Loading...
City Council Agenda Packet 01-26-1987AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Monday, January 26, 1987 - 7:30 p.m. Mayor: Arve A. Grimsmo Council Members: Fran Fair, Bill Fair, warren Smith, Dan Blonigen 1. Call to Order. 2. Approval of Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held January 12, 1987. 3. Citizens Comments/Petitions, Requests and Complaints. Public Hearings 6. A Public Hearing on a Proposal to Issue Commercial Development Current Refunding Bonds for Monticello Medical Facilities Company. 5. A Public Hearing on a Proposal to Anand the Finance Plan and Budget for Tax Increment District 45, Construction Five Addition. Old Business 6. Consideration of Adopting a Position of Zoning Administrator/Plannor. 7. Consideration of an Application for a Conditional Use Permit to Dispense Automotive Fuel Incidental to a Principal Use. B. Consideration of Authorizing Final Payment on City Hall Ceiling Resurfacing. New Business 5 E Alla Ii; C 6,-e Q 9. Status Report, PSG. 10. Consideration of Bilis for the Month of January. 11. Adjourn. V MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELbO CITY COUNCIL Monday, January 12, 1987 - 7:30 p.m. Members Present: Arve Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Bill Fair, warren Smith, Dan Blonigen. Members Absent: None. 1. Oath of Office. Administrator Eidem gave the Oath of Office to the newly elected Councilmember warren Smith and re-elected Councilmember Fran Fair, and Mayor Arve Grimsmo. 3. Approval of Minutes. Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Blonigen, to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held December B. 1986, and the special meeting held December 26, 1966. Voting in favor was everybody but Grimemo, who abstained due to absence from the special meeting. 5. Consideration of Authorizing City Staff and City Data Procosainq Consultant to Commence Negotiations with DMDI for the Purposes of Structuring a Contract for the Delivery of Systeme and Services. Me. Anne Carroll, the City's Computer Consultant, reviewed with the Council the current statue of the computer selection process. Me. Carroll noted that the City originally received ton proposals of which two vendors were selected for demonstrations, the two being NCR/Eden Systema and Data Management Design, Inc. After reviewing the demonstrations, it was the consultant and staff's opinion that Data Management Design was the vendor of first choice for the software system and the hardware system would be Wang, Inc. Ms. Carroll noted that the next stage of the selection process would be for the City to enter into negotiations with DMDI to iron out all details on exactly what software and hardware would be submitted under a contract. The initial proposal by DMDI would computerize all City departments and functions; and she noted that if the City Council did not wish to proceed with the entire City computerization at this time, a directive should be noted at this time before contract negotiations are commenced. Councilmember Blonigan Questioned whether any cost comparisons were done to determine if computerization versus manual was cost effective. Mr. Blonigon fait that possibly the City should be looking at implementing computerization of all departments over a period of time and phase A in segments as needed. Ms. Carroll noted that even if the City were to indicate intent to purchase all software packages offered by the Council Minutes - 1/12/87 vendor, the computerization would have to be a phase-in over a period of time ranging from months to years to enable the staff to become familiar with the computers. The contract negotiations would cover such aspects as determining which functions would be implemented immediately and which areas would be phased in later. The proposal as submitted for all equipment and software was in the neighborhood of $102,000. After further discussion, motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Fran Fair, and unanimously carried to authorize the consultant and staff to enter into contract negotiations with DMDI based upon the proposal submitted. 6. Consideration of a Request from the Monticello Fire Department to Purchase Paging Devices. Recently, the Monticello Fire Department joined the Minnesota Fire Agencies Joint Powers Purchasing Consortium which allows the Fire Department to purchase various items at group contract prices, including radio equipment. Fire Chief Willard Farnick was present at the Council meeting to request authorization to purchase 28 new Motorola pagers for the fir emen. The pagers, along with carrying cases and chargers, would total 511,481. Mr. Farnick noted that the current pagers owned by the Fire Department would be advertised for sale at an estimated value of 51,500. It was noted that funds are still available from the fire hall construction fund to cover the cost of the new pagers. Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously carried to authorize the Fire Department to purchase 28 Motorola pagers and related equipment, including carrying cases, chargers, and one encoder at a cost of $11,481. Consideration of a Request by the Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority to Set a Public Hearing for January 26 for the Purpose of Amending the Tax Increment Finance Plan for Tax Increment District e5. In March of 1985, the City Council approved a Tax Increment Finance Plan for Construction 5, Inc., which covered Outlet A; Block 1, Lots 1-5; and Block 2, Lot 1, Construction Five Addition. The initial financing plan created District e5 for the purpose of capturing tax incramonte to help defray the coat of public improvements such as street, curb and gutter, and ■ower and wator improvements along Fallon Avenue and Lauring Lane extension. The original financing plan indicated that Construction 5 would construct an IB -unit apartment dwelling on Block 2, and a 25,000 eq ft office/manufacturing facility. Construction 5 ha■ recently approached the City in regards to constructing two additional multiple family apartment buildings in 1987 totaling 54 unite rather than the office/manufacturing facility originally planned upon. In addition, it was noted that the public improvement -2- LN Council Minutes - 1/12/87 costa have increased from 5390,000 in 1985 to an estimated $530,000 in 1987. Of this $530,000 improvement cost, approximately $105,000 may be assessable to benefiting property. Due to the new proposed development and project cost of the improvements, a new public hearing was necessary to amend the Tax Increment Financing Plan. Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Warren Smith, and unanimously carried to set a public hearing for January 26, 1987, for the purpose of amending Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment District 05. See Resolution 87-1. Consideration of Establishing 1987 Salary for the Monticello Senior Citizen Director. During December when 1987 non-union salaries were ratified by the City Council, the Senior Citizen Center Director's salary was tabled for further discussion, as therewere conflicting points of view as to the status of that position. It was previously understood that the position of Senior Citizen Center Director was a half time position and not considered a full-time employee. A problem arose in that under the comparable worth law, if this position was considered full time, a sizable pay increase would have to be approved to bring the salary in line with the comparable worth law. Mayor Orimsmo briefly reviewed the position and the current Director's performance and recommended that the City consider the Senior Citizen Director a full-time position and raise the salary accordingly over the next two years. The Mayor's recommendation would increase Karen Hanson's salary $3,000 in 1987 and $3,000 in 1988, putting the position at S20,400 at that time. Councilmember Bill Fair indicated concern over the City's responsibility for this position and questioned how the position actually came about and became the responsibility of the City rather than the Senior Citizen Center Board or the Cantor itself. Mr. Fair noted that if it is to be considered another City department with a department head, the Council should have a job description which indicates who the Director reports to, etc. Couneilmomber Fran Fair indicated her uncertainty over whether the City ever intended the Senior Citizen Cantor to become a branch or department of the City government and noted that previous Councils over the poet ton years have indicated the job was part-time for salary purposes. Councilmombor Dan Blonigen indicated the same concerns as Fran Fair and noted that the original Senior Citizen Center started with a Director on their own and then when funding ceased, requests were made of the City to subsidize some of their activities. Mr. Blonigen noted that as the years wont on, it appears that the City has continually increased its funding and now may and up with a now department and fools the position should be ra-evaluatod. -3- Council Minutes - 1/12/87 Administrator Eidem noted that the Council's main determination at this time is whether the City considers the position full-time or part-time and not necessarily the performance of the current Director. Councilmember Bill Fair requested that additional information on the exact duties of the position and a more detailed job description should be available before determining whether the job is actually full-time or part-time. As a result, it was the consensus of the Council to table any action on the salary adjustment for the Senior Citizen Director until the next meeting. 9. Consideration of Approving the Relocation of the Intersection of County Road 39, County Road 75, and County Road 118, and Appurtenant Construction. For the past few months, Wright County, with participation from the City, has been discussing the reconstruction of the intersection at County Road 39, County Road 75, and County Road 118, to provide a eater flow of traffic and to provide for future installation of traffic signals. The preliminary costs of the improvements were estimated at $87,000, with the City's share being $33,500. In November 1986, the Council authorized the City's participation in this project; but since that time, the affected abutting property owners, along with County and City representatives, have been reviewing the intersection to see if a relocation of the entire intersection easterly would provide a better solution. The main reason for the proposed shifting of the intersection east approximately 320 feet would be to provide for County Road 118 to intersect with County Road 75 at a 90 degree angle. This relocation would allow a left turn into the Riverroad Plaza development from County Road 75, whereas if the intersection was to remain at its present location, a concrete median would prohibit such access. The relocation would also provide for a developable piece of property between the Riverroad Plaza and the now County Road 39. As part of the re -alignment and relocation of the intersection, a frontage road would be developed using the existing County Road 39 surface for the MacArlund Plaza Townhouse and Riverroad Plaza. John Simola, Public Works Director, noted that the relocation cost would be $107,530, with the City's share of this portion being $43,970. In addition, the relocation would require additional right-of-way acquisition, and the City's coat for this portion would be an additional 542,900. Mr. Simola noted that Wright County has approved paving the shoulders along County Road 39 from County Road 75 all the way to County Road 19, just north of Albertville. The County's funding policy requires the City to pay for all shoulder improvements within the City limits, which would account for 1.3 miles estimated at an additional $15,000. Also, the County Board approved the project with another condition that if the City of Monticello annexes any area within the OAA where County Road 39 extends prior to the project being finished, they would expect the City of Monticello to pick up an additional 920,000 for the shoulder improvements since the area would be in the City at that time. As a result, the total cost -4- Council Minutes - 1/12/87 to the City for all proposed improvements could vary from approximately S101,870 to $121,870. Anna Mae Hoglund, representing Riverroad Plaza development, noted that they have not yet entirely concurred with the County's plans to relocate the intersection and are currently having an appraisal done on their property to see if there would be any effect to its value. In light of the County's recent approval of the project, motion was made by 8111 Fair, seconded by Fran Fair, and unanimously carried to accept the revised cost estimates for County Road 75 and agree to participate 50% to the relocation of County Roads 39 and 118, with the total City share of this portion estimated at $86,870. In addition, the motion approved the installation of paved shoulders on County Road 39 within the current city limits estimated at $15,000, and will assume the possibility of an additional $20,000 for shoulder paving in the OAA area if the City annexed this property prior to the improvements being completed. 10. Consideration of a Procedure to Resolve Cost Conflict Connected with the 1977-3 Force Main Construction. Earlier in 1986, the City staff discovered major problems with the force main installed during the 77-3 project on Elm and Fourth Streets. it appears that the force main was never drained of water after initial if testing, and consequently froze and damaged resulting in repairs coating the City over $29,852. It has been the City's contention that either the contractor at that time or the City Engineer should be responsible for the cost of repairs. City Engineer, John Badalich, indicated that his firm would be willing to share in the responsibility for the failure of the force main at a coat of approximately S10,000 but felt the construction contractor, Arcon Construction of Mora, Minnesota, should also be responsible for the remainder of the cost. The City Attorney was contacted regarding the possible actions available to the City, and it was recommended by the Attorney that action be taken against necessary parties to try and recover the damages in the amount of S29,852. Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Fran Fair, and unanimously carried to authorize the City Attorney to pursue legal recourses to recover damages; and if no agreement can be reached between the parties, the Attorney is authorized to bring suit if necessary. 11. Consideration of Resolving a Conflict Concerning the Differential In the Sewer Sludge Truck. As part of the wastewater Treatment Plant upgrading, which was funded primarily by the EPA and PCA, the City of Monticello prepared specification• -5- v Council Minutes - 1/12/67 for two sludge trucks to be delivered as part of the construction con tract. One of the units is a 2,000 gallon applicator unit that is an off-road vehicle which required a heavy duty rear axle. The specifications drawn by the engineer had specified a 28,000 pound planetary rear axle. The supplier had agreed to furnish a planetary double reduction axle rated at 35,000 pounds, which the truck manufacturer had agreed to install at their factory. Recently, the rear axle failed in this unit, and it was determined that somewhere along the line the City did not receive the axle it had specified and paid for. In reviewing the matter with the City Attorney, it was his recommendation that because of legal action being necessary against three or four companies and manufacturers in three states, the City may have difficulty in recovering its cost of a new axle estimated at $14,000 to $18,000. It was the Attorney's opinion that the City could sustain substantial legal fees in trying to recapture this amount. Public Works Director, John Simola, noted that a new axle meeting the proper specifications could be purchased from Ag -Chem Equipment Company for $13,300 plus an estimated installation coat locally of 51,000 to $2,000. After further discussion on the legal alternatives, motion was made by Warren Smith, seconded by sill Fair, and unanimously carried to �I authorize the purchase of the planetary rear axle from Ag -Cham for `4. approximately $13,300 plus installation cost and not to pursue any legal action at this time against the suppliers of the original equipment. 12. Consideration, Discussion, and Response to a Latter Submitted by Stuart Hoglund Concerning a Latter and Drainage Recommendation from OSM. Council members discussed a letter received from Stuart Hoglund who felt that an engineering review of a proposed development on a parcol of land he was selling was unfair. Mr. Hoglund had entered into a purchase agreement to sell a parcel of land south of the Silver Fox Motel to Lionel Kull and Steve upgron, who planned to develop the property Into an apartment complex. A concept plan was prepared by the developers and submitted to the consulting City Engineer for his review and comments regarding drainage and utility requirements for the 8 -acro site. The City Engineer, in reviewing the proposed development, noted that the proposed surface drainage from the development was proposed to run off into Cedar Street, and from there the City Engineer noted that there was no existing storm sewar available for this water to drain into. The City Engineer recommended that possibly an on-site temporary storage pond would have to be developed to hold any store water runoff and that the City may have to consider in the near future the acquisition of a wetland area that could be used for ponding and holding purposes in light of future development in the area. _6- Council Minutes - 1/12/67 It was also noted by the City Engineer that the elevation of the proposed development was 25 feet lower than the grade of Cedar Street, and it was recommended that the entire parcel may have to be raised to an elevation above Cedar Street to provide for adequate drainage. As a result of the engineering review of the proposed development, the developers had decided at this time not to pursue the purchase of the property, and the current owner, Stuart Hoglund, felt the City was unfair in its review process. The Council reviewed the letter and noted that the City staff and consultants are only trying to prevent problems from arising in the future as development occurs And indicated that it is the developer's responsibility to submit proposals that meet City requirements. In addition, the Council did take under advisement the City Engineer's recommendation that a drainage pond or wetland area be possibly acquired in the future to take care of storm water runoff in the immediate area when future development occurs. It was also noted that the acquisition cost of such a project could be financed with area assessments against benefiting property that would drain into such a pond. 13. Consideration of Entering a 1987 Maintenance Agreement with :fright County Highway Department. Annually, the City of Monticello enters into an agreement with Wright County, who reimburses the City of Monticello each year for such services as snow and ice removal and limited patch and crack sealing that the City crews do on County State Aid Highways within the city limits. Reimbursements to the City are based on a per mile cost for each type of maintenance performed and has averaged between 54,265 and S5,433 annually the past four years. Motion was made by Blonigen, seconded by Smith, and unanimously carried to approve entering into a now maintenance agreement with Wright County on state aid roads for the year 1987. 14. Consideration of Adopting the 1987 Sewer Rate Schedule. Public Works Director, John Simola, reviewed with the Council the 1987 budget for the operation and maintenance of the Wastewater Treatment Plant and collection system. It was estimated that using the current rate structure in effect for sewer billings, a shortfall of approximately S8,000 would exist in 1987. As a result, a small increase estimated at approximately 3.1 percent was requested in the rate structure to make the fund melt sufficient. The residential sever billing would increase from $1.29 par 100 cu ft to $1.33 per 100 cu ft, and adjustments were also made in the industrial rate structure. Along with the recommended increase in the sower rates, the current collection of sewer hookup fees would be maintained in a separate sower improvement fund to be used for major improvements or equipment purchases coating more than $2,000. -7_ U Council Minutes - 1/12/87 Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously carried to approve the rate increase as proposed and to authorize the hookup revenue to be transferred to a sewer improvement fund in 1987. 15. Consideration of Adopting the 1987 water Rate Schedule. Mr. Simola also reviewed with the Council the 1987 water department budget and noted that during the past number of years, ad valorem taxes have been used to subsidize the water rates, and he noted that ad valorem taxes were not included in the 1987 budget; and as a result, increases were proposed in the water rate schedule. In reviewing the rates of surrounding communities, the City of Monticello has had one of the lowest water rate schedules in existence. It was recommended that the base rate for water consumption be increased from the current 354 per 100 Cu ft to 504 per 100 cu ft. In addition, the rate for consumption over 4,000 cu ft was recommended to go to 304 per 100 from 184, and the amount over 75,000 cu ft for large users was recommended from $.185 to 5.20. The proposed increases would raise the base rate about 42.9 percent, while the bottom scale increases over 90 percent. Even with the new proposed water rates. Monticello would still be competitive and lover than surrounding communities for water. As a result, a motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Dan Blonigen, and unanimously carried to approve the new rate structure for water for 1987 with a descending scale of 504 per 100 cu ft as the base rate, 304 per 100 over 4,000 cu ft, and 204 per 100 over 75,000 cu ft with all hookup fees being transferred to a water improvement fund similar to the sewer fund. 16. Consideration of Adopting a Revised Schedule of Fees for Services Rendered within the City. Annually, the City Council reviews all license fees, permits, and other fees that are charged for services rendered by the City. Minor increases in the licensee for alcohol were recommended, and the fees charged for variances, conditional uses, and subdivision applications ware recommended to be increased to cover the staff and consulting time spent. In addition, it was recommended that a new building permit foe schedule be adopted, that being the 1985 State recommended fee schedule, which also includes a plan review charge for all residential atructures. Sewer and water hookup charges were also increased substantially to more closely reflect the charges of surrounding communities. Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Dan Blonigen, and unanimously carried to approve the adoption of the 1987 license and permit fee schedule as recommended, including the 1985 State Building Permit Schedule. Bee Exhibit 11. -8- Council Minutes - 1/12/87 17. Consideration of Making Annual Appointments. Motion was made by Blonigen, seconded by Bill Fair, and unanimously carried to approve the annual appointments as follows: Official Depositories: Newspaper: Housing and Redevelopment Authority: (5 -year staggered terms) Planning Commission: (1 -year term) Wright County State Bank Security Federal Savings 6 Loan First National Bank of Monticello Monticello Times Ken Maus 12/91 Ben Smith 12/90 Bud Schrupp 12/89 Vacant 12/88 Marlys Erickson 12/87 Richard Carlson Joyce Dowling Barbara Koropchak Joint Commissions: Richard Martie Jim Ridgeway Warren Smith Health Officer: Dr. Donald Maus (1 year) Acting Mayor: Fran Fair (/ year) Joint Commissions: Community Education Warren Smith Fire Board Rick Wolfetsller OAA Arve Grimsmo Library Board: Warren Smith 12/87 (3 -year staggered) Dr. Donald Maus 12/88 Joel Erickson 12/87 Pat Schwarz 12/88 Marguerite Pringle 12/89 Attorney: Smith. Pringle and Hayes Planner: Dahlgren, Shardlow 6 Uban Auditor: Gruys Johnson The Council noted that the one HRA vacancy will be left open at the present time until an applicant can be found. C -9- 0 Council Minutes - 1/12/87 18. Consideration of Selecting a Name to Submit to the Minnesota NBA Basketball Association Stating the City of Monticello's Preference for an NBA Franchise Name. A letter was received from a group of individuals who have been seeking an NBA franchise for Minnesota basketball. The letter requested input from the City Council on the name of the team from two choices, I) Minnesota Polars, or 2) Minnesota Timber Wolves. The City Administrator was instructed to notify the representatives that three Council members preferred the name Polars, with one preference for Timber Wolves, and one abstaining. 19. Consideration of the Purchase of Two Air Compressors, One Each for the Maintenance Building and Fire Hall. Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Warren Smith, and unanimously carried to authorize the Public Works Department and the Fire Department to purchase 5 HP, 80 gallon, 17 CPM air compressors per bid submitted by National Bushing in the amount of $1,485. It was noted that if Harry's Auto Supply would deliver the identical air compressor for the same price, the Public Works Director was instructed to purchase one from each supplier. 20. Approval of Bills. Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Warren Smith, and unanimously carried to approve the bills for the month of December and January as submitted. r Rick Wolfateller Assistant Administrator C -10- l10 Council Agenda - 1/26/87 �a d. A Public Hearing on a Proposal to Issue Commercial Development Current Refundinq Bonds for Monticello Medical Facilities Company. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Near the end of December I was contacted by attorneys at Larkin Hoffman Daly S Lindgren to consider the refunding of the Industrial Revenue Bonds that were issued for the Medical Facilities project back in 1981. As with nny Development Revenue Bonds, a public hearing is required and an inducement resolution is also required. when I was contacted by the parties involved. I informed them that they should immediately contact Holmes 6 Graven, City's Bond Counsel, and Springeted, our Finance Consultants. I indicated to the company's attorneys that I saw no difficulty with the refunding proposal, I simply wanted to make sure our consulting firma gave the project their okay. Both Holmes B Graven and Springeted have no difficulty with the proposal. In 1981, the original bonds were sold in the amount of $1,300,000 at an average coupon rate of 14.84 percent. The refunding issue proposes to sell $1,125,000 at an estimated average coupon rate of 8.43 percent, a savings of over 6 percent interest. By success/failure standards, this is a fairly old bond issue, having been put out in 1981. Clearly, the medical. clinic is a successful going concern. It is extremely remote that the refunding would cast any shadows on either the medical facilities or the City's credit rating. Like an original issue, the proposers would anticipate returning to the City Council for resolution of final approval sometime in March. one concern has, however, arisen. Thera is apparently some uncloar language in the now Federal Tax Reform Act which may postpone the March action. If that is, in fact, the case, it will simply delay the final resolution until late summer, but will have no other bearing on the proposal or the City'e position. At the close of the public hearing, the resolution giving preliminary approval should be offered up by motion and adopted. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Adopt the resolution granting preliminary approval --Thio will allow the Medical Facilities Company to proceed in document preparation and bond bids in order to refinance at a substantially lower interest rate. 2. Do not adopt the resolution --This will keep the Medical Facilities bonds intact and require them to retire the debt under the Lerma of the original issue. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: C Staff recommends that the resolution granting preliminary approval be adopted. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 1987 - RESOLUTION GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO THE ISSUANCE OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT CURRENT REFUNDING BONDS UNDER THE MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT AND AUTHORIZING PREPARATION OF THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE ISSUA14CE OF THE BONDS. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (this Council) of the City of Monticello, Minnesota (the City), as follows: SECTION 1. RECITALS AND FINDINGS 1.1) On April 27, 1981, the City held a public hearing on a proposal presented to it that the City undertake and finance *project pursuant to the Municipal Industrial Development Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474, as amended (the Act) consisting of the acquisition of fifty thousand (50,000) square feet of land located in the City and the construction thereon and equipping of a twenty thousand (20,000) square foot medical clinic building and related facilities (the Project). The street address of the Project is 1107 Hart Boulevard in the City. The public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held, and all interested parties were afforded an opportunity to be heard. 1.2) The Commissioner of Securities and Real Estate of the State of Minnesota (predecessor to the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development), approved the Project pursuant to a letter addressed to the Mayor of the City, dated May 12, 1981. 1.3) On December 14, 1981, the City adopted Resolution No. 1981-34, which authorized the sale and issuance of the $1,300,000 City of Monticello, Minnesota, Commercial Development Revenue Bonds (Medical Facilities Company Project) Series 1981 (the Original Bonds) to aid in financing the cost of acquiring and constructing the Project. The Original Bonds were issued by the City on December 16, 1981. 1.4) The Project has noir been completed substantially as contemplated in the documents authorizing the issuance of the Original Bonds. The proceeds of the Original Bonds have been expended for costs of the Project, with the exception of $150,000 held in the Reserve Fund created by the Original Indenture (as hereinafter defined). 0 1.5) The Indenture of Trust executed with respect to the Original Bonds, dated as of December 1, 1981, between the City and First Trust Company of Saint Paul, as trustee (the original Indenture) provides for optional redemption of the Original Bonds, at the direction of the Company, on each June 1 and December 1 beginning June 1, 1987, and ending on December 1, 2005. 1.6) The Project is owned by Medical Facilities Company, a Minnesota partnership (the Company). The Company was the developer of the Project and is the entity responsible for repaying the principal, premium, and interest on the Original Bonds. The Company has determined to exercise its option to redeem the Original Bonds in order to reduce the outstanding amount of bonds issued to assist in financing the Project and to realize savings on debt service due to lower interest rates now available, and to provide for the payment of the redemption price of said Original Bonds by requesting that the City issue and sell its commercial development current refunding revenue bonds (the Bonds), the proceeds of which will be used to pay and refund the Original Bonds and to pay part of the costs of issuance of the Bonds. The proceeds of the Bonds will be loaned by the City to the Company, and the Company will agree to make payments sufficient to pay the principal, premium (if any), and interest on the Bonds, all pursuant to the terms of a Mortgage Loan Agreement (the Loan Agreement) to be executed between the City and the Company. 1.7) At a public hearing duly called, noticed, and held on January 26, 1987, in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the Code), all parties desiring to appear were afforded an opportunity to be heard. Based on such public hearing, and on such other facto and circumstances as this Council deems relevant and on information provided to this Council by representatives of the Company, this Council hereby finds, determines, and declares as follows: (01) Issuance of the Bonds by the City will result in a reduction of the amount of outstanding bonds issued to assist in financing the Project and will result in a reduction of the debt service due to lower interest rates now available; (02) The Reserve Fund of the Original Bonds will be used to redeem a portion of the Original Bonds and no reserve fund will be required for the Bonds; and (03) The City is authorized by Section 474.03, Subd. 12, of the Act to issue revenue bonds to refund, in whole or in part, bonds previously issued by the City. 1 1.8) The Bonds will be issued and sold in accordance with the Act and will provide that the Bonds are payable solely from amounts received by the City pursuant to the Loan Agreement and j other property pledged to their payment. The Bonds will not be a general obligation of the City or be payable from any other property or funds of the City. 1.9) Neither the State of Minnesota nor any political subdivision thereof (other than the City, and then only to the extent of the trust estate pledged in the Indenture of Trust executed with respect to the Bonds) shall be liable on the Bonds, and the Bonds shall not be a debt of the State of Minnesota or any political subdivision thereof (other than the City, and then only to the extent of the trust estate pledged in the Indenture of Trust executed with respect to the Bonds), and in any event, shall not give rise to a charge against the credit or taxing power of the City, the State of Minnesota, or any political subdivision thereof. SECTION 2. PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE BONDS; DEED APPROVAL 2.1) This Council hereby ratifies and approves the calling of the public hearing on the proposal held on January 26, 1987, at 7:30 o'clock P.M. at the City Hall, and the publication of the notice of the public hearing in the Monticello Times, the official newspaper of and a newspaper of general circulation in, the City, at least once not less than fifteen (15) nor more than thirty (30) days prior to the date fixed for the public hearing. 2.2) On the basis of information provided to this Council, it appears that it would be in the best interest of the City to issue the Bonds in accordance with the Act in an amount not to exceed One Million One Hundred Twenty-five Thousand Dollars ($1 125,000), in order to pay and refund the Original Bonds and to pay a portion of the costs of issuance of the Bonds. 2.3) The Bonds shall not constitute a charge, lien, or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property or funds of the City, except the Project and the revenue and proceeds pledged to the payment thereof, nor shall the City be subject to any liability thereon. No holder of the Bonds shall have the right to compel any exercise of the taxing power of the City to pay the outstanding principal of or interest on the Bonds, or to enforce payment thereof against any property of the City except the Project. Each Bond shall recite on its face that the principal of and interest on such Bond is payable solely from the revenue and proceeds pledged to the payment thereof. The Bonds shall not constitute a debt of the City within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation. 2.4) Larkin, Hoffman, Daly 6 Lindgren, Ltd., acting as l bond counsel, is authorized to assist in the preparation and 3. U reviewof all documents relating to the Bonds; to consult with { the City Attorney, the Company, and the purchasers of the Bonds as to the maturity, interest rate, and other terms and provisions of the Bonds and as to the covenants and other provisions of the operative documents; and to submit such documents to this Council for final approval. C4 2.5) The City shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to withdraw from participation, and accordingly not issue the Bonds, should the City at any time prior to the issuance thereof determine that it is in the best interest of the City not to issue the Bonds or should the parties to the transaction be unable to reach agreement as to the terms and conditions of any of the documents required for the transaction. The decision of this Council with respect to any of the aforementioned matters shall be incontestable. 2.6) This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage. Adopted by the City Council January 26, 1987. ATTEST: Mayor City Administrator Action on the above Resolution: Motion for Adoption: Seconded by: Voted in Favor: Voted Against: Abstained: Absent: Resolution adopted. C. SOR:DC8 (!D C C STATE OF MINNESOTA ) } COUNTY OF WRIGHT ) } CITY OF MONTICELLO ) I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting City Administrator of the City of Monticello, Minnesota, or an appropriate official of said City authorized to execute documents on behalf of said City Administrator, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that I have compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes with the original thereof on file in my office, and that the same is a full, true, and complete transcript of the minutes of a meeting of the City Council of said City duly called and held and the date therein indicated insofar as such minutes relate to the preliminary authorization of the issuance of the City's commercial development current refunding revenue bonds issued to pay and refund the City's $1,300,000 Commercial Development Revenue Bonds (Medical Facilities Company Project) Series 1981. WITNESS my hand and seal this day of January, 1987. (seal) City Administrator SOK: DCO 04/ Council Agenda - 1/26/87 5. A Public Hearing on a Proposal to Amend the Finance Plan and Budget r for Tax Increment District q5, Construction Five Addition. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The original Tax Increment Plan for the Construction Five Addition contained a proposal to erect an 18 -unit apartment building (now completed) and a 25,000 eq ft office/warehouse. The estimated tax increment generated by these two structures would have been enough to finance a 5390,000 bond to allow for public improvements, viz., sanitary sewer, water, storm sewer, and streets with curb and gutter. Gus LaFromboise is now proposing, and has received approval from the City Council for, a 24 -unit and a 30 -unit apartment building. The tax increment projected from these two multiple housing structures is sufficient enough to pay for a $690,000 construction project. The bond issue, including capitalized interest, is projected to be $530,000. The term of the issue is expected to be 20 years, and the interest rate is expected to be 6.5 percent. When the proposed now structures are fully complete and fully assessed, the City anticipates receiving a tax increment on all throe structures of $53,700. The proposal as it is currently formulated would allow for full and complete payment of the debt through tax increment alone. It is, however, staff's opinion that the water and sanitary sewer should carry soma assessment against the Rand Mansion property and the Malone property. Clearly, the entire cost of those projects cannot be assessed e against only two property owners, but we foal that a reasonable value for the services supplied needs to be astablishod and assessed against the property owners. 1 don't find any reasonable justification that those two properties should receive totally free services just because Construction 5 is building their apartment houses. Assessment income is, however, expected to be minimal. Because the assessments will be minimal, we do not anticipate being able to assess 20 percent of the project coat. Consequently, we will not issue bonds under Minnesota Chapter 429. Rather, we would like to approach the owners of the two parcels to negotiate individual payment contracts for the improvements to Choir property. with that occurring, we could than issue Tax Increment G.O. Bonds for the project. The public improvements proposed aro as follows: sanitary sower will be extended along Lauring Lane from Washington to Fallon and down Fallon Avenue to servo both Malone'e and the Rand property; water will be extended along Lauring Lane from Washington to Fallon and will be looped around Fallon; street construction will include part urban and part rural design extending Lauring lana from Washington to Fallon and the construction of the now Fallon Avenue; storm sower will be installed where needed along Washington. Fallon, and Lauring. Curb and gutter will be installed around the City park and down Fallon Avenue and on the parimetar of Block 2. As part of the project, wearo evaluating whether or not to place curbing down the wast side l of Washington 8trsat so that we have a cooaplate urban street at that paint as part of this job. Thera are a number of options for scaling -2- Council Agenda - 1/26/87 1 down or reducing the size of the project by eliminating certain aspects. From the staff perspective, since the tax increment appears to be enough to retire the debt, we are supporting the concept of doing the full job now rather than potentially having to return at a later data to complete parts of the project at greater expense. As part of the Tax Increment Finance law, if the Finance Plan and/or budget for the district is changed, a public hearing is required. This is the hearing you are currently conducting as requested by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. The HRA has already approved and adopted the amended budget and finance plan. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Council should adopt a resolution authorizing the amendment to the plan and the certification to the County Auditor. On Monday morning of the 26th, I will be meeting in St. Paul with representatives of Holmes 6 Graven, Springeted, and Construction 5 to work out the final details. we have been unable to moat prior to Monday because Gus LaFromboiso has been out of town. If all goes well and the project appears to have everything in order. I may very wall be bringing along an additional resolution from Springsted to initiato the bond action. Construction 5 would like to begin construction this spring in order to begin rent up of the units by August. In order to do this, he must be absolutely assured that he will have sewer and water and streets by August. For that reason, we are trying to prepare the bond sale and the development agreement concurrently. Also to expedite the development, the Council may be requested to authorize the preparation of final plane and apec's and order an advertisement for bide on the project. This project was originally scheduled to occur in 1986, but because of the length of time it takes to do a tax increment project, Gus very cooperatively said he was willing to take the fall and winter months to got it all worked out so that we could begin construction in the spring without any undue rush. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Adopt a resolution amending the Finance Plan/budget for Tax Increment District Y5. 2. Do not adopt the resolution. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that a resolution be adopted amending the Finance Plan for District 15. The amendment will allow for the construction of the two apartment buildings and for the expanded construction of public improvements in the area with minimal assessments to affected properties. I hope by Monday night to have greater dotail resulting from the Monday morning meeting. It is conceivable that you will have a resolution to amend the Finance Plan, a resolution authorising C Springsted to commence sale, and a resolution authorizing OSM to finalize plans and &pools and call for bids. 511 CD. SUPPORTING DATA: C Council Agenda - 1/26/87 Copy of the resolution needed for adoption; Copy of the Tax Increment Plan as amended. Any documentation generated by the Monday morning meeting will be presented at the Council meeting. -6- RESOLUTION 87- A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MODIFICATION OF AN EXISTING TAX INCREMENT FINANCING REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 273.71 TO 273.78 INCLUSIVE OF THE MINNESOTA STATUTES AND AMENDING THE FINANCING PLAN FOR SAID TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Monticello, Minnesota, has determined the need to modify the finance plan of an existing tax increment financing district pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.71 to 273.78 inclusive, within the redevelopment project modification area created pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 662.411 of sag.; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Monticello, Minnesota, found in 1982 that the tax increment financing district to be modified was an economic development district pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.73, Subdivision 12; and WHEREAS, the proposed modification to the finance plan will result in the preservation and enhancement of the tax baso of the City; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed modification of the tax increment financing district; and WHEREAS, the members of the School Board of Education of the Local Independent School District 0882 and the Board of Commissioners of the County of Wright have boon informed of the fiscal and economic implications of the proposed tax increment financing redevelopment district modification; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was hold on January 26, 1987, at 7:30 o'clock p.m. before the City Council in the Council Chambers in the City Hall, in Monticello. Minnesota, notice of which has been published once in the official newspaper for the City, not loss than tan, nor more than thirty days prior to January 26, 1987; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing all persons and parties were given full opportunity to present written or oral testimony, comments, objections, suggestions, and other matters, all of which were duly considered by the Council; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO that the City of Monticello does hereby modify the existing tax increment financing redevelopment district, and amend the financing plan for said modified tax increment financing oconomic development district and finds: (5) Resolution 87 - Page 2 i. That the tax increment financing district as modified herein is a tax increment financing redevelopment district since the construction of the 24 and 30 unit apartment structures will increase the assessed value and thus preserve and enhance the tax base of the City, and will allow the recovery and rehabilitation of blighted and unsuitable lands. 2. That the proposed redevelopment within the tax increment financing district as modified herein would not have reasonably been expected to occur solely through private investment because, in the opinion of the City, the cost associated with land reclamation and public improvements would be prohibitive. 3. That the Planning Commission has reviewed the tax increment financing pian as modified herein and it conforms to the general plan for the development of the municipality as a whole because it will result in an increase in the City -s commercial and housing activity. a. That the tax increment financing plan as modified herein will afford maximum opportunity consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development by private enterprise as it will enable the City to assist the developer with the construction of two multiple housing structures by providing a suitable site for development. The City Council of the City of wonticollo, Minnesota, does hereby approve the modification 01 to the Tax Increment District Y5 and financing plan. Adopted by the City Council this 26th day of January. 1487. Arve A. Crimamo. mayor Attest: Thomas A. Eidem City Administrator 05 THE MONTICELLO HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TAR INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN (Minnesota Statutes, Section 271.71 to 273.78) for THE CONSTRUCTION FIVE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL Date: March, 1885 Amonded January 26, 1987 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART R TAX INCREMENT REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FINANCE PLAN Section A. Statutory Authority 1 Section B. Statement of Objectives i Section C. Development Program 1 Section D. Description of Property in Tax Increment Financing District 2 Section E. Classification of the Tax Increment Financing District 2 Section F. Parcels in Acquisition 2 Section G. Estimate of Costs 3 Section H. Estimated Amount of Loan/Bonded Indebtedness 3 Section 1. Sources of Revenue 3 Section J. Original Assessed Value 4 Section K. Estimated Captured Assessed Value 4 Section L. Duration of the District 4 Section M. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions 5 Section N. Modifications of the Tax Increment Financing District 6 Section Q. Limitation on Administrative Expenses 6 Section P. Limitation on Duration of Tax Increment Financing Districts 7 Section Q. Limitation on Qualification of Property in Tax Increment District Not Subject to Improvement 7 Section R. Limitation on the Use of Tax Increment 7 Section S. Notification of Prior Planned Improvements 8 Section T. Excess Tax Increments 8 Section U. Requirement for Agreements with the Developer 8 Section V. Assessment Agreements 8 Section W. Administration of the Tax Increment Financing Redevelopment District and Maintenance of the Tax increment Account 9 Section X. Annual Disclosure Requirements 9 Section Y. Assumptions 10 Section Z. Municipal Findings 10 O 3 Tait Increment Redevelopment District Finance Plan A. Statutory Authority The Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "Authority") and the City of Monticello are authorized to establish a tax increment district pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.71-78. B. Statement of Objectives I. To provide opportunities for development and expansion of new business; 2. To provide employment opportunities through the creation of new jobs; 3. To provide opportunities for growth in the tax base; 4. To assist with street construction, sanitary sewer and watermain construction, storm sewer and other public improvements to encourage redevelopment in the area. 5. To encourage the development of additional rental housing in the City. C. Development Program 1. Description of the Development Activities: Construction Five (the "Developer") plans to construct an 18 -unit, a 24 -unit, and a 30 -unit apartment buildings. Appropriate coning standards in the City provide for these developments which will be located near the highway in an area that encompassea both light industrial and residential uses. The developer will be asaieted with public improvements to service the buildings with tax increment revenues. The 18 -unit building in expected to complete construction in 1985, and the 24 and 30 unit buildings will complete construction in 1987. 2. Other Development Not Under Contract Reasonably Expected to Occur In the Project: The development program may include a future 29.000 eq ft office building located in the tax increment redevelopment district. The geographical boundaries of the district are not expected to change due to this development. 11 D. Description of Property in the Tax Increment Financing District Based on discussions with the City Assessor, the replat to be filed for the tax increment district will be legally described as follows: Lot 1, Block 2, Outlot A, and Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, Block 3, Construction Five Addition, Monticello, Minnesota A map revealing the location of the parcels within the project is provided on the following page. E. Classification of the Tax increment Financing District The Monticello City Council and Housing and Redevelopment Authority in determining the need to create a tax increment financing district in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.71-78 inclusive, find that the district to be established is a redevelopment district pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.73, Subdivision 10(a)(3). Less than seventy percent of the parcels in the district are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, or other improvements, but due to unusual terrain or soil deficiencies requiring substantial filling, grading or other physical preparation for use at least 80 percent of the total acreage of such land has a fair market value upon inclusion in the redevelopment district which, when added to the estimated cost of preparing that land for development, excluding costs directly related to roads as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 160.01 and local Improvements as described in Sectio n M9.021, q Subdivision 1, clauses I to 7, 11 and 12, and Section 430.01, if any, exceeds its anticipated fair market value after completion of said preparation; provided that no parcel shall be included within a redevelopment district unless the authority has concluded an agreement or agreements for the development of at least 50 percent of the acreage having the unusual soil or terrain deficiencies, which agreement provides recourse for the authority should the development not be completed. Since, of the parcels proposed to be placed into a tax increment district, less than seventy percent are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities or other improvements, and the total acreage (80 percent or more) of the area hes a fair market value when added to the estimated cost of preparing the land for use exceeds its anticipated fair market value after completion of the preparations, excluding costs directly related to roads and local improvements, and a development agreement for at least 50 percent of the acreage having the unusual soil deficiencies and including recourse for the City should the development not be completed, will have been concluded, prior to bond sale, the area qualifies as a redevelopment district. The description of the parcels that have been used to establish eligibility as a redevelopment district are described below. 1 Lot 1, Block 2, Outlot A. and Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, Block .8. Construction Five Addition, Monticello, Minnesota F. Parcels In Acquisition No parcels are scheduled to be acquired by the City at the present time. 0 G. Estimate of Costs The estimate of public costs associated with the tax increment financing redevelopment district are outlined in the following line item budget. BUDGET Sanitary Sewer & Nater S 82,000 Street Construction 120,200 Storm Sewer 163,000 365,200 Contingency 5* 18,300 383,500 Eng. 7.5% 28,800 412,300 Eng. Field Work 10% 38,400 450,700 Legal, Admin., Public Works 41 15,300 466,000 Issuance Cost 15,000 461,000 Bond Discount 9,000 490,000 "Capitalized Int. (1 year) 40,000 8530,000 *The amount of capitalized interest will be equal to an amount sufficient to pay interest on the bonds from the date of issue until the date of collection of sufficient tax increment revenue to meet scheduled interest payments when due, but not exceeding 3 years as required by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475. Predicting capitalized interest prior to issuance is extremely difficult, as it in a function of interest rata*, tonstruetion schedules, and tax timing: therefore, the above figure In only an estimate of capitalized interest and In subject to change. H. Estimated Amount of Loan/0onded Indebtedness An estimate of the amount of bonded indebtedness is expected to be S$30,000. The term of the issue is 20 years and the interest rata is expected to be 6.5 percent. The amount of two and one-half to throe years capitalized interest is estimated to be 540,000. Debt service on the bond will be met through a combination of tax increment revenues, tax levies, and assessment income. 1. sources of Revenue The majority of the public coats are to be paid with tax Increment revenues in combination with a tax levy. The tax increment is generated as a result of the taxation of the land and improvements In the tax increment redevelopment district. Tax increment financing refers to a funding technique that utilizes increases in assessed valuation and the property taxes attributed to new development to finance or easier in the financing of public development Costs. The t8 -unit facility is expected to be fully assessed beginning in 1906 at which time the development will generate an annual tax increment of 313,350 collectible In 1907. The tax increment estimate for 1987 is based unon the assumption that the 18 -unit aeartment building is fully completed in 1985 and tally assessed on January 2, 1986. A partial assessment In 1986 will produce a partial tax increment payment in 1987. A like increment will be generated for collection in 1998. The 24 and 30 unit structures are expected to be fully completed In 1987, fully *&**used beginning in 1900, at which time they will generate an annual tax Increment of $17,600 and 622,760 respectively collectible in 1989. The combined r increment for the three structures is 653,700. J. Original Assessed Value Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.74, Subdivision 1 and Section 273.76, Subdivision 1, the Original Assessed Value (OAV) for the City of Monticello tax increment financing redevelopment district is based on the value placed on the property by the County Assessor in 1984. This assessed value is $13,960 based on the replat to be filed with the County. Each year the Office of the County Auditor will measure the amount of increase or decrease in the total assessed value of the tax increment redevelopment district to calculate the tax increment payable to the Monticello redevelopment district fund. In any year in which there is an increase in total assessed valuation in the tax increment redevelopment district above the adjusted original assessed value, a tax increment will be payable. In any year in which the total assessed valuation in the tax increment financing redevelopment district declines below the original assessed valuation, no assessed valuation will be captured and no tax increment will be payable. The County Auditor shall certify in each year after the date the Original Assessed Value was certified, the amount the OAV has increased or decreased as a result of: change in tax exempt status of property; 2. reduction or enlargement of the geographic boundaries of the district; 3. change due to stipulations, adjustments, negotiated or court-ordered abatements. K. Estimated Captured Assessed Value Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.74, Subdivision 1 and Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.76, Subdivision 2, the estimated Captured Assessed Value (CAV) of the tax increment financing redevelopment district will annually approximate $678,200. It is expected that the estimated 5678,200 will be captured as a result of the improvements to be constructed by Construction Five. This amount will be captured for up to twenty -live years or until the project debt in retired. The Authority requests 100 percent of the available increase in assessed value for repayment of debt and current expenditures. L. Duration of the District Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.75, Subdivision 1, the duration of the tax increment district within the Redevelopment Project must be indicated within the finance plan. The duration of the tax increment district will be 25 years from the date of receipt of the first tax increment. Thus, it Is estimated that the tax Increment district, including any modifications to the finance plan for subsequent phases or other changes, would terminate twenty-five years from the collection of the first tax increment. C Jt. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions The impact of the loss of tax dollars represented as tax increments is estimated below for each taxing jursidiction. This estimate is based on the existing redevelopment proposals and does not include the possible tax increments derived from any other future development, mill changes, or inflation factors. Total Assessed Value Tax Increment Finance District 1/2/84 Total $ 13,960 Latest Assessed Value of Each Government Body: % of District to Total Wright County $ 358,798,000 .00004 School District #882 101,128,478 .0001 City of Monticello 79,954,554 .0002 Other 115,919,820 .0001 Considering all the districts, it can be seen from the above that the school, city and county districts will have over 99% of each respective district � available for normal growth of tax base or valuation. Applying the percentage of the total mill rate in 1985 levied by each taxing jurisdiction to the projected mill rate and the estimated tax increment received reveals the annual loss of tax dollars by each taxing jurisdiction as listed in the table below assuming development would occur without public assistance. The finance plan Indicates we anticipate a tax increment at build out as follows: Captured Assessed Estimated Ta: Valuation Increment Received Tax Increment Finance District $306,670 $ 25,000 Based on the current mill rate, the estimated taxes received would be as follows for the taxing bodies: Mift Percent Tax increment City 18.874 23.2 S 5,803 County 19.719 24.2 6,063 School District 0882 39.714 48.9 12,212 Other 2.988 3.7 922 Total 81.305 100.0% $25,000 The following table represents the additional mills that would have to be levied to compensate for the loss of tax dollars In estimated tax Increments for each taxing jurisdiction. The tax increments derived from the manufacturing facility and housing alluded to in the tax increment district would not be available to any of the taxing jurisdictions were it not for public intervention by the Authority. Although the increases in assessed value due to development will not be available for the application of the mill levy for the duration of the tax increment financing district, this new assessed value could eventually permit a mill levy decrease. If it could be assumed that the captured assessed value was available for each taxing jurisdiction, the non -receipt of tax dollars represented as tax increments may be determined. This determination is facilitated by estimating how much the mill levy for property outside of the tax increment financing district would have to be increased to raise the same amount of tax dollars in each taxing jurisdiction that would be available if the projects occurred without the assistance of the Authority. Adjusted* Requited Tax Assessed Value Mills Increment School District 101,114,516 .121 f 12,212 County 358,784,040 .017 6,063 City 79,940,594 .073 5,803 'Tax Increment District assessed valuation subtracted. Modifications of the Tax Increment Financing District In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.74, Subdivision 4, any reduction or enlarge—m—en—F—oT t eTgeogrephic area of the project or tax increment financing district, increase in amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred, including a determination to capitalize Interest on debt if that determination was not a part of the original plan, or to increase or decrease the amount of interest on the debt to be capitalized, increase in the portion of the captured assessed value to be retained by the Authority, increase in total estimated tax Increment expenditures or designation of additional property to be acquired by the authority shall be approved upon the notice and after the discussion, public hearing and findings required for approval of the original plan. The geographic area of a tax Increment financing district may be reduced, but shaU not be enlarged after five years following the date of certification of the original assessed value by the county auditor. The tax increment financing redevelopment district may therefore be expanded until 1990. O. Limitation on Administrative Expenses In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.73, Subdivision 13 and Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.75, Subdivision 3, administrative expenses means aU expen3itures of an authority other than amounts paid for the purchase of land or amounts paid to contractors or others providing materials and services, including architectural and engineering services, directly connected with the physical development of the real property in the district, relocation benefits paid to or services provided for persons residing or businesses located in the district or amounts used to pay Interest on, fund a reserve for, or sell at a discount bonds issued pursuant to Section 273.77. Administrative expenses includes amounts paid for services provided by bond counsel, fiscal consultants, and planning or economic development consultants. No tax increment shall be used to pay any administrative expenses for a project which exceed ten percent of the total tax increment expenditures authorized by the tax increment financing plan or the total tax increment expenditures for the project, whichever is less. Limitation on Duration of Tax Increment Financing Districts Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.75, Subdivision 1, "no tax increment shall be paid to an authority three years from the date of certification by the County Auditor unless within the three-year period (1) bonds have been issued pursuant to Section 273.77 or in aid of a project pursuant to any other law, except revenue bonds issued pursuant to Chapter 474, prior to the effective date of the Act; or (2) the authority has acquired property within the district; or (3) the authority has constructed or caused to be constructed public improvements within the district ... " The City or Authority must therefore issue bonds, or acquire property, or construct or cause public improvements to be constructed by 1988 or the Office of the County Auditor may dissolve the tax increment financing district. Q. Limitation on Qualification of Property in Tax Increment District Not Subject to Improvement Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 273.75, Subdivision 6, "if, after four years from the d� certification of the original assessed value of the tax increment financing district ..., no demolition, rehabilitation or renovation of a parcel or other site preparation including improvement of a street adjacent to a property but not installation of utility service including sewer or water systems, has been commenced on a parcel located within a tax increment financing district by the authority or by the owner of the parcel in accordance with the tax Increment financing plan, no additional tax increment may be taken from that parcel and the original assessed value of that parcel shall be excluded from the original assessed value of the tax Increment financing district. If the authority or the owner of the parcel subsequently commences demolition, rehabilitation or renovation or other site preparation on that parcel Including improvement of a street adjacent to that parcel, in accordance with the tax increment financing plan, the authority shall certify to the county auditor in the annual disclosure report that the activity has commenced. The county auditor shall certify the assessed value thereof as most recently certified by the commissioner of revenue and add it to the original assessed value of the tax increment financing district. R. Limitation on the Use of Tax Increment AU revenues derived from tax Increment shall be used in accordance with the tax increment financing plan. The revenues shall be used to finance or otherwise pay public redevelopment costs pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 472A. These revenues shall not be used to circumvent existmglevy limit law. No revenues derived from lax increment shall be used for the construction or renovation of a municipally owned building used primarily j end regularly for conducting the business of the municipality; this provision l shall not prohibit the use of revenues derived from tax Increments for the rO construction or renovation of a parking structure, a commons area used as a public park or a facility used for social, recreational or conference purposes and not primarily for conducting the business of the municipality. S. Notification of Prior Planned Improvements Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 273.76, Subdivision 4, the Authority has reviewed and searched the properties to be included in the tax increment financing redevelopment district and found no properties for which building permits have been issued during the 18 months immediately preceding approval of the tax increment financing plan by the city. If the building permit had been issued within the 18 month period preceding approval of the tax increment financing plan by the city, the county auditor shall increase the original assessed value of the district by the assessed valuation of the improvements for which the building permit was issued, excluding the assessed valuation of improvements for which a building permit was issued during the three month period immediately preceding said approval of the tax increment financing plan, as certified by the assessor. T. Excess Tax Increments Pursuant to !Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.75, Subdivision 2, in any year in which the tax increment exceeds the amount necessary to pay the costs authorized by the tax increment plan, including the amount necessary to cancel any tax levy as provided in Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.61, Subdivision 3, the Authority shall use the excess amount to: 1. prepay the outstanding bonds; 2. discharge the pledge of tax increment therefore; 3. pay into an escrow account dedicated to the payment of such bond; 4. repay any loans including interest on these loans; or 5. return the excess to the County Auditor for redistribution to the respective taxing jurisdictions in proportion to their mill rote. U. Requirement for Agreements with the Developer Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 273.75, Subdivision 5, no more that 25 percent by acreage oche property to be acquired by the Authority within a project which contains a in the redevelopment district shall be owned by the Authority as a result of acquisition with the proceeds of bonds Issued pursuant to Section 273.77 without the Authority having prior to acquisition in excess of 25 percent of the acreage, concluded an agreement for the development of the property acquired and which provides recourse for the Authority should the development not be completed. See Section E for the development agreement requirement due to soil deficiencies. V. Assessment Agreements Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 273.76, Subdivision 8, the Authority may, upon entering into a development agreement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 273.75, Subdivision 5, enter into an agreement in recordable form with the developer of property within the tax increment financing district which establishes a minimum market value of the land and completed improvements for the duration of the tax increment redevelopment district. The assessment agreement shall be presented to the county assessor who shall review the plans and specifications for the improvements to be constructed, review the market value previously assigned to the land upon which the improvements are to be constructed and so long as the minimum market value contained in the assessment agreement appears in the judgment of the assessor, to be a reasonable estimate, the assessor may certify the minimum market value agreement. W. Administration of the Tax Increment Financing Redevelopment District and Maintenance of the Tax Increment Account Administration of the lax increment financing redevelopment district will be handled by the Executive Director of the Authority and the Office of the City Administrator. The tax increment received as a result of increases in the assessed value of the tax increment financing redevelopment district will be maintained in a special account separate from all other municipal accounts and expended only upon sanctioned municipal activities identified in the finance plan. X. Annual Disclosure Requirements Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.74, Subdivision 5, an authority must file ai annualisdTc oTsure report for all tax increment financing districts. The report shall be filed with the school board, county board and the Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development. The report shall include the following information: 1. The amount and source of revenue in the account; 2. The amount and purpose of expenditures from the account; 3. The amount of any pledge of revenues, including principal and interest on any outstanding bonded indebtedness; 4. The original assessed value of the district; 5. The captured assessed value retained by the authority; 6. The captured assessed value shared with other taxing districts; 7. The tax Increment received. The annual disclosure report is designed to be a two-way medium of information dissemination for both the Office of the County Auditor and the Authority. Should the auditor want additional Information from the Authority regarding Its tax increment financing activities, such information should be requested prior to submission of the annual disclosure report by the Authority. Similarly, the city council may utilize the annual disclosure v report as a means for requesting information from the Office of the County Auditor. Additionally, the Authority must annually publish a statement in a newspaper of general circulation in the municipality showing the tax increment received and expended in that year, the original assessed value, the captured assessed value, amount of outstanding bonded indebtedness and any additional information the city deems necessary. Y. Assumptions It was necessary to make certain assumptions regarding income, costs and timing of the tax increment redevelopment district. These assumption are based on discussions with Authority, County, and fiscal consultant staff. Z. Municipal Findings Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.74, Subdivision 3, before or at the time of approval of the tax increment financing plan, the municipality shell make the following findings and shall set forth in writing the reasons and supporting facts for each determination: 1. The proposed development or redevelopment, in the opinion of the city, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and, therefore, the use of tax increment financing is deemed necessary since Construction Five could not economically construct the present facility without the provision of the necessary public improvements to the site and without the use of tax increments to assist with the financing of these public improvements, the developer would not have constructed the apartment building and manufacturing facility in the City; and 2. The tax increment financing plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development by private enterprise as it will enable the City to provide the necessary public improvements for development; thereby encouraging redevelopment in the area. 3. The tax increment financing plan conforms to the general plan for the development of the city as a whole as it will result in construction of an apartment building and a manufacturing facility which will provide needed housing, create new jobs and Increase the tax base of the City. 4. The tax increment district to be established is a redevelopment district pursuant to MInnesote Statutes, Section 273.73, Subdivision 10(x)(3) in which the conittons-3escribed in Section C of this plan ex ist. 10 l t_ Council Agenda - 1/26/87 6. Consideration of Adoptinq a Position of Zoning Administrator/Planner. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Two meetings ago you requested staff to provide you greater in-depth evaluation on the issue of whether or not it would be beneficial to add a zoning Administrator/Planner. with respect to the statistical analysis involved, it is perhaps one of the most difficult tasks we have taken on. An analysis of manpower efficiency. task performance and time spent on tasks is extremely difficult with this position. There are individuals in the business world who make an entire living simply evaluating those types of questions. Let me offer an initial warning as you read the information. None of my figures can be considered final, and all of them can be challenged on some grounds. The major flaw to the analysis is that I am using averaging, rather than a week by week, day by day performance analysis. For every bit of data that 1 assembled that at one time seemed reasonable. I was also able to ask "yeah, but what if." The narrative part Of this discussion will not be all that lengthy. I have provided a number of data sheets that I hope will be clear enough for you to interpret. Based on all the numbers I am providing, it will be essential for the Council, either as a unit or as individuals, to extrapolate what numbers seem pertinent for decision making. I have made certain broad generalizations. For instance, to project the time spent on building inspection. I have used single family residential new construction. Obviously. a sign permit, a garage, or a small remodeling project will take lose time. Similarly, a commercial building or a 24 -unit multiple housing structure will take substantially more time. For assessing. I did substantially the same thing. I had Gary give me his time projections on a single family residential assessment, including field inspection and the clerical/book entry work. Again, greater and lesser structures will take greater and lessor time. My assumption in that using single family residential will average itself out across the City. The following times ware given to me by Gary projected on an average single family residential unit. Time spent on a residential assessment is 11, hours, which is comprised of % hour clerical and computation and 3/4 of an hour field work. Time spent on a single family residential inspection, now construction, is 34 hours. This includes all inspections required from first call to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy at the conclusion of final inspection. Both inspection and assessment include travel time to and from a sit* from City Hall. Time spent on issuing a building permit for a single family residential unit. now construction is 1 1/3 hours, which includes basic plan review of the structure. A chart included in the supporting data indicates the number of permits Issued In the last six years (1981 through 1986). These numbers do not include sign permits. Also shown on that chart is the average time spent on a residential inspection and permit issuance times the number of permits issued. At the bottom of the page I provide -5- Council Agenda - 1/26/87 e six-year average of total hours spent and a three-year average of total hours spent. At this point. I tend to lend more credence to the three-year average since there is a radical increase in permit issuance over the last three years. 1981 and 1982 reflect the economic flown turn, and 1983 seems to reflect the increase and transition into substantial number of permits for the last three years. Please remember we are working with multi-year soft averages. Concerning assessment, I am making an assumption that we have an even 1600 parcels that require assessment review. I am not including special trips to assess buildings because of changes in the market or because of changes due to remodeling, additions, and other new construction. I am using only the bare minimum of performing assessment on one-fourth of the assessable parcels in the City on an annual basis. In addition to the one-fourth or 400 parcels that require actual assessable changes on an annual basis, I am attributing five minutes for the remaining 1200 parcels each year. That five minutes is dedicated to the updating of each page in the assessment books where new computations and/or valuation changes are not being made. It is simply the carry over from one year to the next. It does not take into account adjustments or new computations having to be made. with respect to civil defense duties. I am using a flat figure of 52 hours per year, or one hour per week. Civil defense frequently requires no expenditure of time for several weeks in a single stretch. I do not think, however, that we can simply dismiss it saying no time is ever required in civil defense. I believe I have kept the hours dedicated to civil defense at an absolute minimum. On an annual basis. I estimate that there is 1280 hours (average) spent on building permit issuance, building inspection, assessing, and civil defense. One work year contains 2080 hours. If we subtract the 1280 hours from 2080, we have 800 hours left for all of the root of the work which I will describe later. If we deduct from that 800 hours 96 hours for meeting attendance, that leaves a balance of 704 hours for those duties to be described. Those 700 hours divided by 52 weeks in a working year leaves 13y hours per week for zoning administration and planning; just a little over a day -end -a -half. The time available for all of the other duties gets lose when we account for vacation and for holidays. with this position being granted 80 hours vacation, the 2060 is then reduced to 2000, which after all of the same reductions leaves 12 hours per weak for the excess duties. If we also deduct the ton holidays the City grants, the adjusted figure is 10y hours per weak available for administration and planning. The following is a list of the duties we expect to be performed by this position in a period of time ranging from toy to 13y hours. Soma time must be spent preparing City Council meeting agenda supplements; Planning Commission agenda supplements; Planning Commission minutes; subdivision/plat review; variance application reviews; conditional use application reviews; meetings with developers and consultants -6- Council Agenda - 1/26/87 on subdivisions, variances, conditional uses, and other potential requests; preparation of public notices; attendance at schools to maintain proper certifications; City planning with respect to keeping current the Zoning Ordinance, the Subdivision Ordinance, and the Comprehensive Plan; attendance at regular staff meetings; zoning, subdivision, conditional use, variance, sign and permit enforcement; drafting and map preparation; tax increment finance assistance; capital improvement planning; City Hall and Library maintenance management; elementary budgeting; and blight notices and enforcement including weeds and mowing, abandoned vehicles, etc. To perhaps add some emphasis a complex subdivision or variance or conditional use application could use up all of the available time by themselves. As an example, the conditional use permit that you are evaluating tonight with respect to a convenience store and automotive fuel dispensing required approximately four hours of my time in addition to the time spent by the Zoning Administrator, the Public Works Director, and the Assistant Administrator. Under the current time limitations, It is not at all uncommon for me to put a couple hours into a zoning or subdivision question, which might more appropriately be handled by the Zoning Administrator. It strikes me that it is an inefficient use of time for me to be doing zoning administration work because the time pressures placed on the Administrator limit hie ability to do comprehensive review. I wish to be absolutely clear that I understand, in fact we all understand, that a good deal of this work can be seasonal. I know that using annual averages is going to be tainted because we are not using weighted seasons. This criticism is Somewhat countered by simply noting that we have expectations substantially in excess of 2080 hours, and a great many of these duties are intertwined. If there is a largo number of conditional use or variance requests, we can be assured that there are also a large number of building permits that will require inspection. Similarly, an approved subdivision will eventuaily generate building permits which will probably need variances and conditional uses. I believe it would be unrealistic to think that because of the weighted Seasons we could say the job will only last a half a year, but you'll have to work 80 hours a week. If 100 percent of an individual's time during any given weighted season is dedicated to a particular group of related tasks, we still have a substantial amount of work not being performed. Besides the consideration of a now Zoning Administrator/Planner, there are at least two other manpower alternatives to consider. The City could consider putting on a temporary clerical person to assist with assessment during the fall months. Such a position would free up 300 hours during those fall months when assessment occurs. That would be beneficial if we could somehow schedule all of the other work that's not being done to occur during those fall months. This presupposition, of course, is somewhat absurd. Another manpower option is to look at a second field inspector for building inspection. This would be a position of limited duration and conceivably limited hours per weak. It would be an individual to actually make alto construction inspections and report to the Chief Building Official. -7- Council Agenda - 1/26/87 �= A position such as this could be hired at either an hourly rate or a percent of the building permit fee. I suspect yet a third alternative would be to look at a combination of temporary hirings involving both a field inspector for building and clerical work for assessing. None of these solutions would be a pure increase in hours, since once we hired temporary people, certain amounts of times would have to go into instruction and supervision by the existing Zoning Administrator. Thus, it would not be an exact hour for hour benefit. I think perhaps it is beneficial to close the narrative portion of this item and ask you to turn your attention to the statistical data provided in the supporting data. I anticipate being available over the weekend (generally speaking) and Monday afternoon when I return from the meeting in St. Paul on the tax increment district. Please feel free to call as you wade through this plethora of statistics. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Order the reorganization of the Zoning/Planning/Assessing/Inspections Division and prepare for a now administrative position. 2. Order further investigation in the hiring of temporary inspection and/or assessing assistants. 3. Continue to operate as is. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff submitted a recommendation when this issue first came up, but respectfully submits to the Council's evaluation. Our previous recommendation was based on purely management principles and the anticipation that greater service delivery would evolve. Our earlier decision did not take into account political sensitivities or City wide acceptance. we attempted to arrive at our decision based on the hard data and management objectives. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Self evident. C -8. AVERAGE TIME SPENT ON A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE FOR: Building Permit Issuance 1.34 hours (including plan review) Building Inspection 3.25 hours Assessing 1.25 hours (3/4 hr. field wk; % hr. clerical/computation) BUILDING PERMITS 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 Number Issued 55 36 99 127 123 161 Permit 6 Inspection x 4.59 x 4.59 x 4.59 x 4.59 x 4.59 x 4.59 252.45 165.24 454.41 582.93 564.57 738.99 Say: 252% 165% 454% 583 564% 739 Percent of Annual 12.1% 7.9% 21.9% 28% 27.1% 35.5% Hours Based on 2080 6 year annual average time spent - 459.8 hours or 22% 3 year annual average time spent - 628.8 hours or 30% PROPERTY ASSESSING 1.25 house on average/single family residence ASSUME: 1600 assessable parcels REQUIRED: 25% (400) need to be evaluated annually. 400 parcels x 1.25 hours - 500 hours Annual update; straight carryover; No computations required; pure entry only 1200 percale x 5 min. = 60 min. 100 hours TOTAL AVERAGE ASSESSMENT 600 hours CIVIL DEPENSE Annual Average - 1 hour per week - 52 hours 01 work Year - 2080 hours ` (based on 40 hrs/week) 3 year annual average time spent 628.8 hours say Building Permit 6 Inspection 628 Average annual assessment 600 Average annual Civil Defense 52 TOTAL 1280 1. 2080 hours -1280 Soo 96 hours (meeting attendance - 8 hours per month) 704 -r 52 weeks 13.538 hours/week available for remainder of duties. 2. 2080 hours - 80 hours vacation 2000 hours work year -1280 720 96 hours (meeting attendance) 624 52 weeks 12.0 hours/weak available for remainder of duties. 3. 2080 hours 80 hours vacation 2000 e0 hours (10 holidays) 1920 work year -1280 640 96 hours (meeting attendance) 544 +__12 weeks 10.462 hours/week available for remainder of duties. CEJ I DUTIES (Excluding permit issuance, building inspection, assessing) • Departmental correspondence and communications. Prepare specific City Council agenda supplements. • Prepare entire Planning Commission agenda and agenda supplements. Prepare Planning Commission minutes. Confer, negotiate with developers on: 1) subdivisions; concept, prelimina`y, final plats 2) conditional use permit requests 3) variance requests 4) simple subdivisions Perform in-depth review of: 1) subdivisions (including "simple") 2) conditional use permits 3) variances Prepare and publish required public notices. Attend schools to maintain certifications. Attend staff meetings. City Hall and Library maintenance management. Budgeting. Blight notices and enforcement (weeds, junk, cars, etc.) Ordinance enforcement (landscape, signs, flood plain, fire) • Drafting/map preparation/design • Capital Improvement Planning. •• Comprehensive planning --ordinance amendmanta, comprehensive plan updates, forecasting. etc. • Annexation • Reviaw of proposals in OAA from City prospective. Assessing assistance in tho preparation and formulation of Tax Increment Plane. •• Offer elementary assistance to development proposals. Due to time limitations, many items are performed as time allows; items with asterisks are performed minimally or not at all. Some performed in concert with other staff. 0 t 1/1/83 - 12/31/86 Conditional Use Applications - 53 Variance Applications - 81 Subdivision Applications - 24 Rezoning Applications - 18 Revenue generated from zoning/building fees: excludes all ad valorem tax revenue. 1983 1984 1985 1986 $31,450 $44,144 $54,409 $68,696 The above figures do not contain fees collected for rezoning requests. outside consulting expense (non-recoverable): 1984 - $13,857 (includes 12,900 for Highway 25 review) 1985 - S 6.373 1986 - S 1,386 No part of annexation is listed, but suspect a staff planner would have significantly reduced outlay. 1987 streetecapo work - currently expected to go 100% to outside consultants. v BUILDING PERMITS (thru 12/31/86) 1981 1962 1983 1984 1985 1986 Single Family Permits Number 25 7 23 29 40 5u Valuation $ 985,000.00 S 230,000.00 $1,108.964.00 $1,425,000.00 S 2,166,000.00 52,952,400.00 Two Family Permits Number 0 3 2 1 5 12 Valuation S 0.00 $ 230,511.00 S 154,396.U0 $ 80,600.00 S 416,900.00 5 1,025,100.00 4 -unit. Apartment Permits Number 0 4 4 0 1 1 Valuation $ 0.00 $ 521,509.00 $ 445.100.00 $ 0.00 S 173,900.00 S 144,000.00 6 -unit Townhouse Permits Number 1 0 0 0 2 1 valuation S 227,000.00 S 0.00 S 0.00 $ 0.00 S 523,400.00 S 249,700.00 8 -unit Townhouse Permits Number 0 0 0 1 1 1 valuation $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 S 280,000.00 $ 408.200.00 S 459,700.00 8 -unit Apnrtmant Parmito Number 0 0 1 0 0 0 Valuation $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 251,000.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 12 -unit Apartment Permits Number 0 0 1 0 2 2 Valuation $ 0.00 S 0.00 S 350,000.00 $ 0.00 S 460,000.00 S 416,400.00 18 -unit Apartment Permits Number 0 0 0 0 1 0 valuation S 0.00 S 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 S 735,900.00 S 0.00 24 -unit Apartment Permits Number 0 0 0 2 1 1 Valuation S 0.00 S 0.00 S 0.00 51,627,800.00 S 737,500.00 S 747,000.00 Commercial Permits Number 3 3 5 14 10 7 valuation S 982,000.00 8 684,500.00 3 917,020.00 $1,813,000.00 S 3,804,500.00 $2,175,200.00 V J (th r)2/31/86) 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 Industrial Permits Number 3 2 1 2 0 2 Valuation $1,521,000.00 S 983,256.00 $ 91,000.00 $1,440,000.00 $ 0.00 $ 145,500.00 Residential Garage Permits Number 11 4 7 17 15 11 Valuation S 57,900.00 S 15,668.00 S 28,556.00 $ 94,700.00 $ 81,500.00 S 43,500.00 Reoidential Addition/ Remodel Parmito Number 6 11 20 39 28 52 Valuation S 60,700.00 S 66,234.00 $ 70,295.00 S 185,087.00 S 146,970.00 S 275,350.00 Commercial Addition/ Remodel Permits Number 4 2 23 19 17 17 Valuation 3 144,000.00 $ 130,000.00 $2,640,000.00 S 210,030.00 S 370,160.00 $1,804,730.00 Induutrial Addition/ Remodel Portalto Number 2 0 2 3 0 2 Valuation S 294,000.00 S 0.00 $ 505,500.00 $ 336.500.00 $ 0.00 5 625,000.00 Total Building Permits Number 43 23 44 66 78 90 Valuation $3,772,900.00 $2,665,444.00 $3,346,836.00 $6,761,100.00 3 9,500,600.00 $10,171,400.00 Total Addition/ Remodel POCmita Number 12 13 45 61 45 71 Valuation 8 498,700.00 8 196,234.00 $3,215,795.00 8 791,617.00 S 517,130.00 52,705,080.00 Total Parmito Number 55 36 99 127 123 161 Valuation 54,271,600.00 $2,061,678.00 $6,562,631.00 87,552,717.00 $10,025,730.00 $12,876,480.00 26 -unit Apar tmont Permits Number 0 0 0 0 0 1 Valuation S 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8 839,200.00 31 -unit Apartmant Permits Number 0 0 0 0 0 1 C� ; Valuation 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8 973,700.00 C17Y OF MONTICELL0 BUIIIIING PERMITO 1975 1976 1917 1970 1979 1980 1981 1902 1903 1900 1905 9 ` T o [al Number of Permit• Is—ed 76 99 107 136 102 GO 61 ]B 177 191 ^ 201 w Y3 pwp .e' 7-1 73-1 7.2 29-1 60-I, 1-8 50.1 1-6 I'. Reeiden[1.1 INarl 15 71 20 ]] 55 ]• 25 I-2 1-8 6- 1-7 5-7. 2-12 /2•2 1-6 ._. 1_12 1-8 1_10 ,•>� 2 2-6, 1-26 1-` � Q r. ae.teentl•1 25 1B ]5 26 10 1] 6 11 20 2- 1.y (R•—del; 1926 20 Yl ]. ae•Ide oriel 10 11 13 6 15 6 11 . 7 17 IS �f I. np••1 6. Comm•rcl•1 Bldg. 21 21 37 32 17 U 7 ] 7 16 9 INtr) •l. Comm.rel•1 -- -- _- -- -- -- 6 2 23 19 17 /f (Remodel) •6. lndu. tr lel INarl •- -- -• -- •. 7 2 1 2 0 p, 7 0 Inemod•1I w co v. rnmen[•1 IBM -- -- .- .. .. 2 2 1 0 2 1 9. Ml ecell•neou• ] 0 0 37 5 -- 1 1 11 2 0 0 (slpns, eI..) 10. Plumbing (Mer) -- -- .- -- -- -. 36 77 70 1. sign Permit. _- -- __ -- _- -- -• -- -- 21 ID Q INevl , 910, 975 6 618, 79 ^T•L VALVa710N8 71 , fG 6767,•2 00 {7,920,500 46 953 U {6,.00,600 $a —81-89 &5,134.245.3 06 ,581 Ja 610,.57,6]0.00 Nor - Included me part of central Comm sclal In the I»al. �1�1%�/yQ0•� OT P.1 1975 t. 1081 Mull. pia Unlr. Ind ll.ned vltb RH le enllel INtrl 1975 [0 1987 1'I. I. P•rml t• not IncluAod vl lR 69 ...... .. u. 1975 lO 190] BI Yn Pt r'm It. 1Nulud•d rl[h 69 MI... l 1 •neou. O '!! �i� MONTICELLO GROWTH FROM PRE -ANNEXATION TO PRESENT Street lane miles are now 3.4 times what they were in 1972. Park acres maintained by the City are now 3.9 times what they were in 1972. Parking lot area maintained by the City is now 4.1 times What it was in 1972. The number of public buildings and grounds maintained by the City is now 2.5 times what it was in 1972. The number of sanitary sever lift stations has doubled, While the lineal feet of sever has increased 2.9 times. This does not reflect the capacity of the Treatment Plant which has more than doubled. The water system has increased in sire by 2.9 times, while the water storage capacity has increased by 10 times with the addition of the reservoir and four booster pumps. L U rStreets Pre -annexation 18.16 Lane miles After annexation 7.2 Lane miles added Presently 62.3 Lane miles We presently do our own snow removal, whereas it was contracted previously. Parks Pre -annexation Presently Other City Facilities Pro -annexation: 4 parka 6 cemetery 12 parka 6 cemetery 1) Old Fire Hall (City Hall) 2) Treatment Plant 3) Sr. Citizens 4) On -Off Liquor Stora Presently: 1) Old Fire Hall (City Hall) 2) Treatment Plant 3) Sr. Citizens 4) City Hall 5) Piro Hall 6) Liquor Store 7) Maintenance Building 8) Reservoir 9) Library 10) Museum Parkinq Lots Pre -annexation: 1) Lot on Third and walnut 2) Lot by Zoo 3) Area around Old Fire Hall A TOTAL 12 acres 47 acres 32,670 aq ft 10,890 eq ft 7,300 sq ft 50,060 aq ft Presently: 1� 1) Lot on Third and Walnut 2) Lot by Zoo 3) Area around Old Fire Hall 4) Commuter lot 5) Lot by Harry -s Auto 6 ) Lot by A-V Room 7) New Fire Hall lot 8) City Hall lot 9) Liquor Store lot 10) Library lot Sanitary Sever Pre -annexation Presently Water System Pre -annexation Presently Storm Sewer TOTAL 44,300 ft 129,500 ft 42,200 ft 122,200 ft 32,670 aq ft 10,890 eq ft 7,300 aq ft 59,931 eq ft 41,697 eq ft 19,866 aq ft 8,200 sq ft 7,000 aq ft 9,600 eq ft 12,100 sq ft 209,254 aq ft 2 lift stations 4 lift stations and Reservoir Pre -annexation 32,000 ft Presently 47,800 ft 8,200 ft of sidewalk now maintained, virtually none prior to annexation. Manpower Pro -annexation 4 man all departments Presently 8 man, 1 part-time all departments NOTE: Present total does not include treatment plant. Council Agenda - 1/26/87 i 7. Consideration of an Application for a Conditional Use Permit to Dispense Automotive Fuel Incidental to a Principal Use. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At the January 13 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission recommended that the Council grant approval to the issuance of a conditional use permit for the purpose of dispensing automotive fuel incidental to a principal use, namely, a convenience store. This is a fairly complex matter, and has become more complex since the Planning Commission meeting. I will do my best to provide you a clear explanation of the process. The site in question is the old Charlie's west liquor loungo/supper club. The liquor lounge/supper club existed as a legal non -conforming use grandfathered in when annexation occurred. Chapter 3, Section 1, Subdivision F, of the City Zoning Ordinance provides that a lawful non -conforming use of a structure or parcel of land may be changed to lesson the non -conformity of use. Based upon the zone requirements in the Zoning Ordinance, a conversion from a liquor lounge/supper club to a convenience store lessens the non -conformity. The reason for this lessening of non -conformity is as follows: A convenience store is a permitted use in a B-1 Zone. A liquor store is a permitted use in a B-3 Zone. In terms of compatibility (or qualitative conformity), a B-1 Zone is closer to an R-1 Zone than is a B-3 Zone. The charts that I have provided in the supporting data gives some visual representation of how this applies. Under the terms of the ordinance, if the proposer simply wished to open a convenience store (or any other permitted use in a B-2 or B-1 Zone for that matter), they simply would need to file for a building permit. There would be no public hearing necessary, and the full intent of the ordinance would be met. we allow convenience stores to exist in a B-1 Zone. we also, by definition, ellnw the dispensing of automotive fuels incidental to the operation of a convenience store. However, in the section regulating motor fuel stations there is a clause that states regardless of whether the dispensing of motor fuels is incidental to the conduct of the use or business, the standards and requirements imposed by thin ordinance for fuel stations shall apply. Consequently, even though the dispensing of fuel is incidental to the principal use, a convenience store, it is still an obligation to receive a conditional use permit to dispense that fuel. The not result is that the public hearing was hold solely to evaluate the incidental dispensing of motor fuel. The conversion to a convenience store is not a question for consideration since it is already allowable under the ordinance. Only the fuel dispensing Is in question. At the public hearing before the Planning Commission, substantial public opposition was voiced. Thera was concern about lighting, increased traffic, and increased child pedestrian traffic. Dome concern was voiced that the City already has a number of convenience stores with gas dispensing and that the Planning Commission shouldn't allow anymore. Commissioner Ridgeway properly stated that the free It entorprise system was not within the purview of the Planning Commission. -9- Council Agenda - 1/26/87 Whether or not an individual wished to try to open ano thor convenience store was a calculated business decision that the Planning Commission does not involve itself with. Other pointe of opposition related to a potential decrease in property value and increased theft and vandalism and associated crime. At the conclusion of the hearing, a motion was made by Ridgeway, properly seconded by Richard Martie, and approved unanimously to recommend the approval of a conditional use permit for the dispensing of motor fuels incidental to a convenience store provided that all ordinance conditions are followed in full and by adding the additional conditions as follows: 1. A detailed landscaping/screening plan be fully submitted prior to application for a building permit. 2. A full hard surfaced parking lot with proper curb and gutter and sidewalks be constructed. 3. Prior to granting a certificate of occupancy, money be placed in escrow to guarantee the full completion of landscaping and screening, and that there also be an escrow account for the construction of parking lot with curb and gutter. e. The hours of operation shall not exceed 5 a.m. to 11 p.m. daily. 5. There shall be a maximum of four fuel dispensing pumps. 6. The dispensing of motor fuels shall be alloved for automobiles and trucks not exceeding one ton. In the time since the Planning Commission has adjourned, one major issue has occurred. A petition bearing at least 25 names was submitted to the Environmental Quality Board requesting that an Environmental Assessment Worksheet be prepared. As of this writing. Thursday afternoon, I have not aeon that petition, but I have boon in contact with the EPB, and they have advised me that they did, in fact, receive a petition, and that it is being forwarded to the City, naming tho City as the Responsible Covernmental Unit (RGU). The net result of this filing is that prior to granting the conditional use permit, the Council must decide on the validity of the petition. If, of course, you opt not to grant the conditional use or find It unworthy of being granted, you may simply deny the conditional use application and the petition becomes moot. According to the regulations of the Environmantal Quality Board, a petition must contain "material evidence indicating that, because of the nature or location of the proposed project, there may be potential for significant environmental effects." The regulations further state that "the RGU shall order the preparation of an EAW if the evidence presented by the petitioners... demonstrates that, because of the nature or location of the proposed project, the project may have the potential for significant environmental effects. The RGU shall deny the petition if the evidence presented fails to demonstrate tho project may have the potential for significant environmental effects." Thus, if you wish to pursue the conditional -10- Council Agenda - 1/26/87 use request, you must first make a determination on the adequacy of the evidence provided in the petition. I am at this time attempting to gat a ruling from the EQB as to precisely what constitutes material evidence. This particular ruling is going to be extremely delicate from a political nature. If there is no significant material evidence pointing to a potential environmental impact, yet you order the proposer to prepare an EAW, you are costing the developer $3,000 to $4,000 for no good reason. If, on the other hand, you reject the petition for lack of material evidence and grant the conditional use, you become exposed to accusations for neglecting the environment. Obviously, if there is material evidence that warrants an EAW, the judgement is clear. Mr. Holthaus, the developer, has indicated an open willingness to prepare an EAW on the Council's request so long as there is reasonable substance supporting that request. Part of the difficulty with this issue is the generic problem of petitioned EAW-s. The entire City of Monticello, through one course or another, empties into the Mississippi River. If an EAW 1s ordered now, and no material evidence is presented, that particular method could be initiated for virtually every development project within the City hereafter. Again, if the material evidence is present and clearly presented, the alternative is obvious. So you see, this issue has become relatively complex. First, there r is the Zoning Ordinance question, and secondly, there is the environmental `( question. The authority of the EQB pre -empty the zoning question. The environmental question must be addressed first. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Reject the petition for an EAW rule on the conditional use. 2. Accept the petition on the EAW, order the proposer of the project to prepare an EAW. 3. If you reject the environmental petition, you may than a) grant the conditional use as recommended by the Planning Commission, b) grant the conditional use attaching additional conditions, c) deny the conditional use. C. STAPP RECOMMENDATION: Recommendation at this time is difficult since all of the data is not available. I hope to have greater clarity on the environmental issue by Monday night. With respect to the conditional use, the Planning Commission has recommended approval so long as the ordinance plus the additional conditions are fully complied with. You may attach other conditions that you doom necessary. Under land use law, a conditional use is considered a permitted use, provided that the conditions are met. If all conditions stipulated are met, then a Council In bound by the law to grant the permit. sm Council Agenda - 1/26/87 CD. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting; Photocopy of the Minnesota Code of Agency Rules from the Environmental Quality Board; Copy of letters received since the adjournment of the Planning Commission meeting; Copy of the petitions submitted to the Planning Commission; Copy of the data provided by the City Administrator to the Planning Commission for clarification. .12- I r Council Agenda - 1/26/87 LATE FRIDAY AFTERNOON ADDITION TO THE CONDITIONAL USE QUESTION. (T.E.) I received in this morning's mail a copy of the petition submitted to the Environmental Quality Board and a letter indicating that the City of Monticello is the Responsible Government Unit. Hence, the first decision that must be made by the City is to evaluate whether or not the petition presents the necessary evidence to demonstrate that the project may have the potential for significant environmental effects. If you find that the petition does present adequate evidence, you should order the preparation of an Environmental Assessment worksheet (EAW) and suspend all other action until the completion of the EAW. If in your judgement the petition does not present adequate evidence to demonstrate the potential for a significant environmental impact, you should reject the petition. If you reject the petition, I further recommend that you postpone action on the conditional use until the second meeting in March. If you reject the petitlon, we must give notice to the Environmental Quality Board that the petition has been rejected, and the Board will in turn publish the City Council's finding with regard to the petition. The publication in the Environmental Quality Board Monitor will also contain a statement that any party has 30 days to appeal the decision of the City Council in District Court. I suggest that the conditional use permit ruling be postponed until the appeal period has closed. I have been informed that all of the petitioners intend to appear at the City Council meeting. The petitioners have informed me that Mr. Myron Haldy is their spokesperson. While this is not a public hearing and the floor does not need to be opened, Mr. HaLdy has requested permission to speak on behalf of all petitioners. This seems to be a reasonable alternative with respect to hearing the issue restated, but not rehashing ovary statement that was made at the Planning Commission. Added into the supporting data is a copy of the letter from the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board and a copy of the petition submitted to them. The colored highlights have boon added by City staff to addross the question of material evidence. My question to Grog Downing of the EQB with respect to material evidence resulted In no firm answer. They do not clearly distinguish between material evidence and supposition. I have made the highlights solely to draw your attention to the presentation of the petition, not to influence your decision. One question that should be asked while deliberating on the validity of the petition is whether or not this particular proposal in so unique that it requires the preparation of an EAW when no other similar project within the City has required an EAW. That is to say, is there something unique to this project or this neighborhood, found nowhoro also in the City, that generates a greater potential for environmental impact. MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January 13, 1987 - 7:30 p.m. Members Present: Richard Carlson, Richard Martie, Joyce Dowling, Barbara Koro pchak, Jim Ridgeway. Members Absent: None. Staff Present: Thomas Eidem, Gary Anderson. 1. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Richard Carlson at 7:35 p.m. 2. Motion by Barbara Koropchak, seconded by Joyce Dowling, to approve the minutes of the November 12, 1986, regular Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried unanimously with Jim Ridgeway abstaining. 3. A consensus of Planning Commission members for a Planning Commission Chairperson. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission members present that Richard Carlson serve another term as 1987 Planning Commission Chairperson. a. A consensus of Planning Commission members for a Planning Commission Vice -Chairperson. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission members present that Mr. Jim Ridgeway servo as the 1987 Planning Commission Vice -Chairperson. 5. Public Hearing - A variance request to allow a oropoeed subdivided residential lot to have lees than the minimum lot front footage at the property line and less than the minimum lot front footage at the front setback line. Applicant. Nick Kampa. Zoning Administrator, Gary Anderson, indicated to Planning Commission members Mr. Kampa's request. In explaining to Planning Commission members, Anderson noted the two variances which would be needed on the enclosed site plan ee presented. Chairperson Richard Carlson than opened the meeting for any input from the public. Mr. Joe Schanon, residential property owner in Kampa Estates on the lot immediately west of the proposed subdivided lot, questioned why the need to create two smaller lots and request variances that would be from the minimum requirements of the ordinance. Mr. Schanon indicated he thought the whole intent of the ordinance was to follow it as close as possible, therefore not needing any variances. City Administrator, Thoma@ Eidoa, suggested an alternative of the proposed splitting of the lot east and west rather than to split the lot north and south. By splitting the lots north and south would take care -1- Planning Commission Minutes - 1/13/87 of no accesses off of west County Road 39 and would also create a building lot immediately fronting West County Road 39. Mr. 8111 Fair questioned from the public's safety standpoint the access to the existing lot with the newly created lot on the proposed site plan. Motion by Jim Ridgeway, seconded by Richard Martie, to deny the variance request to allow a proposed subdivided residential lot to have less than the minimum lot front footage at the property line and less than the minimum lot front footage at the front setback line. Motion carried unanimously. The reason for denial was proposing to create a new lot with a variance request for less than the minimum lot front footage as required by ordinance. Also, if this lot was created, one of the variance requests would be in direct violation of our Monticello Zoning Ordinance. 6. Public Hearing - A conditional use request to allow the dispensing of motor fuels incidental to a conforming use, a convenience store, in an R-1 Zone. Applicant, Tom Holthaus. Thomas Eidem, City Administrator, explained to the public that was present and the Planning Commission members the City Attorney's opinion of the conditional use request. The question at hand is, is the dispensing of motor fuels incidental to the principal use, a convenience store. He further explained that the convenience store is a lase non -conforming use than the previous use, a liquor/food establishment. Mr. Eidem emphasized a lot of the information from this was referred to right out of the Monticello City Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 3, Section 1, [F), and it reads as follows: A lawful, non -conforming use of a structure or a parcel of land may be changed to lessen the non -conformity of use. Once a non -conforming structure or parcel of land has been changed, it shall not thereafter so be altered to increase the non -conformity. Planning Commission Chairperson, Richard Carlson, reiterated the intent of the public hearing was to consider, as a conditional use, the dispensing of motor fuel incidental to the principal non -conforming use, a convenience store. Mr. Carlson then opened the meeting for any input from the public, and the following comments were submitted. Mrs. Colleen Nelson opposed the gas station being too close to their property. Mr. Myron Haldy is opposed to the project for the following reasons: 1) it's not a compatible use with the existing use that was there; 2) The proposed location of the gas pumps in relationship to the intersection of west County Road 79 and Otter Creek Road; 3) An lncreasod amount of congestion; e) The hours of operation; 5) He felt it would decrease their property values; 6) Additional theft and vandalism, end he felt there wa■ no nsod Cora convenience •tors, as there ere already tiva or so axis tirg in the city of Monticello. V Planning Commission Minutes - 1/13/87 "I The following comments were made by David Kapek. He questioned the need of a convenience srore/self-service gas station when there is an existing one, the Monticello Pump N Munch, approximately eight blocks from this site. Mr. Jeff Nelson also was opposed, and he asked in what zones motor fuels are allowed to be in. City Administrator Thomas Eidem indicated that it is allowed only as a conditional use in a B-3 (Highway Business) Zone. Sherrie Peters questioned that this would be de -valuing their residential properties. Planning Commission member, Jim Ridgeway, asked the applicant to explain his plat, as many of the questions which were brought up by concerned members of the public could be addressed by the applicant explaining his proposed convenience store/self-service gas station on this proposed site. City Administrator, Thomas Eidem, explained the site plan of the applicant for the Planning Commissioners and the public. Some additional questions which were brought up were the hours of operation. The applicant explained the hours would probably be from 5:00 a.m. until 10:00 or 11:00 p.m. Another question brought up was the invurance question if, with a motor fuel station, surrounding properties' insurance would be increased. Also questions were brought up about the lighting, and Thomas Eidem, City Administrator, explained the locations of the proposed lighting. Myron Haldy explained that even with a 6 -foot privacy, there still wouldn't be privacy for some of the existing homes there, as they are split entry homes, and the upstairs part of the split can still overlook this 6 -foot high screening fence. Mrs. Diane Peters indicated that they have been living at their residence for approximately 16-17 years and were one of the first residents in this particular area of town, and felt that the proposed use of the applicant's would be much better than what was previously there, a liquor/foot establishment. Mr. Roger Hadtke questioned as to why the dispensing of motor fuels would be allowed in this residential single family tone. Mr. Richard Kolb is definitely opposed to it because of the lights from the cars and all the noise created by such an activity at this site. Mr. Dave Kapek questioned the applicant if he had researched a need for such an activity at this particular site. Two petitions vers submitted by Colleen Nelson to Planning Commission Chairperson, Richard Carlson, and were read aloud by Mr. Carlson. -3- Planning Commission Minutes - 1/13/87 i `a Mr. Jim Ridgeway questioned the applicant the hours of his operation. He indicated they would more than likely be between 5:00 a.m. or 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. or 11:00 p.m. Motion by Jim Ridgeway to approve the conditional use request to allow the dispensing of motor fuels incidental to a conforming use, a convenience store, in an R-1 Zone with the following conditions: 1. An approved landscaping/screening plan be submitted prior to application for building permit. 2. A hard surfaced parking lot with curb and gutter Fe constructed. 3. Prior to granting a Certificate of Occupancy, money be escrowed for completion of landscaping needed to meet the approved landscaping plan; and money also be escrowed for the construction of the hard surfaced parking lot with curb and gutter if these should not be in by the time they would like to open for business. <. The hours of operation will be from no more, but could be less, than from 5:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. 5. There be a maximum of four fuel pumps. 6. The dispensing of motor fuels be allowed for automobiles and trucks not exceeding 1% tons. 1 Motion seconded by Richard Martie, and was approved unanimously. Additional Information Items 1. The 1987 Planning Conference Update. Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated that it would be held on Wednesday, the 21st of January, and that either himself or Tom Eidem would be going with the Planning Commission Chairperson, Richard Carlson. If the now Planning Commission member, Jim Ridgeway, would like to go, he would be more than welcome to go. 2. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission members to set the next tentative date for the Monticello Planning Commission for February 10, 1987, 7;30 p.m. 3. Motion by Joyce Dowling, seconded by Richard Martie, to adjourn the meeting. Meeting adjourned at 9:21 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Gary AnddrSon Zoning Administrator 6 MCAR S 3.026 Petition process. A. Petition. Any person may request the preparation of an EAW on a project by filing a petition that contains the y signatures and mailing addresses of at least 25 individuals. B. Content. The petition shall also include: 1. A description of the proposed project; 2. The proposer of the project; 3. The name, address and telephone number of the representative of the petitioners; 4. A brief description of the potential environmental effects which may result from the project; and . 5. Material evidence indicating that, because of the nature or locetign.of.the proposed project, -there may be potential for significant environmental affects. C. Filing of petition. The petition shall be filed with the EQB for a determination of the RCU. D. Notice to proposer. The petitioners shall notify the proposer in writing at the time they file a petition with the EQB. E. Determination of RCU. The EQS's chairperson or designee shall determine whether the petition complies with the requirements of A, and S. 1., 2., 3., 4., and 5. 1f the petition complies, the chairperson or designee shall designate an RGU pursuant to 6 MCAR 3 3.024 and forward the petition to the RGU ,- within five days of receipt of the potation. _8. EAW decision. The RGU shall order the preparation of an EAW if the evidence presented by the petitioners, proposers, and other persona or otherwise known to the RCU demonstrates that, because of the nature or location of the proposed project, the project may have tine potential for significant environmental effects. The RCU shall deny the petition if the evidence presented fails to demonstrate the project may have the potential for significant environmental effects. The RCU shall maintain, either as a separate document or contained within the records of the RCU, a record, including specific findings of fact, of its decision on the need for an EAW. C. Time limits. The RCU has 15 days from the date of the receipt of t.ire patition to decide on the need for an EAW. 1. 1f the decision must be mode by a board, council, or other body which meets only on a periodic basis, the time period may be extended by the RCU for an additional 15 days. 2. For all other RCUs, the EQB's chairperson shall extend the 15 -day period by not more than 15 additional days upon request of the RCU. It. notice of decision. within five days of ata decision, Lilo RCU shall notify, in writing, the proposer, the EQB staff, slid Lila petitioner's representative of its decision. The EQB !f staff shall publish notice of the RCU'e decision concerning the y{ petition in the EQR Monitor. U LJ Minnesota Environmental Quality Board 100 Capitol Square Building 550 Cedar Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Phone January 21, 1987 Tom Eidern, Administrator City of Monticello 250 E. Broadway Monticello, MN 55362 RE: Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for Otter Creek Convenience Store Dear Mr. Eidern: The Environmental Quality Board (EQB) has received a petition requesting that an EAW be prepared an the project described in the petition, and has determined that City of Monticello is the appropriate government agency to decide the need for an EAW. The requirements for environmental review, including the preparation of !� EAWs, can be found in the Minnesota Code of Agency Rules, •� Environmental Review Program, 1982 Edition, 6 MCAR 3.021 - 3.056. If your unit of government does not have ready access to these 1982 rules, please contact me. The procedures to be followed in making the EAW decision are set forth in 6 MCAR 3.026, (pages 12 and 13 of the rules). Key points in the procedures include: 1. No final government approvals may be given to the project named in the petition until the need for an EAW has been determined. If the decision is to prepare an EAW, approval must be withheld until either a Negative Declaration is issued or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is completed (see 6 MCAR 3.032A., page 27). 2. A first step in making the decision regarding the need for an EAW would be to compare the project to the mandatory EAW, EIS and Exemption categories listed in 6 MCAR 3.038, 3.039 and 3.041, respectively (starting on page 35). If the project should fall under any of these categories, environmental review is automatically required or prohibited. If this should be the case, proceed accordingly. 3. If preparation of an EAW is neither mandatory nor exempted, City of Monticello has the option to prepare an EAW. The j standard to be used to decide if an EAW should be done is given ll in 6 MCAR 3.026P. Note that this requires that a record of decision including specific findings of fact be maintained. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER C7) -4W4 Mr. Eidern January 21, 1987 Page Two 4. Section 3.026G. allows 15 working days (Saturdays, Sundays and holidays do not count) for your decision unless it must be made by a board or other body which meets only periodically, in which case you have 30 working days. Note that G.2. allows you to request an extra 15 days from EQB if the decision is not made by a board. 5. Section 3.026H. specifies that you must notify, in writing, the proposer, the petitioners' representative and the EQB of your decision within five (5) working days (again, Saturday, Sunday and holidays do not count). I would appreciate your sending a copy of your record of decision on the petition along with notification of your decision for our records. This is not required, however. Notice of the petition and its assignment to your unit of government will be published in the go Monitor on February 9, 1987. If you have any questions or need any assistance, please do not hesitate to call my staff. The phone number is (612) 296-8253 or you / may call on our toll-free line by dialing 1-800-652-974'7 and asking 1- for the Environmental Quality Board, Environmental Review Program. sincerely, Gregg M. Downing f Environmental Review Coordinator cc: Tom Holthaus Myron Haldy I C) Date: January 20, 1987 To: Dan Blonigen, Council Member Richard Carlson, Chairman, Planning Commission Tom Eidem, City Administrator Bill Pair, Council Member Fran Pair, Council Member Arve Grimsmo, Mayor Warren Smith, Council Member Dear Sirs and Madam: I have several comments to make concerning last Tuesdays public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit for dispensing gasoline at the Charlies West site. 1. In Mr. Eidem's presentation at the beginning of the discussion, a convenience store/gas station business was promoted as a more 'conforming' use of the property than a bar. While a convenience store would be appropriate for Bl zoning the addition of gas pumps makes it appropriate for B3 zoning. This is the same zoning as the bar. Therefore there is no gain in making the use of the property more conforming to the R1 zoning. If gas pumps are allowed at the site some flexibility to eventually make the use of the property more conforming since it would be more difficult to convert the property to another use. 2. It seemed to be the opinion of several members of the planning commission that the choice for use of the property is between a bar and a convenience store/gas station. Whether or not to allow the dispensing of gasoline at the site should be based on the merits of that use not because it is the lessor of two evils. 3. Several times concern over the increased traffic resulting from the proposed use of the site and the safety of children crossing Otter Creek Road and Highway 75 were brought up. These concerns were not addressed and didn't seem to merit more than a cursory review by the Planning Commission. At the same time the appearance of the proposed business was stressed. As a homeowner on Sandy Lane with 3 young children, the possibility of increased traffic on our street rates much more consideration than appearances. d. During the hearing for this issue and also the previous hearing (a variance for property on Rampa Circle) the city officials and planning commission members appeared to be in the position of promoting the applicants position. I would think that having the applicants for permits and variances give their own presentations and having commission members take a less active role in promoting would be a more f desirable way of doing business. C7 i C. I think that these topics form a basis for discussion at the next City Council meeting. I look forward to hearing your opinions on these topics. Sincerely yours, g' Jeff Nelson 1204 Sandy lane C G k - (S) January 18. 1481 To the Editor: As residents on the west side of Monticello, near the Pinewood Elementary Schools, we are concerned about the possible development of a gas station/ convenience store in our neighborhood. Although we are in a residentially zoned area (R1), we unfortunately have a parcel of land zoned for business (Charlie's West, which was grandfathered in during zoning guides years ago). When the business closed, many in the neighborhood hoped the property would be changed to a residential classification, therefore in keeping with the rest of the area. Upon hearing of the possible development, many residents in the neighborhood attended the meeting of the Monticello Planning Commission to voice their opposition and concerns. At the January 15th meeting of the commission time was given for the neighborhood to voice its oppositions and many questions were answered. LHowever, we were dismayed to hear the commission recommera approval of the development. We feel that the commission did not adequately answer our concerns regarding the increase in traffic on an already busy corner; nor the potential danger to our grade school children, especially those walking to school. We urge the Monticello City Council to 1). Review carefully the increased traffic congestion that would be brought on by a gas station; 2). The safety of our grade school children, both those walking and on buses; 3). The desire of the area to become the residential neighborhood that we are toned for. Sincerely, Roger and Susan Hedtke 121$ West River Street Street Monticello, MN 55362 c Q ---_.. .---ICI rONe IU[L Bi.t[Oe, riO11 NCL 6S.t I01/Ctn1YLAt GKi BIO.[, IJISO .1--•leM m0 TI•t 11MD YitRr Bll]tL9 m0 6L]1v1 C6 AWIOfD SnIS: 1. ...•role•• of .nether [ne OI•pen•lne. ••l• of I•r llp ter ••le •t m r lust• •Itl/es ell Incl0ena•1 is me eeMec[ el N• o• r Win•••` cee ra•rN•ro• W rpulrwnt• l.q•tl eY nl• OrOlmne• Ler b r'Y•1 Be.uo,u •n•u .wlr• rhe•. rur.m• W ryelrweu .r m..wr, a• •Oaaeam euu rpolr•ree• .naen • • tgle.tl for saner w. of m• Wogrq. ]. ine . enlir[ur•l •pq•t•ne• •eo finetlwl plan •f tp• mllolee W •la• •mll m •o alwwau totm ..1•au• bllalp• • lw•lr.rel In IF tY .rlu.• o •eltut. • eal�tlrq urloene• rl cele . rr•ruW 4 --et t•• Loa. 1. T. w r an•e true [ ap vY • eol wlnaLe• IF p ..L.:• •lull b .urf•etl . s eo a vel ava .r arnn.a .n nrl• .m).0 co [n. .m=l of lM CItYaLnelnwr. •. W los • era ner-aYO tm.r..m tl.ennugrtl 1]],!001 pmr• leen W •an l•ru le[ olre•lm• of m nu•Ortl tlltr 11!01 a.e er m nmYr.e t un n7o1 n.e. !. • aolre• •naw •m)ue to u. •ppre.LL of m• CItY [nelu•rWll b 1maLLa•0. e. t Uu tem •le NI uenu •mw pea .•lull • . pu011. ue•-1• trm raer emael• ureses •rev. ). ins dent lnp •••11 b •vampll•ntl In .•Y • e lue• r olrevt • et !lent . LLm• trm tl)•c.nl lm0 1 otlmua Lrm ane pauv rtena-ar-..r .oe Kure• In ev.pl l•m• Beealr ] IYI of ant• oraawo•. •. Ynerw•r luLL puR• • • to b l••a•11r, pup Iu•ner •bIl Mr1a.tLL3.0. .. n• eemc•n.. or • uamuu euarut, anp or we 1... tbe�rle• lel roe bll b 3Wc•ptl •r •ere•e.a In 1119-- .j th vIDl !•nee.Ito Cn pter 7, rv11m i (.I of N1. 0-- 1 lo. teen Mena et•r•re lWm•p0. n. r•ralne a ue••lne • ens• •We. •n.0 r . .nr trm a.. er .bulnv n.aa.euLL ' of •trleu In ea�llmc• elU elupt•r 7. beam ] Ici of Anse OrOl1uM•. 11. vnlpl•r • • pel nt• •mll v —.=t, W et emfllo[ Ylan tNaven V•tfle e•.I re�lY .l to Cn•pa•r 7, Beellr[B It tn• Olo•M •1u11 b •m]•ct e• tlle•pprOld— It tM el1Y u. ua umue .na Inrewuwl a rums m orlvo •lull ee • cbpcartl .m —11 IF u<n•pu•m• .stn .. ]. B.ouw Bet anl• ar•Imm•. l•. rreralm• •r. ra• eo .mares •r r.am• 11. •lo• r • •e• • eepa • •llseee In evmllmve el tnYCn•pter an 13. Bmtlm • of tele Oroln•nv. la. ••I• of prruvl• .tn•r te•n 1h •golf lvl1Y nllenm l• Cn•p •r 1), e•011m • m •m)eel • eOMlaleNl Y • Wr.lt •we b le evpllw• tan (n•p[e• 11, B•etlm .Irl s1 lnle • oreln•me. lY. u1 •Wlllaw prt•ulee r •pwlfle LLt• . m)ep a •bno• m.n a • eweu Ypen ln.•.uwu..0 rLL•uw ca •tern rpueea, tlr• abl ab em•r•l wlf•n W r•lella 4[l•rrnt •m b • ntl • w11 er mrl•r q •YOIt1lM ln••a.mlllw. IB. rn• Wwulrle It Cn.pnr 71 et NI. Ordln•p• •r• ewae.rr •r vu•r•etmlb re. C, t 0 Monday, J-indr:: :.n, 1,937 To: Th 3 3 .-3ror=nt 71 ar•'.1b7 3o1rd C,jpitol Srul'ro 3u113ing, Room lwC . s.<<ls 550 :�11: ;',. �• S" ^-2::1, :M 551,01 C Ca+.� 3ITIZ Y3 Rs' U73T 'FDR v_`.-)roi-nod do petition Ind request "Onvirownentil ::�12 thM aot3nti9l for !nviron-,jntn1 !••Ip,ct *chic* otl ��', c•- aost'ruct-tnn ,m9 o--�3ration of tin f0i11••i^- .. I. �rci11 eniration involv31 in "aispinainr of notor fu+1's -ncitznt-il to 1 confornin, use, 1 ,cnv3ni:no3 3tQr3, in ,n R-1 zona. Looition is block 3 Lot 1, Riv-r T-irrace A :"ition in th3 :itY of lbnticollo HN 55352." (t -41:3n fron oonlitionvl u33 -)kation noticsi T1•is pro�osad proj30t 1134 1pproxisc3t317 Z0:: 7arls lir.ctl; npMll from Ottcr :r,ek aeon^ Ott3r :root::1c11. Gttsr cr,:i'l- ro- 1'111 litcse on both si33s run i1rectl; into Ctter 7r331: at v -•oint •• -sr3 tho roll cross3s Ott.r 7^sok. Airt',3r, en1 A-nific,nt17, t'+is point is • "r2roxin.t,l1 12_ 7-ir3a upstra-im ;ron ita :south •Ih3rs it 3ntsrs the 113eissippi °:liv3r. This wmr,tift -bull invoiv3 the construction an! use of 4 fval purjps an^ undtr^rot,n4. fu3l .inks for storla* !blob 0�•11"facial •-3sonint, t••o t7p31 of un131131 o,solino-, vnR liss:l fasl. 'It is understood that this proj3ot would ,lso involwo sa1.33 ,n•1 Sispinsin- of t':e abov, rontionsd fu -)Is as t+111 os othsr pro3uct3 such » oil, antifr31t3, briks fluld en 3 ctr-jr rllata 1 pro'luots. Thi prog3rt7 li3s at Vx% ,top of a bill +hich usal to bs tho old ri'erb,nk. 3urrounling property inalulss sin•+10 f:rlil7 r3sid�ntlsl,lots bn thraa sides and ,n nlensnt:ry school int 01a7 :rounl dir%ctly aa.-ts the ro1d. II. Thi 3roios3r of t'» pro.4sct 'is: :e•I ':31thu•s III. -'hs r3prss%nt,tivl of the pltition3rs is: ••grRn 'I. R,1'ly 111.0 i1217 Lou* :onti:slls 5531-= .... 012 z .3--65 •1,43 'bolie+va, -`AV ;sroJact :ill pro Luca :a"i 7iiLfic ;it 'pot ritS+�l''. hlra:f_ul inviranm3ntal offlots "-bich inclurl$: A. Through runoff, 1o3kip, s3zpirm or oth^r,forms of trnnsfor., contlmin3nts fron this projact which voul- inclu33 but not ba i1mit9d to _nsolin3, oil, (11,301 fu31, load )nd other brootrdown products wou13 r3ich Ottor Creek and/or the I:issippi River, 1. This portion of tho-1331ssilpi :iiv3r incl Ottor ^.r9et; as on unlist id tributary str,jarn of thl) !!13Sissip?i f311 und,r ::inacsot•+ Rulos ^h+-•tir 7050-.tininris Pur 'Prot-iction c. rwo .a,t,_:a cet:,. 'tita. ':n':,Ir thi: Cl+t .i ia+ icn, .hair `:i3.3 iri -o•:,: n- ,n..: �s.nic.33 u•, 1 e:* . of t:a3 :t :.z o. : =n:: •ao.i, :'h3 cl +?io- 3:)13 's j 1,rl to th'_s str-itco of the srD: 31. •10:13stic ronsur1tion 273 fi3h •n1 r3cr3,tion 33 in'?ustri it u;:?.iso � ioa it tlifa n• ,?i_:tion" a. :rtilning to cl+-3i_ftoition 10, `or �a*�estia consu ,.ption, we f931 trait ti•.rou!h runoff, s:,+ha73, ia3ke*», or my -r form of tranaPor, contininint.3 such is t:aoc. mnticnei ,nbov3 •cma:14 ;3os3 s ;.ot3rti�1' "treat to, do:'ustic **,t%r ccncu-ption to sav3r-i1 to^notraoit •co-: rniti+3 %J11t utiliz3 this •+3t?r in !' suo1:. a nnnn3r. V fel, t1v%t b3for,, this hro +ct continuas 3n snvironnsntil r�svl3,+ st:ould bra 2or3 I o •Iotirmin� suo:i a ;+0331bility. »crtinont to "1-+33ificstion 23 for flch ?n1rsair4i' n Otter Cr,Ik dr,ins 4 upatrasm lik3s P t2+osa b in!T' 3irtr!in, norm, .^first jnd :b4 Lsk3#.. Ottsr :.r: k•., I�3a Ian_ bin tsna n ss s s� ruin_ 'run or3ok ?iyro;, I•ortbarn Pitts nova up +rpm tn.)3'i,ssip�i, ivar,;;in ;, y a a;+in rd h3 Soe t6.! -tris ::uA Zr3ta. At -u t the r.out:a of Ltta.• %sssk '^asrs '.t a-iptl3s into tl{s. iac�iasi^pi, tt•h-r3 is is 2an.ii!rR, rallin, tnd 3g�'nrinT ir-ae for 'i1137IJ3, 1-:111-ront'• '+aa,. ::,••lct en:a tin:nth-r:i':"�. ^Sr'•s:-rtn, ?cael ,:': o°:' .,•..csy .:no•„ o' r'+Ss 1!.3hin^ '!113 Int St is fr3';!cn.l? uss 1. '11,30`r7 ol�+J Iron o! tlis Corr:^nitg liras 2t is clow. "lsrrt�3r, t: Sz rtr�t�h a: t�t3 `issispi�pi is t:na n st,ts'11'19 frau !»osura in 3port3T4ns publications is prim amillcnouth bs,s hi3itat. PVrthsr, it is chirtsd es a good arsa to witch Ota thss^ fish in 136 e�ation :or tbi3 -),rt of tn3-issilli.giver. Also, th3-ortion s+, trs rirt+r apstr•-in fron► : anLScailo. ioh +11 of t*s!s ie, 1,113 inisr 3 01,331fiction 0! 'iesi^nrtil :"usi:ie ,stirs'. La This sic%!on of trio riv3r vZ 7130 u33d :it' !3^oplq •i".o ri3'3 from.Vontininpi -3ounty :•irk ind U•i vir yirrc3 ?-irk on innnrtub�s In+i nir m-ittrssc33- 10":n3tr,32vt to_ points ti -311 'oi?.o:+ th3 r..outh of Otter Cr33k. `isle gatitionsrs ,feel, thit in onvironn3nt•il review should be conducts to insure thit th3 fisheries inl otlier racrastion:+l cuilitias of these `4nt3rs not ba hnrrzad. M Partinnnt to cl:issificition 4B for •rildlifs, this iron is froruintid by bnld sn_a.13s ind sevsrnl ::'i3ci.•s of rii^r+tart' witirfo•al 1nc7ludin, :inid,) :-13s3 and millnr•1 ducks to nin3 but t'•ro. DUClca liivi n33tvl a?.onr, Otter :: -Ic t',is ^ist .r,3ri7z. lccording to it host on -3 rnai Lint,' -111 ,••.,.., ' ,vi a -on. 3'3.-`,'n 1 'i cn " 3 ,v 3r ' • of 3 cut' t:.. •!: n:_ to n +inir-oi n i �r, .r Z is o 71-r r'3::ni o",n -t,Tni.•t''i3,str:3rc"i of riv3r -s -i ri:iult 3f t':) u•istre 7n lorition of Vz:i : oati(.*57.lo ;: 3.P. no -.r )lint, -10-It of V-93 cp'iciis .73=_uint 7•1,;.'a -:"!l ­lir ro' nd. 1. 31l d t-.,) c-nai lard 1 7 :; -ci3s '-11 hot', '3r'1 • 0 ...i iticna. -"='3: in i:ia nunb3rs to tt; 3 ir3 i for it ?.7�5. ;:;-i110t"o _•r or � `i•!.3 '7, .re. C 1:i,33 note inclot3a3 7'•9'ton'1„ 3� u' a7tir.i??,o ^invj- »c 20, 1923) 7+11 ' ao'.n to ria:, in,"- 7 . `isn,I � le3at the list 2 yo•irs. +hs soutaarn aize of t131a refu4o lies only Arht miles north of this 33etion of the river. 7hoso 'ind other bili on c.los fo%lo:iinS ti?r3tion ilon-- on3n uit3r in lite ,int>r in 3 3arl7 sprint-, nresunibly to�poi.nts narth :uch 33 tae--,A:3paai :17tionil 'Nrost or_othir locutions r»j bi obsirvsd hove fee.lina on schoolitiicp fish in the open r7 vat'3r.-ioles hivs .bsen obb3rv3d fandinr uhils sitting on ice ce 1lractly across from the youth of Ztt3r Croak. lw-2ea •irn 1031tion0l 3t, the ,a nk of their food chiin end sevnrin sizes ind species of fish and lo:•isr aquitio orpniins occul the lo_isr levals. It 13 dscumented ini iddely occiptid thlt to: ins ind continin+nts os+.they x333 up the food ah3in bic-)ni vc0i1 conc3ntr9tsd. Further, miny of thesi toxinsor oontinin.ints ire o wwwlntiva ini once, %b3nrbel or Sngested' ire :+it i L:;3 ininels for '.S`.w► rj-.nin13r of their life. ids feel that tlii Diaolin3, leid, oil un1 other contiiiin3nt alon^ *7it2t t: air 13rei ;20 :n iro3ugt3 ws7pow 3 a3riow Urlit ?+era to "=,17s '0-411 is -los •.::ioh oacu)y +n2 ,!1-riti t' -i3 IJ. : i •a itar�> 1 1130 f: a went 't.3i3 1r3'i 733:` rounl ani of^'I. i of t',33 3iia3 3+30i1s pias V,rou-h 3n -in,, ini f2li on t'"ir .:i^ritiods. 'ieir rounl oiin sitar 'nl niirby 0ro,i1.3n.ls "oia'i nrovi3i food seam to 3rn:7 them. 7hes3 Sin ails Csssn, .%J1,2 1 lucks, ind several other spsciss that fricu3nt this erai",rotectsd under both F31sra1 and tit+ rif-Witions. Petroleum ind ot'isr oont:)-dnents such as 1»d ai;a bion Q•:unstr3t91 to be axtren,l7 l:irmful to miny types of birds. .'etroliun in ii^ticiilir is ' no ­n3 to bs lir:ihinsl to r)luraii3ga Inl life of rimy. i-i'Tfs l theii VW %A i si"ifioint ti:reit to Vii iaovs nentionel ••�'.9!ife 1ni +e,iiit t'77t n evir3t3::1nti1 r3viu: bi c,nlnatel tO '1ia3se aitch. L4 IV A(67nt.) 2. 'iris ssction of the �Az3iasip ii River is ai.so cl is3ifi6d undar ?adsr�il' "ind. the, scenic ind recreational desi_n3tion. Undor I•IPBA 7050.0180 "iiondarsredation ?olicy" -in-1 3ubp, b "Restricted discharges" which ;)srtains to":raters of outstanding resource value". ":I-it3rs of the State with -i rsderal or State scenic or recrootionol volus inciud•i but are not limited to: (S34 P.) '::ississippi River fr,%n county stiti aid hi:h'•'i; 7 bridge in. Jt. .loin to t'r_-i r:or ,.,»at-irn city limits of" Anok-1. " %leirly this includes ;.onticello, M). ndor I171CA 7050.0130 "Ino ict from a )stro= diech,ircos. Thi oc:incy(PCA) shall r3r,uire new or expanded discharges to .rot3rs that flo'r into outat•in;iing r•isourc3 value :raters bi cintrollsd so is to 330ure no 1it3riorition in the %.ju3lity of ti19 do••nstr-t•im oatat in•lin_ rriaourca v ilu:i .r itsrtl Phis cliirly zi32i3s to Gtt3r Cr,•ik ind the -10-:n3tra-im 1 is3is3l gni .:ivsr. In ord3r to control so ys to 3a3ur3 no letoriorntion in tail 01311, t'tie petitionare feel; th-it Ottsr bsin0 •n unlist31 'nd unstudied stream ahoul3 b3 atudisd fren in, ,.environ. -%nt31 .iitir %uility 3t,n1»int so 33 :o esti Ash ( otirtin:j i31nt-'ii.,) i_ine diti 3c t:. -it =4 •.:-•!l•1 in7. 1:tiriorit; �n 3cci:• :ai 1�o t-: :i :reject tl.i.3 ill b9 _in� 't; ..^.:.oa .a coniarison cin u3 nnd.3. Further ewe feel c:13t an in"Sron:.9nt it rivi+t1 ahoul3 b•i conduct3d to iaauro th it mo dit irior ition zhruld occur. r lint -lin corilignce -iitb the.•crit-irii of tris rs:ulstion in; rjint.iin the '.u-wlity is .i river of scenic 3n3 rsarsstionsl value. ?3. Grouri0iya.tir .unity. is fest this �roj3dt uhy pease; i 3i-ni£ibint t?.r�a't -in3 ;r9.luci �:.3unl.at3r inWor —it3r tibl,3 .unity in t;1,) 1.1j iOnt •irai 3s cre11 13 the .entire 3rs3 b3t:'3sn t._^ -ro; iot in ..ttir :rj3!: io ,till as b-iC:ronn '�t,s 1re,)Qeat in1 C%j i iaoi,i.; 1. :'.ire Su adds y%iaZion i3 .:o ' i:;.er twe un3•ir^3un1 atz: i =, Links, ('1',.sr3 :i� ;ii it in to 11) a n car>>lq -itions in l atinliria :3t0)iia.113 for uniir;round storage, in th3 ninnsr it nay rslats to t;13 r4ology of the •ires, watnr table loaotion end aroun3.r%ter movement in this ires. (here ars a311s In tb3 1 ai311its arol i3sgoi3tsI '=ith rosiflsnces •rl.ich •r^i sti'.1 in us W. 13% U ;fv&t t:11t tl.rou:h 1-ik'i33r o: sv i3ms o3ntininints lnciu tin? ::Lit nit linits l to 1113=2r r3#01in I%tr7j-%uiL li mil fuel or t'iiir brgia13::n-ro%-ats W~ L%3 u O St? of t:+'.s mtsr. :1itr3 '.z+is iin in t':, list t •o iiir3 at 1,15.3t t !j o -srit'ons o! t'A3 t ji,4 ,pav "S ' o13':r_iv,�r:rini; c�;311tap, Cit-uat3d 1-rtha, *ms; x9olo i'c:,forr.mtion =(fin,i; sinr2. ind,;a'rnvol) loci -tail i' 3s` thn6 i inllti ming Chit ea,iri,snc3d lflilia,23, ind,se%11tz5 ari 13robls, %-3ltl of un1iin3o-auso. .+s n ,X-6ulG, ifoal o3ora° a�anirod in bisoal3nts of downflow residents: It is the conearn of the ;vetitionir3 that this geologic fornition my not bs conlucivo to proper ilacgrisnt and locition of under;round fuel ztorigo tinks and r3Gue3t thyt a. study b3 conducted io insure prover locition and pliicsraent ind to insure protection of aaiatinS wells and homes, Also idjacent to and dounflow from thi ;aro jact vr1 3lviril bickyird -liy areas for chi?dran and divictly ncros3 the road is in nl- menttiry 'chool ins "•14yround. It i3 %no ^n that 3x111 c.uintiti�s of li+al c -in ritir-' l.trntn�: in el'ill-in -ir.l .riiuc- ot , F -r.1: ul 3f�'Dcts. .l1 foil tint .:s in-' oti:9r nintionid a)ntiiiinint3 i:i_ht r)ich 117-x- iriis 1414: .i^3, z-1ni^i or runoff in3 this 033VAlity sbeul•i bo -iv4l iut3d by invl_. on mintal raviiw. .11jacint to ini in tho n-3Pby ;1o•mflo7i 3rai )ro soviril fnnily rprlins th-it ri- foal n.iy be si rmif±c intly off octid irori bots: a irodtictiva ind 4-ilth otini,i:it t. .io feel tbia a:-ould ilio i)i *133a33e-1 J]foro oontinuinr• it Z:!, tl,e roj�nt. C. iioiso- .+4th Via inticiiitol incre-tail t-i,fio in.l,vin-tril o ^ir•ition of br=l.nass, tt:v 3atitionoro feel that -in inor9.is-id nois3 13v31 '"iill be ir.11os3l u on th3 -irei. It is .thi•3 -•oval hivi n sirriific-int onviran•:3ant11 in,ict uisn tion ,r,3 and sanul'1 09 IV1101ta-1 tl:rnur!h gnv_ronnint-1 r-•iV'JAJJ. - I. Zie,uaa of ai^^na inl li:!1htinZ nic335vay to 9 buoinoas of thi`'d nntura, thi 3raa'a invironrsint aijbt bas 3ffntil ni^otivsl • CM olgir mirlita in thio ergs, ill thi coantsll"itions nviil i:vlq to th1 horttslrn,s::1'riiy '10 algn. It is telt,thit lir?L•t ,ic!,V;ticn, could intirf or i iitis tbis as '111 is invade thi sura-6trOin,g- 1lrivsoy of;anii�l;boTin­ yarda_. It is folt,th3t t + ' ,irrasota ohould b3 !1ddrios3a1 to, insure minimil -,iffsat. T. Dui :to: taiilla_e, +•8lgiirti, lAil:ini 1nl aµSvslourit "I 1111 t;iit't" rl ^^py. b9, a ;iossib2.ity 'nr i n­4tivs i�a3gt air .,,u,i'lit�_'iri ':> 1rha.: :# fo+l this ^+ossibilitf a}�t',� '1i-1 ^i ?.irisa3d: raviv.i' is gill. --oiosa r•- t: i :]tationj.3 sra ':ate ' iiia , 3i I, tC:i V113 t iC`'n.'.di1t*r� i33 to f"111.1 14'411'111 1)7.-.1 OP t1,1 ,,3 3v1 cone orn3 :ut ^v f 3-1 t:lat Is .:iii -'r.i envi.on:;,4ntil rlviacr -roodl is intnn3341 for. 'sith3r to *azuri blit no or : Iniriil idviron:ivntil n1•_itive irrvaet will b3 felt or to sirva as a nossiblo a tirotactor in thorn oiss •at^irm hirm could b,,� v1rg 33riou3 A can irAQ will bi bep;ly to ;wovid+ fdrtbr *AtsrI%1 1vide me*in the wil of plbstotrsp'hs, sirnid iffid+itltss or "stlsioRy upon rsQuost. .;3 liivl Finy fortlicoidnr-. At t'-io s-1_nt our cine io thio critical b1011133 t .1 i ontioillo -it-, :ounail ':'ish '.dll b3 tl-i :i. f .U, ivi 39liivaa, iu nl3tin3 i do 117, vin 2:) th in' int•n13 to deil 'it:t this tii'•tvr it t':iu t°ri. Por i vi,Atty or r3aoir3, ':e nanrL iv1 0, +in t' it tt.i = te.l-zt1,r_ i o,i-n '•-r a.) ^i ., o�,rt nus' et::i. " i.•?::- '."3 r4,,ti1a n•ur :c3 ,t _int 10 J91.1 13 31:a1:1 c�a.711i'1t:1n. t t 5I::?:L=T:F!43 OF ::12=Ii:T:3 :i;.C:J,'::.._ ._""_...I, 7-2AL 279_3. dlts 111*7 n1n0 ft, Z07 2. ;dz''ti 3. 7 PA -`Vold 4. (/i4/ 8'i 5. S. 7. ,/,ale•t C 9• I -19- 87 1o.12. 25• 111gle, 13. 1119167 14. 1/ 1418i �,101t • f�nnwn5 15. rll°� Y4 16. P7 >d.,,.,...� 17./ -sr -97 ��.r,i .- a•,..r.+t�1 19./-�o-s�� 25• ''>. I. zo-C7 1dlr+ss �► ► sic ►uvzu�a ria S-AnAj L, . 4v �seicz 3s� S.a.� � L.: m.si+uUoj.T.v rss�. Y/,Zf &lid? G, /ZO4 SwwO t W, neo rusuo,,r., 1267 4" %fZ� )ir. . i�36 Vis+ ��tiv s+, Ado•�.r+,cc!!o / 2/p w /j'•�rt --ff �i�.. �''-, js/L. (e- 3 1;33 S`47 ,2., . i .j 9�tii `4, s=' 1aMP� Ai! SF.I.i Ati'� pae• J I—d., D.. 20, 19/3 I , ,yAA1.Y Ra•/s I 111111 '.y l - � Daft [ t O@hm ![Yil •Y D G S -n An eagle had landed Mamlxeu+, a. km m) Mune I+. n..r1, IM JI Yeaw AN..w. wnrne Mn q Ik y<M 1•.1 rr rWm mtlrp Mr frYm Ih rorher• MN nl rM M+•usslJRn R+ver RerrdrM+MII uRsd1 111n Rernhrt njI R. Nr•Rk ardrr the r IRI n m pr nl•M rsrdrr) Mreen Irrrr •N 111 Rrrn LxneNr. l rMuFft. t'p M.x pn row <a�n et .ecxq Ame:u raYM.in rrpm m/h rax•ry in IM rsmrrr ++f 117. nmk /m • SrrAr Rurr h+n trp "It. GnN Trmm n i a#/. mdrm, rryimrJ d•J m MawserM. Ne .+ x11 d+rleu I Mp coca, fn NM r+/k* c•JM m rnx uCM N'NMN) •nr+rw, Da' M, rhlu J RpsI M f'rmNrp brrcM Irn •MM roar N IM l Inc A bN I• mI cwt Mf" Irwn dfn MoMrelln 1 m Nr Re M inMrn4 M-tcr & `-—w w1m Keumr Asd'N bn+•+tis ra. hop beep A cheep hrl iM s1J m1, • Mb uek cM+mi nn • 1^+rY M rIRM h the Inn, ik KY /IrMp !can true+ car.. r•IM mr •N+pem mm�rMs i r+nrr ern rr� Yarn cap tekpws krb 1 rmr W17 averrrmrN 11•w Iso lire Mr scab rr•M •N prwr w 11•[ Rn rq � Q ly i Ap/IrofusAd Nptes d/nc*V/IOP /n M11fbrw IMM w"NO' M lb— /J 40—t 'rf@e Doc 7 w 117 R•ryw nr• M qe Aver IMr wx +N MrrnWr.n Cn Rd IRI berry nNny, I pnwe M'/4w•+p+M+•1 utl m+arrNp rw Mwrsrwnlnrrr Annesrmrmn rr4 +++w n Mahn Mwnra J +•J,ep M M hxLYM M nr r +r nen � xrb r.r n • pur•rr .Irl caro IW penho n. nw +hw WA mY r•r rN Ne a•rwn . w rn I+mm 11W M Mien,- h•A MMe! Thrrt can t.n nnw rm +M riprW + wo, I+r nxrx iMuRA IM Mo.. r rIM n+Npk NNn raYrr •N/r nr�rn • rynl I I^RR+'p Imp r Nark rnr •RRM r•YN +r 1hr Mwwilr r+rM •+r+nm Me M+auuy1JrrMfN x+�rrern rr111r WnN +n rlLwlna srR1x At non IMY { M4 ren rr rM h^ . Inco Ik Mir+ r+rb R7 In rr i+M r 1. I+.N r l et Mlrr Inentxr+ r 1 +•r 147 M ns r Lrr erry11A• 1 Iw11r4 hn 1 ur Ik r rr Lrprl • ra rrAl +Ml+imaN dr.+rr r•+Np rtnry yn+eh breYhwrmpe MM iMryn +RR+n M.w rnR 4al I nrd{M 1er.r/h IrF' Mp rww n M over . epp r+d IMiur n ne . rel Mmrd • row .r14wr rN 11•x41 r�iaw rarerY•+r.n i x•1 TM pwa•re M+sen r+n w4rr of •np mr f W Mn r MI i rrrM w IwJ rg4n rn Nr +rM IM r•y 1 eW hRep nr in Y••rr wN IIM.yM Nrn+u•chrrr ul Wer+rlMr rrinN ryrerM •pwrrN Mww Mn prrlrrR+M ren NrMr rnw wMu M II•+ `4 4esrrya. aw N AtI•rxrpl :'<++n M' •yrm MI hwN Mex revel rA en•nM 11, r In tl• 11rllrurnr Nnumq NARIIr Rr1yr me111 M RV 1.111' In vera rr Iry Ir+rm .—M ., i rYwrm+wxw N+wrrr Pon i In n. x41 d.As rr ealvernn I weir. a •rl I+res Irl rh 1 row M1Ar Nnx1r an ryM rr/hny Ili M-o,d, rw .•e art nklNrrr yarn �itmititttta r+r AArr n.p .r•+r rlwmr w Ile t "I— err••I is.. sm 111—•N• Y.w 0,63R2 WN Ro- /w1•p MM iar1l•r+rM+en+ww off W Yr•r NI+yYst W ewrMnn Cwm �• A17 •mu s,11 so% •Nwu• RI/ 3., $ our N n•N• rwr Ulb/11h 1171 ous"am I fol ecu Ah• Lwo I mI MwrNM Ree Imc 4r , rte• :r, +r•I•r wodo l•1• (wrN m/ rM WC wp.«Iwr /n 11114141 WNn•NM 11Nw a scare F*I— w o wR.w ..a R Rwn1r nIl/N/Nr Ilea/ 111741 WE - -rkE 4035b Votc a ©O.e C�oPfbsiTion3 -ro TAS GRANTING A Co.��►-r�oaAL usF iZE4uEST TbR A CoNVEN�ErttE �E ��-'�sP�N�»�t \NsSar - T3-.oc14. 4 3, TZsv�tC Tgi2¢AcE Qboti^r�o+►1 tnJ Mo*sT%cELLO. �aw►.�� d4��� v U%- the und"si-,,eats t/olce, cu -r appos,tron -/o the 9 ra �, conA: to„ a[ use re8u-e, f -YO - 4— Con e 'i;,o`/ cbspe s.t j o f Ma7�or a4 {owner 1 Ch¢411es "sti - Be,Block 't - Lot I Trrace OWIOio>+ vn lmmbce.//6 c Quer aFs- ysg� .�✓C.Z L9J-. srrJ'y Oo. 6or 3a/ o14S-&197 Po • bar 3z/ dK--15f'7 7 afJ -5-160 113) W. 3 .Q, ..G 6 �q S- W79/ /�.3��•-�-s�,t:�. fid'. ass--�s�� v //-26 113) W. Ll ( s v R 1 R2 1 Current Lonln R3 JR4 PZ 1 131 R2 33 Earl last Lone I Nhara Proposed 11111 U8 e Appear, as a PermittaE Use Earnest Lone Phar• Prevloua Use Appears se e Parmltt. Use BSS I-1 I-2 3-1 IFI A LAWFUL NONCONFORMING USE OF A STRUCTURE OR PARCEL OF LAND MAY BE CHANGED TO LESSEN THE NON'CONF ORMITY OF USE. ONCE A NON• CONFORMING STRUCTURE OR PARCEL OF LAND HAS BEEN CHANGED, IT SHALL NOT THEREAFTER BE $0 ALTERED TO INCREASE THE NON' CONFORMITY. THE EXISTING NONCONFORMING USE IS BEING CHANGED TO LESSEN THE NONCONFORMITY OF USE. R 1 R2 R3 R4 PZ Bl B2 B3 B4 E-1 I-2 LESS CONFORMITY/LESS COMPATIBILITY I. CONFORMITY MEANS COMPLIANCE WITH INTENT AND RULES OF ZONING ORDINANCE. 2. ZONING ORDINANCE IS INTENDED 10 PROMOTE COMPATIBILITY OF USES. CONFORMITY IS INTENDED TO PROMOTE COMPATIBILITY OF USES. TWO KINDS OF CONFORMITY 1. QUANTITATIVE E.G. ORDINANCE REQUIRES 30 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK, BUT EXISTING HOUSE ONLY 20 FEET BACK. 2. QUALITATIVE E.G. SINGLE FAMILY HOME IN A e'4 ZONE. R 1 R2 R3 R4 PZ Bl B2" B3 B4 1-1 1-2 LESS CONFORMITYAESS COMPATIBILITY 1. CONFORMITY MEANS COMPLIANCE WITH INTENT AND RULES OF ZONING ORDINANCE. Z. ZONING ORDINANCE IS INTENDED TO PROMOTE COMPATIBILITY OF USES. :. CONFORMITY IS INTENDED 10 PROMOTE -COMPATIBILITY OF USES...;, TWO KINDS OF CONFORMITY 1. QUANTITATIVE E.G. ORDINANCE REQUIRES 30 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK, BUT EXISTING HOUSE ONLY 20 FEET BACK. 2. QUALITATIVE E.G. SINGLE FAMILY HOME IN A e'4 TONE. 8. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed �( that the lightsource Ss not visible frog l ` the public right-of-way or from an abutting residence and shall be In compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [H) of this Ordinance. 9. Vehicular access points shall be limited, shall create a minimum of conflict with through traffic movement and shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 10. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 9 of this Ordinance. 11. Provisions are made to control and reduce noise. 12. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this Ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. [C) MOTOR FUEL STATION, MOTOR FUEL STATION/CONVENIENCE STORE, AUTO REPAIR -MINOR AND TIRE AND BATTERY STORES ArM SERVICE PROVIDED THAT: Regardless of whether the dispensing, sale or oPlerin9 for sale of motor fuels and/or oilrincidental(to the conduct of the use Fier businesp the standards and requirements .Wposea my this Ordinance for Motor Fuel Stations shall apply. These standards and requirements are, however, in addition to other requirements which are imposed for other uses of the property. 2. The architectural appearance and functional plan of the building and site shall not be so dissimilar tothe existing buildings or area as to cause impairment in property values or constitute a blighting influence within a'reasonable distance of the lot. 3. The entire site other than that taken up by a building, structure or plantings shall be surfaced with a material to control dust and drainage which is subject to the approval of the City Engineer. a. A minimum lot area of twenty-two thousand five hundred (22,500) square feet and minimum lot dimensions of one hundred fifty (150) feet by one hundred thirty (130) feet. 14 U [CHI CONDITIONAL USE: A use, which may be appropriate to .,� the zone, but because of special problems of control the use presents, requires reasonable, but special, unusual and extraordinary limitations peculiar to the use for the protection of the public welfare and the integrity of the municipal land use plan. (C11 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: A permit, issued by the Council in accordance with procedures specified in this Ordinance, as a flexibility device to enable the Council to assign dimensions to a proposed use or conditions surrounding it after consideration of adjacent uses and their functions and the special problems which the proposed use presents. (CJI CONDOMINIUM: A multiple dwelling containing individually owned dwelling units and jointly owned and shared areas and facilities, which dwelling is subject to the provisions of the Minnesota Condominium Law, Minnesota Statutes, Sections 515.01 to b15.19. (CK) CONSTRUCTION SIGN: A non-Llluminated sign announcing the names of architects, engineers, contractors, or other individuals of firms involved with construction, alteration, or repair of abuilding (but not including any advertisement of any product) or announcing the character of the building enterprise, or the purpose for which the building in intended. (CLI CONVENIENCE FOOD ESTABLISH!4?NT: An establishment which 'exclusively serves food in or on disposal or edible containers in individual services for consumption on or off the promisee. (CMI CONVENIENs�� STORE: A retail store not more than 6,000 .Quare Yost in area that generally carries a reduced inventory of a variety of items such as dairy products, auto fuels and lubricants and other minor automobile items, grow novelties, magazines, etc Colatod convenience store may be combined with a motor faretecion lees defini on ,- Motor Puel StatloNConvnianeetore). A/C— (CN1 COOPERATIVE (HOUSING): A multiple family dwelling owned and maintained by the residents. The entire structure and real property is under common ownership as contrasted to a condominium dwelling where individual units.are under separat.a.individual occupant ownership. rC01 COURT: An unoccupied open space other than a yard which is bounded on two (2) or more sides by the walls of the buildings. L IDA] DAy CARE - HOME: A family dualling in which foster cars, supervision and training for children of school or pro—school age out of their own home is provided. Council Agenda - 1/26/87 I r► 8. Consideration of Authorizing Final Payment on City Hall Ceilins Resurfacing. (G.A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Mr. Chuck Lindberg, Lindberg Painting 6 Decorating, is asking for final payment on the interior sealing of the roof decking and beams. Having heard no negative comments from City Council members, I am assuming the Council members approve of the appearance of the finish of the interior roof decking and beams. As Mr. Lindberg has explained to me, the durability of the product which he put on the beams and roof decking will have a durability lifetime of 30-40 years. The only difference you will see now on through the duration of its lifetime would be a natural darkening of the finish. The main concern we have as City staff members is on the clean up of the interior of the entire building. when the finish was applied, it was applied with an airless sprayer. we have gotten overspray on our furniture, desks, registers, electrical fixtures, windows, glass area, blinds, etc. Mr. Lindberg has attempted to clean this up but has merely just touched the surface of it. The entire affected areas have to be cleaned with a solvent first to cut through the finish that is loft on these arose. Then they may be wipod down with a water typo product. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve the final payment to Lindberg Painting 6 Decorating for the interior coaling of the roof docking and beams. 2. Deny final payment to Lindberg Painting 6 Decorating for the interior sealing of the roof docking and beams. 3. Approve final payment but withhold "X" number of dollars until the clean up is completed to City staff's approval, then the final withhold amount of money can be paid to him. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends withholding final payment of "X" number of dollars until final clean up is completed and approved by City staff. we have soma reservations of the final appearance of the finish that was done, as nothing really did cover the streaks, and the whole intent was to bland It in. D. SUPPORTING DATA: I None. Council Agenda - 1/26/87 4, 9. Statue Report, PSG. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: operations at the wastewater Treatment Plant for November and December ran quite well. The City has met its permit limitations for the entire four months which PSG hag been in operation. Maintenance activities and clean up activities have been very satisfactory to date. Odor control is being given a high priority at the wastewater Treatment Plant. Except for a small period of time from mid-December to early January, PSG has been chlorinating trickling filter influent in order to reduce odors. Except for a chlorine equipment failure during that period of time, the chlorination does appear to have a positive effect on odor control. In addition, staff training is continuing, and there are renewed efforts to mobilize an all out spring sludge spreading effort. A portable tank Is being readied for farm use, and we are continuing our efforts toward replacing the sludge truck axle. Professional Services' operational costs of the wastewater Treatment Plant look favorable at this time. They are currently under budget; and if this trend continues, we would expect to see a rebate at the and of the contract period. One item you may not be aware of is the fact that Al Moyer was off work for a few weeks due to a heart and artery problem. He is back at work again and doing quite wall. If you have any questions about the operation of the Treatment Plant, Steve Sunt will be available to answer any questions. Copies of the November and December reports are included for your review. -10- A 11` PROFESSIONAL SERVICES GROUP, INC. December 8, 1986 Mr. John Simola PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR MONTICELLO CITY HALL 250 East Broadway Monticello, MN 55362 Dear Mr. Simola: Enclosed is the November monthly report for the Monticello Wastewater Facility. Please let Steve Sunt or myself know if you have any questions in regards to the monthly report. Very truly yours, Mic ael D. Nelson Vice President Operations MDN/olr cc: S. Sunt M. Stump M. Robbins Rydai Executive Plaza • Suite 930 • P.O. Box PSG • Rydal, PA 19M • (215) 5728200 Del (ED MONTICELLO WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT MONTHLY REPORT - NOVEMBER 1986 Executive Summary Operations continued to be normal for the third month of PSG operation. Effluent limits were met. Process adjustments were made to improve effluent quality. PSG's goal for land disposal was attained and substantial training was conducted in instrumentation maintenance and computerized preventive maintenance. U Plant Performance All NPDES requirements were met for the month. Summary data appears below and detailed information is included in the appendix. Flow Effluent Effluent MGD C BOD mg/l Suspended Solids Mg/1 .465 Actual/Permit Actual/Permit 23/25 18/30 For November the same liquid processes were used as in previous months. The solids inventory was manipulated to compensate for fluctuating organic and hydraulic loadings. The overall average flow for the month increased fifty percent over the previous month. In regards to the solids handling portion of the plant no changes were made and approximately 20,000 pounds were disposed. Maintenance Activities Preventive maintenance tasks as well as special projects were conducted during November. Some examples follow: 1) local electrical contractor repaired one electric blower 2) installed new electric motor on plant heating pump 3) methane gas meter shipped to Sioux City for repairs 4) November 23, 24, 25, Sioux City instrumentation specialist calibrated various instruments, inspection of all instrumentation 5) loading of PAMP ongoing with a mid-December startup date contemplated Housekeeping activities for the month were: 1) cleaned diverting structure building 2) washed down walls of equalisation tank 3) washed all weirs and channels Safety Chlorine safety was the topic for this month's employee safety meeting. Suggestions for an emergency response program were obtained. Safety while working on instrumentation was also discussed. Training Paul Tagstrom, Instrument Engineer from Sioux City, conducted a seminar on instrumentation maintenance and safety aspects on November 26. Plant as well as Monticello water and collections personnel were in attendance. A computers zed maintenance training session was held in Sioux City on November 18 and 19. Steve Sunt and Tony Strand attended. Topics for next month are Chlorine Safety and Operating the PAMP Program. Pretreatment Five samples were collected and analyzed for Wrightco, NSP Industry. Fewer samples were due to a failure of Wrightco's automatic sampler. Results are enclosed in the appendix. Wrightco facility was toured by PSG's project manager. Sludqe Manaqement During the month, 20,000 lbs. of digester sludge were land applied. The total goal of 50,000 lbs. was reached and adequate space in the digesters exist. Future activities planned include obtaining more permitted land and preparing the recently purchased nurse tanks for use next year. Odor Control work throughout this month identified the trickling filters as an odor source. To combat this odor, chlorine is being applied to the trickling filter flow. Observations have Indicated that the chlorination practice has reduced the odor. In tho future, PSG will study the need for a scrubber and make recommendations to the City. we plan to actively pursue all odor complaints. we also intend to visit with our neighbors to urge them to immediately call if they detect an odor. c_ Public Relations PSG attended both City Council meetings in November and responded to questions. Three cub scout troops from Elk River toured the facility in early November. Financial Information The October financials are included in the appendix. Enerqv Conservation The conservation program is working as evidenced by the reduction in utility bills. Work continues to lower both the natural gas and electric usage. Planning No additional capital concerns were uncovered this month. L_ C4) APPENDIX NPDES PERMIT DATA PRETREATMENT FINANCIALS cl?) -7 'MONTHLY' OPT RATION"RE PORT OVINASIEWATER !TREATMENT rACILITYr muNwriou PaLLuro. Coirc. AGE%" I= EST ma,,. WOAD 112 :MECHANICAL �rACILITY LABOUTORVJ-ANALYSIS — PLANT owrLUEWT .'EFFLUENT' Rectiviva? WATERS, OATA'.. SLUDGE' OISPOBAL!r -'Ii'f �1 1` PROFESSIONAL SERVICES GROUP. INC. November Industrial Contributor Laboratory Analysis Fewer samples are due to failure of Wri9htco's automatic sampler. Monticello Wastewater Trostmeni Plant 9 1401 Hart Blvd. a Monticello, MN 55362 9 (812) 295222' Wri9htco Date Flow (M.G.D.) BOD m9/l S.S. m9/l PH 2 .015 1579 148 8.5 3 .064 3076 1040 8.8 10 .076 3076 794 8.9 11 .074 2481 868 8.6 Fewer samples are due to failure of Wri9htco's automatic sampler. Monticello Wastewater Trostmeni Plant 9 1401 Hart Blvd. a Monticello, MN 55362 9 (812) 295222' PROFESSIONAL SERVICES GROUP, INC. -1 November Industrial Contributor Laboratory Analysis Northern States Power Date Readings BOD m9/1 i S.S. m9/l PH Pump k1 Pump 02 3 305.0 1467.7 466 187 6.9 11 305.7 1476.1 • + i • 17 305.7 1485.1 • + + 24 305.7 1494.2 • + + 12/1 305.7 1502.0 ► + + l+ analysis not done C Monticello Wastewater Treatment Plant • 1401 Hart Blvd. • Monticello, MN 553U • (612) 2652225 9 AEGIS ICRI02PSG Professional Services Grow, Inc. DATE 12!06;6: PAGE 1 PROJECT STATUS REPORT TI(;E 9:42 At TH=i PERIOD 10;86 ISS ) S. Sunt Project: C6122.A CITY OF WITICELLO Start Cate: 12/63/86 End Date: 1:/31/69 y `- TOTAL =_= = =?IT PERIOD PROJECT TO DATE BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGETED VARIANCE ACTUAL BULLIED VARI;::CE OVE) - LABOR 5501 LAW - SALARIED 9,333 2,225 2,333 10/ 4658 4.666 107 5502 LABOR - HOURLY 15,879 4,129 3,845 (284) 8,061 7,690 (371) 5503 LABOR - OVERTIME 0 576 0 (576) 801 0 (801) it 5504 LABGR - SICK 0 0 0 0 3:, 0 (35) 1 5506 LABOR - HOLIDAY 0 107 0 (107) 2S5 0 (285) S 5507 TEMPORARY KELP 241 0 60 60 0 1:0 120 TOTAL LABOR :4,953 7,038 6,238 (670) 13,7.: 12,476 (1,266) 10 --- EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 5517 THRIFT PLAN EXPENSE 0 14 0 (14) 26 0 (28) / $537 HEALTH INSURWa - GRMP WEAL 2,573 625 643 17 11251 1,286 34 5538 HEALTH INSISANU - DENTAL 141 0 35 35 70 70 0 5539 HEALTH 11WANCE - LTD 89 8 22 13 16 44 5540 HEALTH IA5Ml:E - LIFE 102 32 26 (6) 57 52 (5) 10 5543 LIABILITY INSTANCE - 14CRXNRN 2,568 321 642 320 699 1,264 534 5564 TAX EXPENSE - PAYROLL 660 80/ 215 (542) 1,699 430 (1,269) 295 5574 PROVISION FOR PENSION 1,211 261 303 41 550 606 55 TOTAL E/FLOYEE BENEFITS 7,544 2,070 1,866 (104) 4,3 2 3,772 (600) 15 CHEMICALS 5377 CIOMICALS - CHLORRIE 304 505 76 (4291 505 15: (353) :3: 5584 DDICALS - GENERAL 50 0 13 13 0 :6 26 TOTAL CHEMICALS 354 505 69 (416) 505 178 (327) 183 --- UTILITIES 5591 UTILITIES - ELECTRIC 12,635 2,031 3,159 1,125 3,677 6,318 2,648 5592 UTILITIES - GAS 5,332 1,160 1,333 172 1,919 2,666 746 TOTAL UTILITIES 17,967 3,194 4,492 1,297 5,597 6,964 3,386 --- EGUIPIENT / VEHICLES 5536 GASOLINE 1,796 234 449 214 :34 698 663 5556 REPAIR 1 MINT. • GENERAL 0 57 0 157) 57 0 (57) 1 TOTAL EOUIPMENT / VEHICLE 1,796 297 449 156 292 698 605 --- OUTSIDE SERVICES 5509 OUTSIDE CONSUL TANTS 0 200 0 (200) 200 0 1200) 1 5510 OUTSIDE LABRATORY SLRVICES 200 PP 50 (491 99 100 0 TOTAL OUTSIDE 6ERVICE6 200:99 50 l247) :99 100 (1991 199 -- OFFICE EXPENSE COMPUTER EXPENSE 667 (896) 167 1,063 1,155 334 (821) :45 C'3 OFFICE EQUIPMENT - RENTAL 166 0 42 42 277 64 (193) 230 5546 POSTAGE 300 0 /S /5 0 150 ISO 5547 FREI3NI L DELIVERY 0 0 0 0 11 0 (11) 1 5548 PPINTINO t OFFICE SUPPLY 312 123 8] 140) 837 166 (671) 404 0 AEGIS 4CR102PSG Professional Services Grow, Ire. DATE 1:/08/66 FACE 2 PROJECT STATUS REPORT TIME 9:42 AM THROUGH PERIOD 10/86 (SS ) S. Sunt Project: C6122.A CITY OF MGO710ELL0 Start Date: 12/09/86 End Date: 12/31/89 �- TOTAL ==__ = CURMIT F IDD =—___ =—__= FROJFCT TG DATE z =_— Y BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGETED VARIANCE ACTUAL BUDSATED VARIANCE OVER ;559 REPAIR i MAINT. - OFFICE EDUI 50 43 13 (30) 43 26 (17) cc 5566 TEI.EPUC)IE 800 627 200 (427) 627 400 (2:7) 56 TOTAL OFFICE EXPENSE 2x315 4101) 580 681 2,952 1,160 (1x792) 154 — OTHER EXPEIISE 5511 LABRATORY SUPPLIES 1,200 24 300 275 24 600 5T 5516 EMPLOYEE EXPENSE 515 265 129 (136) 265 258 (7) 5527 BOOKS, HAGS. i SUBSCRIPTIONS 25 0 6 6 0 12 12 5528 DUES t REGISTRA110N - INDIVID 25 0 6 6 0 12 12 =4 FOOD, TIWJEL i LODGIIS, 700 (86) 175 261 1,256 3•.A (906) 259 5535 RELOCATION 1,300 293 315 31 293 650 3;6 5541 LIABILITY INSURANCE - G:NEM 11006 232 252 19 461 504 39 :550 PROF. DEMOPMEUT 9 OFFICE rE too 65 25 (40) 244 50 (194) 389 5560 OPERATING SUPPLIES 0 102 0 11021 101 0 (102) 8 TOTAL OTHER EXFEIISE 4,871 897 1,218 a20 2,652 2,436 (216) 8 T 0 1 A l P R 0 J E C 1 60,000 14,196 15,002 805 30,414 30,004 (410) 11 v AESIS OCRI02PSG Professiwal Services :jra:►, Ir¢. DATE 1./Go 66 PAGE 3 PROJECT STATUS REPORT TIME 9:42 An THROUGH PERIOD 10/86 (SS ) S. Sunt Project: C6122.R CITY OF AWTICELLO -REPAIRS t MINT Start Date: 12/08766 End Date: 6!31/87 LTOTAL =___= (IMUT PERIOD ===_ = _=_== PRGICT TO DATE D111r.,ET ACTUAL BUDGETED VAR1AlCE ACTUAL BUDGETED VAEIASCE G EP --- EQUIPFDT / VEHICLES 5332 FIELD EOUIPIMEDT - RENTAL 133 0 33 33 0 66 66 = REPAIR I MIUT. GENERAL 6,075 582 1,519 936 678 3,038 2,I59 55,8 REPAIR 8 MINT. - SERVICE EOU 100 0 25 25 0 50 50 5568 REPAIR B MINT. - VEHICLES 660 1,708 150 (1,558) 1,708 IN (1,408) 169 TOTAL EOUIPPONT / VEHICLE 6.908 2,291 1,727 (5.:4) 2,366 3,151 1,067 -- OUTSIDE SEI'VICES 5508 SUBCONTRACTORS 1.321 0 331 331 0 662 662 TOTAL OUTSIDE SERVICES 1,324 0 331 331 0 662 662 - OFFICE EXPENSE 5517 FREIGHT t DELIVERY 100 0 25 25 0 50 50 TOTAL OFFICE EXPENSE IN 0 25 21, 0 50 50 T O T A L P R O J E C T 6,332 2,291 2,083 (208) 2,386 4466 1,779 0&? AEGIS ICRIOZPSG Professional Services Grow, Inc, GATE 1?/G8i6 PAGE 4 PROJECT STATUS REPORT TIKE 9:42A THROUGH IER10D 10/86 REPORT TOTALS END OF REPORT TOTAL CURRENT PERIOD ==___= PROJECT TO DATE =_= 1 BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGETED VARIARM ACTUAL BUDGETED VARIANCE WL: 68,132 16,487 17,085 59/ 321801 34,170 1,366 v -10 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES GROUP, INC. One Jenkintown Station. 115 West Avenue - Suite 101, Jenkintown. Pennsybania 19046.2025 215.572.8200 L January 8, 1987 Mr. John Simola Public Works Director MONTICELLO CITY HALL 250 East Broadway Monticello, MN 55362 Dear Mr. Simola: Enclosed is PSG's December Monthly Report for Monticello's Wastewater facility. Please contact me or Steve Sunt if you have any questions. Wishes for a Happy New Year. Very truly yours, Michael D. Nelson Vice President Operations MDN/olr cc: S. sunt M. Stump M. Robbins 5 10, Executive Summary The Monticello wastewater facility met all effluent standards for the month of December. programs in the areas of safety, training and housekeeping are progressing. Energy conservation plans have been implemented and expected results achieved. a Monticello Wastewater Treatment Plant r_ Monthly Report - December 1986 plant Performance Flow Effluent MGD CBOD mg/1 SS mg/1 Actual/Permit Actual/ Permit 0.428 20/25 20/30 For December the same liquid processes were used as in previous months. In addition the second aeration basin was placed into service to improve activated sludge settleability and to protect the tank from harsh winter conditions. Maintenance Activities 1 Built water trap for methane line to aeration building 2 Repaired thermostat for gravity thickener building 3 Minor repairs and preventive maintenance on GMC pickup 4 Modified raw sewage sampler line to prevent clogging 5 Repaired south final clarifier skimmer 6 Boiler exhaust stack replaced by local contractor ]Housekeeping Activities 1 Cleaned gravity thickener building 2 Cleaned boiler room and digester building 3 Cleaned aeration building 4 Swept out maintenance garage U Safety �- "Dangers Associated with Entering and Working in Confined Spaces" was the topic for this months safety employee meeting. The need for a hazardous atmosphere detector and a hoist to extract a disabled Worker was discussed and these items well be purchased in the near future. Training Training is continuing on operating the PAMP program installed this month. Cross training of employees is underway with the goal of having each employee familiar with all aspects of treatment, plant operation and maintenance. A special audio/video training package has been purchased by PSG and sessions will begin In January. Pretreatment Twelve samples were collected and analyzed for Wrightco, NSP, and Bondhus industries. Results are enclosed in the appendix. Sludge Management Work is continuing on the new nurse tanks. The anaerobic / digesters are performing well and there is ample room for winter storage of sludge. In January we will begin identifying acceptable land sites for additional permitting. 0 Odor Control No odor complaints were received in December. For most of December the trickling :filter influent was chlorinated to reduce odors. Public/Client Relations Novembers monthly report was presented to the Public Works Director on 12/10/86. Financial Information The November financials are included in the appendix. Year end accounting is underway with a 1986 Repair and Maintenance budget rebate expected for the city in mid-February. Energy Conservation The following is a comparison between the dollar amount of energy consumed in comparable months for 1985 and 1986: 1985 1986 Month Elec Gas Elec Gas Oct. 3023 2103 2034 1161 Nov. 3069 1736 2390 1434 Dec. 2604 2851 2372 1237 Total $8696 $6690 $6796 $3832 Grand Totals $15,386 $10,628 Results: A 31% reduction in energy costs have been obtained. Planning No additional capital concerns were uncovered this month. D t APPENDICES NPDES REPORT PRETREATMENT DATA FINANCIALS oq .. MONTHLY OPERATION REPORT OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY 9tltn/'E d/o !Qb/NM'r ffM4 wrri%' it/ANI` [„n r-rlal[[m•rotm[wr [aar.01 •c[xcr IFfi w[M GpueT RO•D U MECHANICAL TACILIT T- —!•12 �9�ARS �oun�tF, rlw1[or•uru' rtr a D•v�WMCEwNrualDl GENERAL LA60RATORT ANALYSIS- PLANT INFLUENT, EFFLUENT RECEI.;xO WATERS D•.. _ SLUDGE 01Se0SAL 1 •'-•G "„.'r,_.• .....r..li ; V:�• ..,5- '.•,. 1 ,f _t.� 'i �,'..es •.,;�` •h'; [z •} tt �S �� •[ 5t g ggt. �: A5 ggi - es � ((�� IkI' A. •i5 7 _JI lit 1 I 6I. .V r 45 t. 9� [ •j •' i4 Ulfit -i C 2 Y.p . p _ /A • a O 1M -p -0.N u• k 7s 94 4`l yloe V.S b !1 1 v - ra s .v 7. • mL.L • !6- a� 7 7 4 —44 I ro W � • T J` i it t _ s.. eb II Hyl r n 7 i6 7A L 73 ZAf _S•r o 6.4 o e_o O ee o ee — 1(e 1 Lsos i•T' 7! z9 L 4..t � • v.0 10- 7]LT L6 rw _ 6 -10Q ee ” --tku 6A Lf` .0 +'•' - 7 U.7 70,E iA- '7 .O P= _ `+E W Vj o 11 L� 18b /6 91 _ sk a b0' - �y _ 1 f6 e s O w - - - Al T•+ -- w _ n TF O F "j_ .FTSE L ( 45 (J 7d A _ f�Y G� Q' � _ �e A 7F f-.Ynful— ti v ( • L • eJ 0 n - r- c if P d 1/ f L.� z.9 f. 10 n /e �� � ,IJ _. � -- � •1 a 76161 '. r - /D may,O x rE• zl trF. ?'� .. nT _ - - K _ �- - - - - •�� X1'7.•. _w x2c >S�L x X X xxxxxxxxic:- 37A o Re o ► pC,x - 1.l -. --c'?G .. •--.• x x • Pnw x . Y � 01r 6 Wj Y' •!1 J6 TF JrJ 1 ��_ . Nf _. x � ?5:_ t - i[ . - x x iC � x ' _ - .� y � �+• X _ aJ �� �� - S1 a"py.•..L _.. ryrr ••r.0 m rpnw Keum K.r•, rY•uLL moral _ K nnu nw . � I ,,.. , • ,. e. a .EN__ Ia. •re K • 1�y�r �7. XYZ 3' x4 �4 �7 •,/A ,•�J1 _ % • e•:�� i r �aw.p .•euI o�, n.0 awuow...nu r.., oea•�•n, uE. _..m" . �•-- ri i11, YE i11 0 ?f ]Y L ago t� /1 '/: ,Ay -- [rr�e - - - ._ X .2 fr! r -r n it j C 43PROFESSIONALSERVICES GROUP, INC. Quarterly Industrial Contributor Laboratory Analysis 80NDHUS INDUSTRIES Date BOD m9/1 S.S. m9/1 PH 12/31/86 145 126 7.6 &I Monticello wastewater Treatment Plant • 1401 mart Blvd. • Monticello, MN 5592 • (812) 2952225 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES GROUP, INC. December Industrial Contributor Laboratory Analysis • analysis not done • • Lab error Monticello Wastewater Treatmani Plant • 1401 Hart Blvd. • Monticello, MN 55=1 • (812) 2226 Northern States Power Date Readings BOD mg /I S.S. m9/1 PH Pump 01 Pump 02 1 305.7 1502.0 * + 114 7.4 B 305.7 1511.4 582 182 8.1 15 305.7 1521.3 • + + 22 305.7 1530.3 + + + 29 305.7 1538.0 • + + • analysis not done • • Lab error Monticello Wastewater Treatmani Plant • 1401 Hart Blvd. • Monticello, MN 55=1 • (812) 2226 ( 13 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES GROUP. INC. December Industrial Contributor Laboratory Analysis Monticello Wastewater Treatment Plant 9 1401 Mart Blvd. 9 Monticello. MN 651182 • (612) 295-2225 V Wri9htco Date Flow (M. G. D. 809 m9/1 S.S. m9/l PH 4 * 4482 1000 9.3 9 + 2604 1060 +* 10 * 3008 1000 •* 17 a 4091 896 7.9 18 .041 4062 634 •• 21 .00465 1853 548 8.6 22 .074 3546 592 7.8 C 28 .034 1100 97 6.3 29 .095 1990 394 6.3 + Sample collected by WWTP Personel ++ Analysis not done Monticello Wastewater Treatment Plant 9 1401 Mart Blvd. 9 Monticello. MN 651182 • (612) 295-2225 V AEGIS 4CR107P56 Professional Services Grour1 Inc. 76 $03 228 DATE 50 PAW 1 PROJECT 13 STATUS REPORT d9 354 0 Tid 89 505 267 THROUGH PERIOD 11/86 2,295 31139 863 51973 91477 PROJECT KGR (SS) S. S.,nt 5,332 2,134 1,333 (801) 404 3,999 (55) 17,967 Na- Pru.iect: C6122,A CITY OF V411TICELLO 62 109077 Start Date: 12/18/86 End Me. 12/31/69 0 (37) 37 0 TOTAL =__= CURRENT PERIOD --z 449 _____= PROJECT TO DATE 239 19347 19101 0 SUDGET ACTUAL BUDGETED VARIA14CE ACTUAL BUDGETED VAR IANCF T. - LABOR 449 T31 389 1,347 957 0 0 O 5501 LABOR - SALARIED 9,333 2,117 213.43 2133 6,676 61999 322 ISO 5502 LABOR - HOURLY 13,379 3,250 31845 594 IW12 11,535 222 60 5503 LABOR - OVERTIME 0 254 0 1251) 11056 0 (1,056) 1 5504 L180R - SICX 0 229 0 (229) 265 0 (265) 1 5506 LAM - HOLIDAY 0 570 0 45%0) 853., 0 5507 TEMPORARY Iffl.l 241 0 60 60 0 18) TOTAL LABi 24,953 6,423 6,238 •185) 201166 18,714 (1,4:,2) --- EKMZM. BENEFITS 5517 THRIFT PLAN EXPENSE 0 14 0 (14) 42 0 )4?) 1 5537 :IFALTH INSURANCE - GROUP HFAL 2,573 625 643 17 1,876 1,929 52 5538 HEALTH INSURANCE - DENTAI 141 35 35 0 106 105 (1) 5539 HEALTH INSURANCE. - LTD 89 8 22 13 24 66 41 5540 HEALTH INSURANCE - LIFE 102 32 26 (6) 89 78 (11) 1: 5543 LIABILITY INSURAI4CT: - Y0WAW 2,568 472 642 169 11172 1,926 113 :564 TAX EXPENSE - PAYROI-L 860 1,032 215 (817) 297:41 645 (2,086) 3:: 5574 PROVISION FOR PENSION 1,211 333 303 (30) 884 909 24 TOTAL EIPLOYEE BENEFITS 7,544 2,554 1,886 (668) 6,927 51655 1112691 2, CDIVICAI.S . 557/ CHEMICALS - CHLORIME 5584 CNEMICAI.S - GENERAL TOTAL DDICALS - UTILITIES 5551 UTILITIES - ELECTRIC 5592 UTII.ITIEB - GAS TOTAL UTIIITIES --- EOUIPMEIT / VEHICLES 5532 FIELD EQUIPMENT - RENTAL 5536 GA:IOIIME 5556 REPAIR I NAINT, - GENERAL TOTAL EOUIPNCNT / VEHICLE --- OUTSIDE SERVICES 5509 OUTSIDE CONSULTANTS 5510 OUTSIDE IABRATORY SERVICES TOTAL OUTSIDE SERVICES COFFICE EURSE 5571 CGWMR EXPENSE 5533 OFFICE EOUIPNENT - RENTAL 5546 POSTAGE 3547 FREIGHT I DELIVERY 304 0 76 76 $03 228 (277) 171 50 0 11 13 0 39 d9 354 0 69 89 505 267 (238) Si 12,633 2,295 31139 863 51973 91477 3,503 5,332 2,134 1,333 (801) 404 3,999 (55) 17,967 41429 4,492 62 109077 13476 39448 0 37 0 (37) 37 0 (3/) e 19796 3 449 444 239 19347 19101 0 53 0 (53) 111 0 (111) 1 1,796 97 449 T31 389 1,347 957 0 0 O 0 200 0 (200) 9 200 0 SO 50 99 ISO 30 200 0 50 50 299 130 (1491 95 667 60 167 9H 19223 501 (7/2) 144 166 0 42 42 217 126 (151) 12C 300 29 75 45 29 225 193 0 0 0 0 11 0 C\ (117 t AEGIS ICRI02PSG Professional Services Grave Inc. DATE !7116 PACE 2 PROJECT 8 T A ( U 5 REPORT TIRE THROUGH PERIOD 11/86 PROJECT MGR (SS) A. Sunt 6 Pruiect: C6122.A CITY OF MOUTICELL0 f� Start Date'. 12/18/86 End Date: 17/31/89 TOTAL == CURRENT PERIe1D � =-- _— PROJECT TO DATE ______= 7. BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGETED VARIANCE ACTUAL RUDGETED VARIAACE 0'%i 5548 PRINTING I OFFICE SUPPLY 332 0 83 83 837 249 (153) :3 5559 REPAIR i WRY. - OFFICE EMI 50 0 13 13 43 39 (4) !. 5566 TET.EPHOME 800 14 200 185 641 600 (41) c TOTAL OFFICE EXPE1fSE 21315 III SBO 46P 3,064 1,740 (1,324) 7r -- OTHER EXPENSE 5511 LABRATORY SUPI 1:S 1,200 0 300 300 24 900 cFo $516 e(PLME EKPF- 515 32 129 96 298 387 5520 BAIB: CHARGES 0 1 0 ( l) 1 0 ,!) 1 $527 BOOKS, MAGS.. _'78tiG.11 IONS 25 0 6 6 0 Is 15 5578 DUES I REGISTL,.TIWI - IUDIVID 25 43 6 (37) 43 18 (::) 17: 5531 FOOD, TRAVEL 1 I.ODGINO 700 266 175 (91) 1,523 525 (9i8) 1 •; 5535 RELOCATION 1400 884 325 M,9) 11118 975 1247) 5541 LIABILITY I11SUMICE - GENERAL 1@006 232 252 19 697 M 58 SSA PROF. DEVELOPMENT I OFTIM KE 100 0 25 25 244 75 (169) 226 5560 OPERATIIIO SUPPLIES , 0 94 0 (94) 196 0 (196) t TOTAL OVER EXPENSE 4,871 11555 1,21B (337) 4,207 3454 (553) I` ^ i A L P R O J E C T 60,000 15,172 15,002 (170) 451587 451006 i 1581) U AEU:S If.R1O2PSG Professional Services Gray Inc. 0 331 VAIE PAGE 3 PROJECT STATUS REPORT 99.k TOTAL OUTSIDE SERVICES Tlac 0 THROUGH PERIOD 11/86 331 0 993 PROJECT IUUt (SS) S. S,ot — OFFICE E:O>w Peuiect: C6177.R CITY OF MONTICELLO - REPAIRS I MINT Start Date: IVIB/86 Em) Dale: 8/31/87 5547 FREIGHT I DELIVERY 100 TOTAL CURREUT PERIOD=____ =L = PROJECT TO DATE 2 73 BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGETED VARIAIICE ACTUAL BUDGETED VARIAHCF E. -- EOUIPNENT / VEHICLES 22 2 75 72 5532 FIELD EGUIPMENT - RENTAL 133 0 33 33 0 99 99 5556 REPAIR I NAINT. - WIERAL 6,075 111 11519 1,407 789 4,557 3,767 5558 REPAIR 1 NA1117. - SERVICE EOU 100 0 25 25 0 75 77- '5568 -WREPAIR I RAINY. - VEHICLES 600 0 150 150 11708 150 (19258) 2' TOTAL EOU; 1SRT " (ICIE 69908 111 1,777 1,615 2,198 5,191 _!r.: -- OUTSIDE SFRVICES SW SlOIt01ITRACTW. 11371 0 331 331 0 993 99.k TOTAL OUTSIDE SERVICES 11124 0 331 331 0 993 993 — OFFICE E:O>w 5547 FREIGHT I DELIVERY 100 2 25 22 2 73 72 TOTAL OFFICC O:PENSE 100 2 25 22 2 75 72 IOTAA L PROJECT 81332 111 2,083 1,960 2401 61249 3,70 N W" I AEGIS ICRI07PSG Protessional Services Grog, Inc. DATE __::: PAW / PROJECT STATUS REPORT TIKE S:`: TH O WN PERIOD 11/86 PROJECT MR (SS) S. Siad it TOTAL CURRENT PERIOD PROJECT 10 DATE BUDGET ACTUAL BUD<,ETED VARIMCE ACTUAL BUDGETED VARMICE 0 T 0 T A L PROJECT BGR 68,332 15,287 17485 1,797 /8488 51,755 3,166 v JANUARY GENERAL FUND 1987 AMOUNT CHECK NO. Dept.of Nat. Res. - Dep. Reg fees 328.00 23651 Dept. of Nat. Res. - Dep. Reg. fees 160.00 23652 Dept. of Nat. Res. - Dep. Reg. fees 72.00 23653 U. of MN. - Reg. fee for seminar - Gary Anderson 90.00 23654 Professional Services Group - Contract payment - WWTP 22,083.35 23655 Monticello Township - 2nd half of annual payment - OAA 13,750.00 23656 Monticello Chamber of Commerce - Banquet ticket 25.00 23657 James Preus se - Cleaning fire hall for Nov. and Dec. 75.00 23658 Corrow Sanitation - Contract payment 1,349.40 23659 A. 0. S.., Inc. - Reg. fee for R. Cline 6 R. Mack seminar 30.00 23660 Marco Business Products - Mtce. agreement for typewriter 78.00 23661 VOID -0- 23662 Dept. of Nat. Res. - Dep. Reg. fees 93.00 23663 Govt. Training Service - Reg. fee for Fran Fair, Wm. Fair, 195.00 23664 and Warren Smith Gayle Brodt - Reg. fee for A. Grimsmo, Rick W. 6 T. Efdem 150.00 23665 Anoka County Social Services - Payroll ded. 204.00 23666 Dept. of Nat. Res. - Dep. Reg. fees 44.00 23667 Dept. of Nat. Res. - Dep. Reg. fees 58.00 23668 Dept. of Nat. Res. - Dep. Reg. fees 54.00 23669 Public Employees Retire. Assoc. - Ins. premiums 27.00 23670 Thomas Eidem - Car allowance for Jan. 300.00 23671 State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded. 90.04 23672 I.C.M.A. Retire. Corp. - Payroll ded. 116.34 23673 State Treasurer - Building permits surcharge for 4th qtr. 1,639.41 23674 Jerry Hermes - Cleaning Library 216.59 23675 David Stromberg - Animal control contract 287.50 23676 Wright County State Bank - FICA W/H 4,763.58 23677 State Treasurer - PERA W/H 1,386.96 23678 Principal Mutual Life Ins. - Group Ins. 4,008.72 23679 Water Products - Meters 802.84 23680 Gruys, Johnson - Computer fees for Dec. 290.00 23681 Earl F. Anderson - Poste and signs 340.96 23682 Monticello Fire Dept. - Reimb. for 1986 expenses -(TV 536.00; 643.36 23683 VOID -0- 23684 Monticello Printing - Fire Dept. - 81.90 6 Office printing 138.85 23685 Monticello Times - Legal pub. 347.23 23686 Maus Foods - Supplies for all Depts. 161.14 23687 Big Lake Machine - Repairs 19.00 23688 Central McGowan - Cas 39.29 23689 Davie Electronic Service - Pager repairs 31.50 23690 North Central Gas - 6th 6 Elm St. repairs- 86-1 Project 240.00 23691 Phillips 66 - Gas - Water Dept. 48.09 23692 Humane Society of Wright County - Animal control expense 80.00 23693 Terry Pira m - OAA board salary 25.00 23694 Marjorie Goeteke - OAA board salary 115.00 23695 Franklin Denn - OAA board salary 75.00 23696 LeRoy Engstrom - OAA board salary 110.40 23697 Paul McAlpine - OAA board salary 21.30 23698 Tom Salkowski - OAA board salary 125.00 23699 Fran Fair - OAA board salary 30.00 23700 Arve Grimsmo - OAA board salary 60.00 23701 Century Labe. - Car wash liquid 78.07 23702 Certified Hydraulic Specialiste - Snow blower conversion 779.08 23703 Cummins Diesel Sales - Repair on Austin Westin grader 1,042.34 23704 Judd Supply Co. - Light fixture - 4th St. park 149.20 23705 Seitz Hardware - Heater - 69.99, cordless drill - 39.95, etc. 235.46 23706 GENERAL FUND AMOUNT CHECK NO. Garlick Steel Co. - Steel for Mtce. Bldg. 378.00 23707 Karen Doty - Mileage expense 49.00 23708 Diane Jacobson - Mileage expense 6.25 23709 Govt. Finance Officers Assoc. - Membership dues - T. Eidem 70.00 23710 MacQueen Equip. - Bushing 10.40 23711 Local N49 - Union dues 105.00 23712 MN. State Documents Center - State Reg. renewal 136.50 23713 MN. Dept. of Nat. Res. - Water fee permit charges - annual fee 100.00 23714 AT 6 T Inf. Systems - Fire phone charges 3.96 23715 Pitney Bowes - Ink rollers for postage machine 21.45 23716 National Life Ins. - Ins. premium for T. Eidem 100.00 23717 Lewis Publishers - Sub. for Pressure Sever Systems mag.- Simola 34.95 23718 MN. GFOA - Membership renewal 10.00 23719 MN. City Management Assoc. - Membership dues 35.00 23720 Thomas Eidem - Reimb. for meals - cable meetings 21.05 23721 Northern States Power - Utilities 929.96 23722 Norwest Bank Mpls. - 76,77,79,80,81 bond payments 629,514.30 23723 Marquette Bank Mpls. - 71 - Water Rev. 6 Imp. bonds 20,781.88 23724 American National Bank - Int. on Tax Inc. Bonds 13,937.50 23725 First Bank St. Paul - 78 Bonds 194,554.50 23726 First National Bank Mpls. - 75 b 83 bonds 175,831.25 23727 First Trust - 84 G. O. b Tax Inc. Bonds b 85 Fire Hall Const. t11,850.00 23728 Wright County Recorder - Recording fees 13.50 23729 Monticello Fire Dept. - Wages 916.49 23730 League of MN. Cities - 1987 dues 136.00 23731 Lindberg Decorating - City hall ceiling beams re -finishing 4,897.00 23732 Bowman Barnes - Mise. supplies - Mtce. Dept. 81.12 23733 Hydrotex, Inc. - Power Kleen 368.20 23734 Double D Electric - Wiring at hockey rink 211.25 23735 Foster Franzen Agency - Bond fee for Fire Dept. 50.00 23736 Matt Theisen - Travel expense 38.00 23737 Monticello Office Products - Library supplies 7.54 23738 Wright County Treasurer - Police contract payment - January 10,645.21 23739 Dept. of Nat. Res. - Dep. Reg. fees 109.00 23740 Dept. of Nat. Res. - Dep. Reg. fees 36.00 23741 Dept. of Nat. Ree. - Dep. Reg. fees 62.00 23742 Commissioner of Revenue - Water sales tax for 4th qtr. 362.56 23743 O'Connor 6 Hannan - Professional services for Airport Comm. 1,887.27 23744 Arve Grimsmo - Misc. mileage and meals 29.32 23745 Gary Anderson - Mileage 101.95 23746 American National Bank - 1986 Interceptor sewer bonds 50,559.43 23747 Could Bros. Chay. - Repairs for Fire Dept. 27.25 23748 MN. U. C. Fund - Unemployment benefits - Hancock, Carlson, Stromberg and Blommel 2,569.45 23749 Autocon Ind. - Repair power supply 108.40 23750 Milbank Ins. Co. - Ins. premium - rental property 368.00 23751 Rick Wolfsteller - Misc. mileage and expense 117.11 23752 TOTAL GENERAL FUND DISBURSEMENTS - JAN. 61,279,886.00 I LIQUOR PUHD -- ,JANUARY - 1987 AIDUK GEM H0. 0 Eagle Wine Co. - Liquor 1,035.46 12841 Ed Phillips 6 Sons - Liquor 1,021.45 12842 Twin City Wine - Liquor 1,325.48 12843 Principal Life Ins. - Group ins. premiums 321.94 12844 Eagle Diet. Co. - Liquor 2,157.28 12845 Quality Wine 6 Spirits - Liquor 1,454.82 12846 Budget Lighting - Bulb 117.63 12847 NCE Corp. - Mtce. agreement for cash register 1,738.00 12848 Marketing - Sub. 10.00 12849 Gronseth Directory Service - Adv. 49.20 12850 Old Dutch Foods - Misc. mdse. 113.21 12851 Day Dist. Co. - Beer 405.85 12852 Grosslein Beverage Co. - Beer 12,361.24 12853 Maus Foods - Misc. mdse. 21.94 12854 Thorpe Dist. - Beer 7,018.23 12853 Dahlheimer Dist. - Beer 14,834.07 12856 Stroaquist Dist. - Misc. mdse. 19.50 12857 Cloudy Town Dist. - Misc. mdse. 72.60 12858 Jude Candy 6 Tobacco - Misc. ache. 502.95 12859 �I Twin City Demo's. - Caps to resell 86.00 12860 L� Dick Beverage - Deer 2,562.63 12861 Bernick's Dist. - Misc. mdse. 411.75 12862' Seven Up Bottling- Mise. ads@. 152.00 12863, Monticello Times r Adv. 127.60 12864 Viking Coca Cola - Misc.. mdsa. 340.78 12865 Monticello Office Products - -0ffice 4upplies 13.23 '12866- Rubald Beverage - Wine 589.47 12801 Olson 6 Sons Electric - Replace bulb and work on lights 128.34 12868 Gary Reitan - Security at Store on holidays 180.00 12869 Ed Phillips ='Liquor 2,537. B1- ' 12870 State Capitol Credit Union - .Payroll dada 170.00 12871 State Treasurer - PEEA W/H 182.30 12872- 2872Wright WrightCounty State Bank,- Pica W/H, 621.02 12873 Twin City Wine - Liquor 1,011.67 12874 Jack Wales Sports Calendars - Adv. 133.00 12873 Gruys, Johnson - Computer fees 110.00 12876 Yonak Sanitation - Contract payment 133.50 12877 Twin City Wine - Liquor 824.32 12878 Eagle Dist. - Liquor 64.10 12879 Ed Phillipa 6 Sons - Liquor 36.84 12880 Eagle Wine - Liquor 219.06 12881 MM. Municipal Liquor Stores - leg. fee for J. Hartman sett. 40.00 12882 Radisson Notal St. Paul - Liquor cont. expense - Joe H. 60.00 12883 Foster Franzen - Deposit on L1q. Limb. ins. premium 1,425.00 12884 Commissioner of Revenue - Liquor sales tax Wine 6 Spirits Liquor 9,069.00 26.00 12883 Quality - 12886 TOTAL LIQUOR DISBURSEMENTS FOR JANWY -563,858.49 0 UIDIVIDUAL PEPMIT ACTIVITY REPORT . M014TH OF D=M"FA , 1986 PERMIT DESCRIPTION P NAME/LOCATA ON VALUATION aUMBER a 1.30 , 260.50 32.50 96-991 Perm amim"I 4.00 1097 ttehlheloar/Seat eroedwr f 3,0.00 3,000.0096-999 96-999 Automotive shop C anct Anto serte/7b0 elm street 45,000.00 96-1000 reed store Ad"t!_oa 1�sL00• Jona V3atete0/1319 south 9lauwq 2$ 9,000.00 96-1001 Oara9e Additum, AG1LL trail Sv*gwser. St./533 W. 3rd it 2,500.00 66-1003 auto Parte store c Wayne a L-ftak/221 Men 7th at. 275,000.00 66-1002 51691* raaur Dwelling sh -ars costae 9wi/110 view at. 9I.SOo.00 a6-1004 store mot At 9arrr'4,Auto,parts/324 Mast 3rd at. 11.000.00' 86-1005 a9wi a oarage nescial eCr1U MitadhwIS6 a 114 Wright at. ..,.,1 y.4�3.00..0.0� 507a7.{ 9397.430.09 86-4003 auto pasts sine C Warne swinksW221'"at 1th at.. { "5.83 10fAL PLAY SOVIss { 993.03 LORAL $2911106 { 2.4".32 J ecce . PERMIT I SURCHARGE PLUMBING ISURCMARGc { 29.50 a 1.30 , 260.50 32.50 • 66.50 4.00 35.SO 970.50 1.25 '• 137.30 032.00 ;1 '1 '.50' ,. 207.50• as 7k, '23.� ,.50, ".p0 6.50 1�sL00• 11.30 70, a1,�i0 ftQ' .i�S'-.a, t to .• 1 - ` CITE or "WrICE2L0 • Ilalthlf•0u1tding Deppr-1, RcPcrL tbnth or nECeMMd9 j PPIUQT9 and USES _ `fh�a _j `1.11: Nw,GS "T.e itresi•• 'Ih1a leer Pooh" ISSUED Uonth November IhnthOerOmer Leat Sear TO Date TO Dote IIESIDPNI IAL Umber - 5 Valuation 9121,S60.OD a !'•58.410.00 2 91 8129,800.00 1 5.691,070. 0( 172 6,116,050.04 rose' 709.50 375.80 648.80 29.603.64 40,316.80 Surcharges 60.76 29.20 64.90 1.942. 4,057.61 00IR tCIAL . Number _ 4 I1 2 32 Valuation 719.000.00 •95.000.60 4,109.860. - 1,979, a" 00 ►see 689.70 18,950.6 ., 19.666.96 Surcharges ,1,651.82 169.50.1 ', 47.SO • ' 2.054.6 . - 1.969.95 18W8171IAL Humbar 1 4 Valuation 195.000.00 770.506.00 FOOD . 670.50 1 7.725.27 Surcharges 97.50 765.25 PW1213310 , ...or 2 2 3 76 82 ►sea 49.00 55.00 65.00 91.21 2.990.00 BurOhvgss 1.00 1.00 1.00 42.Of 41.00 0711iIt7 Ruebar " I 9 Valu Lion 456.900.0[ 10,000.00 Fees 2,285.02 100. s0 , Surcharge@ 1 -. 326.25 6.00 • TOtAL 110. PP.NQ73 e 10 's. .+• ,. 4 l TOM6 VAWATIOR 351.560.00 397,410.00 124,600.00 lo.4s7,6a0. 12.874.460.00 . M�)m 1,429.00 2.2112.62 1.407.50 !1.150.11 B7.Og1-S7 am M. 4URC11AnCea 1+9.2. 1f9.70- 115493 J cvlUte7a� Inm� r � Valuation y1"T cure ' MUCITTAWRI! Yusher MUIR SURCIIARCR • 3inglo ramp► 4 1 267.50 1 25.75 1 511500.00 50 i0 Duplop 12 5 1911 tl-f sadly - e- e COmaerelsl . 2 4.896.12 160.00 320,000.00 7 9 t Lnduatri al 3 0 Rae: Garages It Signa 0 0 Public fuilUags . 0 1 ALTEUTICR CR RI7'AIR Dwellings 3 61.30 1.45 6.930.00( 47 21 C6anarei al 1 155.00 0.50 ,•10,000.00 11 'I7 ' Industrial ! j 0 , VWtBDIO 1 All }►p@s 3 $5.00 1.00 at 711 ACCessoa) 6TRUCTURTs eulnalpe Seel• Meets 4 0 tcmDOMAT P2a10T 1 0 0 .1. . R ••'e ; a Oil orxol.sTloN 1pT 10 '3.132.62 Iq.ie a�T,ue.d6 !U 71i' I- RESOLUTION 87-3 WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation, proposes to make certain improvements on a portion of Trunk Highway No. 25 located in the City of Monticello in Wright County, upon and along Pine Street, and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City that such improvements of said roadway along said street be extended to greater width and capacity than is necessary to accommodate normal trunk highway traffic, from River Street to the Mississippi River to distance of approximately 300 feet), BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Monticello that the State of Minnesota. Department of Transportation, is requested to provide for improvements on the aforesaid portion of Trunk Highway No. 25 consisting particularly of curb, gutter, base, surfacing, storm sever, etc., in which the City will share in the cost. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that following approval by the Minnesota Department of Transportation of plane and specifications for said improvements of said trunk highway and before a contract is awarded for the construction of said improvements, the City shell enter into an agreement with the State which shall provide that the City shall r pay itsshare of the cost of the requested improvements as determined l by the State in keeping with its latest edition of MN/DOT Policy Guideline to copy of which has been received from the Minnesota Department of Transportations District Engineer) and, that if the State late the construction contract. the municipality will deposit with the State upon demand, after the execution of the agreement and before the start of construction, a sum equal to an estimate of the City's share as prepared by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Adopted this 9th day of February, 1987. Arve A. Grimemo, Mayor Thomas A. Eidam City Administrator