The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Agenda Packet 06-27-1988AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Monday, June 27, 1988 - 7:30 p.m. The following agenda items are in addition to the previous agenda of the June 13, 1988 meeting that was cancelled. Mayor: Arve A. Grimsmo Council Members: Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Warren Smith, Dan Blonigen. BA. Consideration of Resolution Awarding Bids on Well ;4. Project 88-04A. 15. Consideration of Appointment to Planning Commission. 16. Consideration of Resolutions Awarding Bids on Streetscape Project - General 5 Electrical, Landscaping, 6 Refurbishing Railing. 17. Consideration of a Preliminary Plat Request for a Mobile Home Park Expansion; - Don Heikes. 1118. Consideration of a Conditional Use Request to Allow Construction of more than One Apartment Building on an Unplatted Lot, Two Apartment Buildings L in Excess of the Maximum Number of Units Allowed, and Construction of Five (5) Apartment Buildings in Two Phases - Dave Hornig. 19. Consideration of Accepting 1987 Audit Report. 20. Consideration of Simple Subdivision Request - Daryl Fishbach and Leroy Robideau. ✓21. Consideration of Authorizing Study to Determine Capacity of Oakwood Industrial Park Road System. 22. Consideration of MNDOT's Request Limiting Access to Highway 25 from East River Street. •23. Consideration of Gambling License Application - Monticello VFW Auxiliary; and Gambling License Renewal - Monticello VFW Club. 24. Consideration of Bills for June. 25. Adjournment. T City Council Agenda Update Now that the annexation of xjellberg's property, Boyle's property, and the Halliger Tree Farm has been made official, the State Planning Agency has revised our 1987 population estimate from 3,743 to 4,054 to reflect the additional 311 people annexed. Along with this, the City of Monticello will be receiving in 1988 $6,234 in additional state aid because of the annexation. As an additional informational item, I have been contacted numerous times by Superintendent, Shelly Johnson inquiring as to the status of the Chelsea Road Project. Since the last time this item was discussed by the Council reviewing the items that needed to be completed prior to acceptance of the road by the City, Mr. Jim Boyle has accomplished zero. Although, some of the issues may never be resolved entirely to the City's satisfaction, the manholes have yet to be adjusted by Bauerly Brothers and the ditch areas have not had a final grading nor been seeded. Naturally, the ponding question within the right-of-way has to be resolved on a permanent basis along with the warrenty Bond issues and the lein that has been filed by Rehbein Inc. It appears that Mr. Boyle is not willing to spend any money or has not made sufficiant efforts to see that the project is acceptable to the City. In light of this, Shelly Johnson has been suggesting that the City use the remaining escrow funds of approximately $12,000 to accomplish as much work as possible and possibly assess the property for any remaining portion of the work that needs to be done. The school district's suggestion as far as the lein goes or the Performance Bond requirements seems to be that the project has been in existence for almost a year and they feel the City is being to restrictive by requiring our normal proceedures be met. Naturally, the school is concerned about the City accepting the road prior to September, but the Council's previous actions have been to require that Boyle meet all of the City's current ordinance requirments before acceptance. If the City Council would like the City Staff to negociate with Boyle to bring this situation to an end, the staff is certainly willing, but at this point, I have been reluctant to propose any compromises against the Council's directive. Although some of the work could be completed to city specifications by using the escrow funds, I am not sure, at this point, whether the city can legally go out and hire it's own contractors to complete the work as our agreement with Mr. Jim Boyle is to only hold the money and release payments to the contractor specified by Mr. Boyle and his engineer. As I stated earlier, if the Oouncil wishes the City Staff to compromise on our previous position recommended by the city attorney, the staff is willing to do so or otherwise we will continue to wait for Mr. Boyle to make an effort to complete the project. City Council Agenda - 6/27/88 15. Planning Commission Member Applicant Interviews. (G.A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Enclosed you will find copies of the member applicant resumes. Again, there is very little interest on the part of Monticello City Residents in that we have applicants from outside in the township area interested in serving on the Monticello Planning Commission. Enclosed you will find a tabulation sheet of the Planning Commission member's recommendation to you. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: 1. To select the Planning Commnission Member's Recommendation. 2. To select one of the other Planning Commission Member Applicants. 3. Select none of the Planning Cormnission Member Applicants. C. STAFF RECOf4ENIDATION: The Planning Commission's recommendation is enclosed with your agenda supplement. However, City Council members may select one of the other Planning Commaission Member Applicants. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the resumes of each of the Planning Commission Member Applicants. Copy of the Planning Commission Member Applicant Tabulation Sheet. Copy of the Minutes of the Monticello Planning Meeting on this subject. wl `The Age giscnminaton in Employment Act O da 1867 proNbNscmminausn a1 Via basis of ape wmh respect to i�nduals who aro et 18eAt 40 but lase Man 70 More of epa. _ "Ycu wig net be denied er ooynwn SdWy because of a conriotm record. urdess om 0"artas i$ related m the jab for which you he" aptdud. ^' EMPLOYMENT DESIRED POSITION ARE YOU EMPLOYED NOW? WGTAR7 p� DESIRE NOF VdJR�N't EH�t I.CYERT EVER APPUED TO THIS COMPANY BEFM? WHERE? EDUCATION ffp NAME AND LOCAnON OF SCHOOL GRAMMAR fiCM00L 1�T) HIGH SCHOOL C1t YYM�J �LUMI'lUl I7E/1� WHEN? APPLICATION FOR EMPLOYMENT TATE? , GUIWECTSSTUDIED m16400PILOYS110" OuI "Cul AIRED CAN EmItAA oaooaYUNrn fIMP1A'FERI PERSO�NAL INFORMATION NAME 'TYlr�llnr ��w`�-:yC��•''1=Lr- NAME r //J t7"� �'7NU�pE�{ r,.t_-/`tom' PRESENT AOORESfi�r�ILE L=CD . u>'r ` 1. i.• l=e' � c�^. AI. Dl sr.r¢ t� n�.�} crwttij} , j, { PERMANENT ADDRESS�U rr I �` pj ` . PHONE NO. f r7 ' 7 I'a! D ARE YOU 18 YEARS OR OLDER Yes,Tr No 0 SPECIAL QUESTIONS DD NOT ANSWER ANY OF THE QUESTIONS IN THIS FRAMED AREA UNLESS THE EMPLOYER HAS CHECKED A BOIL PRECEDtNO A QUESTION. THEREBY INDICATING THAT THE INFORMATION IS REQUIRED FOR A BONA FIDE 'G �1 OCCUPAnONAL QUAUFICATION. OR DICTATED BY NATIONAL SECURITY LAWS. OR IS NEEDED FOR OTHER LEGALLY PERMISSIBLE REASONS. ❑ HeQ tt-fen I inch ❑ Are you Diem %ad Man lawfugy Wcomirro o.VWved in the U S.7—Yes _No ❑ we mIELM._ts. ❑ DauofBirth- ❑ What Foreign Languages do you speak fluently? Read Wnta ❑ Have you been convicted of a tetony or misdemeanor wahin tha last 3 years?- Yes No Descnbs: `The Age giscnminaton in Employment Act O da 1867 proNbNscmminausn a1 Via basis of ape wmh respect to i�nduals who aro et 18eAt 40 but lase Man 70 More of epa. _ "Ycu wig net be denied er ooynwn SdWy because of a conriotm record. urdess om 0"artas i$ related m the jab for which you he" aptdud. ^' EMPLOYMENT DESIRED POSITION ARE YOU EMPLOYED NOW? WGTAR7 p� DESIRE NOF VdJR�N't EH�t I.CYERT EVER APPUED TO THIS COMPANY BEFM? WHERE? EDUCATION ffp NAME AND LOCAnON OF SCHOOL GRAMMAR fiCM00L 1�T) HIGH SCHOOL C1t YYM�J �LUMI'lUl I7E/1� COLLEGE I'?4.L:laf,. �j{"►tTy G1A/�+t4}L} � J�iIuI/ 64tI t -_ cairn tl fuv •The Ape Duommmatan Jr fmVoymaNt Act of 1867 W hlbils dWo minetran a+ the tMM is ape cash raapect m eWhrtluab who we at Ismat 40 but low then 70 years of age. { SUBJECTS OF SPEDAL STUDY OR RESEARCH WORK U.S MILITARY OR PRESENT WM13EASHP IN NAVAL SERVICE RANK NATIONAL GUARD OR RESERVES yeeevammuss tea•at tCONTiNUEOON OTHER SIF] L"m MUSA. WHEN? NO OF TATE? , GUIWECTSSTUDIED A•YEARS COLLEGE I'?4.L:laf,. �j{"►tTy G1A/�+t4}L} � J�iIuI/ 64tI t -_ cairn tl fuv •The Ape Duommmatan Jr fmVoymaNt Act of 1867 W hlbils dWo minetran a+ the tMM is ape cash raapect m eWhrtluab who we at Ismat 40 but low then 70 years of age. { SUBJECTS OF SPEDAL STUDY OR RESEARCH WORK U.S MILITARY OR PRESENT WM13EASHP IN NAVAL SERVICE RANK NATIONAL GUARD OR RESERVES yeeevammuss tea•at tCONTiNUEOON OTHER SIF] L"m MUSA. June 9, 1988 Dear Sire: Here is my application for the City Planning Commissions Board. I have wanteu to be active in the City of Monticello for a number of reasons. I want the peoples 1/ \ beet interest known and heard, along with my own. I am very concerned about the town and its people, young and old. I work for Simonson Lumber Company, which may have some advantages in the building aspects of Monticello, Sincere w Brian Panteke Superme Styling 101 Thomas Park Dr. P a Monticello. MN 55362 LO �J L�-Q-C.2 '✓6 Cj t 5� 612-295-3967 Vour Nair - W Cara CHRIS MICHAEL 8CNVE[.L 114 Wright Street Monticello, Minnesota 55362 (612)295-5376 H.A. 1987 Concordia College -Moorhead, Minnesota Major: Physical Education/Political Science I have been a resident of Monticello since August, 1987. My rife is originally from Monticello. and we will be making this our home while I pursue a juris degree in the Twin Cities. With my educaties in political .Acience, I feel I could be an aeeett in city government and feel it is a civic duty to be involved. I also feel my youth would be a positive attribute to the present commie/ion. ,'I.. _ w .--4h - _ r.Mw.r�V''jbkg.'4.L ;, - . . . . .. . . . _ I . %M. r �- INOQE�CEGLe ��sznn,n APPLICATION FOR EMPLOYMENT OMIR-EMPLOYMEMT OUESTIONNAIRO fAM EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPWYVU PERSONAL INFORMATION [i tot �tG/ DAT /[ NAME RESSusT I f -L {�/ qct - j IAL REG1JRiTY'TA�7"fi0'/.J S PRESENT ADD�T%Cl b .J7 r1 ^1` ��aC;• /'`/��i� fL �1 BBEE�/'1. `'ri7S�7s^''lae! PERMANENT ADDRESS sraiE by PHONE NO {�(i $'"'SCo �OQ ARE YOU 1 e YEARS OP OLDER Yes c No c SPECIAL QUESTIONS OO NOT ANSWER ANY OF THE QUESTIONS IN THIS FRAMED AREA UNLESS THE EMPLOYER HAS CHECKED A BOX PRECEDIND A QUESTION. THEREBY INDICATING THAT THE INFORMATION IS REQUIRED FOR A BONA FIDE OCCUPATIONAL QUALIFICATION. OR DICTATED BY NATIONAL SECURITY LAWS. OR IS NEEDED FDR OTHER LEGALLY PERMISSIBLE REASONS. ❑ Height feet inches ❑ Citizen of U.S. A!L�yl s No & ❑ weight Lbs. ❑ LTateofeirth' ❑ Whet Fonsign Languages do your Speak fluently" Read Write 'The Ape Om:mmmetmn in EmpMyment Act At 1967 pandMta dmcnmmnusn m the bleu of age with Mac= tD eldrmOuae w4m am et Men 40 but Lap amn 70 Ymm At age EMPLOYMENT OES/REO f l ppAA L� / g 1 t POSITION {�rrtt 1% n,na.L d(� . CAN BiARTyy�%it�� l"Ci DEASX. IN ARE YOU EMPLOYED NOW? 00a OF YOLJR PRESEENNT IMCL.DYEPt l/ES EVER APPLIED TO THIS COMPANY BEFOREI WHERE? WHEN? EDUCATION NAME AND LOCATION OF SCHOOL -7 ( YEOARs •DID YOuSUBJECTS STUDIED jii ATTENDED GRADUATE? GRAMMAR SCHOOL HIGH SCHOOL �.:�i[fG .SC�.tif r- f • 1 4fen • lF. W. COLLEGE I^ Grp� V ea 4dt- r TRA R BB OR . j7 s,jy� y, ", xi j 1. 'Tte Apa Ommmmtlon M EmpbrmrR Act to 1987 wo bts dMa+mmation In on lwa d alp anLh reepaet tD ulelvtduela *ft an a 40S.40 DA Up true+ 70 VMS of apa Ofid EI9OF .._ y%11.tG177c21 p1 t_ /Ci. ` l:UBJECTS OF SPECIAL STUDY OR RESEARCH MIORI[ � J US MILITARY OR PRESENT MEM®ERgWP N NAVAL SERVICE RANK NATIONAL GUARD DA RESERVES Yew®wplaapwenam _ ICANTINUEOONOTHER Sro41 Route 1, Box 172A MONTICELLO. MN 55382 Phone (812) 8762836 To Whom It May Cancun. 1. Graduate o6 Monttcetto High Schoot in 1946. 2. Maunied, three (3) ehi.tdren. 3. Graduate o6 variou6 ahont cavrteee tkwLAghout the yeana. 4. Went to work in da.iny plant in 1946. Buttenmaker and ptan.t openaLione manageA bon 15 yeau. 5. Satee manager bon a dairy 6abn.i.ea.tton and inataLta.tion company 6or seven (7) yeane. 1961 -1968 -Sternen. Indutniea. 6. Genual Manager -Vise Prtaiden.t 06 aame company 6or 12 yeau . 1968-1980-StucneA Induatn,iee. 7. 1980 - Went to work 6or NiiLo Atomize% as a Sales SeAvict Manag eA. 8. 1981 - Nati.onat Sates ManageA 6or Nato Atomizer, a world- wide company renown in the daiAy and Good induetuee. 9. July 1984 - Aetined - presently president 06 D.L. Bukt EntmptiAes working as an outetde conauttan.t in the D" - Food Industry. Civic a66aiu oveA the yeane inctuded the 6oUaaing: 1. Crpanized a JayCee ChaptuL 6or Votga, South Dakota. 2. Chaiaman o6 Winsted Ptann.inp Communion 60r 4 ytans. 3. Chai4man o6 Winated Airport Comni.aaion 604 12 years. 4. Preaiden.t o6 Winsted Pubtie Schoot Board bon 2 years. 5. PwAident o6 Wiuted ChambeA o6 Commexce 6or t di66erent tennis. 1 have attended 1 Date Carnegie Couue, sevtnat dairy •holt couUes, ♦shoot 6or a Bor.W Engineer License, and several vaAious otheA short eou"e.6 aveA the years. I 5-13-88 My aeaaona Eva becoming a member o6 the Monticello Pttuning Commiaai.on ate as 6otlowh6 1- I now have tlhe time to devote time and energy to the many p"tojectn that aucih a commieaion ie and ahoutd be invotved in. 1- The Monticello a&ea .ca my ho -he, this atea has given me much in education, in commuUA apvhi.t and aesporee, in the 6act that when I le6t the town in 1946 The poputation was 1566 peopte and Oakwood School, It has now grown to a ema.tt City and has 3 beautiSut achoots that make proud to show vieitou annound. Industry has expanded, The ou.ten city UAW It" aea".y grown, but, aigh.t now Main Staeet, the doumtoum area needs hetp, hopeputly, these 16 a way to Ihetp hitt up the empty etoae6aonte, I would We to be pant o6 that. 3- My background and taavet6 ate varied, thene6one, my expeat"e, such as it may be, is also von.ied in di66enant 6ietd6, my work oven the years have inctuded much tnaveUing inctudutg Continenta.t North Ameni.ca and many Eua.opean CountkiU,theae6oae 7 have atwaya been inte-Lested in how the other gum lives and how it was accomotalhed. There ane some wonde16ut ideae out t/hexn what othea communities do, I have 0bsctved many o6 these ideas and beet that some 06 these can be incortpoaated into the city 06 Monticelo. 4- : am a good Wte::c,:. 5- Mon.ti.ceUo is and has been a haat gnowiny communi ty, decia.i.ona have to be looked at and decided now with the 6utu,te of the cchj in m.i.nd- you cannot do Aometh.ing bot today, but any decision ahoutd be Son 5 to 10 y-eana on Conger down the toad, in other wot4 , AN EVE ON THE FUTURE. 6- I think, deapi.te .the many good thinga done oven .the yenta, the poten.ti.a.t Son thi6 city lube only been acvhatehed- I would tike to be a part o6 the 6utute o6 the city o6 Mon.ti,ceUo. ANK YOU May 19, 1988 Candi Thi 1qui3t 116 Hedma n Lane Monticello, uY 55362 Mr. Gary Anderson Monticello City Hall Monticello. MN 55362 Dear Mr. Anderson. Per our phone conversion regdrding my application for the Planning and Zoning Committee position that will be available soon. here is a brief personal description. My name is Candi Thilquist. I currently reside at 116 Hedmon Lane, Mont ice 1lo,'-Pllnnesota. I have lived and worked in Monticello 18 years. My current position is with NSP at hte Monticello Tralning Can ter as an Administrative Aid. My duties are to maintain all personnel records for Monticello Nuclear Plant personnel, order all supplies, and general secretarial duties. I have had several diverse positions locally, one of which was with the City of Monticello as a cashier at Hi -Way Liquors while under the managemgnt of Mark Irmiter. I have three high achooI age daughters currently et tending Monticello Senior High. ti. I am interested In the Planning and Zoning Committee position for at least two reasons, one being personal change . The second, additional knowledge of perhaps state and certainly local laws and ordinances. There also seems to be a aeries of issues in my neighborhood recently regarding everything from pets, to domestic arguements, to the care of one's home and property. Hopefully this experience will help all of us to solve these problems in a civil manner. Thank you for the opportunity to present this application and your attention to this mntte r. Si ccere" _ "ly, lam'. • ��'/)//'%�^�'�` Candi Thilguist D Phots (612) 295-2711 Metro (612) 3733778 Mayor. Arve Garnsmo City Council: Dan 8tonigen Fran Farr William Fair Warren Srrith A7rNM9traWr: Asaudern Adtnin4arstbd P4mmn8 6 Zoning: Jen O1NN6 Pubw Works: Donn Senora BWMIng Official: G" Anderson Economic DwrWCornOra: r•' rcorobehak 250 EW BrosaeraY mon caCo. mr—s a 65362.8245 City 4 Monticello M0NTICELLO. MN 55382.9245 June 17, 1988 TO: Members of the Monticello Planning Commission RE: Results of Voting for New Appointment 0 Don Slake 0 Ray Dinius 0 Chris Michael Sonnell 0 Candi Thilquist 5 Mori Malone 0 Brian Panttke As the above results indicate, the Monticello Planning Commission -a recot®endation is unanamous for the appointment of Mori Malone to the Monticello Planning Commission. Sincerely, Gary Anderson, Zoning Administrator GA/vb REGULAR PEEPING MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, June 14, 1988 - 7:30 p.m. Members Present: Richard Carlson, Richard Martie, Cindy Lemm, Dan McConnon. Members Absent: Joyce Dowling. Staff Present: Gary Anderson, Jeff O'Neill, Rick Wolfsteller. 1. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Richard Carlson, at 7:33 p.m. 2. Motion by Cindy Lem, seconded by Dan Mcconnon to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held May 10, 1988. The motion carried unanimously, with Joyce Dowling absent. 3. Planning Commission Applicant Interviews. Chairman Richard Carlson openecr the Planning Commission applicant interviews with a format that the Planning Commission would interview each individual as listed on their attached agenda sheet. Mr. Carlson indicated he would like to have the applicants come up before the microphone and give a brief description of themselves and why they would like to be a Planning Commission member. The interviews were started with: 1)Don Biske. Mr. Biske indicated he presently a Silver Creek Township Planning Commission Member, currently has the time, going to put in the effort of a good sound planning for development of Monticello now and into the future. 2)Candy Thilquist. Ms. Thilquist indicated she is an 18 year resident of the City of Monticello, living out in the Baiboui Estates Addition and Redman Lane, she has been before the Planning Commission before (two previous times) as a Planning Commission Applicant. 3)Chria Michael Bonnell. Not present. Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated that he had received no comment from Mr. Bonnel other than he wanted his application to be presented to the Planning Commission members for the Planning Commission position. 4)Mori Malone. Ms. Malone indicated she is an 8 year resident of the City of Monticello, is employed in the nursing profession, and she is concerned about the quality of life here in the City of Monticello. Taking into the consideration all the concerns of the citizens within this community in dealing with the requests that cams before the Planning Commission. S1Mr. Ray Dineous. Not present. Zoning Administrator Gary Anderson indicated to Planning Commission members that Mr. Dineous due to a prior work commitment would be out of town and that he would like to appear before the City Council at their June 27th meeting. He would Still like to have his name considered as a possible Planning Gommiesion member. c Regular Planning Commission Meeting 6/14/88 61Mr. Brian Pankze. Not present. Mr. Pankze due to his work commitment at Simonson Lumber could probably not have made it for the meeting. We did not hear anything from Mr. Pankze other than he would like to have his name be considered for a Planning Commission member appointment. 71Susie Townsend. Ms. Townsend currently a hairstylist/owner operater of the Supreme Bairstying Salon and partner in the Monti Motors business, a resident on West Broadway, she expressed her concerns on getting the input from the citizens, as she felt the citizens input in future developments and future growth of the city is very important. Motion by Don McConnon, seconded by Richard Martie to make no decision on a Planning Commission member applicant at the Monticello Planning Commission meeting. That the Planning Commission members submit the attached applicant tab sheet to the City offices by 12:00 noon, June 17, 1988. Motion carried unanimously, with Joyce Dowling absent. City Council Agenda - 6/27/88 Consideration of Resolutions Awarding Bids on Streetscape Project- General and Electrical, Landscaping, and Refurbishing of Bridge Railing. W.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Staff recommends that Council award streetscape bids as described in attached memo submitted by Geoff Martin of Dahlgren Shardlow and Uban. The recommendation calls for ordering of all alternates (except 1-3). Total cost associated with alternates and base bids submitted by the low bidders is is $16,000 less than the estimatecibase bid. B. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Award base project and all alternates except 1-3 to the low bidders. Low bidders include: Construction and Electrical - Arrigoni Brothers, Landscaping - MN valley, Lighting - Carnes Group, Tree Grates and Guards - Iron Smith. A 2. Award base project and all alternates except 1-3 to the low bidders with the exception of the Landscaping bid. council has the option of awarding this bid to Fairs Landscaping at a bid amount $804 above the low bidder, however, it should be noted that in doing so the City is vulnerable to legal action and State Auditor reprimand. Obviously, staff_ would like to see the landscaping portion of the project awarded to the firm located in close proximity to the project. Staff has made an effort to develop a case for awarding the bid to the firm in closer proximity to the project area. Unfortunately, we must report that the City might not have sufficient justification for awarding the project to the second low bidder despite the fact that the bidder is closer to the project and will therefore provide more timely and complete service. Staff contacted the League of Minnesota Cities and the State Auditor's office regarding this issue and has been told the following: In order for the City to award a bid to someone other than the low bidder it moat be demonstrated that the low bidder is not a responsible party or that low bidder will not be able to fulfill the terms outlined in the plans and specifications. Our contacts have essentially told us that awarding the bid to a vendor located in closer proximity to the city is marginal grounds for bypassing the low bidder even for a difference of only $804. Council does have the option of awarding the Landscaping to the firm located in closer proximity to the project despite risks. 3. Council has the option of excluding one or more of the alternates which could change low bidder status for the site construction and electrical portion of the project. If Council desires to award the base bid only, then the low bidder becomes Spraungel Construction. C. RECOMMENDATION: Award base project and all alternates except 1-3 to the low bidders. Low bidders include: Construction and Electrical - Arrigoni Brothers, Landscaping - MN Valley, Lighting - Carnes Group, Tree Grates and Guards - Iron Smith. A City Council Agenda -6/27/88 D. ACTION REQUESTED Motion to Award Site Construction and Electrical Bid Award including all alternates except 1-3 to Arrigoni Brothers, Motion to Award Landscaping bid and all alternates except 2-3 to Minnesota Valley Landscaping, Motion to award Bridge Railing Refurbishing to Minnetonka Ironworks, Motion to award Tree Grates and Guards bid to IronSmith Inc.. MEMORANDUM DATE: June '_3, 1935 TO: Monticello City Council Members FROM: Geoff %lirtin RE: Summary of Bids for the Streetscape Project Over the course of the past two months we have accepted bids tar the Monticello Streetscape project. The project w:is broken down into three construction contracts and neo contracts to supply materials as follows: Construction Contracts Proposal 1: Site construction and electrical Proposal 2: Landscaping Proposal 3: Refurbish and install landscaping 1, faterinl Supnly Contnicls a. Supply ornamental and parking lot fixtures b. Supply tree grates and tree guards PROPOSALO`I- SjtgC'pnsu'uciionnndEtec'trictnl Bids for Proposal One were initially received on May 17, 19SS. Only one high bid wn> received. The council approved our recommendation to rebid Proposal One. On June IG. 198S.we received four rehid proposals tar the site construction and eleciric:d. The nidderb %vere Veit. Inc., Shaw Lundquist, An igoni Bros., and Spraungel Construction, Veii'b hid %vab $34,000.00 over the cstimate tind the other three hids were under. The two lowest bidders were Anigoni Bros. and Spraungel Construction, Slit nungel's Kmf hid w•ns the lowest, but with the addition of the niternates. Arrigoni's tnud is S1.163,00 le" than Spraungel's, A summary of the bid figures is attached to the memo. The staff and myself have reviewed all the hid ficures and qualifications of the two low bidders. Arrigoni Bros. are from St. Paul and have extensive experience with similar streetscape projects. All of their references gave Arriconi Bros. a favorable recommendation. Dennis Arrigoni said Olson and Sons Electric are his electric subcontractors and he will make a concerted effort to hire other local construction workers. Arrigoni Bros. can start construction immediately. Spraungel Construction is based in Hanover, approximately ten miles from Monticello, They do not have as much experience in streetscipe construction as Arrigoni Bros. They were the concrete and masonry sub -contractors for the Downtown Crvstal Streetscape. Spraungel Construction has completed several projects that entail similar types of concrete work, and all of their references gave positive recommendations. Spraungel would also use Olson and Sons Electric and will make an effort to hire more local contractors. Beth contractors are quc!i!'i:d to do the work. However. we believe Arrigoni Bms. should be awarded the contract because they have more experience in streetscape work and they are the lowest bidder. PROPOSALTWO: Landscanine The bids for landscaping were received on May 17, 1983. We received two bids over and two under our estimate. Minnesota Valley Landscape presented the lo'.vest base bid and the lowest total for the alternates. Fairs Nursery in Monticello presented the second lowest bid. The difference between Minnesota Valley and Fairs is 5804,00. Minnesota Valley is lower than Fairs on the Mase bid and all alternates. Both companies have good reputations and are capable of completing the work. The staff and myself agree there are certainly advantages to having a local contractor whose business is located within the project area. Fairs would be able to monitor the project closely and the success of the installation would be a direct reflection of their work. However, Fairs is not the low bidder. The City staff has attached with this memo their findings in regard to the city's obligations in awarding construction contracts, The staff and myself agree that we would prefer the contract'be awarded to the local bidder. However, due to the legal ramifications and to be consistent in all contract awards associated with this project, the City may be obligated to go with the low bidder. PROPOSALTHREE. Refurnish and 1na X11 Pridee Railine Three icbids for this contract were received on June 9, 1958. One hid received from Veit. Inc. was over our estimme and bids from both Dieseth Speciality and Minneinnk a Ironworks were significantly under budget. Minnetonka Ironworks hid w,tv 54,199.50 hehtw Dieseth Specialty. The total of their bid was S23,407 .00 under our estimate Minnetonka Ironworks is a reputable firm and has done a great deal of work in the metro area. Wes Smith, the estimator, thoroughly investi},ated the project and I feel very comfortable with his hid The staff and I recommend the contract he awarded to Minnetonka Ironworks, eichtin The Carnes Group and Hart and Jordan. Inc. submitted bids for supplying lights. The Carnes Group was approximately 57.S00.00 below ©art and Jordan and 511,100.00 below our estimate. The Carnes Group is one of the areas most reputable and largest suppliers of lights. We recommend awarding the contract to the Carnes Group. Tree Grates and Tree Guards Ironsmith Inc. is the only manufacturer that submitted a bid for the tree grates and guards. The bids are in keeping with our estimates. Summary If the Council awards the contracts to the low bidders as recommended, the total prujact costs will be approximately $55,408.00 below our estimate. The total project including all the alternates may be built for $16.000.00 less than the estimate of just the base bid. The Council may wish to consider to use the surplus $16,000.00 for an added contingency, additional railing or different paving. i I MONTICELLO STREETSCAPE: Bid Summary 6/23/88 City Supplied items Estimate Low Bid Difference Lights: ornamental 60,000.00 48,898.00 11,102.00 parking lot light 660.00 750.00 - 90.00 Tree Grates h Frames 16,575.00 17,056.00 - 481.00 (Wood Benches) (1936.00) (1945.00) (- 9.00) Alt. 1-6 Tree Guards 3,895.00 5,412.00 - 1,571.00 Trash Receptacles 3,235.00 3,235.00 0 Subtotals 86,301.00 77,296.00 8,951.00 (Delete Cost For Wood Benches) (84,365.00) (75,351.00) (8,960.00) PROPOSAL O1: Site Construction and Electrical Estimate Arriqoni Bros. Diff. SSpraungel Diff. Base Bid 178,510.00 162,311.60 16,198.40 159,912.34 18,597.66 Alt. 1-1 1,800.00 790.00 1,050.00 880.00 920.00 paint stoplights Alt. 1-2 1,739.30 2,983.00 1,243.70 3,350.00 - 1,610.70 islands biles. 52 & 34 (Alt. 1-3) (1,297.30) (2,567.00) {- 1,270.00) (1,807.00) (- 509.70) islands blk. 52 west Alt. 1-4 9.384.00 5,500.00 3,884.00 6,000.00 3,384.00 concrete seats Alt. 1-5 4,050.00 300.00 3,750.00 1,200.00 2,850.00 parking signs Alt. 1-6 1,640.00 1,025.00 615.00 2,500.00 - 860.00 install tree guards Alt. 1-7 650.00 260.00 390.00 260.00 390.00 install add. sleeves Alt. 1-8 3,000.00 800.00 2,200.00 1,650.00 1,350.00 log 35 light Subtotals 202,070.60 176,496.60 25.574.00 177,559.34 24,511.30 (Delete Alt. 1-3) (173,929.60) (175,752.34) Delete Wood Bench Installation (603) 173.329.00 175,092.34 1.763.34 PROPOSAL 02: Landscapinq Estimate MnValley Diff. Fairs Diff. Base Bid 28,560.00 26,810.00 1,750.00 27,035.00 1,525.00 Alt. 2-1 2,460.00 1,950.00 5I0.00 2,340.00 120.00 Alt. 2-2 7,875.00 6,213.00 1,662.00 6,402.50 1,472.50 (Alt. 2-3) 1,323.00 (1,265.00) 58.00 (3,430.00) - 2,107.00 Subtotals 40,218.00 36,238.00 3,980.00 39,207.50 1,011.00 (Delete Alt. 2-3) (34,973.00) (35,777.00) (804.00) PROPOSAL /i3: Bridge Railinq Minnetonka Estimate Ironworks Diff. Dieseth Diff. Base Bid 31,537.00 13,137.00 18,400.00 20,083.25 11,453.75 Alt. 1-7 8,250.00 3,243.00 5,007.00 4,496.25 3,753.75 Subtotals 39,787.00 16,380.00 23,407.00 20,579.50 15,270.50 16,380.00 24,579.50 8,199.50 TOTAL COSTS Estimates Low sid Savings City Supplied Items 84,365.00 75,351.00 9,014.00 Base: Proposal 1 178.510.00 162,311.60 16,198.40 Proposal 2 28,560.00 26,810.00 1,750.00 Proposal 3 31,537.00 13,137.00 18,400.00 Subtotala 277,609.60 45,362.40 Alternates /33222,972.00 L 33,069.00 23,024.00 10,045.30 Total 356,041.00 300,633.00 55,408.00 Budget 333,400.00 5% Contingency 16,670.00 Eatimated Coat 316,730.00 316,700.00 Low Bide 277,609.00 Surplus 39,091.00 .. Y. ALTERNATES Proposal 1 11,618.00 (15,840.00) Spraungel Proposal 2 8,163.00 (8,742.00) Fairs Proposal 3 3,243.00 (4,496.25) Dieseth 23,024.00 Budget 333,400.00 Total Project Costs with Alternates 300,633.00 5 % Contingency 16,670.00 Surplus 16,097.00 16. RESOLUTION 88 - Resolution Accepting Bid and Authorizing Contract WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the improvement of Broadway, River, and Third Streets between Linn Street on the west to Palm Street on the east with curb, gutter, sidewalk, landscaping, and other appurtenant *nark associated with a downtown streetscape improvement, bids were received, opened, and tabulated according to law, and the following bids were received complying with the advertisement. General Site Construction and Electrical Base Bid Arrigoni Brothers $ 162,311.60 Shaw Lundquist $ 173,529.95 Spangle Const. S 159,912.34 Viet Const. $ 206,969.13 AND WIIEREAS, it appears that is the lowest responsible bidder. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Monticello, Minnesota: 1. The Mayor and the City Administrator are hereby authorized asci directed to enter into the attached contract with in the name of the City of Monticello for the improvements of general site construction and electrical work according to the plans and specifications therefore approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Administrator. 2. The City Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposit made with their bids, except that the deposits of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be obtained until a contract has been signed. Adopted by the City Council this 27th day of June, 1988. Mayor City Administrator 16. RESOLUTION 88 - Resolution Accepting Bid and Authorizing Contract WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the improvement of Broadway, River, and Third Streets between Linn Street on the west to palm Street on the east with curb, gutter, sidewalk, landscaping, and other appurtenant work associated with a downtown streetscape improvement, bids were received, opened, and tabulated according to law, and the following bids were received complying with the advertisement. Refurbishing Bridge Railing Base Bid Dieseth $ 20,083.25 Viet Const. $ 39,691.31 Minnetonka Iron Works $ 13,137.00 AND WHEREAS, it appears that is the lowest responsible bidder. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Monticello, Minnesota: 1. The Mayor and the City Administrator are hereby authorized and directed to enter into the attached contract with in the name of the City of Monticello for the improvements or refurbishing bridge railing according to the plans and specifications therefore approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Administrator. 2. The City Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposit made with their bids, except that the deposits of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be obtained until a contract has been signed. Adopted by the City Council this 27th day of June, 1988. Mayor City A=Inletrator 16. RESOLUTION 88 - Resolution Accepting Bid and Authorizing Contract WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the improvement of Broadway, River, and Third Streets between Linn Street on the vest to Palm Street on the east with curb, gutter, sidewalk, landscaping, and other appurtenant work associated with a downtown streetscape improvement, bids were received, opened, and tabulated according to law, and the following bids were received complying with the advertisement. Landscaping Base Bid Fair's Garden Center $ 27,035 Greenworks, Inc. $ 31,966 Minnesota Valley Landscape $ 26,810 Lakeland $ 29,051 AND WHEREAS, it appears that _ is the lowest responsible bidder. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Monticello, Minnesota: 1. The Mayor and the City Administrator are hereby authorized and directed to enter into the attached contract with in the name of the City of Monticello roc the improvements or Streetscape Landscaping according to the plans and specifications therefore approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Administrator. 2. The City Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposit made with their bids, except that the deposits of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be obtained until a contract has been signed. Adopted by the City Council this 27th day of June, 1988. Mayor City Administrator c . City Council Agenda - 6/27/88 17. Consider Approval of Preliminary Plat Request for Mobile Home Park Expansion. Applicant, Don Heikes - Owner/Operator West Side MODile Home Park: (J. O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Planning Commission recommends to Council that the Preliminary Plat request for Mobile Home Park Expansion be approved as requested. Please see the attached copy of the Planning Commission meeting minutes for details of the public hearing held on this matter. Don Heikes proposes to develop 4 mobile home sites as part of phase II of the the development of the West Side Mobile Home Park. The plan before you has been modified a number of times as a result of input from staff and Planning Commission and is in complete compliance with regulation contained in the City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance. Council is asked to study staff review and supporting documentation submitted by Mr. Heikes and consider granting preliminary approval to the proposed expansion of the West -Side Mobile Home Park. Attached is a map showing the location of the site (Map I), a map showing both phase I 6 phase II combined (Map II). Staff recommends that you to visit the site prior to the meeting if at all possible. You will note that Heikes has already done some significant excavation work prior to gaining preliminary approval. Although this was a risky nove_by the developer, he did not violate any laws with the excavation work that has already been completed. B. SITE PLAN REVIEW: Following is a review of the preliminary plat proposal. Staff and planning Commission, reviewed the site plan in terms of its compliance to the Zoning Ordinance and determined that the preliminary platt application complies with the ordinance. Please see Map III and Developer Statement for details regarding the plat. Mr. Heikes plans to develop four mobile home sites per the his site plan, attached as Map III. As stated earlier, this proposal represents an expansion to phase I of the west Side Park which was successfully developed recently. The subject property is "landlocked", and has no direct access to a public street. The only access to the property is by way of the first phase of the West Side Mobile Home Park. Impact on Surrounding Land Use The subject area is zoned for the development of mobile homes. Directly to the south of the expansion area to the Riverside Cemetery. Heikes plans on installing a six foot fence, as indicated on his plan along the cemetery lot line. This fence will buffer the impact of the conflicting land uses and brings the plan in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. To the East and North of the plat is the Mississippi River. DNR officials have informed City Staff that the proposal does not violate any restrictions pertaining to river area development. To the North and West of the development area is the River Terrace Mobile Homs Park. Since both land uses are the same, there is no conflict of land use to the North and West of the plat area. �- Park Development 7 City Council Agenda - 6/27/88 Proposed with this development is a river park consisting of an area larger than the minimum requirement as called for by ordinance. The park will include four picnic benches and outdoor cooking facilities. A three foot gravel walkway is planned for access to the park. Building Site Construction/Foundations Staff was concerned that the building sites proposed might not be stable due to close proximity to the steep bank and due to site placement on or near recently excavated material. Mr. Heikes has overcome these concerns with the submittal of plans for reinforced foundations for the structures. Gary Anderson is satisfied that that the plan submitted will provide sufficient support for the proposed structures. C. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL/DEVELOPER AGREEMENT: If preliminary plat approval is awarded, then final plat approval will be considered a month from now. Along with final plat consideration will be consideration of a developer agreement that will assure the City that Heikes completes the improvements to the property as described in his plans. D. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Motion to approve preliminary plat application for expansion to West Side Mobile Home Court. 2. Motion to deny preliminary plat application for expansion to West Side Mobile Home Court. From a legal/technical standpoint, the City has no grounds to deny this application. E. ACTION REQUESTED: Consider approval of Preliminary Plat Application submitted by Don Heikes fer expansion of the Westside Mobile Home Park. 2 KAM -ay.t 5 Ve MAP ML - IN % 1 11 i 111ESTSIDE idOHILZ HOME PARR 1323 :lest River St.. MONTICELLO, Mtr 55362 295-4802 June 9, 1988 City of Monticello Monticello, MN 55:62 TO '7HCM IT MAY COidERN: In reference to the addition of '3estside Mobile F.ome Perk 1. GRASS PLANTING -All lots to be fully sodded except for roadways and driveways. 2. HILLSIDE AREA to be planted as recommended by the University of Minnesota Urban Laboratories. A deep- rooted short growth seed from Northrup King -;37 to omit erosion and requires non -cutting and chokes out weed growth. 3. FIVE FOOT SWALE ditch for water run-off to be sodded and staked by a landscaper. 4. FETCES will be all-weather Wood, six feet in height. 5. NE'1 ADDITION to be developed is approximately 1.78 acres of which 12,000 sq. feet for a park along the river bank, to include picnic benches, horseshoe p1t, and fishing access. 6. THREE LIGHTS to be inotalled as per plan. 7. ELECTRIC, phone and cable to be underground. 8. NATURAL GAO to be available. 9. SlIC'Uremoval, grounds and street maintenance, water and newer maintenance to be performed by the owners of the Park. 10. TRAIL= C to be -on concrete slabs as per draidngs. 11. STOTM OHELTER is provided in the lower level of the duplex which is maintained by the Park caretaker living on the upper floor. Storm shelter is equipped with a bathroom, water, lights and haat. Shelter shall have a sign placed above the door and all new tenants are informed of this emergency shelter. Donald W. Heihes (owner) A -Z --I- -y P(cl--\I. Cullclzc re Rots 14 IJA -r i o N 1111:1 VIF-.W 11PIcilot. 84EX-S ll!j Nelao- ;#I SIM VIEW Regular Planning Ccmmission Meeting 6/14/88 With no additional information from the public or from the Planning Commission members, a motion by Dan McConnon, seconded by Cindy Le.n to approve the conditional use request to allow construct'_on of more than one apar .nent building on an unplatted lot, to approve the cond'tional use request to allow construction of two apartment buildings in excess of the maximum number of units allowed, to approve the conditional use request to allow construction of five apartment buidincs in two phases. The above were approved with the following additions: 1) the developer dedicate to the city the proposed neccessary easement for the proposed Seventh Street public right-of-way, on or before building permit application. 2) that an approved landscaping plan be submitted prior to building permit application. Notion carried unanimously with ,byte Dowling absent. Mr. McConnon asked for the clarification of the percentage of multiple family unit to single family unit. Mr. Jeff O'Neill indicated in his conversations with the City's Consulting Planner, Mr. John Oban, that the lower percentage was sent up as kind of a guideline with the compresensive plan as it was established in 1978. It is a percentage that is looked at as a suggested mixture of housing stock within the city, whether it be a single family home, to duplexes, to apartment buildings, or even mobile homes that you would have a mixture of these within the community. Mr. O':3eill indicated that he would check with the consulting planner again to see what options are available for the City on this 45 percent figure which we have reached on the amount of mulitple family units to the single family units. 5. Public Hearing - A variance request to allow construction of a house adoit,.on witnin the Iron[ yYard set-oack rejuirment. Applicant, Patricia Jensen. The applicant withorew net request. V Public P.eazina -A Arelimina,,v Plst jPrn,st o a mobile home park e A lir elkes. Mr. Jer O Nei ,a a ne ckground oz ---,Ir . tiei res request to develop the back part of the lend which he owns adjacent to the Mississippi River for the creation of four additional mobile home lots. The proposed preliminary plat of this mobile home park expansion does meet all the minimum requirements of the Monticello City ordinances in regards to mobile home park development with the exception of a curbing requirement. The phase one of the mobile home project was allowed to develop without the use of a hard surface curbing requirement within it. Mr. O'Neill asked the planning Commission members to consider separately the variance request to be allowed to have no curbing on the outside perimeter of his driveways within the second phase of this development. Chairman Richard Carlson then opened up the input from the public. Mr. Don Biske questioned where the retaining wall would be going and what would be the fencing that would be going on it and to when the fencing would be installed. Mr. Biske had indicated that the people where utilizing as a through street going t-hrough the cemetery and exiting out through the trailer park or coming through the trailer perk and existing Regular Planning Commission Meeting 6/114/88 out through the cemetery. Mr. Heikes indicated the location that is proposed fence, the type of construction of his fencing and he hoped to get it up as soon as possible by this late summer. Mr. Biske indicated he takes care of seven cemetery lots which are Immediatly adjacent to the proposed roadway plan by Mr. Beikes. Ms. Mary Bray, River Terrece Trailer Park, resident had the following concerns: 1) too much traffic in the area already and with the addition of four mobile homes will increase the traffic in this area. 2) that with more people means that it could mean possibility of more children and that these children should be controlled by parents of which they are not being done right now. 3) to retain the use, any development near the cemetery that the development be kept at a minimum to conserve the sacred use that the cemetery has within it. She asked that tnere be some consideration for the barriers for children within this development. That there be in the area Mr. Beikes is proposing to develop in the rear for adults only. Mr. Heikes, the developer, indicated that the mobile homes would all be the double wide, screened and fenced on the south, and a portion of the east side of the proposed development. That he has taken out ten loads of debris from the area down below from where he is proposing to develope. Mr. Dan McConnon questioned the location of the fence. Mr. Heikes indicating the fence would be located on the entire south portion of the property and on a portion of the east property up to were the embankment drops off. Mr. O'Neill indicated to the Planning Commission members the actual height of the fence would exceed six feet in height relationship to the ground level. Mr. Don Blake questioned who is responsible for the maintenance of the fence should some graffetti be put on the cemetery side of the fence. Zoning Administrator indicated to Mr. Biske, that as part of the developers agreement, the owner/developer of this project would be responsible for the paint, stain, seal of the fence on both side of it. Mrs. Claudia Forsberg, an adjacent West River Street property owner indicated the increased amount of traffic already and with the increase of the traffic from the proposed additional development. The amount of children already within this development and the adjoining development of the River Terrace Trailer Park, and the disturbing of the quietness of the cemetery. Ms. Susie Townsend reinterated the traffic as being a major problem with the area already being congested with the abnormal amount of traffic in this area. Don Beikes indicated that there are only eight children within his park right now and of those eight children, two have graduated and will be leaving home this fall in one of his mobile homes. Regular Planning Commission Meeting 6/14/88 J Ms. Mori Malone questioned if the public was notified of this proposed request. Zoning Administrator, Anderson indicated that the public was served within a 350 feet radius of this property through the public hearing notice process. Chairman Richard Carlson questioned if this was a private cemetery for the use of the public. Mr. Biske reinterated that yes it is a private cemetery, but it is for the use of the public. Mr. Don Md.`onnon questioned if the traffic problem, which some of the effected public has noted this evening could be considered with part of the city wide survey that is to be sent out later this summer. Mr. O'Neill countered that yes, it could be considered as part of the survey within the survey document itself. Mr. Don Beikes did talk to the cemetery caretaker and he had talked it over with the members of the cemetery board and they had no problem with this proposed development of the back area near the cemetery. Mr. Jeff O'Neill indicated that Mr. Beikes development as far as density requirment, Mr. Beikes more than exceeds the minimum lot size which is required for a mobile home development, 4,000 square feet, and the smallest lot he is proposing is approximately 7,120 square feet ranging up to the other three in excess of 10,000 square feet land area. Zoning Administrator indicated that as one final note that this is under single ownership and that at no time can each of the individuals that reside within this mobile park obtain some type of ownership, as there is a shared driveway system which serves it and hard to establish ownership for the use of the road system by separate individuals. whether it be under private ownership, the developer is responsible for the activity which occurs within this development. Mr. Don Biske in one final note, he indicated that he himself had no problem with the proposed development, in looking at the area proposed, in the past has been left as an eye sore property with it being used as a dump site. with it being cleaned up and being screened, it should have very little effect of the uses of the cemetery itself. Chairman Richard Carleon closed the public hearing portion of it. Mr. Richard Martie questioned the drainage within the plat. Zoning Adinistrator Anderson indicated that the drainage would be taken care of through a ditching system to get down the intersection of the entrance of this development from the public right-of-way, west River Street, then a calvert was installed to take the water from this area, run it on sight through a ditch system into the Otter Creek. Richard Carlson questioned why the staff felt that there was no original curbing needed with this development in the first phase. Regular Planning Commission Meeting 6/14/88 Zoning Administrator, Anderson indicated that this being private property, with the nature of the use of it, and with the narrowness of the roadway at the maximum development, 24 feet, with the proposed collection of any water run-off which may occur into a ponding area, we felt that the curbing was not warranted at that time. The site adaquately drains itself with the overflow or an outlet actually created for the ponding of the water should it occur into the ponding area. There would be a developers agreement with the developer on or before proposed approval of the final Platt that is proposed. With no further input by the public, on a motion by Richard Martie, seconded by Cindy Lemm to approve the Preliminary Plat request for a mobile home park expension. Motion carried unanimously with Joyce Dowling absent. As a final note with the Planning Commission, approval of the preliminary plat it is the approval of the actual developed portion of the mobile home park as it will be interfaced on a new set of drawings with the proposed expansion of the existing mobile home park shown on the same preliminary plat. Chairman Richard Carlson entertain for a motion on the drainage request to allow no curbing. with no motion made by the members of the committee the motion died for a lack of motion. The developer has two options, he can install the curbing as required by mobile home park subdivision ordinance, or the developer can appeal the decision of the Planning Commission of the variance request denial to the Monticello City Council. Tabled Preliminary Plat request, a tabled proposed expansion the a mobile home park, a tabled consideration of amencmencs to the Monticello Zoning Map. Applicant, Kent K)ellberg. No action as was not ready. Public Hearing - variance re}uest to allow construction of a garage addition witnin the aide Yard set -back reauirment. Ap/oiicant, Rick Woltateller. Zoning Administrator, Anderson lnolcateG Mr. wolrsteller's request to the Planning Commission members. Mr. Wolfateller is proposing to be allowed to construct an addition of an angled garage addition onto his existing garage with the southwest portion of the proposed garage addition to be within 6 feet of his aide property line or the adjoining property of Mr. 6 Mrs. Gordon Yager's rear property line. Anderson indicated the proposed variance request with the southwesterly portion of the garage would come up very near the 6 feet drainage and utility easement on the side of Mr. wolfateller's lot. The adjoining property owners Mr. 6 Mrs. Yager were notified by Mr. wolfsteller personally and they did not got back to him whether they were for or against his proposed garage addition. Mr. Jeff O'Neill indicated to Planning Commission members the difficultness of Mr, wolfeteller's request in that he is the City Administrator for the City of Monticello and my be construde as showing favoratism in granting a variance on Mr. wolfateller's request. However, City Council Agenda - 6/27/88 t8. Consideration of a Conditional Use Request to Allow Construction of more than One Apartment Building on an Unolatted Lot, T'do Apartment Buildings in Excess of the Manimum Number of Units Allowed, and Construction of Five (5) Apartment Buildincs in Two Phases. Applicant, Dave Hornig. W.0.) A. REFEP.ENCr AND BACKGROUND: Council is asked to consider granting conditional uses in conjunction with 44 unit subsidized multi -family housing development. The 44 unit proposed represent the first phase of a 68 unit development. Applicant is David Hornig of Edina, MN. Planning Commission has recommended approval of the conditional use permits as requested and also recommended that Hornig comply with a number of conditions which are noted later in this memo. Hornig has not objected to any of the conditions. Specifically, Hornig is applying for the following conditional uses: Conditional use request to allow construction of more than one apartment building in an unplatted lot, conditional use request to allow construction of two apartment buildings in excess of the maximum number of units allowed; condition use request to allow construction of five apartment buildings in two phases. B. DISCUSSION: As you may know, the Planning Commission had previously tabled its decision regarding this matter pending further study. It was the concern of the Planning Commission at the May meeting that the number of multi -family dwellings relative to single family dwellings is increasing to the extent that careful scrutiny of each multi -family development proposal is appropriate. The Planning Commission asked staff to investigate the housing mix in comparable communities to see how the mix of housing opportunities in Monticello compare to other communities. In addition, staff was asked to move swiftly in developing a citizen survey, which would include questions regarding the need for multi -family housing as proposed by Mr. Hornig. Subsequent to the May 1988 Planning Commission meeting. It was discovered that the funding source for this development (Minnesota Farmers Horne Administration) would not fund the downtown senior project if the Hornig development as proposed did not proceed. In addition, the Planning Commission received a recommendation from the HRA that called for the approval of conditional uses associated with the Hornig Project. Staff also presented data comparing the housing mix in Monticello to the housing mix in Buffalo and Glencoe. In response to the new information, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Hornig's conditional use requests. Please refer to the attached copy of the Planning Commission Agenda Supplement for more information on this matter. C. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: The City Council has two alternatives, it can deny the conditional uses as requested and force Hornig into developing his original proposal (See Planning Commission Supplement). Or, It can approve the conditional use requests as submitted and pave the way for development of the 44 unit subsidized multi -family housing. City Council Agenda - 6/27/88 ALTERNATIVE I Following are some potential impacts if the conditional use permits for the 44 unit multi -family housing project are denied. The City is gauranteed an even split in terms of elderly versus multi -family housing at 36 units multi -family and 36 elderly housing. The opportunity for redeveloping downtown with a senior housing component will be lost for the short and medium term. Redevelopment of downtown will be considerably more difficult without the potential of senior housing as part of a redevelopment project. ALTERNATIVE II Following are potential impacts of approving the conditional uses associated with the 44 multi -family project submitted by Mr. Hornig. This alternative has the recommendation of the Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority. The senior project is not "a sure thing" at this point and the City could end up with 44 multi -family units and no additional senior housing units for the short term. However, the need for senior housing will remain, therefore it is likely that another senior housing project will emerge if the present project does not proceed. The housing mix created with Alternative II would create 8 more mutli-family units and 8 fewer senior units. D. RECOMMEMATION: Planning Commission and the HRA Recommends Alternative II. E. ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve conditional uses as requested by David Hornig, with the following conditions: 1) the developer dedicated to the city the proposed necessary easement for the proposed Seventh Street public right-of-way, on or before building permit application. 2) that an approved landscaping plan be submitted prior to building permit application. F. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION: Project Location - Map I, Project Site Plan - Map II, Planning Commission Supplement, Monticello Housing Inventory Multi -Family Housing Stock - Community Comparisons, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. A conditional use request to allow j ••' ` \ _ R construction of more'than one apartment �",�N• /1'-77 — j L,� il.ding on an unplat:ed lot; a conditional `1180 89t t0 allow COnatrllctlQR OP two t fi a�'• •' `` : a n ldinge in excess of the um m nuai�. � units allowed; a conditions: request to al'! construction of Elva WW i t buildings . two phases. ✓ta i 7 /t�`L:'. i /�: '///// '-fir:`// / ///�/f �f� 1p•`� /� �� • � . •casae �jo�rm . Y • o -M9 TIP' b1q b,�r�• ,�'� -..«: . fl iv%far &L. 'a t 5•ta 1 6,a 'fes i. �:�'• i 1,r�: — � s-• "!T � •r =;• �r"'` ;^""'tri .'�',.' 1r. — wyt: b-• � ^ Ii! ,�'r';';? ' )'�':7 'b.— •t.'a vi , fi.. ••'�r�,"yT.l i`r' - •z il'+��!' i:...QI'ti}��.11-"�,. ��; j�1X ::SL--'"! 't.✓,M�.1`�: �*.f,l M ��; j,�l :�'F t�Tf.�. K'Yati. I;aC••�.1'"s;';sft_..f ., �,�' •;��'„�•• .. Tey a=: 7� }p. Ott. r. •'hf�'". -C.• .: ��.,1••,�;<l. :�,7, 'F.i° wr►'"+ •Na.D ...}.`•1 i �• iry`y'••��•`.'i1: r.t°.: iw{'-�'^�s.�; ':.�:ry ,I .. �•.,«1. ,,•w • I•>1' --�' -•1r '.; ,!�;.'':. 'T"4�� ._;,,t w. ��'•7�L:.L��•' 'i. .�U'-..•7 '3i/,ay.K -as: ,.air (+��..^,,..:�..�=•.��` -a� t�,��•,n, •-.+ isM1 f'� , �; �.. ..,5 i. .NTIr+ �',- ., •; ,"4�` .1'I�T.;i ;..t•: ....: ,e:a�l�`i.�s�.a"..Y3„ ..; ..,i t,-+• .. .. .. �.<' ; �.. ��A "`Y'_ r� i,'», l'• n•, 1�•�r•NG''.: Al fl. ;� «y�Y*t it. y a.1• :i'.. +� Vit, •,� d, � •�.� ;, ra=7�,..• <4fj'.f+yw,' Y ,•� Y'i � �,1: •w w.•:�'•:'f' .�. + ra' •S•' ^��:i?•lt:ir+•_?�•^;,:!'tifi'4 •r,1:s: A }'7:, ,* �:Is.;i} r+.s:s• s.•y�P+��::..as.+T� :'. '}°"4l,ie�t •�f •„ 7 1; r:1 c �r Planning Comrission - 6/14/38 4. Conside:at'-on Approval of Conditional Uses Associated with 'he Phase 1 of the Hornig Development: (J.O.) A. REFERENCE ACID BACZGROLRM: This agenda item is a continuation of Planning Commission consideration of a conditional use request to allow const:uction of more than one apartment building in an unplanted lot; conditional use request to allow construction of two apartment buildings in excess of the maximum number of units allowed; condition use request to allow construction of five apartment buildings in two phases. The applicant for these series of conditional use requests is David Hornig. As you recall, the Planning Commission ta-cled is reco-endacions regarding the aformentioned conditional use requests pending development of additional information by staff. It was the concern of the Planning Commission that the number of multi family dwellings relative to single family dwellings is increasing to the extent that careful scrutiny of each multi -family development proposal is appropriate. The Planning Commission asked staff to investigate the housing mix in comperable communities to see how the mix of housing opportunities in Monticello compare to other communities. In addition, staff was asked to rove swiftly in developing a citizen survey, which would include questions regarding the need for multi family housing as proposed by Mr. Hornig. Since the last meeting of the Planning CommissionImportant information has come to light regarding the interrelationship between the Horning project and the Downtown Senior project in terms of MRFA funding. The new information mdy prompt a decision by the Planning Commision regarding the conditional use requests now tabled. HORNIG/DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT I14TERRELA-TOIISHIP Subsequent to the previous planning commission meeting, staff has been informed by the Minnesota Farme:s Home Administration that denial of the conditional use requests as submitted by Hornig or any obstruction to his project will will effectively kill the downtown redevelopment project which is also funded by MFHA. In addition, if Hornig's present proposal is rejected then Hornig's original project submitted and approved early this year which called for 36 elderly and 36 mule -family subsidized housing complex would be first in line for funding by FMHA. As I understand the situation, the two projects are interrelated as follows, You may recall early this year, Mr. Hornig received approve: from the Planning Commission and City Council to develops a 72 unit apartment complex which would combine both senior and multi family housing. The plan ca:led for development of 36 senior units and 36 multi family unite All of which would be subsidized through the Minnesota Farmers Home Loan Program. Subsequent to Hornig's loan application, Metcalf c Larson applied to MFHA for funds needed to develop the downtown senior project. MFRA officials reviewed both applications and determined that the total number of units earmarked for elderly exceeded the need in the community. They then adjusted the housing mix as originally proposed by requesting that Hornig remove elderly component and add family housing. The net effect on the total housing unite did not change because of the FMHA adjustments, however the number of senior units was reduced by 8 and the number of Family units was increased by 8 units. Planning Commission - 6114188 The Farmers Home Administration informed me that because Hornig's original loan application predated the loan application of Metcalf s Lason and because Hornig's first proposal has already received the approvals it needs f:om city hall, Hornig's original proposal will be funded before t!Jnnesota Farmers sone Administration would fund the senior project. Stated another way, if the Planning Commission denies the conditional use requests submitted by Hornig, then the Planning Commission effectively kills the downtown project and reinstates the original project as submitted by Hornig. POTENTIAL IMPACT OF DENIAL OF HORJIC APPROVALS ON DaIR.—CP7N REDFIELOPMEN T If Hornig's development does not proceed as now conceived and he then Coes forth to develop 36 senior housing units in conjunction with his original plan, then any short or medium tern opportunity to combi-e elder:7 housing with downtown redevelopment will be lost. In addition, the Monticello FDA has noted that if for some reason the presently proposed senior project does not proceed despite the approval of Hornig's present proposal, the need for senior housing will still exist which provides the continued potention for senior housing as part of downtown redevelopment. For these reasons, the HRA is recommending to the Planning Commission that Hornigs present proposal be approved. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Attached for review are two tables that contain information regarding the Housing Mix in the Community. The first table contains information which pertains to Monticello only. information contained in this table includes a housing inventory which includes the addition 91 mobile homes to the community resulting from the recent annexation of Kjellberg East Mobile Home Park. It should be noted that the statistics reveal that 458 of the ;musing stock in the Community is now something other than single family dwellings and buildable lots. with the development of the Multi -family housing units as proposed, the percentage of non -single family housing increases to 478 of the existing housing stock which exceeds the guidelines as proposed in the comprehensive plan. However, the impending development of "The Evergreens" subdivision will act as a counter balance to the proposed multi family developments. The second table compares the housing mix witnessed in Monticello, Buffalo and Glenwood. As you will see when you review the table, it appears that the percentage of subsidized multi family housing in Monticello when compared to market rate multi -family housing is comparable to Buffalo and Glenwood. However the percentage of Mult-family housing as compared to the entire housing supply in Monticello is high. Monticello and Buffalo are similar in terms of proportion of subsidized housing units. 14% of the cionticelio housing stock and 1:9 of the Buffalo housing stock will be subsidized after completion of projects now planned for each community. G:encoe has a lower rate of subsidized housing at 5% A citizen survey plan has been proposed to the City Council for their review Monday, June 13, 1988. More information regarding the survey will be available at the meeting. JSING AND BUILDING SITE INVENTORY - JUNE 1988 REPORT INCLUDES EXISTING HOUSING SITES AND KJELLBERG MOBILE HOME PARK EAST TOTAL BUILDABLE SITES 173 94 RECTORY 1 04 PARSONAGE 2 04 SINGLE FAMILY (PLATTED) 848 444 SINGLE FAMILY (UNPLATTED) 37 24 04 TOTAL SINGLE FAMILY 1061 554 S U TOTAL T N UNITS C I T T R S r DOWTOWN UNITS 32 1 32 241 MOBILE HOMES 185 1 185 10%1 DUPLEXES 27 2 54 341 TRIPLEXES 5 3 15 1%1 FOURPLEXES 13 4 52 341 SIX UNIT TOwNHOME 4 6 24 141 "INVENT 1 8 8 041 .GMT UNIT TOWNHOME 3 8 24 141 EIGHT UNIT APARTMENT 4 8 32 241 TWELVE UNIT I Louring Lane 1 12 12 141 Terrace Six 1 12 12 141 Mont. Manor 1 12 12 141 West Cello 4 12 48 3%1 EIGHTEEN UNIT I Lincoln Est. 1 18 18 1%1 TWENTYFOUR UNIT I Riverview 1 24 24 141 Washington So 1 24 24 141 Mary Wood 1 24 24 141 Other 1 24 24 141 Bluffs 1 24 24 141 TWENTYSIX UNIT I Monte Haven 1 26 26 141 THIRTY UNIT APARTMENT I Bluffs 1 30 30 241 THIRTYONE UNIT I River Park Vier 1 31 31 241 THiRTYSIX UNIT I Cedar Crest 1 36 36 241 Hillside Terrace 1 36 36 241 FORTYEIGHT UNIT I Ridgemont i 1 48 48 341 I I MARKET SUBS MARKET SUBS RATE FAMILY RATE SENIOR FAMILY UNITS SENIOR UNITS UNITS UNITS 52 32 12 12 12 48 is 24 24 24 24 24 25 30 31 36 36 24 24 `.-JUSING AND BUILDING SITE INVENTORY - JUNE 1988 REPORT INCLUDES EXISTING HOUSING SITES AND KJELLSERG MOBILE HOME PARK EAST MIX OF MULTI FAMILY TO SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING 1 I I SINGLE FAM HOMES 888, 46$1 SINGLE FAM HOMES 6 BLOBLE SITES 1051 55$1 1 TOTAL NCN-SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING STOCK855'45$1 1 TOTAL HOUSING STOCK & BLOBLE SITES 1916 100$1 I MULTI FAMILY HOUSING STOCK SUMMARY - INCLUDES FOJRPLEX UNITS AND ABOVE TOTAL NtULT I FAM HODS 1 NG UN I TS' 513 1 ERCENT OF TOTAL HOUSING 27% PERCENT OF TOTAL MULTI FAMILY 1 MARKET SUBS MARKET SUBS RATE FAMILY RATE SENIOR 1 FAMILY UNITS SENIOR UNITS I UNITS UNITS 336 86 0 18% 4% 0% 65% 17% 0% • MJLTI-FAMILY INCLUDES ALL UNITS LOCATED IN STRUCTURES WITH OVER FOUR UNITS est. hshld size 2.7 estimated pop. 4706 I I I I I I I I 91 1 I 5$1 I I 1 I I I I I I �. b6/.V, EXISTING MULTIFAMILY HOUSING STOCK COMPARISONS TOTAL % SUBS AS TOTAL % TOTAL APT AS TOTAL ENI SUBS SUBS $ OF MKT MKT APT % OF HOUSING UNITS UNITS HOUSING RATE RATE UNITS* HSNG UNITS GLENCOE 88 117 57% 205 t2$ 1760 E6- .3 v`c, BUFF"OK1 202 234 54% 436 M43% U101 20% [28%1 2163MONT• 177 336 65% 513 1815 MULTI -FAMILY HOUSING STOCK COMPARISIONS AS PROPOSED (Includes proposed elderly and subsidized units) TOTAL % SUBS AS TOTAL $ TOTAL APT AS TOTAL SUBS SUBS % OF MKT MKT APT % OF HOUSING UNITS UNITS HOUSING RATE RATE UNITS* HSNG UNITS l rare o sed I GLENCOE Be 43$ 5$ 117 57$ 205 12% 1760 BUFF*** 263 53$ 12% 234 47% 497 22% 2224 NgNT*°R* 249 a3$ 1d$ 336 57$ 585 32% 1815 TOTAL SUBSIDIZED HOUSING PROPOSED IS EQUAL WITH OR WITHOUT DOWTOWN PR HCWEVER, THE MIX OF ELDERLY TO FAMILY HOUSING VARIES. SUMMARY - HORNIG'S ORIGINAL PROPOSAL CALLS FOR 8 FEWER MOLT- FAMILY AND 8 MORE SENIOR UNITS SUMMARY Ratio of Milt -family market rate to subsidized housing appears comperable. Ratio of Milt -family to other housing appears excessive R Regular Planning Commission Meeting 6/14/88 6)Mr. Brian Pankze. Not present. Mr. Pankze due to his work commitment at Simonson Lumber could probably not have made it for the meeting. We did not hear anything from Mr. Pankze other than he would like to have his name be considered for a Planning Commission member appointment. 7)Susie Townsend. M.S. Townsend currently a hairstylist/owner operater of the Supreme Hairstying Salon and partner in the Monti Motors business, a resident on West Broadway, she expressed her concerns on getting the imput from the citizens, as she felt the citizens input in future developments and future growth of the city is very important. Motion by Don Mcconnon, seconded by Richard Martie to make no decision on a Planning Commission member applicant at the Monticello Planning Commission meeting. That the Planning Commission members submit the attached applicant tab sheet to the City offices by 12:00 noon, June 17, 1988. Motion carried unanimously, with Joyce Dowling absent. 4. A tabled conditional use recuest to allow construction of more than one apartment building on an unoiatted lot, a tabiee conditional use request to allow the construction or two apartment oullclnas in access of the maxirmlm numoer or units allowed, a tapled conoitional use request to allow construction or five apartment buildings In two phases. Applicant David Fornig. Mr. Zeff O'Neill indicated to the Planning Commission members the information in their agenda packet on the percentage of multiple family units to the single family units we have in the city. With Mr. Hornig's project, and the Metcalf s Larson downtown elderly project, the City would be just over the 45 percent ratio of multiple family units to single family units as per our comprehensive pian. Mr. Richard Carlson explained his conversations with Mayor Arve Grins= and with Mr. Joel Folson, from the Farmers Rome Adiminstration St. Cloud Office. Mr. Folson indicated the family subsidized project would have a possible late summer, early fall start and the Metcalf b Larson elderly project would have a possible late fall or early spring start. Mr. Folson's new study showed that there is a stronger demand for subsidized family housing than there is for elderly subsidized housing then what the previous surveys had indicated the opposite. Dan Mcconnon questioned when the Metcalf b Larson project was approved, Zoning Administrator Gary Anderson indicated to Mr. McConnon that the project was approved back in February 1988. Mr. McConnon also questioned if the elderly project would go if Mr. Hornig's roquest was approved this evening. Anderson indicated to Mr . McConnon that in all likelytiood Mr. Hornig's project if approved tonight would have first priority with the elderly project of Metcalf i Larson's having second priority and more than likely would be constructed if funding was approved after the Hornig project was started. Mr. Hornig had no further information to add to the subject. Regular Planning Commission Meeting 6/14/88 with no additional information from the public or from the Planning Commission members, a motion by Dan McConnon, seconded by Cindy Le=n to approve the conditional use request to allow construction of more than one apartment building on an unplatted lot, to approve the conditional use request to allow construction of two apartment buildings in excess of the maximum number of units allowed, to approve the conditional use request to allow construction of five apartment buidings in two phases. The above were approved with the following additions: 1) the developer dedicate to the city the proposed neccessary easement for the proposed Seventh Street public right-of-way, on or before building permit apolication. 2) that an approved 'landscaping plar. be submitted prior to building permit application. motion carried unanimously with Joyce Dowling absent. Mr. McConnon asked for the clarification of the percentage of multiple family unit to single family unit. Mr. Jeff O'Neill indicated in his conversations with the City's Consulting Planner, Mr. John Uban, that the lower percentage was sent up as kind of a guideline with the compresensive plan as it was established in 1978. It is a percentage that is looked at as a suggested mixture of housing stock within the city, whether it be a single family home, to duplexes, to apartment buildings, or even mobile homes that you would have a mixture of these within the community. Mr. O'Neill indicated that he would check with the consulting planner again to see what options are available for the City on this 45 percent figure which we have reached on the amount of mulitple family units to the single family units. Public Hearing - A variance request to allow construction of a house addition within the tont yard set -pack requirment. Applicant, Patricia Jensen. The applicant witfidrew net request. Public Hearing - A preliminary plat request for a mobile home park expansion. Applicant, Don Heikes. Mr. Jett O'Neill explained the ackground of Mr. Heikes request to develop the back part of the land which he owns adjacent to the Mississippi River for the creation of four additional mobile home lots. The proposed preliminary plat of this mobile home park expansion does meet all the minimum requirements of the Monticello City ordinances in regards to mobile home park development with the exception of a curbing requirement. The phase one of the mobile home project was allowed to develop without the use of a hard surface curbing requirement within it. Mr. O'Neill asked the Planning Commission members to consider separately the variance request to be allowed to have no curbing on the outside perimeter of his driveways within the second phase of this development. Chairman Richard Carlson then opened up the imput from the public. Mr. Don Biske questioned where the retaining wall would be going and what would be the fencing that would be going on it and to when the fencing would be installed. Mr. Disks had indicated that the people where utilizing as a through street going through the cemetery and exiting out through the trailer park or coming through the trailer park and existing City Council Agenda - 6/27/88 9. Consideration of Accepting the 1987 Audit Report for the City of Monticello. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Rick Bordan and/or Rim Lillehaug, of Gruys, Johnson and Associates, will be present at the meeting to present a brief overview of the 1987 audit recently completed. A copy of the audit report was previously delivered to each council member this week for your review. I realize an 80 page document of this type is hard to review and analyze in only a weeks time, but the report should be accepted by the Council prior to the end of June as it has to be submitted to the State Auditor by June 30, 1988. After the presentation of the report by Druys, Johnson representatives, if the Council feels that it would like additional time to review this report, this item can again be scheduled at a future Council meeting for future review. Should any of you have any specific questions regarding the information presented in the audit report, you may contact myself prior to Monday nights meeting and I will hopefully try to answer any questions you may have. As noted in the management letter included with the Audit Report, the auditors express some concerns over awarding bids on contracts to otherthan the low bidder and transactions of the City that may take on the appearance of a potential conflict of interest. Although a number of factors can be considered by a Council in determining the lowest responsible bidder, all reasons for awarding a contract to otherthan the lowest bidder should be stated in the minutes. The suggestion that individual Council members sign a statement expressing that they do not have any financial interest in a business contracted by the City is probably a good idea in those cases that may have an appearance of a conflict of interest. I have enclosed a copy of the League Handbook Article that discusses official interests in contracts for your review. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: The only action necessary by the Cotmcil is to accept the 1987 Audit Report as presented so that it my be submitted to the State Auditor required by state statues. C. SUPPORTING DATA: ��--��,� Previously delivered copy of the 1987 Audit. Copy of League Handbook areraining to official interest in contracts. ��..JJ City Council Agenda - 6/27/88 20. Simple Subdivision Request to Resubdivide Two Residential Lots. Applicants, Daryl Fishbach and Leroy Robideau. (G.A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Mr. Fishbach is proposing to buy a lot with an existing garage and house on it from Mr. Robideau. As part of the purchase agreement, Mr. Robideau is proposing to have the easterly 20 feet of a vacated alley separated from this parcel and adjoin with his existing residential parcel. By allowing of this simple subdivision of residential land, it would bring Mr. Robideau's existing non conforming size lot width to be closer to the minimum lot width which is required right now would be 80 feet. His existing residential lot is currently :3 feet, with the proposed addition of the easterly one half of this vacated alley, Mr. Robideau would then have 73 feet of lot width, where the minimum requirement when the lots were platted was 66 feet of lot width. Also, Mr. Robideau's existing detached garage which is on the front 2.9 feet from the property line and on the back 3.1 feet from the property line will now be increased to 22.9 feet from the front property line and 23.1 feet away from the property line in back which brings his garage into conformance with the minimum side yards set -back. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: 1. To approve this simple subdivision request to resubdivide two existing residential lots. 2. To deny the simple subdivision request to resubdivide two existing lots. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: With the proposed subdivision request as presented, the existing lot would exceed the minimum lot width and lot square footage of a residential lot by City Ordinance. It will also take an existing lot and bring it closer to be conforming in that the lot would be less than the minimum lot width as required by existing City Ordinance, but would be in excess of the minimum lot width that was required when this lot was platted. Also, with this simple subdivision would bring existing detached garage out of the minimum set -back requirement of 10 feet, which is required by City Ordinance. The minimum set -back from the side yard set -back as proposed with this existing garage would be 22.9 feet from the side lot line. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the location of the proposed single subdivision request. Copy of the certificate of survey for the proposed simple subdivision request. Copy of the City Ordinance regarding land subdivision. Simple Subdivision Request - Leroy Robideau 6 Daryl Fishbach ti jr Z3 M 1� y i h h 1 P v►'_'__= R i �.. a g¢ i�.i!��; 1 rt 43 cr + ; ,......fib ......... i � � \'�� / �/ •.�. rr 1 . .10 1't� ,•1� 1' I r (i• � . �, •�qj�, 4 a��r�.. �•n � ,;S•i�' ."{� alIl, �j 1��,.� ,I ' ; � , ( `s;, � a • I ' � I I •rte _ �� ., ...�•t .. T '• rr• P1w7 . ,r O 15 70 60 so GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET r O DENOTES IRON MONUMENT s•. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: All of Lot 5 in Block 6 and all of the Wj of Lot 4 in Block 6 except that tract conveyed to Mary L. (lager (larch 17, 1875 by the townsite authorities described in the deed recorded 1n Rook 62 of Deeds, page 310, which was filed for record in the office of the Register of Deeds on December 9, 1909; also a strip of land 20 feet wide off the East side of the alley between Block "A" and Block 6 in the townslte of Lower Monticello, and extending from Front Street to the Ilississlppi River, said alley appearing on the plat of said Tuwnsite nn file In the office of the Register of Deeds in said county, but same having been vacated pursuant to Chapter 381, Laws of 1909, State of IIIIIIIeSutn, nil of the foregoing lots being in the townsite of Lower llonticello or liur- itrious according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Register of Deeds in and for said County. We hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of the land des- cribed above and of the location of all buildings thereon, and all visi- ble encroachments, if any, from or on said lend. As urveyed by me this,_day of 1,r�lf 19_&_� BYo/ j Minnesota Registration Plo. 7439 MEYER-ROHLININC�t,//� REVISION$ eaaOY((O m. sol A., ( of EN MW #Am. WIPO, W.., IAS w.rr 0-I�bS DRAWN s.eooN 140 $Ncet I Or rIL9 No. I-faobi.ie_ PAac 0-4- �$NEEC$ " &611 lj MEYER-ROHLININC�t,//� REVISION$ eaaOY((O m. sol A., ( of EN MW #Am. WIPO, W.., IAS w.rr 0-I�bS DRAWN s.eooN 140 $Ncet I Or rIL9 No. I-faobi.ie_ PAac 0-4- �$NEEC$ " &611 11-1-6 11-1-9 11-1-6: BUILDING PERMITS: No building permits will be considered for F issuance by the City of Monticello for the construction of f'` 0 any building, structure or improvement to the land or to any lot in a subdivision as defined herein, until all requirements of this Ordinance have been fully complied with. 11-1-7: EXCEPTIONS: When requesting a Subdivision if either of the following two conditions exist the subdivider is required to 1 present a certificate of survey, have the subdivision reviewed by the Planning Commission, reviewed and approved by the City Council and ad- here to the park dedication requirements spelled out in Ordinance Sec- tion 11-6-1 through 11-6-5 and all other subdivision requirements shall be waived. A. In the case of a request to divide a lor. which is a part of an exi st- ing lot of record where the division is to permit the adding of a parcel of land to an abutting lot or to create two lots and the newly created property line will not cause the other remaining portion of the lot to be in violation with this Ordinance of the Zoning Ordinance. B. Such division results in parcels having an area of five (5) acres or more with frontage on a public right-of-way measuring three hundred (300) feet or more and when such division does not necessitate the dedi- cation of a public right-of-way; or if a lot which Is part of a plat re- corded in the office of the Register of Deeds of Wright County is to be divided and such division will not cause any structure on the lot to be in violation of the Zoning Ordinance or said new portions of lots to be, in violation of City Ordinance. (7-27-77 e33) V 11-1-8: SEPARABILITY: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. 11-1-9: CONFLICT. Whenever there is a difference between minimum standards or dimensions specified herein and those contained in other official regulations, resolutions or ordinances of the City the highest standards shall apply. City Council Agenda - 6/27/88 21. Consideration of Authorizing Study to Determine Capacity of Oakwood Industrial Park Road System. (O.K.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: For the previous two yeare,7-ton limits have been posted on the Oakwood Industrial Park roads and county road, Oakwood Drive. The Industrial Development Committee and the current park property owners first gained knowledge of the 7 -ton road limit when the postings occurred. The Industrial Development Committee approved a motion, recommending the City Staff to request the City Council to authorize a study or plan to upgrade the 7 -ton roads to 10 -ton roads in the described area. The Industrial Development Committee considers the 7 -ton road limit in the Industrial Park as a detriment to marketing the Industrial Park. This was one of the main concerns in the recruitment process of the bottle company along with the city's capability to have supplied the adequate demand of water requested and the city's capability to have met the requested water and sewer treatment needs. The Industrial Development Committee would not like to see the city place restrictions on current and potential property owners in the park. The concern becomes greater with the completion and approval of the Chelsea Road extension. to County Road 118. John Simola, Public Works Director, has contacted a division of Braun Company for an estimated cost to complete such a study. (Cost of the study will be presented at the Council meeting.) The study would determine the capacity at present and determine need and cost to upgrade the road limit to 10 tons for Chelsea Road, Dundas Road, Thomas Park Drive, and Fallon Avenue which is a total of approximately 9,702 feet or 1.83 miles. Contacts have been made with Wright County for Oakwood Drive. Since the improvement would be considered an upgrade not maintenance, City Staff suggests the need to assess appropriately. This assessment rate can be determined at a later date. A rough guess for overlay from 7 -ton to 30 -ton is approximately $25 - $30 per foot per property owner. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. To authorize the study to determine the capacity of the Oakwood Industrial Park Road System. 2. To deny the authorization of a study to determine the capacity of the Oakwood Industrial Park Road System. C. STAFF RECOMENDATI0N: City Staff recommends alternative one, subject to the coat estimate of the study. D. SUPPORTING DATA: 1. Map outlining roads. 2. Estimated cost to complete the study. lib be presented at the Council meeting.) I . r m 0 200 400 FEET Minnesota DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Industrial Park Profile Oakwood Industrial Park Monticello, Minnesota Q AVAILABLE PARCELS /NT 9q THOMAS PARK Oho ..... s ` U Op .�• \ p9 u..r 'jx\. peg \' CHELSEA s s •\:\, r• •• . I rr `\\� no } rr roeo r•ao v � mat _ A. DUMAS 3� a � g Irr Mob aser An expansion of MIDWEST PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT, INC. Tarr icoroia Avenue. St. Paul. NIN 55104 - 612 / 644-29% June 21, 1988 Mr. John Simola Public Works Director -Monticello City Hall 250 East Broadway Monticello, MN 55362 Dear Mr. Simola; B R/9 U R_ PAVEMENT TECHNOLOGIES Ouawv Se—ces S,nce 1957 o--- a ry--•�n -.p••. d rE I appreciate the interest you expressed regarding deflection testing for the City of Monticello during our phone conversation on June 17, 1988. The proposal I have put together would include deflection testing and analysis from our office and in-place material identification/verification from our Braun Engineering Testing, Inc. office in St. Cloud, MN. The project specifics include: Approximately 1.75 centerline miles of an industrial park which varies in width from 24 to 40 feet. The pavement is approximately 9 years old (constructed in a 2 -year time frame by more than one contractor). Very little in-place curb and gutter. Currently is posted at 7 -ton, would like 10 -ton design analysis. No traffic count or Equivalent Single Axle Loads (ESALs) are available. PROPOSED SCOPE OF SERVICES - Road Rater deflection testing in both lanes at 100 -foot intervals. The testing would be staggered resulting in a test being conducted every 50 -feet on centorlino. A visual surface condition rating will be conducted during the testing. - Identification and verification of the in-place materials would be conducted on a site by site basis. The number of field Borings required is dependent on the variability of the in-place materials, various construction time periods, and number of contractors. The analysis would include determining: the in-place effective R -value (measurement of the embankment soil resistance strength), the effective granular equivalent (EGE-indicates the strangth in terms of inches of granular material the in-place pavement is providing over the in- place soils), and the in-place recommended spring axle load restrictions. ".-o r J Ma,1a00—M - Tu*lin0 - ASMl,Ch Me„ n U-90,wwm fu -N am. W' OrE "' W W UO.� 0, WqE ala W -m,- MI r C ['p l From this analysis we would determine a rehabilitation strategy to upgrade the roadways within the industrial park to a 10 -tan design. BASIS OF PAYMENT Payment for the work described in the above Proposed Scope of Services shall be $2,000.00 lump sum. A signed copy of this proposal will act as our notice to proceed. Invoices will be submitted monthly for work done with terms net 30 days. We would sincerely appreciate the opportunity to be of service to the City of Monticello. Should you or your city council have any questions regarding the above Proposed Scope of Services or any of our other services, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, BRAUN PAVEMENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Michael M. Marti Accepted by: Project Engineer Title: MMMjbw Date: City Council Agenda - 6/27/88 22. Consideration of MNDOT's Request Limiting Access to Highway 025 from East River Street. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Many of you may remember the debates that Howard Dahlgren and Associates, and the engineer they hired by the name of Jack Anderson, had with MNDOT in order to delete the concr,te median from the railroad tracks to the new bridge. MNDOT's original thoughts were that the median would be safer, and they felt that the crossing at River Street may complicate the traffic patterns. Last week, Mr. Leo Olmschied who was the project engineer for the bridge, called a meeting on East River Street at Highway 025. If any of you have traveled that intersection, you now know that before you can clearly see around the corner of the bank as you are westbound on River Street approaching Highway 025, you must place your car fender out in the driving lane before you can get proper vision of oncoming traffic. This is extremely unsafe and it is felt that MNDOT and the City of Monticello must do something immediately concerning this issue. It is my personal opinion, that even if the median would have been extended all the way across River Street on Highway 025, this problem have still croped up. MNDOT's traffic engineers failed to recognize this problem and bring it to our attention early on in the project, so we are therefore forced to take immediate action. MNDDT's first suggestion was to close East River Street entirely or make it a one-way begining at Highway 025 all the way to Cedar Street. During our meeting ! discussed the need for two-way traffic in and out of the Times Office and a circulation out of the bank driveway which could ultimately lead to northbound Highway 025 going across the bridge. I also told Leo that many people use River Street as an enterance to Highway 025 rather then to slug up the intersection at Broadway and Highway 025. Leo thought that they could just close the westbound traffic of East River Street at Highway 025 and build a short ramp, so that the westbound traffic on East River Street could go north at that point on Highway 025. He said as long as he could get the rang built on the State Highway and City right-of-way without entering the park, it probably wouldn't be a problem. He indicated he would run this all by Bud McCullah, State Traffic Engineer, and draft us a letter to confirm the saftey problems and get something so that we could discuss it at the June 27th Council Meeting. Rick and I discussed the improvements of the intersection and felt it may be appropiate to have Mr. Jack Anderson present to discuss the traffic problems with MOM, and also to indicate whether or not the City shared any responsibility or share in the costs of the corrective action needed. Mr. Anderson indicated that he would be available on Friday, June 24th and will meet with Rick on the site and posoibly representatives from Wright County State Bank to discuss the proposed improvements. The information resulting from this meeting will he provided at Monday evenings meeting. on Wednesday June 22, 1988, Bud McCullah stopped by City Hall to talk to Rick and myself about the traffic situation on East River End and Highway 025. It was Bud's opinion that the reap may be too short to comply with MNDOT'a City Council Agenda - 6/27/88 saftey guidelines in that those people stopped on the ramp getting ready to enter Highway 125 will have to turn their head beyond 20 degrees to zee the oncoming traffic, and since there was no room for merging lanes, Bud thought that this was not a desirable situation. He also discussed again the possibility that if the ramp would have to be built into the City Park KNDOT would not be allowed to construct it. Bud said that he would be getting a letter to the City and also that he could meet with Jack Anderson and Rick at the site on Friday. Depending on the outcome of that meeting, we would like to proceed with some construction in making this intersection safer. In the meantime, MNDOT will barricade the end of River Street for westbound traffic and we will place a one—way traffic sign on River Street someplace near the Times office. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: At this time since we do not have the letter from MNDOf, or have the recommendations from Jack Anderson, Traffic Engineer, we cannot list all the alternatives. C. STAFF REOMOMATIONS : The staff reserves it's recommendations until Monday evenings meeting, at which time we will have the results of the Friday meeting as well as a report from Jack Anderson. er`NNLSpra vO ZO MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION n r 3725 12TH STREET NORTH ir BOK 370 y2 OF 1FPHy ST. CLOUD. MINNESOTA 96302 June 23, 1988 PI,„.612/255-2909 Mr. Richard kblfsteller City Administrator City hall 250 East Broadway P.O. BDtt 83A Monticello, Minnesota 55362 In reply refer to: S.P. 7104-10 (T.H. 25) River Street Intersection At the recpest of the Project Engineer Leo Olmscheid, Tony Kenienich reviewed the intersection of River Street and T.H. 25 in Monticello on June 16, 1988. The field analysis revealed a less than desirable situation at the east approach to River St. with T.H. 25. Tore sight distance to the south for any car using the street is rush less than desired. At present, the sight distance is 135 feet. Reconsended sight distance is 400 feet. Mr. Olmscheid and Mr. KenWich met with John Sinola, Monticello Public Works Director, at approximately 10:00 AM on June 16, 1988, to discuss the situation and to determine alternative nethods to provide the safest course of travel to the motorist. E. W. 'Bud' McCulloch, District Traffic Engineers Melvin Klasen, Chief Inq=tion on the bridge contract; and Tom Davidson, Traffic Technician, node a follow-up review on June 22, 1988. After ap+proxinately an hour and a half of observing traffic roving through the intersection and discussing several courses of action, Rud and Tenn net briefly with you and John Simola in an effort to keep you informed of our findings. As we discussed, the following solutions are for consideration by the City Council. For otientation purposes T.H. 25 is the north/aouth roadway and River Street the east/uest roadway. AN [OUAI. OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER .Q.:r a -2- Solutipn No. 1: Extend the planned concrete median from the bridge through the intersection. Close the east approach of River Street to T.H. 25. Extend the inplace left turn lane on T.H. 25 to East Broadway to the north. This solution provides several positive results, e.g. access to business is still maintained, traffic is channelized to the main arterial intersection (Broadway Avenue) which is signalized, provides an area for business expansion, City Park expansion or additional parking. This is the most desirable and, from a traffic engineering standpoint, the safest for the travelling public. Solution No. 2: Prohibit westbound novement on River Street East approach. This could be accomplished by replacing the inplace north curb line starting at the easterly entrance on the south side of River Street placing a radius in the curb to the centerline of River Street, run along centerline onto T.H. 25 with a 5 foot radius. This eliminates westbound movement onto T.H. 25 and leaves eastbound traffic as it now exists. This also provides additional area for sidewalk or City Park enhancement. The prohibitive movement at the first entrance may have to be changed. (This solution leaves the 10' left turn lane on T.H. 25 as planned which was constructed to fulfill the City's request for a turn lane at this location.) It also leaves the undesirable cross movement from west to east on River Street. Solution 11b J: Designate River Street as a one-way from T.N. 25 to the east. Accomplishment would be by signing only with no geometric alterations. This is very undesirable due to potential wrong way violations, the general confusion it would create, and it leaves the inadequate turn lane as planned. This also leaves the cross novenent from west to east which is undesirable due to the close proxinuty of the bridge. We suggest that some type of improvement be addressed at this location. A "do nothing" approach would jeopardize the safety of the public traveling through the intersection. With the present geometries and restricted sight distance, we're sure that accidents will be inevitable. our concern is the safety of the travelling motorists, and request you consider irrproving the intersection to maintain the safety for roadway users. kb will discuss the tenporary measures that should be taken on June 27, 1988, at the Monday evening Council Meeting. Feel free to contact Tony Rentenich (612,/255-2909), Bud McCulloch (218/828-2660). or Jim lobo (612/255-2912) for any explanations or additional concerns. -3 - Sincerely, James M. Labo Resident Engineer cc: D. Raisanen/G. Kreutzer -Brainerd L P Oluscheid-St. Claud E. W. McCulloch -Brainerd R. Bray -Brainerd D. Trooien-St. Cloud John Sirola-Mmticello imL.,"M/mrs tk $l�pp` coo o" �afT c�,Jb . pESib� F :c.�o 30 SIS rd • 3io' � _ a� WRIGHT COUNTY STATE BANK 7y �4"ft%- M&W wasTRvlrp�l tw 8E6uJ s,#/61s vwoT "S,6,#) j7t)P Gor/O Jflo rJ = 1fta:.eol s:'I,♦ 0;34a.,ce 310 ' ��. N rn� W . 3Zv � � �CfZ A,PjVER RNER pp v 2V .SCAtC /a So' SIS rd • 3io' � _ a� WRIGHT COUNTY STATE BANK 7y �4"ft%- M&W wasTRvlrp�l tw 8E6uJ s,#/61s vwoT "S,6,#) j7t)P Gor/O Jflo rJ = 1fta:.eol s:'I,♦ 0;34a.,ce 310 ' ��. rd • 3io' � _ a� WRIGHT COUNTY STATE BANK 7y �4"ft%- M&W wasTRvlrp�l tw 8E6uJ s,#/61s vwoT "S,6,#) j7t)P Gor/O Jflo rJ = 1fta:.eol s:'I,♦ 0;34a.,ce 310 ' ��. JJack Anlerson Associates rru„ic ENWNEENmp coNsmr.,.re A St. 2635 North Helen Street Pa.A. Minnesota 55109.2345 June 25, 1988 Mr Richard Wolfsteller City Administrator City Hall 250 East Broadway P.O. BOX 83A Monticello, MN, 55362 Re: River Street Intersection at T.H. 25 S.P. 7104-10 (TH 25) Following up on our conversation Friday, June 24. the at- tached sketchs were prepared to illustrate the various op- tions available to address the sight distance problem on the east approach to this intersection. Having observed the problem first hand, I certainly concur with Mn/DOT that something must be done immediately to correct or eliminate it. Referring to the sketc!.s: Sketch A-1 illustrates the Mn/DOT original proposal to run the median island across the intersection to prohibit cross- ing and left turn movements. As you are already aware. this would not have taken care of the sight distance problem c au sod by the bank building, It appears there was an over- sight in design of this intersection. At this point in time it is not realistic to relocate either the bank or the bridge, so other alternatives are sought. Sketch A-2 illustrates a channelized turn which increases the available sight distance considerably. tut is still only adequate for 25-30 mph traffic on TH 25. /It is not rcalistEc to anticipate any way of holding TH 25 traffic to that speed. A-2 would present some signing problems, forcing the unwary driver to go across tho bridge against his wishs. I do not consider A-2 an acceptable solution. Sketch M-1 represents Mn/DOT's Solution al - it outends the median island completely across the in- torsoction and dead -ends E. River St. - it prohibits movement O's 1. 2, 3. 4, 7 6 O - it provides two-way traffic on E. River St - it requires construction of a cul-de-sac for snow plows - it minimizes intentional violations - it appears to be unduly restrictive in' prohibiting movement 0 7 • (612) 778-0232 y Sketch M -la is similar to M-1 except that it shortens the median island extension on T.H. 25 - it permits movement 07 which has good sight distance. - it too requires a cul-de-sac for snow plows Sketch M-2 represents Mn/DOT Solution 02, providing a ONE -MAV exit to the east on River St from T.H. 25 - it prohibits movement U's 1. 2. 6 3 - it permits two-way traffic on E. River St. from Cedar St to the Bank. - it has a potential for intentional violations of the DO NOT ENTER sign - snow plows have a minor problem. but could use bank driveway apron for a turn -around Sketch M-3 represents Mn/DOT Solution p3 featuring a one block long ONE -WAV section of E. River St - it prohibits movement 0's 1, 2. 6 3 - it has a potential for intentional violations of the DO NOT ENTER signs - snow plows are OK - it limits accessibility of the Press building Sketch M -3a is a variation on M-3. channelizing the traffic coming out of the Bank parking lot - it reduces the potential for wrong way movements - it too limits accessibility of the Press building With respect to which one I would recommend: 1. 1 would not recommend either A-1 or A-2 2. I believe M-1 is unduly restrictive, and would not rocomm end it at this point in time, although it may become neces- sary to restrict movement 07 in the future. 3. M-2 is my recommendation because of its simplicity and case of signing. It has soma potontial for intentional vio- lations of the DO NOT ENTER sign, but at•fhe same time I note that if' the two parking lots (Bank and Presel wore operated as o.,e lot, it would be possible to operate a two-way aisle on the south side of the Bank, thus providing an outlet to T.N. 25 without having to go around the block. or boing delayed by the traffic signal at Broadway. Please call if there aro any questions. Cordially yours. ] ck W. Anderson. P.E. i CI a a f� DA R 5 r. t as y 1� a• �- t.AO ego r. t i'OP, R I� x I �0 is �1 a - C. L 0 - = A 2 S r. EA/0 J "D6� .. � : A fi• � T. M-2 Cw Ei \�1 - - - - - - - - - - otI) M•3� City Council Agenda - 6/27/88 23. Consideration of Gambling License Application - Monticello VFW Auxiliary; and Gambling License Renewal - Monticello VFW Club. (R.W .) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The Monticello VFW Club has requested a gambling license renewal for their establishment. The City Council has 30 days from receipt of application in which to pass a resolution specifically disallowing the license renewal or the approval will be granted by the State Gambling Board. The VFW Club has provided a brief summary of their gross receipts and net proceeds for the period of May 1, 1987 through April 30, 1988. A request has also been received by the VFW Post Auxiliary requesting a gambling license to conduct gambling activities also at the VFW Post in Monticello. This application is a new license for the Auxiliary and is in addition to the renewal application of the Post itself. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Take no action, which will allow the applications and renewals to be granted by the state. 2. Oppose the applications, if the Council feels there are grounds for disapproval. , �• C. STAFF RECOfM1ENDATIONS: The City Staff does not have any reason to oppose the gambling license applications or renewals presented. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the gambling application forms and summary of the VFW Clubs earnings and donations for the past year. (\ ADDITIONAL ITEM: The Monticello Lions Club has requested City Approval to operate their `) pull tab gambling license at Ellison Park, during the July 3rd, Riverfest Celebration. If theCouncil doe not oppose this. I will inform the State Gambling Board that a (t) day license can be granted. The Lions Club hes a current license, but the City approval is necessary to operate in our parks. I] L Council update - 6/27/88 6. Consideration of Constructing New Water Reservoir/Water Tower and Appertanent Work. (J.S.) We have received word from Bruce Gagnelious that the Monti Club is not interested in having a water reservoir near the Monti Club, that is elevated above the ground. It does not appear to be within the scope of the project to lower the structure to such an elevation that it can be placed completely underground. We therefore need to look elsewhere for a water tower site. The 1985 Water Study suggested that the water tower be located in the Industrial Park. Recent discussions with John Badalich indicate that he now feels the tank should not be located in the Industrial Park, but in an area on the east end of Monticello to minimize effects from the wells and existing reservoir. one of the things we must consider when we place a water tower of such height and size is that it must be maintained, sandblasted and painted periodically So we need a fairly large buffer around the tank. If we are looking at purchasing approximately an acre or so, near Co. Rd. 39 and 75 as recommended by John Badalich, Jim Metcalf has indicated that the Gladys Hoglund property is worth souxwhere in the area of $30,000 an acre. The Boyle property could sell for $20,000 to $25,000 an acre. While the school property may go for less, the elevations are somewhat lower and we would have to build higher legs on the tower, thus defeating the less costly land prises. One area which might receive possible consideration is outlot A in the Meadow Oak area. Ibis area was to be dedicated to the City as Park property and is at an elevation of 963 which is amoung the highest peaces of property within the City of Monticello. The only drawback for this peace of property is the 12 inch watermain which leads from County Road 118 to Meadow Oak may or may not cause problems. Other possible sites may be Kenny Schultz's property, near the Monti Club. We will discuss the possible sites at the workshop. Enclosed you will find a copy of the letter from Bruce Gagnelious, copy of the water system expansion to the City of Monticello from John Badalich. C WATER SYSTEM EIPAIISIOU FOR ^�. THE CITY OF INWICELLO Yater S.Ysten Analysis This report brings together many reports. studies. meeetings and conversations regarding expansion of the City's water system by construction of a water reservoir. either standpipe or elevated tank, additional trunk watermains. well upgrading and other related work. The Mayor. City Council. Staff and OSM have discussed the subject of water supply and storage for many years and it has become apparent the action must be taken now to alleviate low water pressures and critical water conditions experienced today and in the past in Monticello. Dating back to December 1975. it was stated in the City's Comprehensive Utility Plan that the water system needed immediate improvement. As population and development increased and growth occurred, the water system had to expand and grow accordingly. Much has been done in Monticello since 1975, with a 0.75 million gallon water storage reservoir. trunk watermains from east to west. north to south, and larger supply lines in the industrial park area. Sizing of mains within the City were such that they could serve the Orderly Annexation Area (OAA) in the future. A new well was recently constructed and more is required to meet Monticello's growth from the 1975 annexed population of 2.800 persons to over 0.000 today. In July. 1985, we again analyzed the City's water system under varying conditions using our water system computer software. It became apparent that system pressures are down, fire flow is deficient, and volume is in short supply. 1 believe the recently imposed water restrictions and three to four times normal daily water consumption beers this out. In order to enhance system pressures and increase fire flows. it is necessary to provide (� a greater static water pressure in the City coupled with a greater volume of elevated storage. This can be accomplished by a water standpipe or elevated tank. The 1985 report indicates that a minimum of 0.50 million gallons of storage was required at that time and is certainly the minimum necessary to meet today's demands. This requirement of storage, coupled with new Well No. 3. and the upgrading of Well No. 1 and No. 2 to meet higher head conditions while maintaining their present well capacity are necessary now to meet today's water requirements. In addition. connecting trunk watenmains and supplemental water connections are also required. I John Simola's Council agenda item of June 13. 1988 on this subject is fairly complete except that the cost figures quoted in his memos are from July. 1985 and need to be revised to today's cost. Water Storsoe Tank There are two basic parameters involved in determining the recommended elevation of an elevated water storage facility. These are the desired flow requirements for fire fighting and the minimum desired static pressure at the higher elevations of the system. It is preferred to provide fire fighting flows to all parts of the City with adequate residual pressure without manually starting well pumps or high service pumps. It is also preferred to have 55 psi static pressure in industrial areas for purposes of general use and for automatic sprinkler systems. The original reservoir proposal accomplished these objectives with a tank having a bottom elevation of 1055 Mean See Level (MSL) and an overflow at 1105. The 500.000 gallon storage volume ranged from 1070 to 1105 with an average of 1089 MSL. These elevations provided a static pressure of 55.8 psi in the industrial area and a fire flow of about 3.000 ppm with 22 psi residual in the business district. Flow in excess of 0.000 gpm would be .2_ \ available in the industrial area because of the large watermains in that area. Our original recommendation still holds but an alternate design could utilize an average water level in the reservoir no lower than 1084 MSL which will provide 53.7 psi in the industrial area and would realize only a slight reduction in flow capabilities. The reservoir would have 28 feet of bounce (fluctuation) planned for Monti Hill from 1098 to 1070 with a bottom at 1.053 MSL. If the land owners will not agree to such a structure. then the next best location for an elevated tank would be on the east edge of the City near existing large watermains. Suggested locations would be at C.R. 118 and I-94. C.R. 39 and 1-94: or west of the Middle School on school property. It is highly recommended to have the elevated storage as far from wells and lift pumps as possible to minimize pressure diferentials in the system. t Also. a future elevated tank (t20 years) would be located on the west edge of the City providing excellent balance to the system. In conclusion. it is our recommendation that the reservoir be constructed on Monti Hill as originally designed. Even with the height lowered slightly. it would be better then to construct a reservoir or standpipe rather than an elevated tank. An elevated tank. by nature of its design. has greater bounce and therefore greater pressure differential and would provide less storage at a greater cost. It should also be noted that there are acceptable sites on the hill other than the Monte Club property. Land to the north and east would require only slightly more watermain and is other Quite usable. 31 l Storage Costs As indicated earlier, the costs estimated in our 1985 analysis need updating and this is generally done using the ENR Index (Engineering News Record). The July. 1985 ENR Index - 4.220 The June. 1988 ENR Index - 4.525 Cost Differential Increase • 7.2 percent Therefore: 1) 0.5 Million Gallon Standpipe • $222.000 x 1.072 a $236.000 2) Matermain to Reservoir • $90.000 x 1.072 a $ 96.500 Total Cost of 1 and 2 e $332.500 3) Cost of Elevated Tank • $430.000 x 1.072 • $461.000• •This cost 1s very close to the average cost of two elevated tanks OSM let this spring in Inver Grove Heights and Shorewood adjusted to the 140' height in Monticello. 4) Difference in cost of Monti Hill standpipe and watermain compared to elevated tank (minimal piping) is $461.000 - $332.500 • $128.500. This cost differential would be offset by a number of factors as indicated in John Simola's agenda memo, with some of these items having a cost associated with them. a. Travel time slightly more to Monti Hill. b. Access to the site could be worked out with Monte Club to use their access road and parking lot for minimal cost (snow plowing and/or removal) until land is developed north of Monte Club. City would share in cost of roadway at the time of development. -4- C. Up until the time a road is Constructed north of the standpipe, no stormwater drainage would be necessary other than a french drain if any. If the tank were to be drained, irrigation pipe could be strung to the roadway ditch or a low area. d. A remote tank on Monti Hill would have less visibility than an elevated tank on lower ground but whether this is negative or positive is a personal preference. e. Construction in the Township will require a Conditional Use Permit. f. An easement or permit from the Township will be required for the watermain. g. The City has property on Monti Hill other than the Monte Club that can be considered for a standpipe. h. Jacking would be costly versus a 1/2 to 1 working day crossing of C.R. 118 by open cut. Cost savings of a standpipe as compared to an elevated tank would Still be $100.000 or more. Additional benefit of several hundred gallons of greater storage in standpipe is stilt valid although not considered in this evaluation. Other lmurovement Costs 1. Upgrading of Well No. 1 to pump at a higher head. This well has a new 75 hp motor. but the pump was due for service three years ago. Construction Cost . $10.000 -5- 2. Upgrading of Well No. 2 including pump. motor and auxiliary drive to pump at higher heads. Construction Cost - $15,000 3. Building new wate►main from Wells No. 1 and No. 2 along Cedar Street to Fourth Street. Construction Cost - $39.000 4. Demolition or refurbishing of existing water tower. Demolition - $20.000 5. Completion of the interconnecting link of missing 24 inch watermain along east side of C.R. 118 from Chelsea Road to the north side of I-94. Construction Cost - $127.000 Samm n of Recommended Water System Improvements, (' 0.5 Million Gallon Standpipe $236,000 0 Watermain to Standpipe 96.500 24" Trunk Watermain C.R. 188 under I-94 127.000 Upgrading of Well No. 1 10.000 Upgrading of Well No. 2 15.000 Supplemental Watermain from Well No. 1 and 2 on Cedar Street 39.000 -6- C. r4 L TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 5523,500 CONTINGENCY 10% 52,400 INDIRECT COSTS (27X) 155,100 TOTAL PROJECT COST (731.000 LAND COST FROM MONTE CLUB Financing of Mater System Improvements There are several methods available to the City for financing water system improvements. Any one or a combination of the following could be used. 1. General Ad Valorem Tax, Referendum 2. Special Assessments 3. Connection Charges 4. Revenue Funds These forms of funding are familiar to the City and can be discussed at the meeting as necessary. -7- Council Update - 6/27/88 7. Consideration of Resolution of Awarding Bids on Pumphouse, Pump and Controls Project 88-01C. W.S.1 As indicated in the earlier supplement, the low bidder, Richmar Construction, Inc., at $ 272,290.00 was significatly over our estimates. Our original estimate was $ 198,100. John Badalich has recalculated the estimate and indicated that the estimate is really $ 243,000, which indicates that the puuphouse bid is only 12 percent greater than estimates. The low bidder, Richmar Construction, has indicated initially that there is $ 25,000 worth of surplus electrical money in his bid and a relook at the electrical portion of the contract could result in a $ 25,000 cost saving change order. If we were to look at other portions of the building and Lake so -ie changes there and issue change orders, we might be able to go with the low bidder and begin constuction of the badly needed puuphouse in well a3. It is my understanding that John Badalich and Chuck Lepak are again analyzing their estimates and the low bid and will have further recormnendations for Monday's meeting. It is the staff's opinion that if there is a proper and legal manner by which we can award the low bidder and make some cost saving changes, we should do so rather then rebid. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the letter from OSM. A COUNCIL UPDATE: JUNK AMNESTY DAY SUMMARY e mm following is a summary of participation in the Junk Amnesty day Conducted e 11, 1988. TOTAL LAND FILL RECYCLE ICOST TO USERS USERS ICITY 1 HOUSEHOLDS PARTICIPATING I 170 133 75 I I I HOUSEHOLD USE OF PROGRAM I 789 44%1 I I PERCENT OF CITY HSHLDS I 9% 7% 4%1 UTILIZING PROGRAM I I I I CUBIC YDS LANDFILL I 240 1 $1,400 I I CU YDS LANDFILL PER HSHLDI 1.80 I I I LBS OF RECYCLE PER HSHLD I 316 I I I WHITE GOODS TOTAL I 105 I $810 I I LABOR I I $612 I I PUBLIC NOTICES I I $60 I I I I -CYCLABLES I (TONS) I I BATTERIES 1 (81 UNITS) 1.54 I IRON i 2.8 I TIN I 1.32 I $20 OIL I (250 GAL.) 1 I $20 PAPER I m 66 TREES 3.92 1 GLASS/CANS I 0.93 I $20 ALUMINUM I 0.33 I I I TOTAL RECYCLABLE TONNAGE I 11.84 I I I TOTAL CITY COST I I $2.942 I I ESTIMATED COST I I $3,390 (MID POINT OF RANGE) -JOHN SIMOLA SAYS "PROGRAM WAS A SUCCESS. POSSIBLY A MODEL FOR OTHER COMMUNITIES" -DAVE FOSTER OF POLKA DOT RECYCLING TEF44ED PROGRAM A SUCCESS. -DIVERTED ALMOST 12 TON OF RECYCLABLE MATERIALS FROM LANDFILL! SAVES LANDFILL/SAVES ENERGY! -IMPROVED NEIGHBORHOODS BE ENCOURAGING PROPER DISPOSAL OF MATERIALS THAT CAN BECOME A BLIGHTING INFLUENCE. -PROVIDED ASSISTANCE TO 5 ELDERLY AND HANDICAPPED HOUSBiOLDS. -PROGRAM WENT OFF WITHOUT A HITCH — LITTLE WAITING/NO CONFUSION - PEOPLE COOPERATIVE wiAT WE MIGHT DO DIFFERENT NEXT TIME: tilize a fourth man to work the pate. Invite the Tom.nahip to participate (end share expense). CREDIT FOR THE SUCCESS OF THE PROGRAM TO GO TO: Mayor and City Council Cooperative Effort of City Staff, Polka Cot Recycling, Yanak Landfill Ruff Salvage. Monticello Throe ADDITION TO ITEM #4 OF PREVIOUS MEETING AGENDA 4. Consideration of Establishing an Area Assessment Charge for Trunk Sewer and Water Pro3ects. (J.O.) A. Reference/Background Simultaneous to the discussion of establishing trunk sewer service to the "Evergreens" and xjellberg Park East Mobile Home Park is the potential of extending water and sewer service under the freeway to a point that will enable Dan Fria to develop approximately 60 "high end" residential sites alongside or near the Silver Springs golf course. Frie envisions development of 20 homes along the golf course with a market value in the $150,000 to $175,000 range, 20 homes in the interior of the development with an average value of $120,000 and 20 homes an the freeway side of the development with an average value of $90,000. B. Recent Action on Property by OAA As you know, the OAA recently approved the rezoning of the subject property (see map) from Agricultural to Residential usage which provides Frie with the opportunity of developing approximately 13 building sites. During the discussion at the OAA board meeting regarding the rezoning issue, Franklin Denn voted against the rezoning noting that the property in question should be developed utilizing City services and that it should be preserved as Ag land until such services are available. His remarks led me to the ouestion, how much would it cost to extend the deep trunk sewer line to the rezone area. C. Cost to Extend Trunk Sewer to Development Area John Badalich informed me that the cost to extend sewer to the area is $189,000. Furthermore, the potential service area exceeds the 40 acres that Frie plans on developing (see attached letter an subject submitted by John Badalich). D. Developer's Intentions /Annexation/Financing Dan Frie is very interested in the potential of developing 60 building Bites with sewer and water, rather than developing 13 sites without City Services. Furthermore, he welcome the opportunity to gain such services through payment of an area assessment. He feels that his development will be profitable despite additional costs associated with an area assessment. Frie has indicated to me that he will petition for annexation if Council gives positive indications that it will order extension of sewer and water to his property and assess him the standard area assessment charge for such services. As you will note on the attached analysis, a trunk sewer area assessment charge of $1,250 per acre will net $50,000 which is substantially less that the total project cost (189,000). If Council approves this financing arrangement, Council is betting on subsequent annexations and further development to recover the remaining debt. E. Alternatives 1. Indicate to Frie that the City is not interested in proposal to extend sewer and water to development area per the financing plan suggested. Direct staff to work with Developer in establishing an alternate plan to finance extension. l 2. Indicate willingness to work with Developer on project as proposed. F. Action Requested Discuss potential of extension of trunk sewer and water to subject property. Discuss potential of utilizing area assessment to finance project. :� •'�•�•�•�• Existing Trunk Sewer �. —� ••••••••••••••• Existing Forcemain - - —�-• ;;�'%,. Proposed' -Trunk -Sewer _ N, r� _ ® Existing Treatment Plant 7 �•�i 41• •`^____ _ may. `�`•\\ ```\• ''s'. • • i 7 ............ ..... ....................... i lrcxiat:on S'Lucy l ;Vr ;r!. Sanitary Sewer Plan G �J I N M/• M• NrbLn •••��•r 1 0 I a 2011 East Hennepin Avenue Mtnnearm)hs, M\ 55413 June 1, 1988 E12J31-8_0 FAX 331 380, Engineers sunevurs Ptann— City of Monticello 250 East Broadway Monticello, MN 55362 Attn: Mr. Jeff O'Neill Assistant Administrator Re: Proposed Development Near Silver Springs Golf Course Dear Jeff: As a follow-up to our telephone conversation last week and your letter of May 24, 1988, I wish to respond to your inquiry regarding the capacity of the Monticello sewer system to serve this proposed development outside of the Monticello city limits. This 40 acre parcel of land west of the freeway and directly north of Silver Springs Golf Course could be served by extending a sanitary sewer under the freeway to the proposed development. This sanitary sewer located on River Street near the NSP softball fields is a 10 inch and has a limited capacity. in further analyzing the downstream capacity of the system as it now exists would indicate that approxi. mately 140 acres of development could be served by this sanitary sewer west of Trunk Highway 94. The limited capacity is with a 10 inch sewer on Marvin Elwood Road which serves approximately 94 acres in Monticello and would have capacity available for the additional 140 acres. According to our Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan, the OAA area west of the free- way and south to the orderly annexation southerly boundary line at the extension of County Road 39 is planned to be served by the recently constructed interceptor sewer which terminates at Country Club Road and County Road 39. However, there is a capacity available in the 10 inch sewer off of River Street but to the limitation noted. If you have any questions in this regard, please give me a call. Yours very truly, ORR-SCHEIEFN-MAYERON ASS SiAT S, IN�_o JohnP.�//BC/adalich, P.E. City Engineer / JPB:mlj PROJECT AMORTIZATION/TAX IMPACT STATEMENT CITY OF MONTICELLO - 5/23/88 ` TRUNK SEWER EXTENSION UNDER FREE -WAY TO 40 ACRE PARCEL DIRECTLY NORTH OF SILVER SPRINGS GOLF COURSE. COST TO EMEND WATER NOT AVAILABLE. ENTER THE FOLLOWING DATA: PROJECT COST FRIE SEWER EXTENSION $189,000 ASSESSMENT REVENUE CAPTURED AREA ASSESSMENT $50,000 REMAINING DEBT IF NOT CAPTURED THROUGH FUTURE ASSESSMENTS: BOND AMOUNT $139,000 ANNUAL INTEREST RATE (.XX) 7.75$ PAYMENT PERIOD (YEARS) 20 PAYMENTS $13,895 CITY ASSESEO VALUATION $114,339.670 MILL INCREASE REQUIRED TO PAY DEBT 0.00012152 CURRENT CITY MILL RATE 0.01593200 VALUE OF HOME ANALYZED $80.000 VALUE OF COMMERCIAL/INOUSTRIAL ANALYZED $400,000 ANNUAL INCREASE IN TAXES TO HOME $1.04 ANNUAL INCREASE IN TAXES TO COMMERCIAL/INDUS $19.99 PERCENT INCREASE IN MILL RATE REQUIRED 0.76% d ADDITION TO ITEM #4 OF PFVIOUS MEETING AGENDA 4. Consideration of Establishing an Area Assessment Charge for Trunk Sewer and Water Projects. (J.0.) A. Reference/Background Simultaneous to the discission of establishing trunk sewer service to the "Evergreens" and Kjellberg Park East Mobile Home Park is the potential of extending water and sewer service under the freeway to a point that will enable Dan Fria to develop approximately 60 "high end" residential sites alongside or near the Silver Springs golf course. Frie envisions development of 20 homes along the golf course with a market value in the 5150,000 to $175,000 range, 20 homes in the interior of the development with an average value of 5120,000 and 20 homes an the freeway side of the development with an average value of $90,000. B. Recent Act: -on en P:opery by OAA As you know, the OAA recently approved the rezoning of the subject property (see map) from Agricultural to Residential usage which provides Frie with the opportunity of developing approximately 13 building sites. During the discussion at the OAA board meeting regarding the rezoning issue, Franklin Denn voted against the rezoning noting that the property in question should be developed utilizing City services and that it should be preserved as Ag land until such services are available. His remarks led me to the Question, how much would it cost to extend the deep trunk sewer line to the rezone area. C. Cost to Extend Trunk Seder to Development Area John Badalich informed me that the cost to extend sewer to the area is 5189,000. Furthermore, the potential service area exceeds the 40 acres that Frie plans on developing (see attached letter on subject submitted by John Bada 11 ch) . D. Developer's intent ions/Annexation/Financing Dan Frie is very interested in the potential of developing 60 building sites with met and water, rather than developing 13 sites without City Services. Furtherv.re, he welcomes the opportunity to gain such services through payment of an area assessment. He feels that his development will be profitable despite additional costs associated with an area assessment. Frie has indicated to me that he will petition for annexation if council gives positive indications that it will order extension of sewer and water to his property and assess him the standard area assessment charge for such services. As you will note on the attached analysis, a trunk sewer area assessment charge of $1,250 per acre will. net 550,000 which is substantially less that the total project cost (169,000). if Council approves this financing arrangement, Council is betting on subsequent annexations and further development to recover the remaining debt. E. Alternatives 1. Indicate to Frie that the City is not interested in proposal to extend sewer and water to development area per the financing plan Suggested. Direct staff to work with Developer in establishing an alternate plan to finance extension. Indicate willingness to work with Developer on project as proposed. F. Action Requested Discuss potential of extension of trunk sewer and water to subject property. Discuss potential of utilizing area assessment to finance project. A 1988 --- GENERAL FUND --- JU%E AMOUNT CHECK NO. Dept. of Nat. Res. - Dep. Reg. fees 404.00 27436 Feedrlte Controls - Water Dept. supplies 1.785.17 27437 PLV. Geophysical Assoc. - Video inspection Well U3 634.00 27438 Commissioner of Revenue - 1989 license fee assessment 15.00 27439 League of M.V. Cities - Conf. reg. fee - Crimsmo, Fair, Rick 390.00 27440 Rick Wolfsteller - City Mgr. Conf. expense reimb. 192.92 27441 Pat Offtedahl - Paint reim. for Food Shelf Bldg. 122.52 27442 Royce Rolls Ringer Co. - Toilet tissue dispenser 125.57 27443 Phillips 66 - Gas 20.35 27444- 7444Dept. Dept.of Nat. Res. - Dep. Reg. fees 266.00 27445 Corrow Sanitation - Garbage contract payment 7,083.00 27446 VOID -0- 27447 VOID -0- 27448 Anoka County Social Services - Payroll sed. 210.16 27449 ICMA Retirement Corp. - Payroll ded. 911.17 27450 State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll dad. 123.04 27451 Jerry Hermes - Library janitorial 227.50 27452 David Stromberg - Animal control. expense 302.00 27453 Mrs. Beverly Johnson - Animal control expense 275.00 27454 Monticello Agency, Inc. - Notary fee for Marlene Hellman 70.00 27455 Monticello Ford - New pickup purchase 10,619.29 27456 Commissioner of Revenue - SWT - May 2,262.00 27457 PERA - Para W/H 1,542.56 27458 Wright County State Bank - FICA b FWI W/H 5,298.08 27459 YMCA of MPLS. - Monthly contract payment 625.00 27460 James Preusse - Cleaning City Hall and Fire Hall 450.00 27461 Arve Grimsmo - Mayor salary 175.00 27462 Dan Blonigen - Council salary 125.00 27463 Mrs. Fran Fair - Council salary 125.00 27464 Bill Fair - Council salary 125.00 27465 Warren Smith - Council salary 1.3-:9 27:66 Cindy Lamm - Planning Comm. salary 49.27 27467 Dan McConnon - 49.27 27468 Joyce Dowling - 49.27 27469 Richard Martie - 49.27 27470 Richard Carlson - 49.27 27471 Dep. of Nat. Ree. - Dep. Reg. fees 339.00 27472 PLV. Dept. of Health - Permit fee for Project 88-04B 150.00 27473 PSGI - WL'TP monthly contract payment 22.083.35 27474 Norwest Investments Services - Computer payment 2,407.61 27475 Northern States Power Co. - Utilities 6,425.15 27476 Bridgewater Telephone - Telephone 1,126.09 27471 North Central Public Service - Utilities 134.08 27478 011ie Koropchak - Mileage reimb. 58.45 27479 AME Ready Mix Co. - Concession stand material and labor 743.28 27480 Amcon Block Co. - Material for new Concession stand 5.545.76 27481 TW Hardware - Supplies 38.56 27482 Construction Times - Sub. - Bldg. Insp. 12.00 27483 Paul Hoglund - Concession stand labor and material 3.200.00 27484 Country Lumber - Concession stand material 1.068.75 27485 M!N. Dept. of Nat. Ree. - Dap. Reg. fees 561.00 21486 U. S. Postmaster - Bulk mailing permit for "Lead in Later" 193.67 27487 VOID -0- 27488 Corrow Sanitation - Leaf pickup charges 6 land fill surcharge 1.593.20 27489 Principal Mutual - Croup ins. 4,826.89 27490 Rick Wolfsteller - Mileage expense - June 300.00 27491 ' State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll dad. 123.04 27492 ICMA Retirement Corp. - Payroll dad. 911.17 27493' GENERAL FWD AM0TJNI CHECK N0. PERA - Ins. premiums - reimb. 27.00 27494 Pat Jensen - Refund for Variance request - withdrew 25.00 27495 Monticello Times - Publishing 3,224.96 27496 Amoco Oil - Cas 27.47 27407 Jerry Hermes - Library janitorial 227.50 27498 David Stromberg - Animal control 6 adoption fees 348.00 2149;+ "Li. Dept. of Health - Permit application fee for well 64 250.00 27500 Wayne Mfg. Co. - Christmas decorations 2,315.00 27501 Wright County State Bank- FICA b F -T 5,591.16 27502 PERA - Para W/H 11605.18 27503 Janette Leerrsen - Inf. Center salary 82.12 27504 Wilma Haves - Inf. Center salary 114.75 27505 U. S. Postmaster - Bulk mailing postage 175.29 27506 Anoka Social Services - Payroll ded. 210.16 27507 Smith, Pringle, Hayes - Legal 1,070.20 27508 Dahlgren, Uban, etc. - Professional services 782.00 27509 Spr ingsted, Inc. - Services for Imp. Bonds 14,172.83 27510 MacQueen Equip. - Parts for sweeper 63.17 27511 Fee drite Controls - Testing wells and Water Dept. supplies 3,924.27 27512 Local U49 - Union dues 92.00 27513 Olson 6 Sons - Repairs and parts 1,490.30 27514 Motorola, Inc. - Fire Dept. radios and pagers 3,388.00 27515 Fitzharris - Bases and pitching rubbers - Softball Fields 275.55 27516 Water Products - Meters. etc. • 521.97 27517 Pace Laboratories -Tests for Well 8.4 120.00 27518 STS Consultants LTD.' - Services for East 639 Project 1,291.00 ""27319 E. H. Renner 6 Sons - Pump inspections 140.00 27520 ' Automatic Systems - Repairs 'at Reservoir 55.00 47521 Coast to Coast - Supplies for Mtce. Depts. 555.07 27522' McDowall Co. - Repairs for air conditioner at City Hall 941:31 _ 7-27M ' Quality Health Services - Physical for Tony Strands 79.00 :27524 Gruys, Johnson, Etc. - Computer charges for May 290.00 27525 Ramier. Cries, Etc. - Professional services - Raindance 139.60 27526 League of MN, ,Cities - Membership dues 10.00 27527 Moo dy's Investors Service - Professional services - E. 639 3.000.00 37525 .Chapin Publishing Co. - Adv. for bids 542.30 '27529 AT&T Inf. - Fire phone charges 3.96 27530 Bjorklund Co. - Pump repairs 150.00 27531 Wall Street Journal - Sub. 59.50 27532 Tur nquist Paper Co. - Paper towels for perks 114.36 27533 Hydrotex - Grease - Public Works Dept. 168.65 27534 The Plumbery - Supplies 117.50 27535 Harry's Auto Supply - Parts for Public Works Dept. 206.86 27536 Glass Hut - Repairs ac old Fire Hall 123.76 27537 Bif f's. Inc. - Latrine rental for Softball Fields 218.00 27538 .-Siingnson Lumber.- Supplies - Mtce. Dept. 05.45 $1539 Framki•in -;,Toilet tissue 25:68 2754'0 Taylor Land Surveyors - Blueprint for new Concession Stand 9.00 27541 Bowman Barnes - Gloves - Public Works 17.20 27542 Unttog-Rencal -.Uniform rental 132.40 27543 Hanson Black Co. - Block for new Concession Stand 251.20 i7544 Northern Oxygen - Supplies 11.70 27545 Vance's Seryice Cancer -Gas - Fire Dept. 9.50 27546' Wrighc-C"nty,Trassurer -Sheriff' contract payment 11,896.63 27547 Servi Sj)r Hardware`- Parts 2.42 27548 noon Motais, •- Parte for tractors 618.90 27549 GENERAL FUND AMOUNT CHECK 10. Maus Foods - Supplies for all Depts. 112.60 27530 Monticello Printing - Misc. printing 463.75 27551 Unocal - Gas 25.05 27552 Daly, Bohling & O'Connor - Union negotiations expense 976.00 27553 .Sc. Cloud Appraisal - Appraisal fees 600.00 77554 City Mgmt. Assoc. - Membership dues 35.00 27555 Monticello Fire Dept. - Wages 2.1.91.62 27556 21N. Dept. of 'lat. Res. - Dep. Reg. fees 461.00 27557 XN. Dept. of Trade b Econ. Dev. Reg. fees - Jeff & 011ie 110.00 27558 LaTour Construction Payment #2 East #39 Project 294.630.34 27559 Al Austin - Painting gazebo 400.00 27560 Marlene Hellman - Mileage - Jan. thru June 43.75 27561 MN. Rural Assoc. - Membership dues 100.00 27562 Al & Julie Nelson - Sub. renewal 13.75 27563 Wang Computer mtce. agreement payment 426.00 27564 OSM Eng. fees 58,511.28 27565 American Legion - Flags 242.00 27566 Bowman Barnes - Misc. supplies 26.89 27567 Charlotte Paterson, MCFOA Treasurer - Membership dues 15.00 27568 Phillips 66 - Gas 117.81 27569 Mobil Oil - Gas 72.37 27570 Arve Grimsmo- Mileage check 217.34 `27571 Chapin Publishing _- Adv. -for bids 469.20 -27.572 J. M..Oil Co. - Gas 168.40 '-,27573 Naiional Bushing -. Parts 15.29 -•2;L594- ;L574-..N. .N.Yayor's Assoc. - Membership dues 10.00 275?5 .ICXA - Dues-f6r-'Jeff O'Neill 240.00 .27576 :Flicker's T V - Repairs 35.95 27577 Carden Center - Shrubs, trees, etc. 1.105.32 X7578 -Fair's Monticello Office Products - Misc. supplies 83.76 -:27579 -Pitney Bowes - Postage machine rental 43.00 27580 -Earl F. Andersen - Sign, paint, etc. - St. Dept. 1.576.05 27-581 E. H. Rennir - Rayment #2 - Well 83 23.444.78 27582 Marco Business Products - Mtca. agreement & ribbons, paper 387.88 27583 -V. Dept. of Transportation - Cooperative agreement 5.777.68 MN. Dept. of Health - Permit Well #4 250.00 27585 MN. Dept. of Health - Permit fee - Pumphouse 03 300.00 '27586 'IN. Dpeuty RE&. #2 - Title & Reg, for trailer 119.50 27587 .Continental Safety Equip. - Parts for Fire Dept. 180.52 27588 Monticello Community Education - Recreation program share 15.500.00 27589 Community Education - Comm. Education Task Force 41,000.00 27590 Cary Anderson - Mileage 95.61 27591 Holiday - Fire Dept. gas 32.210 .17592 Could Bros. - Fire Dept. repairs 328.85 27593 .Check Point welding - Work at now Concession Stand .300.00 _27594 of.Na-r. Ras. - Dep.,Reg. fees 337.00 27595 Payroll Por May 26.991.26 TOTAL GENERAL h%D DISBURSEMENTS JUNE C LIQUOR FUD) JUNE DISBURSEMENTS - LIQUOR -- 1988 AMOUNT C OCR Griggs. Cooper - Liquor 3,525.57 13804 Eagle Wine - Liquor 197.18 13805 Hollister Carpet Cleaning - Cleaning carpet at Store 325.50 13806 Ed Phillips b Sons - Liquor 158.40 13807 Griggs. Cooper - Liquor 3,054.28 13808 Eagle Wine - Liquor 998.82 13809 Commissioner of Revenue - SWT - May 229.00 13810 PEFA - Pera W/H 196.60 13811 Wright County State Bank - FICA 6 NT 662.02 13812 State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded. 200.00 13813 Ed Phillips - Liquor 150.48 13814 Quality Wine - Liquor 1,688.15 13815 Johnson Bro. - Liquor 1,720.37 13816 Cot®issioner of Revenue - 3 estimated sales tax due for June 4,618.75 13817 Comanissioner of Revenue - Sales tax for May 9,190.00 13818 Dah lheimer Dist. - Beer 31,976.40 13819 M. Bar Supply - Store supplies 90.88 13820 H b H Industries - Light bulbs 71.94 13821 Day Dist. Co. - Beer 570.52 13822 Dick Beverage Co. - Beer 3,000.05 13823 Viking Coca Cola - Misc. mdse. 402.55 13824 Bridgewater Telephone - Telephone 66.93 13825 Bolles Sanitation - Garbage services 137.00 13826 Jude Candy 6 Tobacco - Misc. mdse. 721.19 13827 Monticello Times - Adv. 225.53 13828 Superior Products - Picnic pump 251.11 13829 Seven -Up Bottling Co. - Misc. mdse. 176.55 13830 North Central Public Service - Utilities 17.48 13831 Northern States Power - Utilities 639.19 13832 Thorpe Dist. - Beer 0,760.85 13833 ' Gro sslein Beverage - Beer 16.024.06 13834 Coast to Coast - Store expense 9.58 13835 Bernick's Pepsi Cola - Misc. mdse. 250.75 13836 Maus Foods - Store expense 3.87 13837 Liefert Trucking - Freight 440.24 13838 Monticello Office Products - Office supplies 3.69 13839 Quality Wine - Liquor 803.10 13840 Ed Phillips - Liquor 3.971.90 13841 Johnson Bros. - Liquor 2,163.96 13842 Quality Wine - Liquor 693.92 13843 Griggs. Cooper - Liquor 2,746.97 13844 Principal Mucual - Ina. premium 388.37 13845 PERA - Porn W/H 182.66 13846 Wright County State Bank - FICA 6 PT 631.58 13847 State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded. 200.00 '13848 VOID -O- 13849 PERA - Ins. premium - reimb. 9.00 13850 Eagle Wine - Liquor 453.02 13851 Carter's Lake Land Advertising - Adv. 281.00 13852 Rubald Beverage - Beer 16.00 13853 Ed Phillips - Liquor 1,257.77 13854 Gru ys. Johnson - Computer charges for April and May 220.00 13855 i Johnson Bro. - Liquor 399.02 13856 j Monti Motel - Adv. 90.00 13857 Steve's Elk River Nursery - Shrubs, etc. 6,649.00 13858 LIQUOR FUND Griggs, Cooper - Liquor Johnson Bros. - Liquor Payroll for May I TOTAL LIQUOR DISBURSEMENTS - JUNE 1F. AMOUNT CHECK NO. 3,484.58 13859 1.736.63 13860 074.07 S126,213.93 CITY OF MONTICELLO PAGE l • I ' 1 1 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES { GENERAL FUND - 001 ' l . FOR 7N6 ON6 NONIN AMD FIVE NON7N5 iND6D NAT 31. 1988 , .................................................................................................................................... l TNI6 PERIOD THIS PERIOD TNIB PERIOD T - I - D T - 7 - D T - 7 - D ANNUAL AC ILIAL BUDGET VARIANCE ACTUAL BUDGET VARIAN[a BU DO ET BBUENUE C1IRREN7 AD VALOREM • 0 • 61,738 • (61,7381• 6,018 • 308,688 • (803,660>• 710,550 PENALTY/ INTEREST 0 1,897 11,8331 1,767 9,167 (7,9001 ]1,000 J P S I-A6MT'6-COUNTY-1 0 B IB) 38 42 (4) 100 L1000R L.CEMgas 0 1,238 (1,238) 0 6,188 (6,1881 14,650 BEER 127 121 2 113 604 (401) 1,450 OTN Cl 0 29 1291 0 116 11.61 750 OU SLDINO PERMITS 557 3.839 (],2811 11,785 19,167 17,8871 46,000 VAR IANCEB/GOND IT TONAL USES 100 100 0 600 500 100 1,100 IIN00 0 B (B) 0 41 (42) 100 ANIMAL LICENSES 70 8 13 40 41 111 100 OTNES 0 350 (3 '01 0 1,750 11,750) 4,300 OT "By 475 63 362 729 313 116 750 LOCAL GOVERMENT AID 0 14.283 11•,28]1 0 71,•17 171.•171 171,400 R R PEPURD S6INBUS6EMENT 0 ]1 1711 0 104 110.1 130 lIPE DEPARTMEN! AID 0 2,458 12.450) 0 11,292 (12,2971 29,500 POLIES DEPAPTMEMT AID 0 971 197 1) 0 4.854 14.BS1> 11,630 OTA22 GSANIS AMD AIDE - OT 0 68 /62) 0 813 13131 750 Y j OCNESAL GOVERMENT 11 50 11 523 291 231 700 PUDLIC SAFCTY 6.207 2.275 3,927 16,467 11,375 5.091 ]7,300 6 TPEETB C. B.A.M. HAIM7ENAN 0 471 (471) 0 2,354 (2.334) 5.650 DEPUTY ";1.61" 3.798 4,667 1,131 22,917 23,873 (411) 56,000 BU 001V ISION I.E. 0 83 (83) 0 411 1417) 1,000 OT14ES 0 29 (291 0 146 1146) 850 INTEIE87 INCOME 0 4.673 14,6751 0 77,373 (23,375) 56.100 ' ANIMAL IMPOUND.CM7 817 838 (6) 1,675 1,667 6 4,000 1N IIITION - APPLICATION F 0 11 142) 0 208 (2081 500 RENTS 895 300 95 7,138 1,500 630 3,600 BALE OF PROPERTY 0 125 (125) 5.791 627 5,167 1,500 CONTRIBUTIONS /DONATIONS 0 917 (917) O 4,583 (4.5'81 11,000 •� OTN6S B 15 1171 33 125 1921 800 ADMIN/INBPEC ICIMP - PRO" 0 1.750 11.250) 0 6,150 (6,1301 15,000 , R CPUNDB AND tEINDURGEMENTB 0 300 (200) 133 1,041 1900) 1,500 ) BUBSCR IPI IONS 0 0 0 169 0 11691 0 , CONPUTEI PAYMENT 2.408 0 (2.4001 (8.047) 0 B.B47 0 0 F PICC SUPPLICS 56 0 156) S6 0 1561 0 MAINTENANCE AGRECNNENT 426 0 14261 1,130 0 (7.180) 0 -1 , C014RUN I CAT ION B 51 0 (511 205 0 11051 O ------"'--' __•_________ _______vi ___•_____•__ ___•________ TOTAL REVENUES 0 11,000 6 102,508 • 5:4_-• 191.5081• 76,079 • 57'.916 0 (436,877)• 1,231,000 EXPENDITURES MATES AMD COUNCIL • OSB • 2,125 • 1,267 • 3,517 • 11,125 • 7,570 • 26,700 ASSISGMENTB 1.200 1,396 TOB 6.712 6.979 767 16,750 INSPECTIONS 1,429 1,603 254 7.141 0.416 1,275 20,200 e :1 ( L(IY UP AUM1"L u FAG6 7 RfVENU89 AND BX PENDIn a BE I. FUN D - 001 �.y" FOR SNB OMB MON7X ANO EIV. MONTNB ENDED MAT 71, 199f3 ' THIS PERIOD 3X18 PERIOD TNI: PEB IOD T - T- D Y - T - D Y-T -I ANNUAL ACTUAL BUDGET YAR IANC. ACTUAL BUDGET VARIANCE BUDGET CABLE COMMUNICATIONS ],317 1,183 (1,3301 7,368 7,917 319 11,200 O EN BBAL INSUII ANC. SO 6,777 6,18 3 17,862 71,167 7,705 71,800 ADM IN I.7RATION 0,060 8,277 163 1) 79,916 11,187 1,771 98,830 FINANCE 6,190 ..725 2,73 5 25,006 17,623 18,319 101,700 AUDIS 0 733 733 0 7,667 1.667 8,000 LEGAL 1,790 2.067 777 6,573 10,377 3,810 21,800 1 PLAMMIND AND ZONING BLDG A 2,800 1.071 271 13,630 20,331 61696 11,950 DEP UTT OfO16TRAR 7,265 2,256 ( 7) 11,713 11,291 70 77,100 �. CITY HALL 1.717 2,125 671 0.079 11,113 1.086 19,300 LAY ENFORCEMENT 11,097 10,616 (1,2511 59,1.3 53,239 (6,251) 127,750 F1R6 DEPARTMENT 1,951 3,750 796 13.075 20,730 5,675 69,000 CIVIL DEPENDS 189 779 29 O 1,102 3.896 1,191 9,730 1 ANIMAL CONTROL 1,167 1,133 70 6,522 6,167 (355) 1/,800 1` ADM IN I. TRA?ION 6 ENGINEEII 1,102 1.691 510 17,303 13.138 1.153 56,300 0tR88TB AND ALLEYS 7.155 13.729 11,071 16,980 66,)13 19,165 158,730 - 1 BNOY AND ICE 0 1,101 1,101 5.603 5.321 (87) 11,]30 0TR86T LIONTINO 3.078 1,338 (7.^,0) 11,681 11,797 (992) 21.300 PU IILIC ►ARN INLOTS 93 250 1G7 515 1.258 763 1,000 1 I NOP AMD GABA OE 1,27] 1.779 (43) 7,109 6,116 11,2631 11,730 REFUSE COLLECTION 8,171 7,998 (1351 10,190 39.979 (SIS) 95,930 BEM 108 CIiIiSMB/MU 6CUM 1.91: 1,067 125 9,161 10,333 977 21,800 R YMCA 625 1.708 I,OB3 1.300 0,311 6.011 70,300 ADVBRTI.INO 17,581 5,900 (16,67 31 79,190 29,311 (9,9191 70.900 PROFISSIONAL SERVICES 1,571 2,396 (178) 17.961 11.979 (9 871 71,750 TOTAL 81►BMD 72URH8 • 96=117 • • • .....115,975 • -----513=917 • ------66=977 • _-.1=171=000 - ------ REVENUES OVER ERPENDITUI.9 ..•..••..••. (05,037)• ......-6,670 -----102_501 l • •.......... .......•.•.. (15,0>13)• •••......... (769,996)• 5 1 ...•.......• 1369,9011• ...•.......• 0 ............ \.' ( J