers were totally inaccurate because the resources he had discussed the matter with had informed him that any mileage under 12,000 annually could not generate a savings with a diesel engine. Blonigen vent on to say that, in his estimation, the figures had been inaccurately presented so as to project data that would entice the Council to make a specific selection to suit Mr. Simola's needs. He stated that it seemed to him that John had predetermined that he wanted a diesel truck and, consequently, presented only the numbers that would as ist the Council in selecting a diesel truck. tides indicated that a conversation very similar to this one had been held at an earlier Council meeting when staff and Council were discussing contracting versus hiring an additional maintenance person. He indicated that at that time the some allegation was made by Councilsember Blonigen that staff Inaccurately reflects the data collected so as to predetermine the selection by the Council or to altar and affect the alternatives that might be available to the council. he Indicated that a challenge to the integrity of the staff was unwarranted in that there 1s absolutely no personal gain to be had by making any particular purchase over another. Eldem stated that the presentation of data !n order to assist the Council in making decisions In done in an objective fashion based on the research of City staff through various professional experts. Eidem cited that the cost/benefit analysis method was taken from the Institute of Engineering and Technology at the University of Oklahoma, that data was compiled from the International Team Data Base, that the Management Information Service and the International City • Management Association provided coat/benefit analysis technlques, • • , ' and further that the tour communities Mr. Simola had surveyed had provided their data which documented successful use of diesel 12:17 0 Council Minutes - 11/13/84 Iengines. Eidem stated that the staff clearly presented their L research and resource materials for the Council to question, but that Mr. Blonigen provided no names as to who the expert witnesses were countering the data provided by staff. At this point Mr. Blonigen indicated that he relied on information supplied by Hoglund Bus Company of Monticello. Continuing on, Eidem requested permission to address the question of the loot interest investment. He indicated that he had contacted several metropolitan communities and some outatate communities and found that the loss of interest because of a purchase of more expensive equipment was never computed into the overall cost because such a concept when extended out became absurd. He stated that absurd on one end would be to say we have the option of shutting down the City entirely and investing all $4y million because we could earn so much interest on it. This, he noted, was clearly not an option. The absurdity at the other and is whether or not to buy a single package of toilet paper because it's cheaper or to buy a whole case of toilet paper because it's cheaper per unit. However, the computation of lost interest by buying the case might make the 4 -peck cheaper. Eidem acknowledged that both examples were absurd but felt that they amply illustrated why lost interest investment could not be computed into the purchase of essential equipment. Eidem also stated that in the budgeting process the Council levies a certain sum for taxation collection, and those sums have boon predetermined to be expended. Ile noted that if, however, the City is able to operate under budgot, then there definitely would be a benefit in Investing the surplus funds. lie went on to say that the City does not, however, levy to create investment funds for the solo purpose of generating interest income. Eidem stated that levy was intended to be spent ana that the City to not an investment company bent upon generating interest income. Blonigen responded that that may wall be but that the Council is still responsible for buying the moot coat effective piece of equipment. 8imola responded that according to the data, that's exactly what staff is recommending. Regarding trade-in, Simola sold dionol in reported to have greater trade-in val Mayor Grimamo asked that diecucaion bo brought to a close on thin issue in that the debate seemed to be not generating any kind of resolution to the issue. The Mayor asked if there was a motion. Motion by Maxwell to grant approval to the proposed replacement of the 1972 Chevrolet, to grant approval to the piano and specifications submitted by the Public Works Department, and to authorize otaff to advertise for bide. The motion wan duly seconded by Councilmombor Fair. Voting in favor: Maxwell, Grimomo, Maus, Fair. Voting in the opposition: Blonigan. 12. Considoration of a Ranolution Authorizing Payment to the Minnesota Coalition of Outotato Cities to be used for Legislative Representation Services. Councilmombor Maus opened the discussion with a question relating I� Council Minutes - 11/13/84 Motion by Maus, second by Nair, and carried unanimously to adopt the following resolution. Soo Resolution 1984 #49. 13. Mayor Grimamo asked City Administrator Eidem to present an update on the atatua of the intaraaction of T. If. 25 and County Road 117. Grimamo acknowledged that thio woo not an agenda item but understood that coma developments had brought thio issue to the forefront of importance. Eidom explained that the concept of an interim traffic signal had boon denied by the Department of Tranaportation based upon the plans that had boon originally submitted. He indicated that he discussed the rejection of the plan with Jim Povich of the Department of Transportation on Thursday. November 8, and that further solutions to the problems ware discussed at that time. Eidom noted that the discussion with Povich included several alternatives that the City requested MN/DOT to continue to investigate. Ho said that Povich agreed to look at it, although -10- 0 to the role of the League of Minnesota Cities. It was his understanding that the League of Cities provided all of the lobbying expertise on behalf of all cities in Minnesota. Eidem explained that the Local Government Aid issue had created a split in the League of Cities to a point that the Board of Directors for the League had assumed a position of no position. Because of the varying interests in the Local Government Aid formula, the League of Cities Board of Directors felt that they could not adequately and justifiably maintain a position that would be suitable to the majority of cities in the League. Consequently, the League ' Board had granted permission to all member cities to align themselves with whatever appropriate affiliation could lobby on the Local Government Aid formula in their best interests. Eidem explained that the Coalition of Outstate Cities had elected to pursue engaging a professional lobbyist to represent the entire Coalition in their efforts to protect the Local Government Aid formula in the 1985 Legislative Session. He stated that as a member, the 206 per capita fee would result in an expenditure of $584. Councilmembor Maus asked how many other cities were members of this and what share would they pay toward the membership. Eidem, in order to clarify the matter, stated that there wore 46 member cities, but this was not the membership fee. He stated that the $584 is a one time contribution to the Coalition to --� hire a lobbyist solely for the 1985 Legislative Session. He explained that this would not be an annual levy against the City as a part of its membership obligation. The Mayor noted _ that wore the City to act alone to hire a professional lobbyist for the Legislative Seaeion, the $584 in question would very likely be gone in a single day'a effort. Consequently, it was his position that the 5584 would be well spent when combined with the amounts of the other cities to organize a professional lobbying effort to protect the Local Government Aid formula. Motion by Maus, second by Nair, and carried unanimously to adopt the following resolution. Soo Resolution 1984 #49. 13. Mayor Grimamo asked City Administrator Eidem to present an update on the atatua of the intaraaction of T. If. 25 and County Road 117. Grimamo acknowledged that thio woo not an agenda item but understood that coma developments had brought thio issue to the forefront of importance. Eidom explained that the concept of an interim traffic signal had boon denied by the Department of Tranaportation based upon the plans that had boon originally submitted. He indicated that he discussed the rejection of the plan with Jim Povich of the Department of Transportation on Thursday. November 8, and that further solutions to the problems ware discussed at that time. Eidom noted that the discussion with Povich included several alternatives that the City requested MN/DOT to continue to investigate. Ho said that Povich agreed to look at it, although -10- 0 Notion by Fair, second by Dlonigon, and carried unanimously to adopt the following resolution. Seo Resolution 1984 450. 14. Mayor Grimsmo gave a brief report on the happoningn of the Orderly Annexation Area and reported that a largo storage facility had been approved, but that a proposed subdivision near the Halligor property had been denied. Ile did state that tho proposed oubdiviuiun also contained a rezoning request which had boon approved. 15. Thorn being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Thocaa A. Eldem City Administrator -11- (D-3-1 Council Minutes - 11/13/84 ( they were uncertain an to whether or not they could grant approval. L Eidem reported that on late Friday afternoon, November 9, Mr. Povich called City Hall and reported that an interim design solution had boon reached and would the City Council please review the layout at their next regular meeting. Eidem then went over the layout plan as presented by MN/DOT which would provide for interim traffic signal lights as well as channelization. He indicated that in order to facilitate traffic adjusting to the new lane alignment, standard MN/DOT barrel dividers would be utilized at least until spring and maybe longer. He also indicated that the interim design is meant to last for approximately 18-24 months until final construction of the overall project is complete. Eidem reported that the State in willing to assume full cost for the design and installation of the interim solution, but the State would like financial consideration to be credited to their share of the overall project in 1986. Eidem stated that MN/DOT, on a very rough estimate, computed the total coat of the interim design to be $40,000.00, ono -half of which would be municipal responoibility. Cidem stated that the resolution he had prepared for Council adoption stipulated that in no case would the City expand more than $20,000 on the interim solution. Councilmember Maxwell then stated that based on those figures, $20,000 at 20 months yields a cost of $1,000 par month for the installation of thio light. Eidem confirmed that and noted that the City would very likely be responsible for the ongoing Lo Lo maintenance of those lights since that is a responsibility that has already been passed to the City at the other traffic light. Notion by Fair, second by Dlonigon, and carried unanimously to adopt the following resolution. Seo Resolution 1984 450. 14. Mayor Grimsmo gave a brief report on the happoningn of the Orderly Annexation Area and reported that a largo storage facility had been approved, but that a proposed subdivision near the Halligor property had been denied. Ile did state that tho proposed oubdiviuiun also contained a rezoning request which had boon approved. 15. Thorn being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Thocaa A. Eldem City Administrator -11- (D-3-1 Council Agenda - 11/26/84 X 3. Citizens Comments/Petitions, Requests, and Complaints. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: On Wednesday, November 21, I received a request for consideration of vacating Sixth Street adjoining Block 41. The request came from Construction 5 and is being submitted to you in the form of a petition. At this particular time, there is no action you can legally take except to receive the petition and, if you wish, set a public hearing on the request to vacate the street. I have indicated to Construction 5 that this may be a relatively complex vacation in that as we get into it, it will be the appropriate time to start to discuss land exchange that will accommodate the extension of Lauring Lane. At any rate, they are not looking for any sort of emergency or immediate action, but simply wish to put in their petition now and start the process. Minnesota Statute requires that a public hearing be hold following two full weeks published and posted notice. Being that the notice is two weeks in this particular case (as opposed to 10 days in soma circumstances), the vacation hearing cannot be hold on December 10, the regularly scheduled meeting data. If the Council wishes to follow past practice and eliminate thesecond mooting in Decomber, which this year would be Christmas Eve and Now Year- s Eva, then the oarliest the public hearing can be hold is at the first meeting in January. That, to me, would not cause a problem since it would allow us to assemble all of the data necessary for Lauring Lana extension and perhaps enter into the land exchange negotiations before the hearing over comes to the table. Again, the only action the Council can take is to accept or reject the petition and whether or not to schedule a public hearing. Thore should not be any discussion over the merits of the proposal at this time. I passed thio same information along to Gary LaFromboiso and indicated that his presence at the meeting is not essential. He may attend out of his own interest, but I did indicate that since setting the hearing was the only action available to the Council, his prosonco would not be doomed critical. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the request. CONSTRUCTION 5, INC. 7841 Wayr,u, Blv i . Smit, 1 1 1 / Mnm(:nP)hs, Mlnl„JS"I(1 55426 / 612/5464470 November 20, 1984 City of Monticello 250 East Broadway Route 4, Box 83A Monticello, MN 55362 Dear Members of the City Council: We are requesting a vacation of 6th Street adjoining Block 41, ivwer Monticello, for the purpose of constructing a twelve unit apartment building. Your cooperation in this request will be greatly appreciated. YOilrs Very Truly, Cary JAaFromboise Executive Vice President CINDY L. CRAWF NOTARY PUOUC — 11INNOlROD1 A HENNEPIN COUNTY t'nMY Commqu0n Uowm Juh i,. 1n/ L.414' Ic Notary signature 0 Council Agenda - 11/26/84 4. Consideration of a Resolution Setting the Sale of Series 1985 General Obligation Bonds for the Purposes of Constructing a Fire Hall and Acquiring Adjunct Equipment. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The time frame for the sale of bonds as proposed by Springsted is to set the sale at this meeting, award the sale on January 14, and receive the proceeds on February 14. The resolution being presented to the Council for this meeting is for the purpose of setting the terms and conditions of the sale and directing Springsted to commence the process. The resolution is currently being prepared by Bond Counsel and will not be included in this agenda packet. It is expected that Jerry Shannon of Springsted will be in attendance at the meeting, and he will hand deliver the resolutions for your review. This action is not a lengthy process. It is simply the resolution to initiate the process for the sale of the bonds. I fully expect Jerry Shannon to more fully address your questions and any details that might be relevant to this initiating resolution. Presuming we aro fully agreed that we will proceed with the construction of the Fire Hall, I am presenting no alternative actions, nor staff recommendation. C Supporting data will be delivered by Jerry Shannon at the meeting. NOTE: Rather than creating a separate agenda item for the update on the land acquisition process, I have ankod Jack to simply bring the Council up to data while discussing the bond issue. Pursuant to the Council -a direction at the last meeting, Jack did prepare a purchase agreement, and we prepared an earnest money check, a photo copy of which was submitted to Mr. Americks at his Florida address. Aa of thio writing, we have not hoard from Mr. Americko, but Jack indicated to me that he would be attempting to contact him by phone prior to the meeting. Whatever the statun on the land acquisition at thin time, Jack will speak to the issue. -2- Council AgenJa - 11/26/84 5. Conaideration of Entering a Contract for Law Enforcement Services with the Wright County Sheriff's Department. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Annually, we are asked to renew our law enforcement contract with the Wright County Sheriff. This year, unlike any year in tho past, the City was notified that the projected increase would put the hourly rate up to $17.00 back during our budget preparation process. Wednesday, November 21, I received the letter from Darrell Wolff asking for adoption of the contract for 1985 services, and, indeed, the number, is 517.00 thus making our budget very accurate. If we do not expand the number of hours of coverage that is being provided, then we will come in exactly as budgeted. The sum budgeted was $117,400.00, while the contract projections have the final figure at 5117,385.00, a difference of $15.00 total. I have on file no records of complaint against the Sheriff's Department. That is to say that I have received no complaints about the coverage being provided. I know that we frequently discuss whether or not to increase or decrease coverage, but based on the lack of comment I've received, we seem to be providing adequate if not excellent service. Consequently, I find it difficult to recommend that we increase coverage and increase expenditures. If coverage seems satisfactory to everyone, then I suggest that a motion be adopted to enter the now law enforcement contract and authorize the Mayor and Administrator to execute on the City's behalf. Ono additional note: The 1985 contract has eliminated one paragraph that has boon in previous contracts, that being a section relating to the City's obligation to defend the Department for damages resulting from the enforcement of any duly municipal ordinance. It seems apparent that their law enforcement liability insurance would cover them for any damages when they are executing their duties as defined by the Department or as defined by contract. The end result is that the deletion of this paragraph releases the City of any litigation liability on behalf of the Department enforcing our ordinances. This, to me, is beneficial to the City. D. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve the contract as submitted utilizing the now hourly rata but the same hourly coverage. -3- Council Agenda - 11/26/84 rI �l. 2. Approve the contract in form and content and as to the hourly rate, but establish a greater or lesser schedule of coverage, thus alterating the total annual financial commitment. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the lack of complaints against the Department and the apparent success of the current schedule. I recommend that we accept the 506 per hour increase but maintain the scheduled level of coverage as delineated on Exhibit A. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of Sheriff Wolff's memo; Copy of the proposed contract. -4- 1 - 0 TO City Council Members Meip A Cuf► CIrAW BYYIA60. MIMM. CCM R6�aRDiND, Contract for 1965 DAT[, Nov. 20. 1986, Dear Council Members: Sneloaed find the contract for you to fill out and return. The cost for service for 19e5 will be $17.00 per hour. The contract remains the some except we took out the paragraph that indicates that the municipality shall defend our department for damages resulting from the enforcement of any duly municipal ordinance. When these have been signed, please submit them to us and we will present them to the County Board.; Should you have any questions. feel free to contact me. Yours truly. 'Carrell Wolf? Wright County Sheriff DW:dl Ono. S f — City of Monticello) County of Wright ) State of Minnesota) WRIGHT COUNTY - CITY OF MONTICELL0 LAW ENFORCEMENT CONTRACT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of , 19_, by and between the County of Wright and the Wright County Sheriff, herein- after referred to as "County" and the City of Monticello, hereinafter referred to as the "Municipality"; WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the municipality is desirous of entering into a contract with the County for the performance of the hereinafter described law enforcement protection within the corporate limits of said municipality through the county sheriff, and WHEREAS, the County is agreeable to rendering ouch services, and protection on the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth: and WHEREAS, such contracts are authorized and provided for by the provision of Minn. Stat. 1957, Sec. 471.59 and Laws 1959, Chap. 372, and Minn. Stat. Ann. 1961 Sec. 436.051 NOW THEREFORE, pursuant to the terms of the aforesaid statutes, it is agreed as follows: 1. That the County by way of the Sheriff agrees to provide police protection within the corporate limits of the municipality to the extent and in manner as hereinafter sot forth: a. Except as otherwise hereinafter specifically set forth, ouch services shall encompass only duties and functions of the typo coming within the jurisdiction of the Wright County Sheriff pursuant to Minnesota Laws and Statutes. b. Except as otherwise hereinafter provided for, as a standard level of service provided shall be the same basic level of service which is provided for the unincorporated areas of the County of Wright, State of Minnesota. c. Tho rendition of services, the standard of performance, the discipline of the officers, and other matters incidont to the performance of ouch services and control of personnel so employed shall remain in and under the control of the Sheriff. d. Such services shell include the enforcement of Minnesota State Statutes and taws and the municipal ordinances which aro of the same typo and nature of Minnesota State Statutes and Laws enforced by the Sheriff within the unincorporated territory of said County. 2. That it io agreed that the aheriff shall have full cooperation and asaistanco from the municipality, its officers, agents and employees, 60 as to facilitate the performance of this agreement. 3. That the County shall furnish and supply all necessary labor, supervision, equipment, communication facilities for dispatching, cost of jail detention, and all supplies necessary to maintain the level of service to be rendered herein. d. The municipality shall not be liable for the direct payment of any salaries, wages, or other compensation to any personnel performing services herein for said County. 5. The municipality shall not be liable for compensation or indemnity to any of the Sheriff's employees for injuries or sickness arising out of its employment, and the County hereby agrees to hold harmless the municipality against any such claims. 6. The County, Sheriff, his officers, and employees shall not be deemed to assume any liability for intentional or negligent acts of said municipality, or any officer, agent, or employee thereof. 7. This agreement shall be effective from to S. The municipality hereby agrees to pay to the County the sum of for law enforcement protection as specified in Appendix A which is attached hereto and made a part hereof during said term of this agroament. 9. If the annual salaries of the deputy sheriffs aro increased at any time during the term herein stated. this contract shall not be increased. 10. The municipality shall have the option of renewing this agreement for an additional successive twolvo-month period. To exercise this option, the municipality shall notify the county adminiatrator not later than sixty days prior to the expiration date of this agreement. 11. It is understood and agreed that the offanoos for which O erreeto are meds pursuant to state otatuteo the county shell stand all Ocoat• of the courts and its prosecution. when arrosts are made under municipal ordinances of the municipality, the municipal attorney shall prosecute such case. Any and all fines collected shall bee paid to the Wright County Treasurer's Office. 12. Whereas; legislation has been enacted effective July 1, 1973, making it mandatory that the County Court remit to all municipalities within the said county, one half of all fines levied and collected from traffic vio- lation arrests made in said municipality. And, Whereas; it is understood that the contract fees are based upon the County receiving the entire amount of all fines. It is understood that the Municipality shall return to the Wright County Sheriff all fine monies received from the County. Said Munici- pality shall remit by check no later than thirty (30) days from when said fine monies are received by said Municipality. 13. For the purpose of maintaining cooperation, local control and general information on existing complaints and problems in said municipality, one member of the municipal council, the mayor, or other person or persons, shall be appointed by said council to act as police commissioner/a for said municipality, and shall make periodic contacts with and attend meetings with the sheriff or his office in relation to the contract herein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the municipality, by resolution duly adopted by its governing body, caused this agreement to be signed by its mayor and attested by its Administrator, and the County of Wright, by the County Board of Commissioners, has caused these presents to be subscribed by the Wright County Sheriff and the Chairman of said board and the seal of said board to be affixed thereto and attested by the clerk of said board, all on the day and year first above written. CITY OF MONTICELLO BY Mayor Attest, City Administrator BOARD OF WRIGIIT COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BY Attest, Clark, Board of County Commissioners Chairman Wright County Sheriff APPENDIX A 1985 Hourly Rate - $'17.00 Annual Contract Fee - $ 117,385.00 Services provided by Wright County Sheriff 24 hour call and general service 6,905 hours annual patrol coverage assigned as follows: a) 16 hours per day, four days per week (3328 total hours). b) 19 hours per day, three days per week, two of which shall be Friday and Saturday (2964 total hours). c) 613 hours assigned at discretion of scheduling authority. PAV D Council Agenda - 11/26/84 6. Consideration of a Proposal to Vacate River Street in Exchange for Alternate Street Dedication - Applicant, Monticello -Big Lake Hospital District. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At the last meeting, the Council denied the request to vacate River Street but directed me to contact the hospital in terms of negotiating alternate routes and perhaps land exchanges. In my discussions with Barb Schwientek, we arrived at a possibility that would accommodate the total vacation of River Street behind the hospital and proposed nursing home, but would create a new street running north and south between Hart Boulevard and the eastern end of River Street, thereby protecting our right of access on River Street and potential development that would join River Street and Minnesota Street. In some very rough drawings that I submitted to OSM, we fool we have arrived at a suitable location to connect River and Hart. If, in fact, the dedication of the now street right-of-way can be accomplished, then I am comfortable with withdrawing all opposition to the vacation of that portion of River Street that affects hospital construction. Even though we may vacate River Street, it is absolutely essential that we maintain a substantial easement for our sower lines on the north aide of the nuraing home. The easement, however, would be restricted to maintenance repair and construction of utility lines and not be available for roadway purposes. Because of scheduling conflicts. I am unable to moot with Barb Schwientak before Monday, the day of the Council meeting. Conacquently, I have little final information that I can confirm on the hospital's behalf. If, in fact, the land exchange can be negotiated, I think it would servo the public interest to vacate the portion of River Street in question. I think we've made an honest effort to preserve the rights of access for the City as wall as accomplish the needs and wants of the Hospital District. Pronuming that all of the dedication and vacation agreements can be assembled and agreed upon by all portico horoto, the Council could take action to vacate contingent upon all of the final agreements being reached. An action ouch as that would basically turn the matter over to the various engineers to dofino actual right-of-way linos and establish the amended map. when those documents have boon concluded, than we would procoao the formal recording with the County. By taking this approach of granting tho vacation and receiving the dedicated atroot contingent upon completion of the engineering and logal work, than the hoopital can proceed with their construction and design plans for the nursing home. 5t: Council Agenda - 11/26/84 B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Accept the proposed land exchange and commence with the vacation and acceptance of dedicated street and order the engineers and attorneys to prepare all necessary documents to complete. 2. Give preliminary approval to the vacation but retain final granting of the vacation until all documents have been prepared and are ready for recording. 3. Deny the proposed compromise and direct both parties to return to the negotiation table to find a more suitable alternative. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on review by OSM, staff feels that thin is a suitable compromise that will meet the needs of troth parties involved. I also think it would further the interests of both the Hospital District and the community at large to grant a vacation at this time to allow their construction plans to proceed, and direct the engineer and attorneys to complete all required documents for recording. The only concern that we should be alert to at this time if we use this method is when the building permit can be issued. I suppose it is conceivable that oven though agroemento have been reached between the Council and the Hospital Board, there could be anagn legally or engineering -viae that could delay the processing of the vacation and dedication. if there were a serious flaw that negated the compromise, we would have to be sure that tho building was not suddenly built in the street right-of-way causing a groat deal of conflict. Consequently, I suggest that wo withhold the building permit until all negotiations aro final and the recording is ready to occur. This, however, does not have to come before the Council if all other decisions have boon agreed upon. This would be strictly a timing and logistics matter. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Map of the area; Copy of the letter from OSM; Copies of a proposed street layout; Copies of existing eaaamonto provided for storm water drainage. -G- ORR•SCHELEN-MAYERON ft ASSOCIATES, INC. Consulting Engineers Land Suave you s November 20, 1984 Mr. Thomas A. Eidem, Administrator City of Monticello 250 East Broadway Monticello, Minnesota 55362 Re: River Street Vacation Dear Tom: Your letter dated November 15. 1984 along with easements of record and enclosed sketches has been received and reviewed by our staff, and we offer the follow- ing comments. We have taken the liberty of stamping the enclosed easements and drawings as exhibits for matter of clarity. Exhibit No. 1 is the easement description for the property southwesterly of the proposed street dedication between Hart Boulevard and River Street. This ease- ment was acquired as part of our overall plan to convey storm water runoff from the large designated industrial area south of the railroad tracks and the high school complex via a storm sewer to the Mississippi River. Presently this run- off is carried by culvert and ditches primarily through the Bondhus property to the river. Exhibit 2 is the easement description for the easterly 20 feet of Lot 13, shown in pink, of the McKee property for construction of the storm sewer to the river. A 10 foot temporary easement, shown in green, has also been acquired which expires on December 1, 1989. This is shown on the Exhibits 2A and 2B. Exhibit 2B also shows, in cross -hatch pink, another easement over the John Kasper property over part of Lot 2 for storm sewer purposes. The recorded legal for this was not included in your transmittal, Exhibit No, 3 is a copy of the legal description we prepared in 1981 for the City to acquire the edsements for storm water purposes, shown in Exhibit 2B. Note that the triangular piece of property at the northwest corner of remaining Lot 2 was shown in the easement description in Exhibit 3. A check should be made to see if this easement over Lot 2 was acquired and recorded. 9 2021 East Hennepin Avenue • Suite 238 • Minneapolis. Minnesota 55413 • 6121331- 8660 Page Two Mr. Thomas A. Eidem November 20, 1984 Exhibit No. 4 shows the proposed street right-of-way between Hart Boulevard and River Street. 1 have no problems with this if it is contemplated that develop- ment will occur on River Street, that is, east of Oak Street. River Street, as you know, dead ends at the river at the Bondhus property, but could someday be filled or bridged to connect with Mississippi Drive through the wastewater treatment plant property. The 45 degree Jog in the proposed street is not a common occurrence, but could be constructed to a minimum curve radius to accom- modate less than 30 mph traffic. This street would also provide a north -south access to River Street approximately 1600 feet east of Dayton Street. This proposed street dedication can be integrated into the City's street system without too much difficulty. The existing storm sewer easements are contained within the proposed right-of-way and would allow for other utilities to be carried to River Street. i concur in your proposal. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Yours very truly, ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON C. ASSOCIATES, 1N��`r-- V W. 6 John P. Badalich, P.E. City Engineer JPB:min enclosures .«.r r .-w..n•rmto 1 36_713 • No d.lu.purnt tat.. u.d va.ufn murrd: fouf.cate OI6te O Caurdy Racdde. of Rnl Ew.r Fite.-/—] Id,d ( ) not .posed aptad d W'Sm' must' Certihrste of Rad Eatau Volit, 1 Mow ow" Vol Bm .911111 1 D b +.lord sea hied N thb 7! 011111111 tr fec!<d 6a ( Z/a Ci L1-f.rnf.A 0-6- 16th. 1981, .t 1 r.R. • County Audra faduasdiol, oQOd In juK• em[ 79 na341 by — Drputy �LA;TM= rM =01RDER J frATE DEED TAX DUE HEREON: 6 EXEMPT IMrr..ed ra nroMm[ data) FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION. Aontire110-Bio Lake C9W.Unitw HOsDit Al Dietrlrt • political Bibuvisicn Muttwas"na the State Of HlnneeOta,Grana.berebytoawp.WgWselabmtw 1 City Of Monticello Gruitlr, smuniei Del corporation undmthelavrof Minnesota ,real prepay in Wright County. Nm 1s. deatrlbrd as follow.: A permanent easement for atom sower purposes 70 toot in width in, over and across the tollow3 ng described Parcel A. Parcel A. That part of Government Lot 7, Section 17, Township 171. Range 75. j 'wr ight County. Minnespta, described as follows: Commencing at the - inters cc tion of the centerlino of County State Aid Highway No. 75 and the north line of Lot 6, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. ONE. according to the p:at on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder, Wright County. Mlnneaotas thence North 89 degrees 36 minutes 31 necondn s East, assumed bearing, along the north lino of said Lot 6, a distance of 106.67 toot to the northeasterly Right-Of-way line of said County • State Aid highway No. 75 and the actual point of beginnings thence continue north 89 degrees 16 minutes 31 seconds East along paid north s (continued on back) lo[ethn w ith all hrrMi—t6 and appurtenance bafmai sNmb. M�NTICELLO-BIC LAKE COMMUNITY 110SPITA DISTRICT By It. Chairman Heard of Trustees By ir_�•- lll.��r�r�il lu Renata'. STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY Or T4- A m 1 Tb)�or�I wyae6he�1a08W Imron su Wt day at?Al, .low — tM Chairman �o[fU Board o [ Trustees and A 8eereterw of w,.. i— lo- fn k. w,iry tnani.1 nt i—tt— ,a nolle/rel •ubd ivielOn grs�rtd'ftMe Of rh. ,Ruta,t ni....w.n.w, on b"I of w0ttef awl wuhdi vlaion, roruui n•rr as n•a ro- tiiin tau- iim S•� u• asr w7.Fw•S,r,y .t.ab..aaoruY COLI[lr M•reON �„���`.�YYr MYrww4a au r Ywr I�wdl aa.gmt.ocwlrrfeDla� MUW. a1 Yaw. eMlea.lare OpwwlY MI COwY. u., curl w,.r TAR EXEMPT GRANTEE. Ern .u.aurr»ani.a.i i.on a:n •wa.ounmd City of Monticello 750 East Broadway CTC►PCN, 14UIISTE.NTEICCR, DEARSS, "Ont icello, Minnesota 55167 11CLNS, PARTA 6 PETERSON 401 Jackson Stfaat. Suite 101 Anoka, NJ nnesota 99]0) ' tW..ce to Yet/ 4 EXHIBIT N0. 1 (Continual legal des, Qy1�;oen� line of toIt 6, a distance of 155.54 feet to the southwesterly Righl- o(-Vay.Ilne of a Pubj�c, rotld; thence South ]8 degrees 1: minutes 7)'■e Onds East ,'aIo Q•dd7t3 sou thwcate rly Pigh t -of -Vey line, e dlgtepco o! 150.)0 feat; thence South 51 degrees 47 minutes 13 e44b(0sit.st a disunc& of `90.57 feet to the north,&ata rly Pight- of-May line of County S[e to A' Xighwey tlo. )5: the nca t:orth AS degrees 41 minutes 55 second$ Nest, along said northeaster ly Right -of -pay line, a distance of 747,54 feet to the actual point of be Inn1 9 The centerline of said 30 foot easement is described as follows: Commencing at the northwest corner of said Parcel A: thence South 45 degrees 47 mina tee 55 second. East, el ong the sou thweat,rly Iitro cf said Parcel A, 51.00 (tet to the point of beginning of the centerline to be describedi thence North 79 degrees 11 minutes 11 seconds Eaet 1]1.16 feet to a point in the nor thee•to rly line of said Parcel A distant 17.15 feet southe. star ly of the northcese corner thereof. TOGETRER VITN a temporary easement for construction purposes 10 fee[ in width ]y Ing adjacent to and Contiguous with the aoutheaetorly right -o( -way Line Of the aforedeser lbed permanent storm sewer oeeeMani: which said temporary easement shall automatically terminate on the data of completion Of the Inatal lation Of the stor m sewer in the aforedescrib,d permanent eesenent area or on December 1, 1409, whichever date in earlier. • rte.. •r a .. ouD .��,� OMoa of Cetrntl' Ramrdar I a1 ' No drhnq... I u•.•. and I—On en.•rrd: Cerpf,crt. C;s'm a Wright. Wnn. .1 '% E.— V.I., 1 1 hIM 1 1 not r,•quurd 1 her ON" -11M -111111C,, fic.". of Rnl Ewtr v.lur N., in my sat o. 61s01n Btb 19 Ot10 for rated On ! Decenber lath. 1981. at 1 P.M. 1s.Q1,iS�]]LL'L•t _ end Nese dub rewrded In County Auditor . mi... . - t57r 79 mi 342 b" MAI{c1A IANTro, couHTY REODRDER nrnvu• 1 i •si STATE DEED TAN DUE I{EREUN: 6 -Z](FHP1'_ i Dau: (lEmhuf _ .19 Al- (rerned for rn'ordms Mui l FOR VA LUABLE CONSIDERATION, .Medical—Fa ti ri rteLCodlpal"' perrnerahip undrr Nrl.r. of MSnne�.Q[e , Grantor, hereby cony)-. and gwulum. u Ci tv of MontiGl']�p ,Genua, /�yDlclDal eorporaLlpil_ under Mel.w/ol Nrlohr M{tw n ,e.lProperty m 11-11,msel A permanent casement 20 feet in wldeh for storm sever purposes in, over and across the follovi ng described property: The Southeasterly 20 feet of Lot 13. Block 22, Tovnsite of Lover Honticcllo, es measured along the Northeasterly line of said Lot 13. according to the plat on file in the office of the County Recorder in end for tlright County, Minn at —ETHER WITH a tenporary easement 10 foot in width for construction purposes in, over and across the Nort.hw•e a torly 10 feet of the Southeasterly 30 feet of said Lot 13, I es measured along the Northeasterly line of said Lot 13. Block 22, Tow, of Lover Monticello, which said temporary easement shell autonatieal ly torminato on the date of eomplotion of the. in ate, I.Lion of the storm sever in the aforedoscribed permanent as aement area or t on December 1, 19081 ,,hichower date is 00r1fer. t Y.s. M •Nem, rv..wr M rw.l top•thrt —h .11 brn•dlumrnt. and /ppurtrntncm beloncles throne, MrnIrA1�FASPr1__pA.r RS, \ � -�\vim\—t 11 Iu Pn rrnnr By lu STATI: OF 511NNCSOTA u. couNr V of _f�.—•.•�..,_ �L "" 7'hr IDrrColns wa/ atknorlydgd before m/ thu IS'22'r-- day Of `, ( . 1P-fi , by Tho—a E. Mc ann almt thr Pa Stnnr ed .f Medlcnl rae111tice comuenv ,a wr...e sbip l undrr, th. lac. of Mlnneeet• ,anbhalf of tits Dartner¢hin , l MOt••I•L.t•we 0. //.LmA0TML•r:l L. O. a•M.I ��__�--y � M y��� 11..1.1, •�. � MW,.Mi i�O..Y 1Ne aJ bt.,�M 1.,Y �T������•' TAR EXEMPTi j lurch 16, t987 city of Monticello rMt.un.uMr MT ••/ouiitt o/t a,•ut •.o.auuud 250 Eaat Broadway MontI cel lo, Minnesota 55362 BTL'rrENf1UNSTENTEIGER, REARSE, OrE;lS. PA RTA 6 PDTERBON a07 Jac kson etrdot. Suit. 301 i An Mi. Minnesota 55303 ,� fnu r,tw,,,a cs tr r �•(ja f. i rY.k.• t1:! EXHIBIT. N0. ,Z s MOIJS 0� 1 .. Donial A RIVER Street I _ r y JOhn Kosper A -P 01 jom KOsper 5 101 s SRT Blvd. � O S M EASEMENT NO. B1-11 Description and Drawing ( ^pA rw. carry t�.r ae wwwe. wa as �Iwn :u ws.ro will a ply 110 1041 1 Y . well MOma.ove UMCIs FIM/a us SCO ..M t to" so by ORA - 9Ci46i8N • MAYRRON & A890CIA7U& INC 1111 Ipl wC.l.1...1 • t.11 I4 • CUCINMU. mo=4t. 1411 411, "1 U" NOTE: No boundary 4n.q/ work was performed ea b the Precis* Societies of this nest. OWNER: Monticello - Big Lake Hospital 1013 Hart Boulevard P.O. Box 480 Monticello, Minnesota 55362 DESCRIPTION OF EASEMENT: A permanent easement for storm sewer proposes over, under and across the following described parcels of land all lying in Block 22, Lower Monticello, according to the plat on file in the Office of the County Recorder, Wright County, Minnesota: The east 20.00 feet of Lot 13, Block 221 the east 20.00 feet -of the west 1/2 of Lot 2, Block 227 and that part of Lots 1 and 2, Block 22, lying easterly of the following described line: com- mencing at the most northerly corner of Lot 1, Block 22, thence southeasterly along the northeasterly lino of said Lot 1 a dis- tance of 46.00 feet to the point beginning of the line to be de- scribed: thence deflecting to the right 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds a distance of 8.28 feets thence deflecting to the left 45 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds a distance of 46.67 feet to its intersection with the west line of the east 20.00 feet of the west 1/2 of Lot 2, Block 22 and said line there terminating. Said permanent easement contains 7,487 square feet more or less. EXHIBIT N0. 3 ,:J 4 5 = �.�•. ©ono/ _ DIVER Street T 16 ,fofn MC, y 0 ,� 1 y Jahn Kasper Q Jin � Kasper 5oee 10 = I � �. � I o O I93 HART Blvd. UMMWAW 7t I cif- q) 000s 1 _I Don ial A 1111 .Illi U I YI i IY � I IIII I,Y� RIVER Street iil..i. •��.. i iY � I i ICY IY YY JiY �Y y i� i U i , 7 John Kasper - V John KO � � sper a { o �. 10 I - HART Blvd I Council Agenda - 11/26/84 7. Consideration of Bide and Award of Contract for New Snowplow Truck. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At the November 13 Council meeting, the City Council approved the specifications for the new truck and authorized advertisement for bids to be returned at 2:00 p.m., November 26, 1984. The now unit is expected to cost slightly over $50,000.00 without the snowplow, which had been omitted from the bids at this time. We have made one slight modification in the specifications in that we asked for an alternate bid on a cheaper plow hitch, wing post, and wing assembly. This bid will be included with the regular bid as an alternate. The staff will provide a bid tabulation at Monday evening's meeting along with a recommendation as to the award of the contract. D. SUPPORTING DATA: None. L C -7- C Council Agenda - 11/26/84 8. Consideration of Appointment of Now Employee for the Street and Parks Department. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At the October 9, 1984, meeting, the City Council authorized staff to advertise for an additional employee for the Street and Parks Department. We advertised for a period of 2 weeks in the Monticello Times and Monticello Shopper. We also advertised in the Minneapolis Star 6 Tribune in one Sunday edition. we closed the applications on November 5. We received a total of 51 applications. Twenty-eight of the applicants were from the Monticello area, 15 from the surrounding communities, 4 from the Twin City area, and 4 from the outstate area. All of the applications were reviewed by the City Administrator, the Street Superintendent, and myself. Five individuals were selected based upon the job description and the data provided in their application and/or resume. During the interviews, the individuals wore rated utilizing a system built around the job description. Additional pointe were added for those applicants living in or within close proximity to the City of Monticollo. Three of the applicants ranked high during the interview. All three of those applicants wore from the City of Monticello. The individual woo oelected booed upon a summary or a compromise of the individual intorviewor ratings. In addition to the interviewing process, the City staff discussed at groat length with John Hoffman his possible transfer from the Waotowator Treatment Plant to the Street and Parka Department. Based upon the qualifications of the other applicanto and the actual okill level of John Hoffman in the areae opacified in the job description, it was decided that this transfer would not be made. The individual selected by the interviewing committee woo Keith Trippo of 201 East River Street. Keith was employed by the City of Monticello in the fall of 1983. He tomo on board so a MEEDS worker and assisted the Street and Park poroonnol until April of 1984. In April he was hired on a seasonal worker for the Parka Department. Ito replaced Romoy Groaner in that position. No wan laid off from the City of Monticello on November 2, 1984. Keith is a wall -rounded individual in that he pooe00000 many okillo, which he gained through schooling at Anoka Tach, pant jobs and hoo one year of experience with the City of Monticello. Ila is a little light in some of -0- Council Agenda - 11/26/84 the heavy equipment operating skills; but the staff feels he could be trained in a minimum period of time in those skills. The appointment of this new employee to the Street and Parks Department will allow us to maintain the level of service to which the public has been accustomed. This means not only the level of service throughout the winter but also during the spring, summer, and fall months. In the immediate future for the winter months, we expect to see an increase in the level Of service provided during snowplowing and snow removal operations. It will allow us a slight amount of flexibility in meeting the goals. The fol lowing is a list of goals that the Public Works Department expe ets to meet in relationship to plowing and snow removal for this year. 1. Under normaJL circumstances, the municipal parking lots will be open and cleared by 7:00 A.M., the commuter parking lot open and cleared by 5:00 A.M. 2. All attempts will be made to widen the streets the first time through after a snowfall. Sholfing will also be done the first time through if conditions allow. 3. Men and equipment will be scheduled to keep the priority streets fre o of ice and snow build up during periods of continued snowfall. 4. Interoactio n clean up in the downtown area will be smoother and more effective with the addition of the now bumper mounted wing. The snowplowing policy is reviewed each year. We do not expect to see any oign ificant changes in the policy. The snowplowing schedule, however, will be affected by the addition of the now man and the application of those goals which were touched upon during the Council workohop session earlier thin year. D. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Alternative 01 would be to appoint Mr. Keith Trippo to the position of oporator/mochanic with the Street and Parke Department. The starting wage would be $7.44 par hour. 2. Thin alternative would be to not appoint Mr. Keith Trippo to the pool tion of oporator/mochanic and continue on with the existing otaff. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It in the ataff recommendation that the City Council conoidor -9- Council Agenda - 11/26/86 �1.. Alternative Al and appoint Keith Trippe to the position of operator/ mechanic with the Street and Park Departments. We further request that Mr. Trippe be allowed to start as soon as possible, as the 1984 Budget included a complete one year's salary for a new employee, and there is currently more than enough work for the individual. D. SUPPORTING DATA: None. C -10- Council Agenda - 11/26/86 9. Consideration of Entering an Agreement with Minnesota Department of Transportation. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Many months ago when we discussed the bridge replacement and the reconstruction of Highway 25, we negotiated with MN/DOT the ability to acquire functional. replacement land for that portion of East Bridge Park that they needed to acquire from us for bridge construction. At approximately the same time, Bob and Mary Saxon came before the Planning Commission and Council requesting a variance to build a garage and indicated that they had plane to build onto the home. That variance was postponed and negotiations began to acquire the Saxon property as an extension of East Bridge Park to account for the land we would lose to the bridge. During that negotiation period, we had Jack review the property informally and provido us with an appraisal estimate, as well as the MN/DOT right-of-way appraiser submitted a figure in a letter. During that same period of time, MN/DOT provided us with a copy of a legal agreement which would accommodate the transfer of land and the reimbursement by the State. That agreement was approved by the City but never formally signed by the State. In the meantimo, of course, we bought the land from the Saxons and now have ownership. About a weok-and-a-half ago, MN/DOT contacted me to indicate that that agreement that had boon presented had never boon signed by the State and consequently, wrao now out of data. They stated that they had prepared a now agreement that they would be sending to the City for execution. The now agreement changes one word in the old agreement. On page I. paragraph numbor 1, at the bottom of the page, the opening phrase has been changed from "Tho City may acquire functional replacement land", to "Tho City has acquired functional roplacoment land." MN/DOT fools it's essential to have the languego in the agreement accurate before signing. Upon execution of the agreement, then we will request St. Cloud appraisal to do a formal appraisal on the property, if MN/DOT concurs with our soloction, and submit the appraisal to MN/DOT for roimburs emant. The now agrooment is necessitated merely from the fact that wo acquired the property when it was available and roaoonoblo to do so, and the language of the agreement must reflect that. Thera aro no other changes to the agreement, and it is in the came form as had boon approved by the Council last year. The City Attorney has reviewed and okayed the content. If we wish to receive raimburnomont for the acquisition of tho Saxon property as part of the bridgo reconstruction project, there really aro no alternative actions. Being that approval of the agreement la the only roamonablo action, the staff racommondation Is just that. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the MN/DOT agreement. AGREEMENT FOR EXCHANGE OF LAND It is hereby agreed this day of 198_, by and between the City of NontiCelle, a Minnesota municipal corporation, hereinafter called the City, and the Minnesota Department of Transportation, hereinafter call Mn/DOT that, WHEREAS, Mn/DOT has undertaken the improvement of T.H. 2S within the City between River Street and Sherburne County State Aid Highway 14; and, WHEREAS, said improvements consist of highway construction and bridge construction over the Mississippi Rivera and, WHEREAS, the said improvements will require the acquisition from the City by Mn/DOT of approximately two-tenths of an acre of land in fee simple and approximately two-tenths of an acre of land in temporary construction easements as shown in Exhibit 'A', and, WHEREAS, under Minn. Stat. Section 181.202, subd. 2, the City may acquire functional replacement lander and, WHEREAS, the bend shell in the city park is included in the land to be acquired by Nn/OOT. NOM, THEREFORE, IT 19 HEREBY agreed by and between the City and Mn/DOT that: 1. The City has acquired functional replacement land, in anticipation of this agreement, as shown on Exhibit "A' in orange. Mn/DOT shall ascertain and pay the City the reasonable value of the functional replacement land. Said value shall be determined by mutually agreeable appraiser to be obtained by the City. Mn/DOT reserves the right to review and approve said appraisal. -1- 1 2.~ The City will convey to Mn/DOT the ~fee simple title to the' portion of land as shown on Exhibit 'A" colored red in form acceptable to Mn/DOT. 3., The City will convey to Mn/DOT in farm acceptable to Mn/DOT e temporary easement to that portion of land as shown on Exhibit •A' in yellow for the purpose of placing riprap along the river bank. 4. Mn/DOT agrees to pay to City the lesser of the cost tot a) relocate the existing City band shell ori b) to construct a' replacement band shell on other lend owned or to be acquired by the City outside of the lands required for T.M. 25 reconstruction, 5. A walkway for pedestrian traffic only shall be constructed by Mn/DOT under the new bridge. The design and construction specifications for the walkway shall be the sole responsibility of Mn/DOT. The City agrees that Mn/DOT shall have exclusive discretion and authority to alter, expand, restrict or otherwise limit the use of said walkway, including the right to totally remove the same at any time as Mn/DOT shall see fit. The City further agrees to assume all liability for damages and to hold harmless and indemnify Rn/DOT, its commissioner and employees from liability and claims of damage arising out of the use by the public of said pedestrian walkway on Mn/OOT right of way, except for injury or damage resulting from defects in the design or work mnship in the construction of the walkway. 6. Any use by the City or public permitted by this agreement shall remain subordinate to the right of the Minnesote Department of Transportation to use the property for highway and transportation purposes. This agreement does not grant any interest whatsoever in land, nor does it establish a permanent park, recreation area or wildlife or waterfowl refuge facility that would become subject to Section a(f) of the Pederal-Aid Bighvay Act of 1968, nor does it establish a bike trail or pedestrian way which would require replacement pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sectior. 160.264 (1982). STATE OF MINNESOTA CITY OF MONTICELLO RECOMMENDED APPROVAL By: By: District Engineer Mavor By: Director, Right of Nay Date: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION By: Commissioner Date: APPROVED AS TO tFOO'RM By: t -a1 ASSi Specie Ass ate t Attorney General Date: 9/0/29 APPROVED AS TO EXECUTION By: Special Assistant Attorney General Data: RW000198490 -3- By: City Administrator Dates APPROVED AS TO PORN AND LEGALITY: Monticello City Attorney Council Agenda - 11/26/84 �. 10. Consideration of Conditional Use Request to Allow a Nursing Home in an R -B Zone - Applicant. Monticello -Big Lake Community Hospital District. (G.A.) R A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: A recent bond issue was passed to allow a nursing home to be built on the current Monticello -Big Lake Community Hospital District site. A nursing home is only allowed as a conditional use in an R -B Zone. The nursing home will be located directly behind the existing Monticello -Big Lake Community Hospital. It will be connected to the lower most level of the hospital. The northern most portion of the new nursing home building will be extending approximately 20 feet into the southern 20 feet of the right-of-way for the platted River Street. No sewer relocation will be necessary at this time to allow for construction of the new nursing home. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: I. Approve the conditional use request to allow a nursing home in an R -B Zone. 2. Deny the conditional use request to allow a nurai,:'1 home in an R -B Zone. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends approval of the conditional use request to allow a nursing home in an R -B Zone. The nursing home is compatible with the existing property surrounding it and will bland in quite wall. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the location of the proposed site plan for the now Monticello -Big Lake Nursing Homo. -12- ,gyp jjj'i�,�,����' p '�jlj� �trl��fii rr/l�� .,., ,�,%irp ji� Jr� ` ,,t � q. Council Agenda - 11/26/84 1 11. Consideration of a Conditional Use Request to Allow Outdoor Sales in a B-3 Zone - Applicant, Monticello Auto Sales, Inc. (G.A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: C Mr. Clarence McCarty, owner of Monticello Auto Sales, is before you with a conditional use request to allow auto Bales in a B-3 Zone. The proposed site of Monticello Auto Sales is the former Dino -s Other World vacant property site. Mr. McCarty would like to have an auto sales lot only for his care with no building there as a principal use. The sales office would be located in his current dental office building. Staff recommended some conditions be attached to this property, and they were also addressed by the Planning Commission at their November 14 meetino and are as follows: I. The conditional use be for a period not to exceed past December 31, 1985. 2. The vehicles to be sold there, whether they be automobiles or pickups, are not to exceed a gross vehicle weight of 9,000 pounds. 3. The site be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator and meet his approval before it can open for business. 4. The area is to be lighted, and the light directed to the care on the solos lot only. 5. The entire number of care at this point not to exceed 10. 6. The entire area which Mr. McCarty is leasing be kept neat and wall maintained through the duration of his conditional use permit. 7. The vehicles to be displayed belong only to Monticello Auto SaleB, and t.hoy cannot be consignment cars from other individualo or corporations. S. A fence be put around the old basement in the front and on the two aidos. D. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve the conditional use request to allow outdoor sales in a B-3 Zone, with the 8 conditions mentioned above. 2. Deny the conditional use request to allow outdoor sales in a 0-3 Zone. -13- Council Agenda - 11/26/84 l L.- C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: City staff recommends approval of the conditional use request with the B conditions mentioned in Letter A, Reference and Background. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the proposed location of the Monticello Auto Sales lot. -14- Conditional US* RaQualli to allow' (I •+ �;� outdoor solei in a 0-3 Eons. Montica110 Auto Salaa+ Inc. It All j �• y i 17 '" t I Council Agenda - 11/26/84 12. Consideration of Conditional Use Request to Allow a Detached Accessory Building in Excess of 1000 Square Feet to be Built Without a Principal Use for the Vacant Property - Applicant, Marvin Scherer. (G.A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: City staff has put this agenda item back on for public hearing to get a final decision once and for all. City staff had hopes of getting through the Comprehensive Plan by this time, but has not gotten through the Zoning Ordinance section of the new Comprehensive Plan. At the last public hearing held on November 8, 1983, the Planning Commission along with the City Council indicated to Mr. Scherer to have him wait until the ordinance section of the new Comprehensive Plan was worked on. Staff is looking at Mr. Scherer's property to allow him to build the cold storage building without a principal use. We would like, if at all possible, to clean up blighted areas as long as it is within the realms of the ordinance and it is in the best interest of the City and also the affected residents within the area. Even though wo may not please all of the affected residents, it will be a compromise to clean up a blighted area. The size of the building that Mr. Scherer is proposing is approximately 54 fact by 90 foot at the maximum. However, it may be a smaller building. The size indicated above is the maximum that he is currently proposing. we aro looking at the possibility, if it was granted to allow him to build this cold storage garago, of a list of suggestive conditions to be applied to it. You may not agree to some of the conditions attached, or you may have other suggestive conditions which could be attached which could bo aired at the public hearing. The suggestive conditions are listed as follows: 1. The building would be allowed to be not to the roar moat portion of the property, that being the corner next to Ruff Auto property and the Bridgewater Tolophone Company property, with a 5 -foot setback of the south and want sides of the property. 2. That the door entry or entries may be on the east and of the building toward the Griofnow Shoot Metal property. 3. The screening be made of a treated wood material that would be opaque, and the screening be a minimum height of 7 foot and a maximum height of B foot. 4. That the property be mowad and kept groomed no if it were a residential house. -15- Council Agenda - 11/26/84 -16- 5. That there be a blacktop surface or a concrete surfaced driveway from County Road 39 into and up to the door entrance to the building. 6. The maximum gate opening in the screening fence be 15 feet and the maximum driveway width be 12 feet. 7. The gate must be able to be closed, and the gate must be of the same material as the screening fence. B. The minimum height of the tree plantings be 8 feet, and the tree plantings be the following: a) on the west line of the property next to the Bridgewater Telephone Company a minimum of 6 trees be planted; b) there be a minimum of 3 trees planted in the front of the property: c) that there be a minimum of 6 trees planted along aide of the east side of the property next to the vacant property owned by Mrs. Edna Griofnow. 9. There will be absolutely no outside storage whatsoever. 10. The use of this building be only for cold storage of automobiles and accessories. 11. The maximum height of the tree plantings be B foot. 12. That there also be a landscaped area in the center of the building an shown on the enclosed plane. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve the conditional use request to allow a detached accessory building in excess of 1000 eq. ft. to be built without a principal use for the vacant property. 2. Deny the conditional use request to allow a detached accessory building in oxcasn of 1000 sq. ft. to be built without a principal use for the vacant proporty. 3. Approve the conditional uoa request to allow a detached accessory building in excess of 1000 eq. ft. to be built without a principal use for the vacant property with the 12 above stated conditions attached to thio. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: City staff supports the request to clean up thin blightod area; but in doing so, the support from the City staff lies directly to adhere to the conditions that are attached with no deviations from that other than suggested by City Council, using this as an example property only and dealing with it as an individual blightod property. As you will noto,on our site plan enclosed -16- t Council Agenda - 11/26/84 is our suggested recommendation to the City Council members as to how we would like to see the property fully developed and agreed upon with the suggestive comments included to be accepted or denied by the City Council members. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the proposed location of the conditional use request. Copy of the proposed site plan with conditions attached to the site plan as shown. -17- —IWV4)r ......... ................. Conditional use R"u0st to allow detached OCCOSSM buiLding in ON -000, of 1000 ocpj&rg feet to be built i, AhOlt . principal use for the IIICI property. Marvin SCM�Or. m PLOT PjAk ADDRESS' -I 'SLI•` b%F Cdu,eso,9•d PERMIT NUMDER iI LEGAL: �CSCRIPTION ;; LOTTA[t./��iAlA/�i1'6 BLOCK AODITIO �50. PT. OF SITE AREA If'eS X 9�0I/' qs,. B0. R, Or ARCA OCCUPIED BY BUILDING_ N850 INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICANT IN'$ PORN NEED NOT OR USED NNCN PLOT PLANS DRAWN TO [CAL[ ARC PILED NITM THE P[RNIT APPLICATION. •ON NEW OOILOINO:. 1001110[ TMC ►OLLWINO IMPONNATIONI LOCATION Or PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND E[ISTINS INP AOVCM[NTS. BWOW BUILDING, :ITC AND SETBACK DINCNStON,. SNOW CASMENTS• PINISN CONTOURS OR DRAINAGE. "INET PLOON CLC11ATION:. TA 97 ELC11ATION AND SCNCR ELt11AT1ON. SXev LOCATION 0► vATCR. :[vCR. SAB. %NO CLECTNICAL 0lty [ LINE:• BNON LOCATIONS OP BYRVC11 ►INS. SPCCIn TNC YS[ OI CACX OU., IAIG ,IID EACH MAJOR PC TION THEREOF. INDICATE NORTH IN CIRCLE ACN GRAPH SQUARE EQUALS /S'-0' BT IE1-0' c, I.• I 1 •1 I I 1 1 I oOu- 1/W. Cr. 111, tN.1 IN. D.op4:0 Co.N11uCt Ion g,IiI Ia#,Io, 111:INr ;III OOt.inlro IIIWO.AI.. .. .. .. Rvw uom •m uw ptwn WO•r rnO lN.t M [N.r�a g,lll IH mr0, wflNOul /(•.r1.......rr..rr.1.r...BR.r...... •.1..r.............•.....•.....•................................... r... ll` {POR CITU UBC ONLt1• !vN[D APPROVED 0T DATE, CONDITIONS TO CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST MMVIN SCHERER 1. Building set back to within 5 feet of the south and west property linea in the southwest corner of your property. 2. Door entries on the east and of the building only. 3. 7 feet or B feet high opaque screening fence of treated wood in the following areae: A. From east and west rear property linea to the north about 60 feet. B. From the NW corner of the building east along building 20 feat, from this point start with the fence going north from the building 10 feet, then west 25 feet to meet with west line fence. C. Starting at the NE corner of the building, north 15 feet, then east to the east line fence. D. A 15 -foot maximum width gate made of same material as opaque screening fence. Gate to be closed except when in use. 0. 15 trees, B foot In height at minimum, in the following areas: A. 6 along the west side of the property, maximum 30 -foot opacing. B. 6 along the nest aide of the property, maximum 30 -foot spacing. C. 3 along the front side of the property, maximum 30 -foot spacing. 5. 12 -loot maximum driveway width, concrete or asphalt driveway. Driveway to be from Golf Course Road, south into the property, than run up to the east building entrance door. 6. Absolutely no outside storage. 7. Building use is for cold storage of vehicles and its accoasoriss only. C o — An 3 o An , I ,> C ZZ °; 1 I Ir'�11t�'r n S TD9 ,:L--: -L I I" c 0 g < V mra0 d 35� f = 955 �g N N ss CD a a 9- �Q X Y I Not rA _: OPME QOW _ _ /� • a• a 0 m OFFICE COPY /Jr7QT N 3 i o E L pr g �a a A = o z 8' 8 /Jr7QT N 3 Council Agenda - 11/26/84 �i 13. Consideration of Variance Request Appeal for a Simple Subdivision Request of a Residential Lot. Variance Requests for Less than the Minimum Lot Width and Lot Square Footage - Applicant, Harry Stokes. (G.A.) IN L A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Mr. and Mrs. Harry Stokes have filed an appeal after being denied variances for their simple subdivision of their residential lots located on Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, of Block 47, Original Plat Addition to the City of Monticello. Enclosed you will find a copy of the Certificate of Survey on Mr. Harry Stokes' property. Mr. Stokes' property currently faces west Broadway, and they are of the small lots, having only 33 feet of frontage and 165 feet of depth. Mr. Stokes would like to divide the property, the back 72 feet of Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4. In looking at the sketch plan, we must determine if the rear of the house is the rear yard of the current property or the side yard with the newly proposed subdivision of the lots. If we are to consider it as the rear yard setback of hie house, the existing house will not be in conformance with the newly created subdivision lot line. If we consider it a side yard setback from the aide of the house, it would moot the minimum side yard setback required, which Is 10 foot. The now lot, as proposed to be replotted, shows only 72 feat of frontage on Vino Street, and the minimum we allow in 80 feet. It also has leas dopth than the total amount that is uaually soon in a residential lot depth. As proposed, the building would not moot the minimum lot square footage in an R-2 Zone, which is 10,000 sq. ft. The lot subdivision only shows 9,504 foot, or 496 fact short. A possible suggestion from staff to the subdivision plat is that we would have to conform to the minimum lot frontage required, 80 foot. That would leave Mr. Stokes just about 11 foot. 10.9 fact to be exact, from the roar of his house to the newly created property lino. In doing so, it would mako the front of the lot moot the conformance of the City ordinance, the 80 foot of front width. In doing so, you might want to increase the aidoyard setback in an R-2 Zono, which is currontly 10 foot. The increase would be on the west aido of the proposed platted lot, which is tho lot lino closoot to the house. By doing so, the closest the houno could be not on the lot noxt to the existing houoo would be 30.9 foot on the aidoyard setback. By increasing the front lineal footage to 80 foot by tho currant dopth of the four lots. we would havo 500 sq. ft., 60 sq. ft. in excess of the minimum lot size required of 10,000 eq. ft. If tho front footage was loft at 72 foot as presented, the minimum aidoyard setback to a prop000d now houea to be built would be 28.9 foot, so wo are vary close in aidoyard aotbacka. In proposing the 80 -foot front width, wo would thus eliminate the need for a front foot varianco and a minimum lot square footage varianco. -18- LB. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: C Council Agenda - 11/26/84 1. Approve the simple subdivision request as presented and approve the variance requests for less than the minimum lot frontage and the lot square footage. 2. Deny the simple subdivision request and also to deny the variance requests for minimum lot frontage and the lot square footage. 3. Approve the simple subdivision request with the condition that the front footage be increased to 80 feet. As a condition to this, the minimum sideyard setback on the south or vest side is the setback between the house, the sideyard setback being 20 feet instead of the required 10 feet. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: City staff recommends approval of the subdivision request with the following conditions: 1) that the minimum lot frontage be increased to 80 foot, thus being in conformance with the ordinance and not requiring a variance request for less than minimum lot frontage and lot square footage. 2) Also as a condition, the minimum eideyard setback on the side facing the house be incroasod to 20 feet instead of the required 10 feet. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the location of the proposed simple subdivision request. Copy of the Certificate of Survey. -19- Ra�a� pas R �' ill , !Ii/1!/• Jtjj�� !�!!� �ltt, !t!tf �11h111fi // lj�/1� f! � x it t�...'�'� ,1` �tiyf lht� il!! t�t,�' T !j�• '/l/ljll, �-. t! Utt �`:+fit �.�\� f� Ona , ' � ��� � 1l,�., `�J,/j�" ,�•! ��►d' 0 f 15 i 1 M051 t„rpATXtRt CORNER OF LOt t 14 "cyst i�,,2 I '� 3 S 1•! .14057 EASTERLY CORNER Of 4 O 4 J j a' / XOhJS£ 0 C� Council Agenda - 11/26/84 14. Consideration of a Subdivision Concept for the Ed Doran/Rend Mansion Property - Applicant, Ed Doran and Realty Station. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Ed Doran has been into City Hall several times to determine what can be done with the Rand property which he owns. He has indicated that the property has created a severe financial bind for him, and he wishes to pursue some kind of development. Ed has further indicated that various purchase agreements and options that he has had with prospective buyers have not been fulfilled and that he now would like to pursue development on his own, with the assistance of Realty Station. He has further indicated on numerous occasions that he is not in a financial position to go all out in the subdivision process without some indication of total expense and level of approval. Because this area is considered extremely sensitive due to the fact that the Rand Mansion is on the National Historical Register, as is the Jameson property and Little Mountain Village, the staff has been more than willing to work with Ed in his preliminary design packages. At one point during our discussions, I was able to secure four sketch plans from John Uban of Howard Dahlgren Associates (at no charge) to give to Ed as suggestions. On all four suggested development proposals,John Simola put together preliminary astime as of the public services that will be required. I have also indicated to Ed that our policy has been recently to require subdividers and dovolopers of open property to pay 1001 of the cost of installing public improvements such as sower, water, streets, curb and gutter. Ona of Ed's main concerns is whether or not portions of that project can be aaaessablo to othor abutting property owners; namely, the school, Jamosona, and Construction 5. without going into extensive feasibility studies from OSM, all I have been able to respond is that if adjacent property benefits, than the amount of that benefit can be aaaasood against that property. At the November 14 Planning Commission, Ed Doran and Cocilo Muchlbauer were present to explain the proposal to tho Planning Commiasion. Ed's discussion revolved around the financial hardship and the need to determine the exponac of physical improvements to the property. I indicated to the Planning Commission that this final determination cannot be made until the dovoLopor has requested a feasibility study from the City Engineer and has agreed to assume the expense for ouch a study. I indicated that whon that study is done, we would have a more accurate coat as wall as a general determination of bonafit derived by adjacent proportioa and the ensuing assosamanta. For the record, at the Planning Commission, I wont on to say that staff did approve of tho concept of the 3t acres being subdivided but -20- Council Agenda - 11/26/84 that it was both a right and an obligation of the City to create or insist upon covenants that would control the quality of architecture in this sensitive area. The main thrust of staff recommendation with respect to architectural controls has to do with preventing the building of certain types of homes in the area. Because the Rand Mansion ie recognized as a historical place and because it is a fine example of older architecture, I think it would be insulting to the area to allow the development and construction of very contemporary architectural design. A cluster of two bedroom ramblers or ranch homes would be inappropriate and non - complementary to the main house. We are not talking about financial considerations necessarily here, for there could be very opulent homes that still would not be complementary to the area. There are, however, many designs of new homes that carry with them the character and flavor of dated period architecture. we think that architecture of this sort should be required in this subdivision so as to enhance the property rather than detract from it. Ed and Cecile objected very strongly to the notion of such architectural controls on the grounds that it would limit the ability for anyone to sell the property. The Planning Commission passed the concept on to the City Council with approval but including the notion that architectural control covenants would have to be established. I have boon informed that the cities of Northfield and Faribault, both of wathich have historical sections within their city, have initied an architectural controls system to protect the architecture and the heritage of the community. I am trying to got through to their city administratora to got copies of their heritage control policies. While it would bo the ideal case to see the Rand Estato kept intact as a oinglo historical site with major renovation and reconstruction done on the house, we all realize that it is very unlikely that this will occur. Consequently, a residential subdivision is an acceptable alternative if, and only if, it is developed and designed to enhance the overall character of Lha area. To simply cubdivido the land into callable Iota that can be developed and marketed for a quick buck, in my opinion, would be harmful to tho area. While I do, indeed, think it is unfortunate that the financial obligation increases daily on the currant owner of the property, it is not the responsibility of the City to allow haphazard development simply to lighten the financial difficulties of any individual resident. I havo attempted to atreco that while we are not bent on making development excessively expencivo or oven imp000ible, we would be negligent in our duty to allow loco than a quality development simply because of financial hardship. The City did not create the financial bind and consequently, is not obligated to remedy It. C -21- Council Agenda - 11/26/84 TB. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Grant approval to the subdivision concept attaching the conditions that covenants be created to control the architecture and design and development of each lot. 2. Approve the subdivision requirement free of all covenants, and consider it as you would any other residential subdivision proposal. 3. Deny the subdivision concept. Such a denial must be based on legitimate grounds that the design as layed out is unworkable or would be harmful to the public interest. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the subdivision concept be given approval provided that architectural controls be established and recorded as covenants with the land. if this approval is given, then the developers may proceed with a formal preliminary design phase and we will work with them in negotiation sessions to establish workable architectural controls. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the minutes of the Planning Commiaoion; Copy of the proposed plat concopt plan; If available, copies of the Northfield and Faribault historical policies; Coploo of commonto from City Consultants. -22- Planning Commiasion Minutes - 11/14/84 7. Public Hearinq - A Request for a New Residential Subdivision Addition — Applicant, Realty Station, Inc. Mr. 8d Doran, current property owner of the former Rand Mansion, van present to discuss his proposal for subdividing his existing vacant land around the former Rand Mansion. Its Indicated to Commission members he has been unsuccessful through Realty Station and other realty compaslea In Monticello to sell his property, and he Is looking at this as a possible alternative to sell off portions of the vacant land around the former Rand Mansion. The public hearing was opened for any public input. Cecile Muehlbauer, sales agent with Realty Station, strongly voiced her concerns over any architectural controls which may be attached as a condition to this proposed new subdivielon. In checking through many other realtora and developers in the Minnoapolio/st. Paul metropolitan area, thoy have had several prospects on the property, but nobody is willing to come forth to expend the amount of money needed to renovate the formor Rand Mansion. The former mansion would be better off being demolished, and highest and beet uoe of the land, therefore, would be vacant land with no formor Rand Mansion structure on it. She felt that the architectural control portion as a condition to this oubdivision would be a definite hardship on the owner and the prospective developers of the property. Thomas Bides, City Administrator, eluded to the architectural control which we are looking for as a condition to thin. The reason for tho architectural control in that the typo of housing to be put In there be of somewhat similar nature to what Is existing there, not that it has to be exactly the same thing but something that would complemont the former Rand Mansion. The establishment of an Architectural Control Board would consist of a representative of the City, a representative of the developer, and an Independent Individual. to act as a nonrelated Individual. toning Administrator Anderson handed to Planning Commission Chairman, Richard Carlson, a letter received from our Consulting Planner. John Uban of Howard Dahlgren 6 Associates. His comments were basically the planning Commission Ninutos - 11/16/86 name concerns as voiced by .City staff. He felt that the subdivision itself, due to the character and nature around it, mould be vary complementary to the City an a new subdivision with some type of architectural controls. Richard Carlson then read aloud a letter submitted from Mel Wolters objecting to the proposed new subdivision, feeling that there are a considerable amount of, residential lots available in the City right now and the City does not need additional lots and that we should take care of the developers that do have the residential Iota available and try and leeeen the amount of residential lots available at the present time. Mrs. Robert Jameson was present to express her concerns of their property, fully realizing the problems which Mr. Doran has encountered. Their property, like Mr. Doran's property, is currently on the National Register. She is not in objection to the proposed subdivision, but she fools there should be soma type of architectural control to avoid dissimilar type housing to go in adjacent to historical site properties. Notion by William fair, seconded by P.d Schaffer, to approve the proposed subdivision as presented with the following condition: that there be 1) an architectural board established consisting of a representative of the City, a representative of the developer, and an Independent individual with no affiliation to either the City or the developer. Z) that the Architectural Control Hoard, before issuance of the building permit, decide the type of house to be built on the residential vacant lots. lotion carried unanimously. $ e NwG.\� �«.r PROPOSED Qk4r�7rti, r w G 10.71D 7. IT. d 24.no 89. FT.55 O d 9.M sarr.. a\ 10.090 70, R. '.ate (so is $\.- 2 17054 wn. 4� 31.WC 50. FT. 4 w li 9 lU ay lbFr 8 Ck, 1. '�, a �. .n., . too\ ..s e.. sr ranor* w n.l yr P. a, rw! t.♦ O r=. r1V ru��u.u, TAYLOR LAND Sl Council Agenda - 11/26/84 15. Review of 3rd Quarter Liquor Store Financial Report. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Enclosed with the agenda you will find a copy of the 9 -month financial report for the Liquor Store operations. Nark Irmiter will be present at the Council meeting to answer any questions you may have in regards to this report. As you will note in reviewing the report, total sales have increased approximately $50,000 with the resulting gross profit increasing approximately $15,000 over the same period last year. The basic operating expenses are very comparable to last year, resulting in approximately a $14,000 additional operating income over the same period last year. Grose profit percentages appear in line with the pricing policy established by Mr. Irmiter. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: No action is necessary other than review of the report. D. SUPPORTING DATA: ,i Copy of the 9 -month comparative financial statement. C -23- BALA14CE SHEET KUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE C SEPTEKBER 30. 1984 AND 1983 ASSETS CURRENT ASSETS CASH IN BANK — CHECKING CHARGE FUND CASH IN BANK — RESTRICTED INVESTMENTS INVESTMENTS — RESTRICTED NSF CHECK — RECEI_VABLE INVENTORIES PREPAID INSURANCE UNAMORTIZED BOND DISCOUNT TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS x PROPERTY AND EQUIPKENT LAND BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS PARKING LOT FURNITURE AND FIXTURES ACCUM. DEPR. — BUILDINGS ACCUM DEPR—FURNITURE 3 FIXTURE 1--,ACCUM. DEPR. — PARKING LOT TOTAL PROPERTY AND EQUIPKENT TOTAL ASSETS 441749.64 1.000.00 20 r :x40.20 ) 276,391.86 47.540.20 122.41 89.852.26 4,980.75 342.16 f 444.439.06 6.839.95 1511671.04 Dr515.50 ;.81480.31 ( 32r264.24) ( 31.318.34) ( 5,695.49) ------------- 156r228.73 ------------- ! 600x667.81 S 44,943.40 1,000.00 ( 23.355.20) 186, 4:x0.41 47r540.20 54.84 98,674.88 5,537.54 752.68 3611598.75 i 6,839.95 1511671.04 8x515.50 42,481.69 ( 28r215.25) ( 25,223.08) ( 4 r 944 _ 7_ ) ——•--- 151.125.10 f c12r723.85 PION7ICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR fBALANCE SHEET MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE CURRENT LIABILITIES ACCOUNTS PAYABLE PAYROLL Y/H - PERA SALES TAX PAYABLE PAYROLL Y/H - FEDERAL SALARIES PAYABLE ACCRUED SICK LEAVE 8 VACATIONS PAYROLL Y/H - STATE PAYROLL Y/H - FICA PAYROLL Y/H - CREDIT UNION BOND INTEREST PAYABLE i TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES f IONG-TER11 LIABILITIES BONDS PAYABLE TOTAL LONG-TERM LIABILITIES i, TOTAL LIABILITIES 8 EQUITY RETAINED EARNINGS REVFNUES OVER EXPENDITURES i TOTAL EQUITY i TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY s SEPTEMBER 30, 1984 AND 1983 LIABILITIES AND EQUITY 27.881.45 45.84 6.257.88 412.40 1.161.37 1,274.38 225.00 131.13 .00 2.860.00 s 40.249.45 t 65,000.00 ------------- s 65,000.00 i 105,249.45 4 27r319.19 60.23 5,991.23 370.50 989.25 952.81 23t;. 00 399.06 20.00 1.518.00 S 37.855.27 1 85,000.00 ---------------- 85,000 00 ----------- 85.000.00 s 122.85:5.27 t 413.621.19 t 330.071.63 79,797.17 59,796.95 --------------- ------------- t 495,418.36 $ 389.868.58 -•------------- -- -- - ----- t 600,667.61 t 512,723.85 I /- SALES LIQUOR BEER MINE OTHER MDSE MISC. NOM -TAXABLE SALES DEPOSITS AND REFUNDS BOTTLE DEPOSIT - HISC DISCOUNTS TOTAL SALES COST OF GOODS SOLD GROSS PROFIT GENERAL AND ADIM. EXPENSES ,-PERSONAL SERVICES _ARIES. REGULAR PERA INSURANCE, MEDICAL AND LIFE SOCIAL SECURITY TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES GENERAL OPERATING SUPPLIES MAINTENANCE OF BLDG. SUPPLIES SMALL TOOLS AND MINOR EQUIP. TOTAL SUPPLIES NONI10ELl_O MUNICIPAL LIQUOR REVLNUL AND EYF'EHSE:S MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE FGR THC NINE MONTHS ENULD SEF•TEMBER 30, 1984 AND 1983 CURRENT -PERIOD CUR -PD YEAR-TO-DATE Y -T -D SAML•-PD-LST-YR PD-LYR Y -T -D• -LST -YR YTD -LY AMOUNT RATIO AMOUNT RATIO AMOUNT RATIO AMOUNT RATIO S 74.188.135 27.11 $ 199,188.78 28.65 6 70,883.02 28.05 $ 19.51,271.55 30.21 158,761.63 58.00 393,635.01 56.63 147,447.99 58.34 338.474.28 55.46 26x873.82 9.82 72,337.37 10.41 229448.97 8.88 66.515.73 10.29 9,320.00 3.41 20r740,17 2.98 9r192.67 3.64 241975.16 3.86 5.272.36 1.93 10,532.80 1.52 3,340.75 1.32 3,340.7; 52 ( 962.82) < .35) ( 1r728.14) ( .25) ( 588.21) ( .23) ( 2,205.71) t .34) 254.38 .09 443.62 .06 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 ------------- x00 ( - - - 19098) ------------- ( x00) $00 .00 .00 .00 t 273008.22 100.01 6 695,129.63 - - - 100.00 $ ------------- 252,725.19 ---.._.. 100.00 $ -------------- 646,371.76 ------ 100.00 t( 214,822.74) -- ( 78.49)4( - -- 547,350.74) - .._...----- -- ( 78.74) $( 199.596.89) ( 78.98)$( 514,171.59) ( 79.55) $ 581885.48 21.52 $ 147,778.89 ------ 21.26 $ -- - --- --- 53r128.30 ------ 21.02 $ ------------- 132x200.17 -- --- 20.45 $ 15,006.03 5.48 6 44,870.30 6.45 $ 14,891.05 5.89 $ 43,973.57 6.80 473.99 .17 1,772.58 .25 426.54 .17 1,800.73 .28 11087.43 .40 .3,254.99 .47 592.87 .23 2,252.35 .35 706.45 .26 2,359.26 .34 641.35 --- -...--- .25 2,210.12 .34 6 17x273.90 6.31 6 52,257.13 7.51 $ -- 16r551.81 ------ 6.54 $ -----------..._.. 50,236.77 - ---- 7.77 $ 37.31 .01 $ 16.32 .02 % 93.45 .04 $ 373.14 .06 1,053.93 .39 2,784.10 A.0 521.90 .21 1,639.21 .25 4.59 .00 4.59 .00 330.50 .13 843.42 .13 4.99 .00 4.99 .00 .00 .00 75.00 .01 6 1.100.82 .40 $ 2,920.00 .42 $ 945.85 .38 $ 2,930.77 .45 REVE14UL AND EXPENSES MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1984 AND 1983 SAME-PD--LST-YR CURRENT -PERIOD CUIi-PD YEAR-TO-DATE Y -T -D RATIO AMOUNT RATIO AMOUNT RA7I0 OTHER SERVICES AND CHARGES .38 184.44 .07 507.26 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (AUDIT) t 11835.00 .68 t 2r515.00 .36 COKKUNICATION 147.81 .05 419.64 .06 TRAVEL -CONFERENCE -SCHOOLS .00 .00 .00 .00 ADVERTISING 450.00 .16 1,163.91 .17 INSURANCE, GENERAL 2,962.23 1.08 8.875.57 1.28 UTILITIES. ELECTRICAL 2,252.31 .82 55128,45 .74 UTILITIES, HEATING 48.23 .02 1.162.14 .17 UTILITIES. S 8 Y 154.37 .06 455.96 .07 KAINTENANCE OF EQUIPMENT 154.90 .06 527.99 .08 DUES. MEMBERSHIP, SUBSCRIPTION 125.00 .05 165.00 .02 TAKES AND LICENSES .00 .00 84.25 .01 GARBAGE 247.50 .09 742.50 .11 DEPR. - ACOUIRED ASSETS 21734.44 1.00 81203.22 1.18 OTHER .00 .00 .00 .00 FURNITURE AND EQUIPMENT .00 .00 .00 .00 TOTAL OTHER SERVICES E CHARGESS ------------- 11,131.79 - - 4.07 t 29,443.63 4.27) DEBT SERVICE .00 .00 24.00 .00 a_.NTEREST t 3,320.13 1.21 t 51780.39 .83 PAYING AGENT FEES 10.00 .00 20.00 .00 TOTAL DEBT SERVICES s ---•----------- 31330.13 ------ 1.21 t - -------- 5,800.39 .83 TOTAL GENERAL 8 ADIK. EXPENSES$ 321836.64 11.99 t --------------- 90,421.15 13.01 TOTAL OPERATING INCOME t 26x048.84 9.53 t 57,357.74 8.25 OTHER INCOME (EXPENSES) INTEREST INCOME t 9rO33.07 3.30 t 22r682.85 3.26 OTHER INCOME 105.00 .04 150.00 .0-2 CASH LONG/SHORT ( 396.80) ( .14) < 393.42) ( .06) TOTAL OTHER INCOME (EXPENSES) S 8,741.27 3.20 t 22,439.43 3.22 NET INCOME t 34,790.11 12.73 t 79,797.17 ::::::-:::_:: 11.47 SAME-PD--LST-YR PD-LYR Y -T -D -LST -YR YID -LY AMOUNT RATIO AMOUNT RATIO t 330.00 .13 t 2,445.00 .38 184.44 .07 507.26 .08 160.00 .06 262.83 .04 436.80 .17 1,611.50 .25 21929.50 1.16 9,159.46 1.42 21206.25 .87 51201.27 .80 .00 .00 1,138.76 .18 163.03 .06 300.78 .05 287.09 .11 539.09 .08 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 79.25 .01 340.30 .13 752.80 .12 2x277.84 .90 6,833.51 1.06 130.91 .05 220.91 .03 .00 .00 300.00 .05 t 9,446.16 3.71 $ 29,3`.-12.42 4.55 $ 11509.63 .60 t 5,209.89 .81 .00 .00 10.00 .00 $ 11509.63 .60 S 51219.89 .81 E 281453.45 11.23 $ 87,739.85 13.58 t 241674.85 9.79 t 44x460.32 6.87 $ 61205.49 2.46 t 151.2.26.27 2.36 .00 .00 24.00 .00 104.21 .04 86.36 .01 ------------- $ 6,309.70 -.-. --- 2.50 t -...-- - ------ 15,336.63 2.37 $ 30,984.55 12.29 S 59,796.95 9.24 MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR GROSS PROFIT BY PRODUCT SOLD Fur the Period 07/01/84 to 09/30/84 Current Period Year - to - Date Sumo-Puriud-Laut-1'r Year--to-Datc-La,,;t-Yv- Aibuunt I Amount X Amount Amount x LIQUOR SALES 0 74P188.85 100.00 $ 199,188.78 100.01 s 70.883.02 100.00 $ 19SP271.55 100.00 DISCOUNTS .00 .00 19.98) i .01) .00 .00 COST OF SALES LIQUOR -------------------- 55,366.62 74.63 153.670.79 -,*--,--"-*"---- 77.16 52,936.23 74.68 .00 151,799.74 .00 77.74 CROSS PROFIT s 18#822.23 25.37 s 43#498.01 ------ 22.84 s 17,946.79 -------------- 23.32 S 431471.:81 ------ 22.26 BEER SALES 158v761.63 100-61 393,635.01 100.44 147,447.99 100.40 358#474.28 100.62 DEPOSITS AND REFUNDS 962.82) ( .61) Ir728.14) .44) 589.21) .40) t 2,20.51.71) .62) COST OF SALES - BEER --------------------- 126,895.94 80.42 316,312.48 -*-,---*,-,-*----- 00,71 ------ 121.124.83 82.48 292r879.93 82.21 GROSS PROFIT 6 30#902.87 19.58 6 73,594.39 ------------- 19.29 25,734.95 ------------- 17.52 63#388.62 17.79 MINE SALES 26P873.82 100.00 72r337.37 100.00 22,448.97 100.00 661515.73 100.00 COST OF SALES - WINE ------------- 16,812.88 62.56 46,820.47 64.73 14,429.34 64.28 44P050.21 66.23 XOSS PROFIT 10#060.94 37.44 25,516.90 --------------- 35.27 s 8,019.63 ------ 35.72 6 22r465.52 ------ 33.77 OTHER SALES 9020.00 62.77 20.740.17 65.39 9,192.67 73.35 24#975.16 88.20 MISC. MON -TAXABLE SALES 5o272.36 33.51 10,532,80 33.21 3t340.75 26.65 3t340.75 11.80 BOTTLE DEPOSIT MISC 234.38 1.71 443-62 1.40 .00 .00 .00 .00 COST OF SALES OTHER 14r5l8.67 97.79 27v480.90 86.65 10059.78 80.26 22t307.60 78.78 COST OF SALES FREIGHT ---------------------------- 1#228.63 8.28 3,066.10 9.67 11046.71 8.35 3,134.09 11.07 GROSS PROFIT S( 900.56) 6-07)$ 1,169.59 - -------------- 3.69 $ 1,426.93 7------ --- 11.39 $ ----------- 2,874.22 10.15 TOTAL SALES 2731453.84 100.00 694r705.99 100.00 252p725.19 100.00 646t371.76 100.00 TOTAL COST OF SALES 214.822.74 ----------- 78.56 ------ 547t350.74 7E.79 1991596.89 78.98 514#171.59 79.55 TOTAL GROSS PROFIT 513#631.10 21.44 147,355.25 -------------- 21.21 53t128.30 ------------- 21.02 132,200.17 20.45 I Council Agenda - 11/26/84 16. Approval of Transfers Between Funds. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: As we near the end of Fiscal Year 1984, a number of transfers between funds should be approved by the City Council yet in 1984. The transfers recommended are as follows: Purpose Amount From TO To close out $22,759.00 LCMR Fund Capital Outlay fund To cover S64,011.00 Capital Outlay Highway 25 Const. Fund deficit incurred in purchasing "Saxon" property To cover est. $126,059.00 Capital Outlay 1984 Const. Fund City share of Broadway Impr. To cover City S 7,327.10 Capital Outlay 1904 G.O. Bond share of Asmt's Hart Blvd. To cover WWTP $36,235.00 Liquor Sower const. deficit City share To cover int. $33,765.00 Liquor Sower expense previously charged to sower fund because of WWTP const. The following to a brief summary of the purpose of each transfer. The first transfer of $22,759.00 is being recommondod for the purpose of closing out the LCMR Fund, which was established in 1983. During 1983, we anticipated applying for LCMR Grant funds, which wars to be used for park improvement projects. This was a matching fund whereby we expected to apply for approximately $20,000.00 from tho Statu, but this program has boon oliminatod. The balanco In the fund with interest income is expected to be $22,759.00 at year and, and it is recommended that this be transferred to the Capital Outlay Revolving Fund for other future uses. The second transfer of $64,011.00 is recommended to eliminate the deficit in what is known as the Highway 25 Construction -24• C Council Agenda - 11/26/84 fund. The deficit arose from the City's purchase of the Saxon property next to the East Bridge Park. During 1985 or 1986, the State of Minnesota should be reimbursing the City a large portion of this amount as payment for the land they are taking for the new Highway 25 Bridge. The third transfer recommended totaling $126,059.00 is for the City's share of the Broadway paving contract. As you recall, the City was unable to bond for the City's share of the Broadway improvement, and it was decided to transfer the City's share of the cost from the Capital Outlay Revolving Fund to the construction fund. The fourth transfer consists of 57,327.10 to cover the City's assessments on the Hart Boulevard Improvement Project for the WWTP and Lindberg house properties. In order to meet the 208 assessment requirement on the Hart Boulevard project, the City property was also assessed and should officially be paid to the General Obligation Bond Fund. The last transfer of $70,000.00 is recommended to cover the deficit that has been accruing in the Sewer Fund because of the WWTP construction project over the past few years. Initially, the City has used Revenue Sharing funds for the past number of years along with a small tax levy in 1977 and 1978 in anticipation of covering the City's sharp of the WWTP construction project that was not funded by the EPA or PCA. In calculating the total coat of the WWTP construction project through October, 1984, the total City share of the S5� million project amounted to $552,414.00. Total past Revenue Sharing funds and tax levies that have boon tranafered in prior yearn amounted to $516,184.00, leaving $36,230.00 still needing to be transferred. The additional amount is primarily duo to the change orders that have occurred over the past few years which raised the coat somewhat, resulting in the City's share increasing by this amount. An additional $33,765.00 has been figured as the interest expense attributable to the construction project deficit in the Sower Fund. These two amounts total $70,000.00; and it is recommended that this transfer come from the surplus in the Liquor Fund. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: There are really no alternative actions other than to approve the transfers. D. SUPPORTING DATA: None. -25- Council Agenda - 11/26/84 l� 17. Consideration of Setting a Date for a Special Meeting for the Express Purpose of Discussing 1985 Salaries for Non -Union Personnel. (I.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: In the past two years that I have been involved in establishing salaries for non-union personnel, the City has used two different methods. The first year I negotiated individually with each person and arrived at what I felt was a suitable figure and brought those recommendations to the City Council. After the Council reviewed my recommendations, they met with each individual employee on each figure. When those individual interviews were complete, the Council then adopted a motion setting the salaries for 1983. Last year, the Council met prior to my meeting with the individual staff members and established a pool of money based on a percentage increase over total 1983 payroll. I was then directed to negotiate individual salary sett-lemente with each member of the staff but stay within the pool limitations outlined by the Council. Upon establishing individual salary recommendations within the pool limitations, I then brought the final figures to the City Council for ratification. From the conclusions that I have been able to draw since then, the latter method was preferred by both the staff members and by mo. rl To data, I have not met individually with the staff members sinco I wished to moot with the City Council first. I think what needs to be decided at this meeting is how you wish to proceed on the salary process this year. If you wish to return to the old format of meeting individually with otaff members, than I request that the spacial mooting be put off for a couple of weeks to allow me time to work with each individual staff member in preparing salary recommendations for the Council. If you wish to go through the process of establishing a pool, than I think we can moot anytime in the near future to debate what that pool should be, following which time I will then moot with the individual staff members and bring final numbers back for ratification at the December meeting. C While I prefer the latter method because of the flexibility it allows me in negotiating individually with staff members, I have no groat difficulty with the notion of the Council mooting individually with staff members. If, however, you choose to moot individually with staff members, I do have one racommandation. In the pant when we have used this method, the Council defers formal action until all interviews have boon complete and than cortifioa salaries at the and of the mooting. This procedure causes the staff members considerable discomfort both in the waiting and in the fact that they aro excluded from the diacusaion of final dollars. Commonta were made to me after the last time -26- Council Agenda - 11/26/84 this method was used that they left the room understanding that a figure had been agreed upon, only to find that the figure had been reduced in the motion. If we go with the individual staff member interviews, I recommend that a separate motion be made for each employee setting that person's salary while he/she is in front of the Council. A third method which has not yet been used by the City, but which I find less than desirable but not totally inappropriate, is to simply meet and mandate what salary increases will be without any conference with the employees. While this is convenient for me in that it releases me 1008 of all responsibility with respect to salaries, it is inconvenient in that it sends a message to the employees that we have no desire to hear what they have to say with respect to their performance and their position. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Elect to have salary recommendations for individuals prepared in advance, and establish a meeting where the Council can interview each individual employee. 2. Elect to have a special meeting to establish a salary pool which the Administrator can utilize in determining 1985 salaries with ratification to follow in December. �- 3. Sot a apecial meeting to determine individual salaries without interviews. C C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This Is not a full staff recommendation, but my own. I recommend that we moot in the near future to determine an appropriate percentage based on thin yoar's payroll for the purpose of creating a salary pool from which individual salary increases can be determined. D. SUPPORTING DATA: There in no supporting data at this time. All data relative to salaries will be provided for the spacial meeting. -27- GENERAL FUND NOVEMBER 1984 AMOUNT CHECK NO. International Conference of Bldg. Officials - Membership dues 15.00 19664 Lindberg Decorating Center - Paint, etc. 116.38 19665 Watertower Paint 6 Repair Co. - Maintenance Contract - Water Towe, 1,355.00 19666 Power Systems - Hydraulic motor 224.09 19667 Neenah Foundry - Frame and manhole 190.34 19668 Safety-kleen Corp. - Machine repair 33.00 19669 MN. State Treasurer - Watercraft Receipts 15.00 19670 MN. State Treasurer - Snowmobile Receipts 99.00 19671 Willard Farnick - Mileage Expense for Fire Department School 366.25 19672 Buffalo Bituminous Inc. - Class 5 for Par West 6 Streets 324.00 19673 Effective Management Techniques -.Reg. Fee for John Simola 130.00 19674 Corrow Sanitation - October Contract Payment 4,673.50 19675 Equitable Life Insurance - Premium for K. Hansen 6 M. Theisen 40.00 19676 Jerry Hermes - Janitorial services at Library 137.50 19677 State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll Withholdings 135.04 19678 MN. State Treasurer - PERA Withholdings 448.16 19679 Wright County State Bank - Pederil.Withholdingo ;,�; 4,883.50 19680 MN. State Treasurer - FICA WithhOldtngs ���•. 3,282.72 19681 Arve Grimsmo - Mayor Salary 175.00 19682 Dan Blonigen - Council Salary 1 125.00 19683 Fran Fair - Council Salary . 125.00 19684 Ken Maus - Council Salary 125.00 19685 Jack Maxwell- Council Salary 125.00 19686 YMCA of MPLS - Monthly contract payment 312.50 19687 James Prousse - Cleaning City Hall 275.00 19688 MN. State Treasurer - Snowmobile Receipts 76.00 19689 Petty Cash - Petty cash 55.11 19690 MN. State Treasurer - PERA Withholdings 1,402.49 19691 NSP - Utilities 8,720.20 19692 Commissioner of Revenue - Statc withholdings 2,752.00 19693 AME Ready Mix - ConcruLe - Parka 420.32 19694 Wright County State Bank - Interest on Monti Devel. prop, Blk 51 2,287.44 19695 Buffalo Bituminous - PaymcnL N2 - 84-1, 2, 6 3 Pruject 48,666.00 19696 Publicorp, Inc. - Tax Increment Seminar - Allen PulviL 200.00 19697 Monticello Fire Department - Wages for October 870.00 19698 MN. State Treasurer - Snowmobile Receipts 127.00 19699 MN. State Treasurer - watorcraft Receipts 3.00 19700 Election Judges - Checks 19701 thru 19716 671.25 North Central Public Service Co. - Utilities 1,347.38 19718 Roberts Amoriks - Earnest money for Fire Hall'land acquisition 2,000.00 19717 Thomas Eidem - Mileage Allowance - November 1984 300.00 19719 Jerry Hermes - Janitorial services at Library 137.50 19720 State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll Deductions 135.04 19721 MN. State Treasurer - Payroll Withholdings - FICA 2,436.03 19722 M11. State Treasurer - PERA Withholdings 1,340.81 19723 Monticello Fire Department - Reimbursement - Fireman's Relief Aosce. 18,947.00 19724 Our OWN Hardware - Supplies 397.41 19725 Den Franklin - Supplies 2.98 19726 Mobil Oil Credit Corp - Gas 110.28 19727 Tolte, King Duvall, Anderson i Assoc. - Professional Sory - Piro IWI 3,200.00 19728 Viking Pipe Services Co - Televising sanitary sowers 600.00 19729 Braun Engineering Tasting - Soil Tooting for now nursing home 323.60 19730 J M Oil Co - Gas 415.60 19731 Rock Bottom Rebuilders - 2 Shear Pins - Water Depart. - 24.00 19732 water Products Co. - Supplies - Water Depart. 2,222.71 19733 Karon Doty - Mileage Expense 25.70 19734 R GENERAL FUND NOVEMBER 1984 AMOUNT CHECK NO. Fair's Garden Center - Fertilizer mix for parks and library 49.69 19735 Jim Hatch Sales Co. - Broom and nozzle for Street Dep. 71.46 19' Continental Safety Equipment, Inc. - Ileadstrap for Fire Dep. 75.47 19."', Olson 6 Sons - Repairs at Senior Citizens, pole barn 6 lift stati,-n 707.32 19738 The Fabric Shop - Material for City Hall 4.13 19739 North Star Waterworks Products - Copper, elbows, etc. for Parks 423.16 19740 Bowman Dist. - Grease coupler 6 gun, pin assortment - WWTP 123.40 19741 Monti Motors - Repair of radiator for Parks Dep. 25.00 19742 Sherburne County Equipment - Repairs 189.03 19743 Coast to Coast - Supplies 228.11 19744 Road Machinery s Supplies - Bearings - Maint. Bldg. 44.60 19745 Ruffridgo- Johnson Equip- Co. - Bearings Maint. Bldg. 83.58 19746 Big Lake machine - Repairs at Maint. Bldg. 9.50 19747 Ranger Products - Supplies - WWTP 124.80 19748 Rockmount Research 6 Alloys - Welding Rods - WWTP 147.62 19749 Tools Unlimited - Die Grinder - WWTP 28.00 19750 Gruys, Johnson s Assoc - Computer Charges for September 290'.00 19751 Electronic Center, Inc. - Lamps WWTP 26.19 19752 Unitog Rental Equipment - Uniforms ":° 140.80 19753 National Bushing 6 Parts Co -Supplies 1'F 294.44 19754 Harry's Auto Supply - Supplies and parts 548.95 19755 Interstate Diesel - Repair of transmission, parts, etc. 450.86 19756 Hydraulic Specialty Co. - Motor repair 173.62 19757 Omann Construction Co. - Sand 64.08 19758 Independent Lumbor Co. - Building Supplies 225.25 19759 Phillips Petroleum Co. - Gas 15.25 19760 Marco Business Products - Office supplies 156.34 197' Northwestern Boll - Fire Phone Charges 35.17 19', AT 6 T Information System - Fire Phone Charges 3.59 19763 Thomas-Patco Companies - supplies 99.46 19764 First Bank Mpls - Public Fund Charge 16.00 19765 Maus Fooda - Supplies 210.37 19766 Foodrito Controls - Chlorine, poly, etc. - Water Dep. 1,497.23 19767 R.S. Moana - Subscription - Bldg. Depart. 39.95 19768 Arvig Phone Center - Speakers 41.09 19769 State Treasurer - Supplies - Street Depart. 13.20 19770 EPL/HBL - Sludg a Program 207.00 19771 Earl F. Anderson - Signe for 6th Street 271.43 19772 Novack Iuc. - Repair of oandors 431.20 19773 Persian's Businose Products - Repair of calculator 43.25 19774 Midwest Computer Service - Programming 6 Tenting - WWTP 98.85 19775 MN. Assoc. of Civil Defense - Membor ship fee 3.00 19776 Monticello Township - Payment 14 for 1981 IGA 11800.05 19777 Moon Motors - Chain Saw - Street Depart. 630.96 19778 Wright County Sheriff's Depart. - Police Contract 9.494.38 19779 Al 6 Julio Nelson - Mpls Star Subscription 11.70 19780 McAlpine Bros., Inc. - Check wall at ball park 90.00 19781 Monticello Office Products - Office supplies 67.62 19752 Stewart i Zilmo n, LTD - Payroll deductions 774.34 19783 National Life ins. - Insurance Premium for T. Eidem 100.00 19784 Monticello Times - Advertising 491.79 19785 First Trust St. Paul - Registration Fee for 84 C.O. Bond 400.00 197A6 Monticallo Printing - Printing and supplies 146.90 19 Larson Carpet 6 Furniture - Linoleum for Johnson House 399.00 19788 Groat River Regional Library - Telephone reimbursement 62.74 19789 GENERAL FUND NOVEMBER AMOUNT Foster -Franzen Agency - volunteer Fire Depart. Ins. 340.20 Big Lake Lumber - Building supplies for Parks 193.76 Brenteson Cons. - Work at Water reservoir, Bondhus Corp, 6 Par Vett 3,280.00 Mple Star 6 Tribune - Ad for Public Works Position 79.90 Smith, Pringle 6 Hayes- Legal Fees for October 655.00 Orkin Exterminating Co. - Monthly Contract at WWTP 106.00 veasco, Inc. - 2 diaphragms for WWTP 233.84 Monticello -Big "Pat Hospital - Euthanasis fees - Dog Pound 360.25 Holmes & Graven - Professional Fees 9,472.70 Fulfillment Systems Inc. - UDAG Reimbursement 123,068.00 Geyer Rental - Rental of Trencher 6 trailer - Parks 80.00 Bridgewater Telephone - Phone Charges 941.95 Howard Dahlgren &-Assoc. - Professional Services 301.75 A/S STP Scandinavian Transport Products - Snowplow 2,675.00 Foster -Franzen Agency - Workmen's Comp renewal 10,272.00 Orr-Sehelen-Mayoron Assoc. - Engineering Fees 6,092.10 Nester Instruments - Repair of Equipment 308.10 weldor Pump Co. - Shear Pins - WWTP 62.96 Bowman Distribution - Sand screen, belt dressing, anti -seize - WWfP 54.00 Read's Sales & Service - Lawn Boy. Mower 372.50 John Henry Foster Co - Norgen Filter - WWTP 86.71 Mary King - Misc. purchase 5.00 Comfort Craft - Repair furnace- at City Hall 1,267.85 Audio Communications - Install radio 116.40 Allen Pelvit - Mileage expense 141.75 Rick Wolfsteller - Mileage expense 28.00 Banker's Life - Insurance premium 4,025.44 Gary Anderson - Mileage expense 100.78 Tom Eidem - OA1440o�oxpenso 18.37 PAYROLL FOR OCTOBER 26,342'93 TOTAL CASH DISBURSMENTS FOR NOVEMBER 331,432.19 , LIQU0R FUND DISBURSEMENTS FOR NOVEMBER 1984 commissioner of Revenue - Sales Tax for September 6,176.26 Ed Phillipa 6 Sons Co. - Liquor Purchase 2,591.28 Griggs, Cooper a Co. - Liquor Purchase 3,463.57 Eagle Wine Co. - Wine Purchase 404.80 Griggs, Coope 6 Co. - Liquor Purchase 2,058.46 Twin City wine Co. - wine Purchase 1,378.19 Ed Phillips 6 Sons - Liquor Purchase- 3,662.19 State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll deductions 20.00 MN. State Treasurer - PENA Withholdings 67.64 Wright County State Bank - Federal Withholdings 473.30 MN. State Treasurer - FICA Withholdings 370.42 Griggs, Cooper 6 Co. - Liquor Purchase 176.40 Twin City Wine Co - wine Purchase 1,568:98 Ed Phillips 6 Sons Co. - Liquor Purchase 4,677.23 MN. State Treasurer - PERA Withholdings 155.41 Northern States Power - Utilities 535.54 Commissioner of Revenue - State Withholdings 252.00 Twin City Wine Co. - Wine Purchase 789.85 North Central Public Service Co. - Natural Gas 74.75 State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll Deductions 20.00 MN. State Treasurer - FICA withholdings 270.91 MN. State Treasurer - PERA Withholdings 163.15 Griggs, Cooper b Co., Inc. - Liquor Purchase 4,007.86 ICR Corporation - Service Contract on Cash Registers 539.69 Frito-Lay, Inc. - Misc. Purchases 120.00 Nuating 6 Air Conditioning Service Co. - Repair of equipment 24.00 Lovegren Ice Co. - Misc. Supplies 116.10 Dick Beverage Co. - Beer Purchase 4,397.40 Old Dutch Foods, Inc. - Misc. Purchase 194.16 Gruys, Johnson 6 Assoc - Computer Charges 110.00 Liofort Trucking - Freight Charges - October 532.135 City of Monticello - Water a Sewer Rill 154.37 Dernick'er Popai-Cola Co. - Misc. Purchases 404.25 Monticullo Timus - Advurtiuing 100.00 Viking Coca-Cola Co. - Misc. Purchases 399.60 Seven -Up Bottling Co. - Misc. Purcah ses 364.50 Judo Candy 6 Tobacco Co. - Misc. Purchases 696.26 Slifka Sales - Misc. Purchaues 29.82 Grosslein Beverage - Beer PUrchases 12.016.40 'rhorpo Distributing - Bear Purchase 3,459.36 Yonak Sanitation - Garbage Contract 82.50 Uay Distributing Co. - Beer Purchase 1,743.69 Dahlhoimer Uistributing Co. - Bear Purchase 13,940.26 Commissioner of Revenue - Sales Tax for October 6, OOH. 34 Foster- Franzon Agency - Workmen's Comp. Ins. Renewal 547.Ou Payroll for October 4,687.67 IVT'AL DISBURSEMENTS FOR NOVI:MUR 04,026.41 ERMIT UMBER 84-697 84-698 84-699 I84-700 84-701 84-702 84-703 i 84-704 84-705 INDIVIDUAL PEEM IT ACTIVITY REPORT MONTH Of OCTOBER , 1984 � DESCRIPTION i 11AME/LOCATION VALUATION PERMIT SURCHARGEIPLUMBING ISURCHARGF i House Reroof I AD' Viva Abrahamson/1 Linn Street $ 1,400.00 S 14.30 5 .70 Glazed Porch Addition ADS Irene Lund/218 East River Street 2,100.00 33.10 1.05 2nd Story Dormer Add- n IAD, Dale Kasack/1505 Hilltop Drive 4,200.00 45.70 2.10 Deck ADI Audrey Rose/1508 West River St. 1,800.00 22.00 .90 Single Family Dwelling SPS Biian Charmoli/204 Kevin Longley Dr. 48,600.00 276.70 24.30 . $24.00 S •50 Single Family Dwelling SP, Cyr Conatruction/103 Craig Lane 51,500.00 287.50 25.75 24.00 .50 Single Family Dwelling SP' Marvin George Builders/24 Fairway Dr. 42,300.00 248.35 21.15 23.00 .50 Cold Storage Building C 1 Gary Scherber/River Terrace Trl. Park 16,000.00 116.50 8.00 House Reside 6 Reroof AD: Darwin Straw/801 West River St. 1 1,500.00 14.30 .70 TOTALS i i 5169,400.00 iS1,058.45 584.65 j $71.00 151.50 I � 1 TOTAL REVENUE 15 1,215.60 i• CITY OF MDNTICELLO Monthly Building Department Report Month of OCTOBER 1994 PUMIITS and USES La et Thia -Same Month Last Year -This Year PEitMQTS ISSUE Month SEPTEMBEI,Mont.h OCTOBER Last Year To Date To Date RESIDENTIAL ' Number 6 8 4 55 86 Valuation E 1,065,400.00 S 153,400.00 S 102,700.00 S 2,398,827.90 S 3, 540,02 7.00 Fees 4,459.66 941.95 555.70 12,242.74 18,218.72 Surcharges 532.70 16.65 51.35 1,200.73 1,76 0.55 COMMERCIAL Number 6 1 2 25 32 Valuation 205,100.00 16,000.00 2,500.00 1,698,612.40 1,161,429.00 Fees 1,522.40 116.50 25.00 9,921.16 7,963-28 Surcharges 102.55 9.00 1.25 949.69 580.85 DWSTRIAL Number 1 3 5 Valuation 91,000.00 681,000.00 1,776,500.00 Fees 406.00 2,268.40 8,318.53 Surcharges 45.50 340.50 888.65 PLUMBING Number 7 3 1 34 47 ?ee8 298.00 71.00 24.00 1,123.00 1,736.00 Surcharges 3.50 1.50 .50 23.50 23.50 OTHERS Number 10 2 Valuation 40,220.00 Fees 548.40 20.00 Surcharges 17.90 TOTAL NO. PERM(ITS 19 12 a 127 172 TOTAL VALUATION 1.270.500.00 169.400.00 196,200.00 5,018,660.30 6,477,956.00 TOTAL FEES 6.280.06 1.129.55 1,010.70 26.103.70 36,256.53 TOTAL SURCHARGES _ 638.75_ 86.15 98.60 2,532.32 3,253.55 aMBRIT MONTH vrraC _ Number to Date PERMIT NATURE Number PERMIT AGE Valuation This veer Last Yearl Single Family 3 = 812.55 S 71.20 S 142,400.00 27 22 Duplex I I M11t1-f Kati -family 3 6 � Commercial 1 116.50 8.00 16,000.00 13 11 Industrial 4 2 Res. Garages Signs 163 ;1 2 0 Public Buildings I1 ALTERATION OR REPAIR Dwellinge 5 129.40 5.45 11,000.00 39 14 Commercial 1 17 13 Industrial 1 2 PIIIMBING All types 3 71.00 1.50 47 34 'ACCESSORY STRUCTURES Swimming Pools 0 3 Docks 0 4 TEMPORARY veRAur 0 2 DEMOLITION 2 2 TOTALS - 12 1,129.45 66.15 169.400.00 172 127 i