The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Agenda Packet 09-28-1987AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COANCrL Monday, September 28, 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 September 14, 1987. 3. Citizens Comments/Petitions, Requests, and Complaints. 4. Public Hearing on the 1988 Annual Budget. 5. Public Hearing on the Proposed Assessment Roll for the 1986-1 Improvement Project and the Highway 25 Improvement. 6. Public Hearing on the Proposed Assessment Roll for Delinquent Charges. 7. Public Hearing to Consider Modification of the Finance Plan for Tax Increment District #6. 8. Consideration of Adopting the 1988 Budget and Certifying the Tax Levy. 9. Consideration of Adopting an Assessment Roll for Certification with the County Auditor Covering the 1986-1 Improvement and the Highway 25 Improvement. 10. Consideration of Adopting an Assessment Roll for the Certification with County Auditor Covering Delinquent Charges. 11. Consideration of Zoning Map Amendment - Boyle Property. 12. Consideration of Service Road for East County Road 39. 13. Consideration of Award of Contract for Construction of Gazebo in Ellison Park. 14. Consideration of Purchasing Snowblower Parts from the City of Fairmont. 15. Consideration of Revision of Developmental Agreement for Development of Fourth Addition in Meadow Oak. 16. Consideration of Allowing the Granting of Gambling License Renewal. 17. Consideration of Establishing Minimum Requirements on Food Service for Sunday Liquor Licenses. city Council Agenda September 28, 1987 Page 2 18. Consideration and Review of the Proposed 1988 Budget of the SWC4. 19. Consideration of a Simple Subdivision Request to Resubdivide Two Residential Lots. A Variance Request to Allow the Placement of a Rouse Within the Sideyard Setback of a Resubdivided Lot Line, and a Variance Request to Allow Two Residential Lots, When Subdivided, to be Less than the Minimum Lot Square Footage. Applicant, Dan Frie. 20. Consideration of Underground Sprinkler Installation at Monticello City Ball. 21. Consideration for the City of Monticello to Pursue the Airport Project. 22. Consideration of Bills for the Month of September. 23. Adjourn. MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday, September 14, 1987 - 7:00 p.m. Riverroad Plaza Development Members Present: Arve Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Warren Smith, Dan Blonigen Members Absent: None Call to order. Consideration of Construction of Service Road at County Road 39 East and County Road 75. The Council meeting opened with an on-site inspection of the Riverroad Plaza Development and discussion centered on the upcoming need to construct a service road from the new County Road 39 location back to MacAriund Plaza, the new apartment buildings, and the rear entry for Riverroad Plaza. Representatives from the Wright County Highway Department were present and indicated that the responsibility for a service road lies with the City once the relocation of the County Road 39 and County Road 75 intersection is constructed. Public Works Director, John Simola, reviewed with those in attendance the three possible alternatives for construction of a new frontage road/service road that would serve the development. The frontage road would primarily exist on the present County Road 39 road base and the first alternative would be to construct the service road only as far as the rear entrance of the Riverroad Plaza convenience store. This would provide access to the development, but the owners and lessees of the Riverroad Plaza have requested continued use of an entrance onto County Road 75 which would necessitate the extension of the service road along the north portion of County Road 75 to the middle of the MacArlund Plaza Development. The initial cost estimate for a service road that would just serve as the initial entrance to the back door of the Riverroad Plaza was in the area of $7,000 to $10,000. Continuing the service road around the south side of the Riverroad Plaza to the middle of the MacArlund Plaza Subdivision would escalate the cost to approximately 517,000 to $20,000. In order for trucks to be able to make this entrance off of County Road 75, it would be necessary to have a large radius at the new entrance which would require an additional 30 feet of right-of-way acquisition from Curt and Anna Mae Hoglund. The Hoglunds indicated that because the lots are currently small, it may cause come problems if the lots are reduced in size to allow for the frontage road. As a result, Curt and Anna Mae Hoglund recommended that the service road continue along County Road 75 an additional 300 feet to the west edge of their property near the entry to the Maurice Hoglund property. It was their opinion that this type of an entrance would be better suited for their property rather than requiring additional right-of-way from their smaller lots. It was 0 Council Minutes - 9/14/87 Page 2 noted that this would increase the cost another $8,000 to $10,000 and would put the total frontage road/service road cost at approximately $30,000. Mr. Jim Maus, leasee of the Riverroad Plaza convenience store, questioned whether the raised median along County Road 75 could be shortened up to allow their existing driveway to be used for both left and right turns. Mr. Dave Montebello, from the Wright County Highway Department, indicated the design of the curb median was necessary to allow for adequate storage of cars that will be making left turns and did not feel the design could be shortened up. The idea of using a painted median similar to what was used in downtown Monticello on Highway 25 did not seem appropriate in the County's opinion because of the speed limit being greater along County Road 75 than on Highway 25. The raised channelization would provide greater safety factors for cars making left turns and is easier to identify. After further discussion, it was the consensus of the Council that a decision on the type and length of service road would not be made at this meeting but tabled until the next regularly scheduled Council meeting on September 28, 1987. The Council meeting reconvened at the City Hall at 7:30 p.m. Approval of Minutes. Motion was made by Warren Smith, seconded by Fran Fair, and unanimously carried to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held August 24, 1987. Discussion with Wright County Sheriff's Department on Possible Solutions to Cruising Problem. Wright County Sheriff, Darrell Wolff; Chief Deputy, Jim Powers; and Lieutenant Don Hozempa were in attendance at the Council meeting to review possible solutions to the cruising and loitering problem existing in Monticello on weekends. After a brief opening statement by Mayor Grimsmo regarding the problem, Sheriff Miff noted that in addition to the cruising, it appeared that more of a problem exists from the groups gathering along Broadway. Sheriff Wolff suggested that a committee possibly be set up to come up with ideas and solutions to tackle the problem for the upcoming year, including possible ordinances and regulations that would tackle the loitering problem including curfew, etc. The Sheriff's Department representatives felt that if the groups gathering along Broadway could be lessened, the audience would be eliminated for the cruisers, which might help control the situation. The department indicated that ddditional coverage would be necessary in man hours to enforce the regulations and suggested the City Council consider increasing its hours of protection, especially on weekends. No Council Minutes - 9/14/87 Page 3 After further discussion, motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Fran Fair, and unanimously carried to authorize the City Administrator to contract for additional coverage for Friday and Saturday evenings for the balance of 1987, the additional coverage to be provided by a foot patrol officer and authorized a task force to be set up consisting of Sheriff Department, City Council, and/or citizen participation to find solutions for the problem next year. Consideration of Zoning Map Amendment - Boyle Property. Recently the City staff initiated a proposed ordinance amendment that would change the zoning on the Jim Boyle property lying south of 1-94 and east of the Oakwood industrial Park adjacent to the new middle school property. The area was currently zoned partially light industrial, with the majority heavy indusrial: and it was the staff's opinion that the property should be down zoned somewhat to accommodate uses adjacent to the new school. A tentative rezoning of the area was proposed to the Planning Commission who recommended the City Council adopt the rezoning as an interim measure until the land owner subdivides the property in the future. It was felt the proposed rezoning would not be necessarily permanent in nature but would depend primarily on how the developer planned on platting the property, and at that time the entire area could be reviewed for possible additional amendments. Property owner, Jim Boyle, requested the City Council not take any official action at their meeting to enable himself to further research all the possibilities that the new zoning may affect his property. Mr. Boyle had been informed of the proposed rezoning hearing held by the Planning Commission but had not been shown a rep of the area and the actual rezoning proposed. in addition, the City Consulting Planner, Dahlgren, Shardlow & Uban, had not yet completed their review of the proposed rezoning; and this information was received on September 14, 1987. As a result, motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Dan Blonigen, and unanimously carried to table final action an the proposed rezoning of the Jim Boyle property until the next regularly scheduled Council meeting to allow the property owner additional time to review the zoning changes and provide comment. Consideration of an Amendment to the Sign Ordinance Requiring Address Signs on each Building in all Zoning Districts. An ordinance amendment was proposed by the City staff that would require all buildings in the City of Monticello, including residential, commercial, and industrial. to display an address number on their building. The main purpose of this ordinance amendment is Council Minutes - 9/14/87 Page 4 to better identify property addresses by their numbers in case of an emergency response request and that the numbers are easily visible from the public right-of-way or public street. The proposed regulations would require the address numbers to be at least 3 1/2 inches in height and be a contrasting color to the color of the building. Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Bill Fair, and unanimously carried to approve adoption of the ordinance amendment requiring address signs. See Ordinance Amendment No. 158. Consideration of a Sketch Plan Proposal to be Known as Highland Heights One. Applicant, Rivera Financial and Development Corporation. Mr. George Rivera was present at the Council meeting to review a proposed sketch plan of a development to be known as Highland Heights One consisting of commercial and residential townhouse development on a parcel of property located directly west of Sandberg South development south of I-94 adjacent to Marvin Road. The initial proposal would create a commercial area consisting of possible uses such as office building, restaurant, and drive-in fast food establishments and additional areas proposed for townhouse development. At this stage of the planned unit development, Mr. Rivera was looking for concept approval for his continuation of his development; and such items as park dedication, sewer and water and street construction plans would have to be addressed later as he proceeds with his planned unit development. Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Bill Fair, and unanimously carried to approve the general concept of the sketch plan proposal to be known as Highland Heights and directing Mr. Rivera to continue with his planned unit development through the normal procedures. 9. Consideration of Approval of Liquor Store Sign Design and Landscaping Design. Council members were presented with a number of new sign designs that had been obtained by the Liquor Store Manager from various sign companies. Liquor Store Manager, Joe Hartman, noted that the City staff had reviewed the sign proposals submitted and recommended that a double posted pylon sign from Cragg Signs of Golden valley be purchased. The price for the new sign would be $8,993 and an additional $1,020 would be needed for letters on the building fascia. It was the Council consensus to authorize the Liquor Store Manager to proceed with ordering the double faced pylon sign from Cragg Signs at the quoted price of $8,983 and the additional edge trim letters for the building fascia at an additional cost of $1,020 with the colors to be determined by a color coordinator selected by the Liquor Store Manager. ��J Council Minutes - 9/14/87 Page 5 I ' In regards to the landscaping proposed for the Liquor Store site, Public Works Director, John Simola, noted that the City had requested three design bid quotations for landscaping proposals at the Liquor Store. Landscaping designs were submitted by Fair's Garden Center of Monticello, Ak-Sar-Sen Landscape Contractors from Elk River, and Steve's Nursery also of Elk River. The City staff had reviewed the designs submitted and initially selected the proposal submitted by Steve's Nursery of Elk River, which also happened to be the low bid price at $10,060.35. minor alterations were recommended to their plan; and after further consideration, the question arose whether or not the City should prepare its own design specifications for the land-scaping plan and ask all bidders to resubmit quotations based on the sass plan. The Public Works Director noted that in order to prepare a basic design with specifications on the type of shrubs, trees, and landscaping that would be required and to receive the bids from all interested parties might take two to three additional weeks, and completion of the project may not be possible yet this fall. As a result, it was the consensus of the Council to have the Public Works staff prepare a basic design for a landscaping plan over the next few months and present the bid specifications to all interested parties during the winter for implementation next spring. 10. Consideration of Setting a Public Hearing Date to Modify the Finance Pian ror Tax Increment Redevelopment District A6. Economic Development Director, 011ie Roropchak, informed the council that the Housing and Redevelopment Authority had approved Modification $1 to the Finance Plan for the Tax Increment Redevelopment District }6 which would modify the plan to allow for the HRA and the City to recapture additional expenditures through tax increment for this district. As part of the original financing plan, the HRA had incurred additional cost of approximately $25,000 because of soil correction needed on the Sixth Street extension, and an additional $28,000 in soil correction surrounding the City easement for the interceptor sewer project. It was recommended by the HRA that the plan be modified to allow for the additional $53,000 in cost to be recaptured. Motion vas made by Bill Fair, seconded by Dan Blonigen, and unanimously carried to adopt the resolution setting a public hearing for the purpose of modifying the Tax Increment Finance Plan for Redevelopment District #6 on September 28, 1987. See Resolution 87-26. Le, Council Minutes - 9/14/87 Page 6 I 11. Consideration of City Attorney Appointment. Due to the recent death of City Attorney, Gary Pringle, the Council discussed the appointment of a new city attorney to fill out the balance of the appointment for 1987. The partners remaining in the law firm of Smith, Pringle, and Hayes, have indicated a willingness to continue serving as city attorney and partner, Tom Hayes, had agreed to continue as the official city attorney representative. Mr. Hayes and partner Greg Smith have been familiar with some of the City's legal affairs: and at this point, it was the Council's consensus to continue with this firm as the City's legal representative and officially appoint Mr. Tom Hayes as the city attorney for the balance of 1987. 12. Discussion on Senior Citizen Center Position. On a recommendation by legal counsel, motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Fran Fair, an unanimously carried to table any discussion on the Senior Citizen Center position until a special closed meeting is held at 6:00 p.m., September 28, 1987. Rick Wo fe'e'ler (� City Administrator 0 Council Agenda - 9/28/87 4. Public Hearing on the 1988 Annual Budget AND B. Consideration of Adopting the 1988 Budget and Certifying the Tax Levy. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: It is required that the City Council hold a public hearing prior to the adoption of the annual budget and the certifying of the annual tax levy. Normally in the past, no one has ever appeared at the budget hearing to make comments. The published notice on the hearing also indicates that a copy of the proposed budget has been prepared and was available for review. At this time, I know of no one who has requested a copy for inspection; and if there is no one present to provide public comment, the hearing can be officially closed. Assuming there were no major problems with the budget as presented and discussed earlier at the 6:00 P.M. special meeting, the Council can adopt the budget as presented. If it was determined at the previous session that there would be some alterations or amendments to the budget, the budget could still be adopted at this meeting if so desired, and the changes would be made in the final budget document. The State Department of Revenue, along with the Wright County Auditor, must receive a copy of -•• the tax certification levy by October 10, 1987. If it has been determined that the Council would like additional time to review the u. . budget proposed and would like to set a special meeting prior to October 10 for an additional budget review, this is also available. As I noted in my budget memo, it is my recommendation that the maximum allowable levy be adopted regardless of whether amendments or alterations are recommended by the Council on specific budget items. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the Resolution Adopting the 1988 Budget and Certifying the Tax Levy, along with the 1988 Budget previously delivered. ME RESOLUTION 87-27 f RESOLUTION ADOPTING 1988 BUDGET AND SETTING THE TAX LEVY WHEREAS, the City Administrator has prepared and submitted to the City Council a budget setting forth therein his estimated needs of the City of Monticello for all operations and the debt service for the fiscal year camnencing January 1, 1988, and; WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the same, and has made such changes therein as appeared to be in the best interest of the City of Monticello; NOW, TEEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IDNTICELIA, that the budget so submitted by the City Administrator, together with the changes made therein by the City Council be, and same hereby is, adopted as a budget for the fiscal year commencing January 1, 1988, and; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of Monticello, that there be, and hereby is, levied for the fiscal year commencing on January 1, 1988, and the following sums for the respective purposes indicated therein, upon the taxable property of the City of Monticello, to wit: REVENUE General $ 840,790 Library 22,624 Shade Tree 91950 OAA 28,750 BRA 7,750 DEBT RETIREMENT Debt Service Fund $ 757,856 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Capital Improvement Revolving S 153,650 TOTAL TAX LEVY $1,821,170 The above resolution was introduced by Cowuilmember , was duly seconded by Oouncilmember , with the following voting in favor thereof: The following voting in the opposition: Resolution 87-27 Page 2 The City Administrator is hereby instructed to transmit a certified copy of this resolution to the County Auditor of Wright County, Minnesota. Dated: 28 September, 1987 CITY OF MO[]TICELLO Arve A. Grlmsmo, Mayor ATTEST: Rick Wolfsteller City Administrator 0 Council Agenda - 9/28/87 5. Public Hearing on the Proposed Assessment Roll for the 1986-1 Improvement Project and the Highway 25 Improvement AND 9. Consideration of Adopting an Assessment Roll for Certification with the County Auditor Covering the 1986-1 Improvement and the Highway 25 Improvement. (R.W. ) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: As part of the 1986-1 Interceptor Sewer Project from Highway 25 to Washington Street, approximately one-half dozen other areas were improved with sanitary sewer, watermain, curb and gutter, along with street improvements by the general contractor, L 6 G Rehbein, Inc. Chestnut Street between West Broadway and West River Street received curb, gutter, and street improvements, along with watermain and storm sewer improvements. 5 1/2 Street between Highway 25 and Maple also received street curb and gutter, storm sewer, watermain, and sanitary sewer services to property that did not previously have services available. Locust Street between 5 1/2 and Sixth Street was also improved adjacent to the new Fire Hall site, and watermain was extended to the Lucius Johnson property south of Sixth Street on Linn. Sanitary sewer and water was also extended along Minnesota Street south of Seventh Street. The total construction cost with indirect expenses relating to these areas that are proposed to be assessed for the improvements totaled $285,939. The City of Monticello originally sold a separate bond issue in 1986 in the amount of $385,000 to cover the cost of the improvements along with the City's share of the Highway 25 upgrading. An assessment roll has been prepared using the final cost tabulations available for each parcel affected which totaled $155 ,687 .76. The assessment formula used varied for each type of improvement from a low of 20 percent to 100 percent. Most of the proposed 20 percent assessment for street curb and gutter and storm sewer improvements related to those streets which were not originally improved under the 1977-3 Improvement Project which had been assessed at the 20 percent rate. The following breakdown indicates how each area was assessed. Chestnut Street Street improvements and storm sewer construction - 20% Watermain improvements - 1009 Cedar Street Sanitary sewer - 1008 5 1/2 Street Street improvements and storm sewer - 20% Watermain improvements - 66.79 Sanitary sewer services - 1008 -2- Council Agenda - 9/28/87 Locust Street Street improvements - 1008 Lucius Johnson Property Watermain and storm sewer improvements - 1008 Minnesota Street Sanitary sewer - 1008 Watermain - 1008 initially, the bond sale covering the improvements on the 86-1 Project were scheduled to be assessed during the fall of 1986; but due to the fact that the actual construction costs were not completed or calculated last fall, a one-year delay in the assessment roll was required. Generally at the notice of the improvement hearing that was held before the project started, the Council had indicated that they would consider only assessing 20 percent of the street improvement costs to those areas that had not received benefit under the 1977 Project which was assessed at the 20 percent rate. As you may recall, it was decided to construct a watermain connection between Broadway and West River Street along Chestnut as part of the street improvement project to replace individual service lines that have been extended along the boulevard to serve some homes along Chestnut. The assessment roll for Chestnut Street indicates four parcels received a watermain assessment of $2,807.85 each, which is 100 percent of the construction cost. Although at this time I have not heard any comments from any of the affected property owners along Chestnut Street regarding this watermain assessment, I am assuming that some of the property owners may be in attendance at the Council meeting. it has been the staff's recommendation that the watermain be assessed at 100 percent; but if the Council determines that the assessment in this area for the watermain should be lower, an adjustment could be made for the watermain portion if the Council so desired. The assessment roll prepared for improvements along Highway 25 are based on cost information supplied from MN/DOT regarding new or replacement curb and sidewalk construction only. Those property owners that received the benefit of a new curb and gutter and sidewalk replacement were assessed 20 percent of the total construction cost for these improvements which amounted to $1.91 per foot for curb replacement and $2.62 per foot for sidewalk replacement. This covered the areas along Highway 25 from River Street to Fourth Street. From Fourth Street to Interstate 94, property owners abutting Highway 25 received curb and gutter and sidewalk assessments for new construction at 40 percent of the actual cost. For curb, this amounted to $2.80 per foot, and for sidewalk, $3.82 per foot. A detailed breakdown of the assessment roll for both the Highway 25 and the 86-1 Projects is available at City Hall but has not been included with the agenda. -3- Council Agenda - 9/28/87 The original bond sale for the above improvements was set up anticipating an assessment roll to be spread over 15 years. The interest rate on the bond sale was approximately 7 1/2 percent; and as a result, it is recommended that the assessment roll contain a 9 percent interest rate over the 15 year period of time. After the close of the public hearing, the resolution adopting the assessment roll and certifying the assessment roll to the County Auditor should be adopted by the Council in order for the first payment to be collected with taxes in 1988. If from the public hearing adjustments are made to any of the assessments, this should be noted prior to the actual adoption of the assessment roll. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Adopt the assessment roil as presented for both the 86-1 Project and Highway 25 Improvement. 2. Adopt the assessment roll with any alterations determined. 3. Do not adopt an assessment roll. This alternative is not really feasible in that the bond sale anticipated an assessment roll would be completed and is required in order for the City to make its bond payments. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION* The assessment roll was prepared by John Simla and myself using the cost information available from the contracts and using the Council's previous indication that street improvements to those areas who did not receive benefit in the 77-3 Project would be assessed at 20 percent. Those areas that received watermain or sanitary sewer improvements have normally been assessed at 100 percent of the cost; and it's the staff's recommendation that this policy continue at this time. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the assessment roll by parcel number and dollar s nounti Copies of worksheets indicating total construction cost; Capy of resolution adopting assessment roll. -4- RESOLUTION 87-28 RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ROLL WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for the improvement of Highway 25 from Sandberg Road to River Street, 5th Street from Pine Street to Maple Street, Chestnut Street from Broadway to River Street, Minnesota Street from 7th Street to near 1-94, Linn Street from 6th Street to termination point abutting Lucius Johnson property, Locust Street fronm 5 1/2 Street to 6th Street, and Cedar Street from 6th Street to Burlington Northern Railroad by constructing new street surfaces, curb and gutter, sidewalk, storm sewer, water, sanitary sewer, and appurtenant work. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA: 1. Such proposed assessment, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included in hereby found to be benefited by the proposed improvements in the amount of the assessment levied against it. 2. Such assessment shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of 15 years, the first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January, 1989, and shall bear interest at the rate of 98 per annum from the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution until December 31, 1988. To each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. 3. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the City Treasurer, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of this resolution; and he may, at any time thereafter, pay to the City Treasurer the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to Dpcomber 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the next succeeding year. The clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assesssent to the County Auditor to be extended on the property tax lists of the County. Such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. Adopted by the Council this 28th day of September, 1987. Arve A. Grimsmo, Mayor ? Rica Wolfsteller City Administrator V i ASSESSMENT ROLL HIGHWAY 25 IMPROVEMEWr Parcel # Name Total Amount 155-010- 02010 Lincoln Properties S 1,516.25 155-010-OOS010 Holiday Station Stores, Inc. $ 1,091.81 155-010-005060 Mel Wolters $ 1,091.81 155-010-014010 City - Liq $ 2,730.47 155-010-017030 First National Bank of Monticello S 2,183.63 155-010-032010 Security Federal Savings 6 Loan $ 1,494.45 155-010-035040 Marn 8 Marie Flicker S 747.23 155-010-035041 Marn & Marie Flicker 155-010-035060 Cregg Dunn $ 531.18 155-010-035061 City - info $ 2,036.87 155-010-052191 Steve Johnson S 747.23 155-010-052110 Florian a Mary Brion $ 747.23 155-010-057130 Wright County State Bank $ 747.23 155-010-057010 Wright Canty State Bank $ 747.23 155-010-034150 Marland Hildebrandt S 747.23 155-010-034010 James s Cheryl Wolff $ 747.23 155-010-037100 Ploy McCoy $ 943.87 155-010-037010 Bridgewater Telephone Co. $ 943.87 155-010-031011 Bridgewater Telephone co. 155-010-016100 Clifford Olson $ 1,091.81 155-010-016010 Denton Erickson c/o Moon Motors $ 11091.81 155-010-015010 Raindance Partnership S 2,183.63 155-010-004010 City - Cemetery $ 5,460.94 155-010-003010 Delray Monticello Assoc. S 925.14 155-999-000090 Burlington Northern Railroad $ 760.96 TOTAL $31,309.11 (0 ASSESSMENT ROLL 1986-1 PROJECT Parcel # Name Total Amount CHESTNUT STREET 155-010-044040 Alan Mackereth $ 728.61 155-010-044041 Jim Oveson S 3,423.99 155-010-044061 John Weber S 3,419.10 155-010-044060 Joyce Crandall $ 733.50 155-010-045010 Randy Sonsteby $ 806.85 155-010-045011 Ruth Murnane S 3,345.75 155-010-045100 Robert Wortmann S 4,990.65 S 17,448.45 CEDAR STREET 155-010-015010 Raindance Partnership S 4,603.29 155-500-114201 Wilbur Eck 4,832.12 $ 9,435.41 5TH STREET AREA 155-010-011010 Mathilda Bialke $ 656.60 155-010-011020 David Munson 581.56 155-010-011030 Harvey Huseby 619.08 155-010-011040 Donna Allen 928.62 155-010-011050 John Anderson 309.54 155-010-012011 John Meier s Jim Eisele 5,559.03 155-010-012020 City 6,700.32 155-010-013010 Robert Americks 3,095.40 155-010-014010 City 2,046.00 155-999-000010 Burlington Northern Railroad 14,129.09 155-999-000070 Burlington Northern Railroad 14,129.09 155-999-000080 Burlington Northern Railroad 14,129.09 155-999-000090 Burlington Northern Railroad 5,436.75 5 68,320.17 LOCUST STREET 155-010-012020 City S 9,615.80 155-010-013010 Robert Americks 0.00 S 9,615.80 LUCIUS JOHNSON PROPERTY 155-500-113203 Lucius Johnson S 7,222.91 MINNESOTA STREET 155-500-113200 Tom HOlthaus $ 14,548.34 155-500-113206 Tam Brennan 14,548.34 155-500-113207 Marvin Kramer 14,548.34 s 43,645.02 TOTAL $155,687.76 Council Agenda - 9/28/87 6. Public Rearing on the Proposed Assessment Roll for Delinquent Charges AND 10. Consideration of Adopting an Assessment Roll for the Certification with County Auditor Covering Delinquent Charges. (R.W.) A. REPERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Annually, the Council is asked to adopt an assessment roll for those accounts which are delinquent (amount is over 60 days past due) on the assessment roll to be certified to the County Auditor for collection the following year with their real estate taxes. Minnesota Statutes 429.101 and 444.075, Subd. 3, allow for special assessments to be collected for various types of current services that are delinquent. Those people whose accounts are delinquent have been notified of the public hearing and are given an opportunity to present input if they so desire. It is recommended that the delinquent accounts be put on an assessment roll for collection in 1988 at an interest rate of 8 percent, which is the highest rate allowable for assessments that have not been financed through bond sales. As in the past, if any of the accounts are paid by Monday night's meeting, they can be eliminated from the assessment roll. C. STAPP RECOMMENDATI014: It is recommended that any individual who has not paid their account in full by September 28, 1987, be certified to the County for collections with their taxes in 1988. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of revolution adopting assessment roll; Complete listing of delinquent sewer and water accounts and other service charges assessment roll. -5- RESOLUTION 87-29 RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ROLL WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for delinquent sewer and water billings and other service charges. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA: 1. Such proposed assessment, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessments against the parcels named herein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the assessment levied against it. 2. Such assessment shall be payable in one (1) annual installment payable on or before the first Monday in January, 1989, and shall bear interest at the rate of 89 per annum from the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution until December 31, 1988. 3. The owner of the property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the City Treasurer, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of this resolution. 8. The City Administrator shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment roll to the County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax list of the County, and duck assessment shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. Adopted by the City Council this 28th day of September, 1987. Rick Wolfsteller City Administrator C Arve A. Grimsmo, Mayor DELINQUENT SEVER, WATER AND MISC. CHARGES FOR SERVICES 155-010-053100 Balker's Drive In $ 18.52 155-010-OSOOLI K b H Auto Repair 53.48 155-010-047070 Richard Brooks 53.97 155-010-014130 Big John's Bait Shop 178.89 155-010-014010 A-V Room 82,77 155-010-037010 Dr. Charles McCarty 288.03 155-010-029060 Kathleen Rowan 148.84 155-030-001020 Nick Kampa 113.87 1r, 9" -4 1" 11 ' , ..... 6"." 155-010-020080 Joyce Lawson 67.12 155-010-012010 David Anderson 38.32 155-010-011040 Donna Allen 72.66 155-010-010010 Gerald Munson 132.90 155-015-005130 Dr. Charles McCarty 131.43 155-010-062130 Gary Vassar 143.95 155-015-043060 Christopher Maas 127.20 155-024-001020 Burnette Christopherson 106.90 155-024-001080 John Dunning 93.32 155-026-002010 Ivan Walter I37.80 155-026-002040 Mary Klein 92.81 155-031-001080 Douglas Burkholder 67.61 155-031-001070 James Cellette 149.60 155-035-006010 Dan Crocker 140.65 155-048-001130 James Kniserlik 57.14 155-045-005010 Joan Robinson 55.63 155-018-003070 IKI 146.84 155-051-003050 Powers Strength & Health Club 1,552.28 155-010-001010 Lincoln Development 87.50 155-0I0-006031 National Bushing 905.79 A CO Council Agenda - 9/28/87 7. Public Hearing to Consider Modification of the Finance Plan for Tax Increment District 06. (O.K.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: With proper notice of the said public hearing in the local newspaper and proper notification of the said public hearing to the local school district and the Wright County Board of Commissioners having been given; therefore, the public hearing may be opened to accept public comments on the proposed increase in the total tax increment expenditures of the finance plan for Tax Increment District p6 by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority for the following property: Lots 1-10, Block 15, Original Plat within the City of Monticello, including 20 feet of highway right-of-way easement. The HRA and the City Council adopted the original finance plan for Redevelopment District f6 in late 1985. The developer was Raindance Properties. Upon completion of the 40 -foot urban designed street (Sixth Street) by the City, the project budget cost was underestimated by approximately $25,000 because of the needed soil correction in this area and no monies were budgeted for the interceptor sewer soil corrections surrounding the City easement. This completed cost was $28,000. These two figures increased the budget cost by $53,000. The soil correction payment amount was a misunderstanding between the developer and the City. In a conversation with Mr. Bob Deike, Holmes 6 Graven, the HRA or City can recapture the additional expenditures because of the difference between the estimated retirement date of the original bond indebtedness (Year 2006) and the duration of this redevelopment district (Year 2013). This allows for an additional seven years if necessary to collect tax increment. Based on the original estimated annual tax increment of $41,000 times seven years, a total of $287,000 will be generated, which is more than sufficient to cover the additional $53,000. Assuming no public comment, the public hearing may be closed. The HRA and the Planning Commission having adopted Modification Al and with the closure of the public hearing, I recommend the City Council consider adopting the resolution modifying the finance plan for Tax Increment Redevelopment District 46 known as Modification #1. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Adopt the resolution, thereby approving Modification 11 of the finance plan for Tax Increment Redevelopment District #6. 2. Deny the adoption of the resolution, thereby not approving Modification 01 of the finance plan for Tax Increment Redevelopment District 06. -6- Council Agenda - 9/28/87 C. STAFF RECOMENDATION: Staff recomcnends upon closing of an uncontested public hearing that the City council adopt the resolution, thereby approving Modification #1 which will allow the KRA or City to recapture the additional expenditures. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of Modification #1 of the finance plan and copy of the resolution for adaption. -7- MODIFICATION 41 FINANCE PLAN TAX INCREMENT REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT A6 0 MODIFIED TAX INCREMENT FINANCE PLAN A. STATUTORY AUTHORITY T4)e Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "Authority") and the City of Monticello are authorized to modify the tax increment finance plan for Redevelopment District #6 pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.74, Subdivision 4. DEVEIIMPMENT' PROGRAM 1) Modification ;1, that the Tax Increment Finance Plan as modified will increase in total the estimated tax increment expenditure. Cost of street construction (Sixth Street) increased $25,000 above the original estimated project cost, and the interceptor sewer soil owrection on the city easement was $28,000. 2) Modification i1, that the Tax Increment Finance Plan as modified will estend the original projected debt retirement date of 18 years to accommodate retirement of the additional tax increment expenditures but not to exceed beyond the date of the duration of the said redevelopment district. C. DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES �- Raindance Properties (the "Developer") constructed a concrete building with a total of 33,000 square feet. 25,000 square feet is a supermarket, and the remaining 8,000 square feet is a drug store, clinic, and for speculation. Substantial soil correction was required. The developer did complete and pay for the soil correction on the developer's said acquired property and did complete but did not pay for soil correction of city streets and ee.sements. The developer was assisted with public improvements to service the building with tax increment revenues. The building was cospleted in 1986. The second addition was the construction of a 40 -foot urban designed street (Sixth Street) by the City. D. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY IN THE TAX INCRD'iENT FIRMING DISTRICT Lots 1-16, Block 15, Original Plat within the City of Monticello, including 20 feet of Highway right-of-way easement. C G l G. MODIFIED PROJECT COST The modified public costs associated with the tax increment financing redevelopment district are outlined in the following line item budget. Land Acquisition $229,000 Street Construction 100,000 Soil Correction 28,000 Plan Preparation 2,500 Document Preparation 3,000 Issuance 13,500 Administration 12,500 Capitalized Interest• 70,000 Bond Discount 6,650 546 , 0 • 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 three years as required by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475. Predicting capitalized interest prior to issuance is extremely difficult, as it is a function of interest rates, construction schedules, and tax timing; therefore, the above figure is only an estimate of capitalized interest and is subject to change. ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF LOAN/BONDED INDEBTEDNESS The amount of bonded indebtedness is $350,000. The term of the issue is 18 years, and the average annual rate is 9.137 percent. The amount of two and one-half to three years capitalized interest is estimated to be $70,000. Debt service on the bond will be met through a combination of tax increment revenues. -The difference between the duration of Redevelopment District i6 (Year 2013) and the projected retirement of the bonded indebtedness (Year 2006) is sufficient to recover the additional Tax Increment expenditures of $53,000 with the original estimated annual tax increment of $41,000. The difference between the project cost ($465,150), the bonded indebtedness ($350,000), and the additional expenditures ($53,000) is $62,150, the original cost to the developer. 0 RESOLUTION 87-30 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING MODIFICATIOK 11 OF THE EXISTING TAX INCREMENT FINANCE PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT $6 PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 273.71 TO 273.78 INCLUSIVE OF THE MINNESOTA STATUTE WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Monticello, Minnesota, has determined the need to modify the finance plan of an existing tax increment finance redevelopment district pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Section 273.74, Subdivision 4, within the redevelopment project created pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462.411 et sea; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Monticello, Minnesota, found in 1983 that it was necessary to create a tax increment finance redevelopment district pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.71 to 273.78 inclusive; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed modification of the tax increment finance plan; and WHEREAS, the members of the School Board of Education of the Local Independent School District $882 and the Board of Commissioners of the County of Wright have been informed of the fiscal and economic implications of the proposed modification of the existing Tax Increment Finance Plan for Redevelopment District 96; and WHER W , a public hearing was held on September 28, 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 twice in the official newspaper for the City, not less than ten, nor more than thirty days prior to September 28, 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 finance plan and finds: 1. That the proposed additional project expenditures lie as modified within the finance plan of the Tax Increment Redevelopment District t6. 2. That the Tax Increment Finance Plan as modified will extend the original retirement date but not to exceed the duration of the said redevelopment district to accommodate retirement of the additional project cost. En Resolution 87-30 Page 2 3. That the Tax Increment Finance Plan as modified will increase in total estimated tax increment expenditures or designation of additional property to be acquired by the Authority shall be for approval of the original plan. 4. That the Planning Commission has reviewed the tax increment finance plan as modified herein and it conforms to the general plan for development of the municipality as a whole because its final result did increase the City's commercial or housing activity. The City Council of the City of Monticello, Minnesota, does hereby approve Modification #1 to the Tax Increment Finance Plan for Redevelopment District 16. Adopted by the City Council this 28th day of September, 1987. ATTEST: Rick Woitsteller City Administrator Arve A. Grimsmo, Mayor Council Agenda - 9/28/87 11. Consideration of Zoning Map Amendment - Boyle Property (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At the previous Council meeting, consideration of changing the zoning on the Boyle property adjacent to the new middle school site was tabled to allow Mr. Boyle and his representatives additional time to review the proposed zoning changes. At the previous meeting, comments from the City's Consulting Planner were distributed which basically confirmed the Planning Commission and staff's recommendation that zoning changes be implemented on Mr. Boyle's property now that the school is nearing completion. The City staff initially requested the Planning Commission consider down zoning a portion of the property from its current heavy industrial zoning to a lower classification to prevent a heavy industrial use from being established adjacent to the school property. Because at this time Mr. Boyle does not have a firm development plan for the area, nor has he submitted a subdivision request, the staff felt that using existing section lines and reclassifying the zoning to a lower use would be appropriate at. this time. I believe the Planning Commission and the City staff feel that the City would certainly be willing to look at any proposed development and zoning changes at a later date when a subdivision plan or proposal is presented. We are certainly not advocating that the proposed zoning changes being recommended are cast in concrete, but we feel it is in the best interest of the city and the adjacent property to implement a zoning change at this time. Mr. Jim Boyle and his development representatives have been sent a copy of the proposed zoning changes and comments received from the City's Consulting Planner. Enclosed with the agenda is a letter from Mr. Jim Boyle requesting that the City Council only down zone the property currently zoned heavy industrial to light industrial at this time but leave open the option for further down zoning to commercial uses at a later date. I explained to Mr. Boyle and his development representatives that the City staff and Planning Commission did not feel the entire property should be only zoned light industrial and that the City's proposal would be flexible in the future depending on his future plans. It appears that Mr. Boyle is certainly agreeable to light industrial zoning, which would leave him more options for selling the property; but I believe the Planner's recommendations and the Planning Commission's recommendations are more appropriate. B. ALTEMA':IVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve the zoning amendment as proposed by the Planning Commission. 2. Approve the rezoning to only light industrial per Mr. Boyle's request. 3. Leave as is. -8+ Council Agenda - 9/28/87 C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the staff's recommendation that the initial down zoning of the area as approved and submitted at the last Council meeting be adopted. I believe it is appropriate that the minutes indicate that the Council is certainly willing to look at additional zoning changes in the future as development plans are presented by the owner; but the staff feels it is important that zoning changes are implemented at this time primarily to avoid the heavy industrial usage adjacent to the school. It should be noted that the proposed zoning changes in the B-2 and B-3 classifications would allow the developer flexibility to present proposed uses in both the multiple family and commercial atmosphere. Mr. Boyle's request to down zone all of the property to only light industrial is certainly better than the current heavy industrial zoning, but the staff feels that further down zoning into business uses is more appropriate. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of a letter from Mr. Boyle regarding the zoning change; copy of the proposed zoning changes recommended by the Planning Commission. .g_ jijm�w& I-Ot solo 8. /lie. 581.d, Yxi& !2•2os ✓v4&daZ , .rdw�rX85254 /602)4e9,W&9 Todav is Thursday September, 24. 1997 Mr,. Rick wolfsteller Ci tv of Mont icel to 250 East Broadwav Mont icel lo. Minnesota 55:e2-9245 RE: Proposed Rezoning of the lndustriel Fart: Dear Rick; We totally oppose the City Councils intention of acting on tha pr^oposed down zoning at their, meeting_ Monday evening_, September 29th. f feel this action will devalue the or-tv considerably. As I mentioned in my September 14th letter, out* intention is to nlan the entire pari: 2nd it is impossible to do a the-,ough plan in such a short time. Si ncereIy. Jim Boyle JF/kb cc ✓en Pincl-nr•d. Attorney Lynn C 1 ar•C Today is Mon0av September 14. 19e7 Mr. Fick c 1, Wol+steller Cit v of Monticello =54) East Broadway Monticello. Minnec 0 ta 55362-9:45 RE: Zoning - Industrial Park Dear Rick; We nave had extensive conversation with legal counsel regarding the down zoning of the Industrial Psi'$'. Their recommendation is to not change zoning at this time. In the spirit of cooperation and understanding of the City's concern, we would agree to a down zoning 04 the heavy industrial to light industrial. We would also reQttest that we have the option to further down --one the light industrial to 9-1-:2 and/or We intend to ecommence, to do a thot-ougM Study with consultants to plan a designed business and residential community, with assign complimenting the school site. Sincerely. .11 KSi Jim Davie JG/kb cc Lynn Clark .94 2—, I ■ i f� \ �� •,``°f.'Rr r +� �• 1'r '+ , •FR4rr �7 IN v�. ` , • i ,j\y,r(��•,'t/y •• � \ �MtLJRt ir�r� i(� r -+. -' ...-^- -., -I �. • .~•..1 � � \\`ice �. `. • • \ - TT2 12- aY lt!.R�r r r =�TM!!T �► i�� a �Rw aR �� r�� V 4WM � i •�� NIOW.E I ntaa.E Council Agenda - 9/28/87 12. Consideration of Service Road for East County Road 39. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: This item is being continued from the September 14 meeting after meeting at the site and discussing the proposed alternatives with the County representative, Dave Montebello, and other interested parties. The item was tabled to the next Council meeting. As you may recall, the City staff presented three alternatives for a rural type service or frontage road. The estimated costs for alternatives one, two, and three, were $10,000, $20,000, and $30,000 respectively. The Council heard comments from Jim Maus and Curt and Anna Mae Hoglund that alternative number three may be too far to go for a turn into Riverroad Plaza. Comments from John Badalich indicated the possible future need to continue the service road or frontage road all the way to Hart Boulevard. Comments from Dave Montebello, the County Project Engineer, recommended the entrance to the service road be across from the existing entrance into the property south of County Road 75 where the existing private road crossing currently exists. Much of the discussion centered around the safety of the concrete median versus the painted median. It was pointed out by Dave Montebello that the concrete median is the safest way to go due to the high volume of traffic in the area, the stacking room needed for left turns onto County Road 39, and the current as well as projected speeds through the area. There are several issues here which have to be decided. The first issue, of course, is what will the final design of the service road actually be. will the Council opt for alternates one, two, or three. All of our alternates have been proposed as rural type sections. Curbing was only indicated for a portion of alternate number two to lessen the amount of right-of-way required from Curt and Anna Mae Hoglund for the service road entry. Should the City in all reality be building a rural type service road? Does it, therefore, then set a precedent that developers in the future may build service or entry roads without curbing? will the City pay for alternates one, two, or three out of general taxation? And will this set a precedent for service roads in the future? There is a need to proceed with finalizing the design for this area so that the County can work it into their project. In addition, the City of Monticello must then immediately finalize plans for utilities needed in this area. The utilities needed are the main watermain extension down new County Road 39, as well as watermain connections for looping to Riverroad Plaza and MacArlund Plaza, as well as watermain servicing for Lot 19 and the new large lot created by the relocation of Oounty Road 39. In addition, plans may have to be developed for sanitary serer services for Lot 19, as well as the new lot created by the relocation of East County Road 39. In addition, the County Road 39 relocation project -10- Council Agenda - 9/28/87 will necessitate some changes in existing sanitary sewer lines in the area of the intersection of Mississippi Drive and County Road 39. These will have to be formalized so that the work can be coordinated with the County project. It is my understanding that Dave Montebello is drafting a letter that will accompany this agenda supplement. His letter basically talks again about the pro's and con's of the different designs on the highway. Dave also mentions that with painted parking markings, it would be necessary to light the channelization area at construction costs which could reach $16,800, not including engineering. The lighting would increase the safety of the painted markings during dry weather. During the winter or during heavy rains, the painted channelization often disappears. It is my understanding that either Wayne Fingalson, the Wright County Highway Engineer, or Dave Montebello, the Project Engineer, will attend Monday evening's meeting. B. ALTERNATIVE ACPIONS: There are several alternatives yet for this project. I will attempt to list as many of those alternatives as we have talked about, but the Council should not limit themselves only to those listed here. 1. The first alternative would be to build the service road utilizing alternate number one to the back door of the Riverroad Plaza utilizing a rural type section at an estimated cost of about $10,000. We would then sell the property turned over to us by the County to nearby property owners to lessen the City's overall cost. We would, therefore, not assess anyone for the street construction costs of the service road. Alternative number two would include frontage road alternate number two in that we would build the service road all the way around to near the old driveway for the Curtis Hoglund property, establishing a new turn to the west of the concrete median allowing both left and right turns out of the service road entrance. It is assumed that the Hoglunds would turn over approximately 30 feet of their property as necessary to construct the service road in lieu of no assessments being placed against their property for the street section. If it is decided that a short section of curb and gutter can limit the encroachment of the service road on the Hoglund property, the curb and gutter would be assessed toward the Hoglund property it benefits. Estimated cost of this construction is in the area of $20,000. 3. Alternative number three would include alternate number three for the service road in that the service road would go all the way around over toward the Maurice Hoglund property before entering onto County Road 75. The service road would be built in such a way that it could mm Council Agenda - 9/28/87 be continued at a later date and connect up with Dino's Other World property or Hart Boulevard. Estimated cost, using a rural section, would be in the area of $30,000, and a small amount of property would be needed from Curt and Anna Mae Hoglund to make the entry off of County Road 75. Drawbacks to this alternative would be that the entry to the Riverroad Plaza would be another 200 and some feet west of alternate number two. In addition, the turn off of County Road 75 would not be directly across from the current easement on the south side of County Road 75. This would require the relocation of the current old private railroad crossing to this area near Maurice Hoglund's driveway. This alternate would include assessments to those benefiting property owners. 4. Alternative number four could include the requirement for utilizing curb and gutter on any of the above three alternates. We currently have an old signed petition for curb and gutter from all of the affected property owners along old County Road 39. In addition, Ton Hoglund's engineer, Thor Meyer, has indicated that his 3 -acre parcel being created by this relocation of County Road 39 could be detrimentally affected by being surrounded by all rural type ditches. Whatever the Council decides here should either be set out as a one time requirement for this project only or a policy that other developers in the future can use to determine whether or not the City requires curbing on service roads. 5. A fifth alternative could continue the aspect of requesting painted medians in lieu of concrete medians. if we were able to convince the County and state engineers to allow the painted median in this area, more than likely the time frame necessary to do so could result in extra casts and will result in possibly $16,800+ costs in lighting, which would be paid by the City, and the construction of the service road using at least alternate number one and possibly alternate number two, as Tom Hoglund has indicated that alternate number one would detract from his property. All of these costs, as well as the questionable safety aspects of painted median in high speed traffic areas, I believe, demonstrate that this alternate is very questionable. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: As Public Works Director, my opinion is that we must at least do alternative number one. I do question, however, whether or not we should be building rural service roads without curb and gutter if we require other developers to do so. The Council should consider alternative number two as the beat temporary solution in that it addresses the need for the Riverroad Plaza stores, the concern of Tom Hoglund as a nearby developer, and provides good access for all those involved. with this alternative, I again, however, question whether or not we should build a service road without curb —12. Council Agenda - 9/28/87 and gutter; and the Council will have to make a recommendation as to what, if any, of alternate number two would be assessed. I have called alternative number two a temporary solution in that I do feel john Badalich's comments about a service road continuing all the way to Dino's Other World, or Hart Boulevard, has merit for the future; and we may once again be addressing this issue in those other areas. Developers should be required to build those service roads if required. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Please refer to the last Council agenda for the drawings of alternates one, two, and three. A letter from Wayne Fingalson by Dave Montebello to Arve Grimsmo is included. -13- September 21, 1987 WRIGHT COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS Wright County public Works Building Route No. 1 • Box 97.6 Buffalo, Minnesota 55313 Jct. T.H. 25 and C. R. 138 Telephone (612) 682.3900 Arve Criasmo, Msyar Monticello City Hall 250 East Broadway Monticello, MH 55362 go. Improvement to CSAH 75 (Intersection) Frontage goad Dear Honorable Rayor and Council persons: WAYNE A.iiNGAleaN.M C0JNTY HIGNWAY ENGINEER She purpose of this letter to to formally respond to the concerMa you expressed at the meeting on September 14, 1987. I believe that the major concerns or questions regarding the design were as follows: 1. Why does the design have to include a raised concrete median? Why can't the County support a painted type median and leave the access of the convenience store where it currently exists? 2. Why can't the speed limit be reduced and would this affect the destge enough to allow either a painted median or a reduction to the length of the concrete median? Before answering -tbe above -questions I would like. to emrplain the decision process Wright County used in getting to the current design for the intersection of CSAR 75, Ci 118 and CSAR 39. First of all traffic counts were taken to dotermine volumes of left turns, right turns and through vehicles for all approaches to the peak hour of the average day. These volumes were used to determine the turn lane storage capecity requirements, lana width, traffic signal warrants, and otber design considerations. After obtaining this information A preliminary design was drafted and reviewed by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT). We than met array times with the City's staff and the affected property owners. As a result of theca meetings many deaigo WWiftcetions ware suggested and developed. Among these wars • reduction In length of concrete medians (minimum taper length), elimination of fres right turn lane for westbound CSAii 39 traffic, and the realiga®sat of CSAR 39 *sat sad Cg 118. One of the main concerns that was discussed in these meetings was the concern regarding access. Wright County has researched the questions of access, in the Minnesota State Statutes, and has found that road autbotities must provide reasonable access to property owcars. This question has broagbt to court many times and past decisions hove bean tendered indicating that reasonable access can be taken as a eight -in and s riKht-out. The affected property owners have indicstad to us t to (/Zo Arve Grimsmo, Mayor September 21, 1987 Page 2 type of access would be unacceptable to them. In order to satisfy the property owners sad not seriously compromise safety, a frontage road was proposed. To answer the question, 'Why has the County proposed a raised median versus a painted median?-, I have prepared a comparison table of the two chanmeligation options. COMPARISON OF CHANNELI2ATION OPTIONS RAISED MEDIAN PAINTED PAVEMENT MARKINGS 1. Strictly defines where motorists should go under almost any weather conditions. 2. Reduces rolative speed differ- ential by separating different traffic movements. 5. Provides physical barrier to prevent dangerous vehicle move- mente. 4. The conflict points will be separated and minimised by pre- venting left turns from CSAR 75 within close proximity of the main intersection. S. Raised medians would allow for placement of traffic signs in a more visible area. 6. CSAR 75 has a raised median through town. In the interest of consistency, it would seem that future chaaaeliaation be a raised median type. 7. Chanaeliaing would allow for a cross -road intersection in the future at the and of the median. S. Channeliaing may require limited lighting of the intersection area. 9. Raised medians are much more costly than pointed medians. (824/yd' orapproximately 825.000) 1. Chaunelixatioa done with pave- ment markings (may be difficult for drivers to ase markings and delineations under adverse weather conditions.) 2. Reduces relative speed differ- ential as long as drivers can see pavement markings and abide by them. 9. Provides no barrier. vehicles can make any movement. 4. Painted medians would allow in- gress sod agrees at close pro- ximity to the intersection. S. Traffic signs would be placed on shoulders and such of the message* would have to be con- veyed by pavement markings. 6. Painted median would be incoo- ststaut with what is currently inplace on CSAR 75. 7. Painting msdiaa would permit jogged type orientation of City Streets. (Not desirable) 8. Painted channolisation would require lighting spaced spptoxi- mately every 900' throughout painted chanaeliaatioa etas. 81,200/pole x (7-14 polar) • 88,400 to 816,800 9. Painted eadisns insignificant cost (except for requited light- ing) 0 Arve Crimemo, Mayor September 21. 1987 Page S We fool that these are a number of significant advantages going with the proposed raised mediso design. The major advantages are - better guidance for the sotorist, prohibition of unwanted turning movements, Protection of vehicles in left turn lana, and the fact that overhead lighting would not be required outside of the intersection. The question of reducing the length of the concrete median by reducing the speed limit is another concern I want to address. The reduction to the speed limit would cot reduce the concrete portion of the median. However, It would reduce the length of the pointed portion of the aediau which extends beyond the concrete median. The speed limits as CSAH 75 East of Monticello were investigated in 1985 and the recommendation was to leave this area toned as SS MPH. We do not foresee any change in this limit unless such more development occurs East of Monticello. to summary, we feel that the present design with a frontage road that relocates the entrance to the touvenience store is the beat long -conga solution to the traffic concerns for this area. We have spent much time considering all the options with the landowners and the City staff. We have received a couple of calls from future business owners mandating what type of access would be present after the project. After explaining the design the inquirers reacted positively. We ate currently at the point in the design and rigbt-oftirey process where we need to know if the City is going to proceed with the frontage road or explore other alternatives. Wright County would be happy to respond to any questions or concerns of the City.. Sincerely, Wayne A. Pingalson County Highway Eastneer by. Dave Montabel.lo Project Engineer DMljas 0 Council Agenda - 9/28/87 13. Consideration of Award of Contract for Construction of Gazebo in Ellison Park. W.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND The City of Monticello received two bids for the construction of the gazebo in Ellison Park on Monday, September 21. The first bid was from Blonigen Builders of Monticello for a lump sum of $8,987. Additional footing depth would be at $17.25 per foot. The second bid was from Pancon, Inc., of St. Louis Park for a lump sum of $8,498, and additional footing depth would be at $25.00 per foot. The basic difference between the two bids is $489. Assuming we may have to extend each one of the caissons one foot, the difference between the two bids would actually be $427. I spoke with the low bidder, Pancon, Inc., and asked for references and their experience in building these octagon buildings. They informed me that their firm had never built a precut octagon building. In the past they have had experience at building a stick built octagon building. :heir experience has been primarily in park and recreation equipment, square buildings, playground equipment, swings, etc. Pancon feels quite confident that they can build the building without problems. Their only concerns are the anchors for the building in the concrete. It is very critical that the anchors be located in the correct position. In order to do this, the anchors must be jigged in place either with the caisson pours or the final slab pours. If awarded the bid, Pancon would attempt to find a conscientious local contractor to perform the concrete work. Panton, Inc., has worked for Bob Klein in the past. Bob is the individual from whom we have purchased the cedar Forest Gazebo. Blonigen Builders, the second bidder in this case, has performed various construction projects throughout the area and are well known in Monticello. I would consider them one of the better contractors in our area. Henry Blonigen, one of the owners of Blonigen Builders and their estimates, has assisted the City over many years with estimated building costs, etc. The last project that Blonigen Builders performed on a City project was as a subcontractor for Buffalo Bituminous in the Ellison Park renovation project. At that time, Blonigen Builders built the addition to the restrooms as well as placed all of the recreational facilities and playground equipment in the park. Blonigen Builders have built one hexagon shelter as a subcontractor on a project in Otsego Park, a county park located near Elk River. I spoke with Dave Montebello for a reference on the work 8lonigen performed. Dave indicated that the construction of the shelter was satisfactory. The only problems encountered on the project were some minor ones with the architectural drawings, and those were able to be worked out. -14- Council Agenda - 9/28/87 B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. The first alternative is to award construction of the gazebo to Pancon, Inc., from St. Louis Park, Minnesota, for a lump sum bid of $8,498 to include $25.00 per foot of additional caisson. 2. The second alternative would be to award the bid to Blonigen Builders for a lump sum of $8,987 to include a cost of $17.25 for each additional foot of caisson. 3. The third alternative would be to reject both bids and negotiate for the construction of the shelter or rebid the project in the spring. C. STAFF REMKMENDATION It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director and park Superintendent that the Council choose alternate 92 and award the bid to Blonigen Builders for the following reasons: 1) Blonigen Builders has had recent hands on experience building a precut similar shelter; 2) Blonigen Builders' reputation in the area for their craftsmanship is well known; 3) The cooperative spirit demonstrated by Henry Blonigen indicates that should any small problems arise they could easily be worked out; 4) Blonigen Builders is a local contractor and would, therefore, be easier to stay in touch with and would do their best to build a structure that the community can be proud of. D. SUPPORTING DATA: copies of the proposal forms from both firms. -Ig- PROPOSAL FORM FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 28 -FT "VICTORIAN" CEDAR FOREST GAZEBO FOR CITY OF MONTICELLO, WRIGHT COUNTY MINNESOTA To the City Administrator and City Council 250 East Broadway Monticello, ninnesota 55362 Gentlemen: We, the Undersigned, doing_ business as '(\i\� and here:.natterxtown as the Binder, hereoy propose and, if this proposal is accepted, agree to enter into an agreement on the form attached to, and forming part of, these specifications, with the City of Monticello, Minnesota, to furnish all equipment, machinery, materials, except those provided in building package from Cedar Forest Products, skill tools, and labor required for the construction of a 28 -ft. Victorian gazebo, all as specified and in strict accordance with the specifications entitled "Specifications for Construction of a 28 -ft. Victorian Cedar Forest Gazebo" for the City of Monticello dated September 8, 1987, for the following sum: Item No. 1 - Ease Bid Construction of 28 -ft. Victorian Cedar Forest Gazebo For furnishing all labor, materials, except those provided in building package from Cedar Forest Products, and equipment necessary to construct the building additions coWlete as detailed on the plans and specifications for the total lump sum of: « S f\-, -1 \, —. � s' �\—L oJ� r ^iIlara tS qc,i � 7 Item No. 2 - Additional Caisson Depth if Re4uired For Additional Caisson Foundation Depth Due to Poor Soils For furnishing all labor, materials, and equipment necessary to construct additional caisson depth beyond the plans and specifications for the unit price Dollars per root (preratea) for each caisson extended. Proposal porm A certified check or bid bond in an amount equal to five percent (58) of the annunt of the base bid herein drawn to the order of the City of Monticello, Minnesota, is attached hereto. If this proposal is accepted, the Bidder agrees to corplete the work specified within 45 calendar days from the date of notice to proceed, subject to the provisions of the Contract Documents. This proposal is submitted after careful study of the specifications and from a personal knowledge of the conditions at the building site, which knowledge was obtained from the Undersigned's own sources of information. it is understood and agreed that this proposal cannot be withdrawn within thirty (30) days without the consent of the City of Monticello, Minnesota, and that the said City has the right to accept or reject any or all proposals. -2 - (State whether they 8icider is a sole proprietor, a partnership, or a corporation, and if a corporation, the state in which it is incorporated). By Title 11 Address E,egal Residence C Rence �( ,141, a.«z )Z- Cm PROPOSAL FORM FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 28 -FT "VIC^.ORIAN" CEDAR FOREST GAZEBO FOR CITY OF MONiICELLO, WRIGHT COUNTY MINNESOTA To the City Administrator and City Council 250 East Broadway Monticello, Minnesota 55:62 Gentlemen: We, the Undersigned, doing business as f7A ,j 1p U Z NG and hereinafter known as the Bidder, hereoy propose and, :f this proc_os i 1s _ _ _ - ! :accepted, agree to enter into an agreement on the form attached to, and forming part of, these specifications, with the City of Monticello, Minnesota, to furnish all equipment, machinery, materials, except those provided in building package from Cedar Forest Products, skill tools, and labor required for the constructiam of a 28 -ft. Victorian gazebo, all as specified and in strict accordance with the specifications entitled "Specifications for Construction of a 28 -ft. Victorian Cedar Forest Gazebo" for the City of Monticello dated September 8, 1987, for the following sum: Item No. 1 - ease Bid Construction of 28 -ft. Victorian Cedar Forest Gazebo For furnishing all labor, materials, except those provided in building package from Cedar Porest Products, and equipment necessary to construct the building additions camplete as detailed 'on the plans and specifications for the total lump sum of: Fj-cw-r T.+U VS.Amd A-trval"V a tr�,.rr 4A),0 ""'%o cvuars (5 F,4179' item No. 2 - Additional Caisson Depth if Required For Additional Caisson Foundation Depth Due to Poor Soils For furnishing all labor, materials, and equipment necessary to construct additional caisson depth beyond the plans and specifications for the unit price Of: J•M/eA,ry FSL/ AtJO "/00 . Dollars (S per toot (prorated) for each caisson extended. N AFFIDAVIT AND INFORMATION REQUIRED OF BIDDERS Affidavit of non -collusion: I hereby swear (or affirm) under the penalty for perjury: (1) That I am the bidder (if the bidder is an individual), a partner in the bidder (if the bidder is a partnership), or an officer of employee of the bidding corporation having authority to sign on its behalf (if the bidder is a corporation): (2) That the attached bid or bids have been arrived at by the bidder independently, and have been submitted without collusion with, and without any agreement, understanding, or planned common course of action with, any other vendor of materials, supplies, equipment or services described in the invitation to bid, designed to limit independent bidding or competition; (3) That the contents of the bid or bids have not been communicated by the bidder or its employees or agents to any person not an employee or agent of the bidder of its surety on any bond furnished with the bid or bids, and will not be communicated to any such person prior to the official opening of the bid or bids; and (4) That I have fully informed myself regard_inq the accuracy of the statements made in this affidavit. Signed: r 7 / Firm Name: X.— Xr11 ,y�^-•c_ . Subscribed and sworn to before me this 21st da of S ept. 1987. Notary Pu is q pAUID.rATZ My Commission Expires, s 1OdFYPUB))Ga 0 Ow. EQft Us 19.19P! Bidder's E. I. Number (Number useo on Employer's ouarterly Federal Tax Return, U.S. Treasury Department Form 9411): -1- AFFIDAVIT m Proposal Form A certified check or bid bond in an amount equal to five percent {S8) of the amount of the base bid herein drawn to the order of the City of Monticello, Minnesota, is attached hereto. if this proposal is accepted, the Bidder agrees to complete the work specified within 45 calendar days from the date of notice to proceed, subject to the provisions of the Contract Documents. This proposal is submitted after careful study of the specifications and from a personal knowledge of the conditions at the building site, which knowledge was obtained from the Undersigned's own sources of information. It is understood and agreed that this proposal cannot be withdrawn within thirty (30) days without the consent of the City of Monticello, Minnesota, and that the said City has the right to accept or reject any or all proposals. -2- OWA.J 40N, T.V"A-100AA4&4 (State wnether the Bidder is a sole _ proprietor, a partnership, or a corporation, and if a corporation, the State in which it is incorporated). sy /,.ti*,7 .yam /� �!-lrr� , Title �� Address�L Legal /7✓ Residence Sra�b /3 Council Agenda - 9/28/87 ta. Consideration of Purchasing Snowblower parts from the City of Fairmont. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND The City of Monticello purchased a snowblower in 1982 to attach to our loader for the purpose of removing snow from the downtown areas. In addition, it has been used occasionally for street widening. Our Sno-Rid snowblower was manufactured by Fairmont Railway Motors. 'hey were last manufactured in 1975. The unit we purchased in 1982 was almost new, as it was a demonstrator. The snowblower is powered by a six -cylinder Ford engine, which is easily serviceable and parts are readily available. The remaining portions of the snowblower, however, which contain many shafts, augers, clutches, gears, and chains, are obsolete and no parts are readily available. Our machine is currently in good condition. The approximate 510,000 we paid for the machine has been well worth it, as new machines sell in the area of $50,000 to $60,000. Recently, however, I have been concerned that if we do have a breakdown of any of the special shafting, clutches, or gears, it would leave us without a snowblower for a considerable length of time until new parts could be manufactured or other ones located. During our comparable worth study, I had occasion to work with Mike Zarling, the Public Works Director from Fairmont, Minnesota. In discussing snow removal policies and tactics, I became aware that the City of Fairmont was in the process of purchasing a new snowblower to replace their Sno-Rid which was identical to ours. The City of Fairmont utilizes their snowblower in many more areas than we do and in many cases are in critical need of it as is often the case at their municipal airport. In the late 70's when the Fairmont Railway Motors closed down, the City of Fairmont purchased many spare parts for their snowblower; so they do have a spare clutch, auger, chute, etc. I asked Mike Zarling if his city would be able to sell the snowblower to the City of Monticello so that we could utilize it for spare parts for our machine. After some discussions, Mike and I settled on a fair value of $2,000. There was some discussion by the City Council of Fairmont that the machine would bring a higher price through one of the local equipment dealers, as it was in operating condition. The City of Fairmont would, however, agree Lo sell it to the City of Monticello for the price of $2,000. The purchase of this surplus snowblower from the City of Fairmont should allow us to continue utilizing our snowblower for several years in the future. In addition, the six -cylinder Ford engine on the snowblower is similar to the engine being currently used on the City's sewer jet, well 02 etmrgency engine, and, of course, our own snowblower. -16- Council Agenda - 9/28/87 Funding for the purchase of the snowblower would come through the snow and ice department. Because of the light 1986-87 winter, we are currently several thousands dollars under budget in that department. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. The first alternative is to authorize the Public Works Department to purchase a used Sno-Aid snowblower from the City of Fairmont for $2,000. 2. The second alternative is to not purchase the snowblower from the City of Fairmont. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of the Public works Director and the Street Superintendent that the City opt for alternate it and purchase the snowblower from the City of Fairmont. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the brochure on the Sno-Rid snowblower. -17- YOUR PATH TO SNOW ype of eaow Weight of snow Loading time �. emoval equipment ' : 10 cu. yd. truck per truckload Get the most productive work BUCKET TYPE LOADER'.- c+�tn�a�t.r --.f out of your front end loader — Mount the SNO-RM in the ORDINARY SNOW BLOWER ft=-=QQ= A=ft f 035 sec. bucket for fastest snow loading. Loads any snow: fresh, wet or ..)170 -Rid (compto—d a7ww) 111.0a0'lb--t.t".s'.'.9 3 2 sec. hard: also ice. m Ilaoed on unsalted snow. - =— T $-iS-SOW—YT'•'_QR'R'ra. FREE FLOW DISCHARGE CHUTE Chute is curved to the came_ ri contour as the ni ght. path of a thrown anew ball to reduce =� =,C—dr7 r.tM:friction.Chute`s aides are tapered to relieve side drag. i Augera force the snow directly into the cleato of compreoaor. Regardleao of temperature AIR IS SQUEEZED OUT of the onow as it paooeo be- tween the rotary compreoaoro. heavy mace anowis diacharged into the truck by the impelling force from tho comproacoro. I `u 3 BY j)cs i1)aa &C�n�g T. PAUL ,,Ml TCLLi-'it.1•rsE A9CA EXTENDABLE DISCHARGE CHUTE Cast anew upwardly to any desired angle. For loading trucko, chute extendo to 350 downwardly. Hydra ullcally operated. Electrically con- trolled from operators neat. ROTATABLE DISCHARGE CHUTO 1000 Right -Left hand rotation. worm gear driven by oil fluid 'r..otor. Chute will not freeze tight. Electrically operated from cparotoro ceat. IlEATED D13C11A11GE NECK Englno'o cxhauct to duectcd tcto a chamber ourrounding i tho chute I nock to eliminato t_ho pcocibiltry of ice or crow from got_haririg and froeairg. FAMMONT HYDRAvIJcs 892 50. WCHIGAN AVE. CHICAGO. 1LUN015 60AMr • rA Mtcr Of eatarcatt uawdr 10OT , 09L C/1 Council Agenda - 9/28/87 15. Consideration of Revision of Developmental Agreement for Development of Fourth Addition in Meadow Oak. W.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At the May 26, 1987, regular Council meeting, the City staff presented an agreement between the City and Dickman Knutson which would allow him to plat Outlot H of Meadow Oak into the Fourth Addition with Blocks 1-4. Mr. Knutson was required to return to his original grading plan for the PUD and draft a letter to the County asking for discharge of surface water from Area A-3 to a nearby marshy area which eventually led to Ditch 33. In addition, Mr. Knutson was to follow all of the original specifications and plans for the PUD, and thus, we would allow the construction to be staged so that approximately 14 lots could be built upon along Meadow Lane. Stage one of the construction called for Mr. Knutson to complete the street system in front of the 14 lots he wished to develop and to bring the street to subgrade elevation in the remaining portion all the way to the western edge of his plat. Several things have taken place that have not allowed Mr. Knutson to finish this portion of the project. The sewer and water contractor had significant problems with the watermain construction. Many leaks were found where the service lines connected to the main line. This required the re -excavation of almost every service in the entire street section. These excavations were followed by improper grading to allow water to run off and the resulting heavy rains caused the clay subgrade to become extremely wet. Even after the addition of extra gravel, it was impossible to obtain any type of roadway surface that would support the design loads. After extensive work, two inches of black base bituminous material was placed upon the street surface with the plan of repairing the bad spots in the spring and completing the street in 1988. within a few days after the paving operation of the Fourth Addition, one of the service trenches settled several inches, taking the street and blacktop surface with it indicating that the service trenches were not properly compacted. 'Phis, again, supported the idea that the street should not be finished this year. Also of concern was the fact that the curbing contractor left out reinforcing in the curb above the service trenches. Approximately three or four days after the first settlement occurred, significant settlement was noticed just outside the Street in another service trench on the other end of the project in the Fourth Addition. This demonstrates future settlements could occur in 1988. In discussions with McCombe Knutson, Dick Knutson's engineer, and with Dick, we decided it would be beat to complete the final paving of this project in the spring of 1988. A punch list was formulated which indicated that additional grading was needed on the site to keep the water from standing behind the curbs, as well as answering the question of the elevation of the westerly portion of the street to the plat boundary. Mr. Knutson's interpretation of our first agreement is in conflict with ours in regard to subgrade elevation. Council Agenda - 9/28/87 Mr. Knutson indicates he would like to have occupancy for a house he is currently building on the street, and he would like to continue building houses over the winter on this street; yet he has not as of this time drafted the letter to the County about Ditch 33, nor completed proper grading or the street surfacing. We, therefore, feel it necessary to bring this before the Council and draft a new or more complete development agreement for the Fourth Addition which would provide for completion of the work which could be done yet this fall, provide for the street surface and repairs to be completed next spring, give the City guarantees as to the completion of the project, and allow the developer to continue building homes. In order for us to form the development agreement, the Council should answer the following questions: 1. Dickman Knutson does not wish to draft a letter to the County concerning Ditch 33 as he had previously agreed to. He is concerned that the amount of water from the Second Addition discharged into the swamp and ultimately into Ditch 33 appears to have gone unnoticed and is not causing complications at this time. Information I received from Rick indicates that Mr. Knutson would like to wait with the Ditch 33 issue until further development by other developers causes the problem to reappear. At that time, the City or some other developer, such as Jim Boyle, will have to handle the problem. 2. The second question that should be answered is whether or not the City wishes to accept the utility warranty bond for Meadow Lane. The City normally does not accept warranty bonds until the completion of a project. This project, however, had a different utility contractor than a street contractor. So consequently, the utility contractor feels he has completed his obligations and forwarded a warranty bond to the City. The City has the right, as we have informed Mr. Knutson earlier, that we will not take a project over for warranty until it is complete; and since the entire project or stage I is not complete, we would not have to accept the warranty bond. The rationale for not accepting it is because of the many problems that we have encountered with the utility construction regarding the many leaks and the redigging of the service trenches. We are currently stuck with a road in Meadow oak constructed by Dickman Knutson which has significant settlement in it, and it is beyond the warranty period. Consequently, the City will have to spend the dollars to do the necessary repairs. 3. The third question involves the completion of all the work that could be done yet this year. This means all of the grading behind the curb lines and the erosion control, as well as the final elevation of the westerly portion of Meadow Lane. -19- Council Agenda - 9/28/87 4. The fourth question involves what type of guarantees does the City wish to have from the developer to ensure that the project, namely, stage I of the project, will be completed by a certain time in the spring of 1988. It would appear best to handle all of these questions with some type of new agreement unless the Council wishes to stick to the original agreement of which a copy is enclosed for your review. I discussed typical developer agreements with the engineering staff of the City of Plymouth in that I had been informed by Paul Pearson of McCombs Knutson that the City of Plymouth often makes agreements with developers to build street improvement projects over a period of two years. This is primarily due to the heavy clay soils encountered in the City of Plymouth, which are not unlike those soils encountered in Meadow Oak. This information was received on Thursday, and Rick and I reviewed the material. Upon reviewing the information from Plymouth, it was found that the requirements of Plymouth are simpler than ours. They do, however, enter much more extensive and detailed development agreements than we do. They often require cash up front from the developer and/or letters of credit. They do typically build street projects over a period of two years. Their overall plan is not to allow occupancy of residential buildings until the sewer and water are in and the streets are paved. In all reality, all of their plans do not work perfectly, and they do find occasions where they give occupancy to residential properties after acceptance of the public sanitary sewer, water, and storm sewer systems when the streets are passable but sometimes not yet complete. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: There are many alternatives which the City Council could consider for this project. In the past, we have discussed and debated quite heavily the possibility of changing from the PUD back to the standard subdivision for all of Meadow Oak, the rationale being that the type of construction currently going on in Meadow Oak is the same stick built type homes built in other portions of the cities under much different guidelines for lot sizes, setbacks, and street widths, etc. I will attempt to present alternatives which appear most logical to the City staff which would allow the developer to continue. 1. Alternative number one would answer the four questions in the following manner: 1. The Ditct• 33 problem for the south branch should be the responsibility of the developers developing the areas contributing to this branch of Ditch 33. It should be the responsibility of the developer or developers, not the City, to acquire those discharge rights, or development should not be allowed to occur. The two developers in this area are Dickman Knutson and James Boyle. The City is not the developer in this area. -20- Council Agenda - 9/28/81 In regard to question number two, the City should not in this case accept the utility warranty bond for Meadow Lane. Under normal conditions , I believe we could accept the warranty bond for the utilities the year prior to the final paving operations. In this case, due to the enormous problems encountered with the utilities and the very distinct possibility of improper backfill, it is very likely we will have problems next year. Alternative number one would include refusal of the warranty bond and make the developer responsible to pay for maintenance or reimburse the City for maintenance until such time the City accepts the utility bond. 3. In regard to question number three, Alternative number one would include completion of all the work that can be done this year. All of the grading and erosion control should be taken care of, as well as the grading of the westerly portion of Meadow Lane to a proper elevation. 4. Question number four would best be handled by a letter of credit for the value of the work not yet accepted or completed and an agreement that i£ the developer does not complete the work on or before July 1, 1968, the City has the right to use the letter of credit to complete the project, namely, Stage I of the Fourth Addition. Alternative number two could put off the Ditch 33 problem to the future at which time the City would more than likely be involved in the problem. We could accept the utility contractor's bond, thus by shortening the warranty period to September of 1988. In response to question number three, this alternative should still include the completion of that work this year to reduce the possibility of drainage problems in the spring. This alternative would also include a requirement for a guarantee from the developer in the form of a letter of credit for all of the work not yet accepted or completed. 3. Alternative number three could include any combination of the above four items. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the staff recommendation that the City opt for Alternative 11. The staff feels that this alternative is in the best interest of the City of Monticello, the best interests of the current residents in Meadow oak, the future residents in the Fourth Addition, and would allow the developer to continue building homes. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of original agreements, Copy of drainage map for Area 3 in Meadow Oak. -21- I . Mr. Knutson is to return to the original grading plan sending much of the surface water north as was originally proposed. In addition, he is to draft a letter to the Wright County Board requesting discharge of the surface water from area A-3 into a nearby marshy area which eventually leads to Ditch 33. It is hoped that this letter will result in an allowable discharge so that the area of A-3 can be developed or that it will lead to a Ditch 33 study that the County has discussed but tabled for many, many months. 2. Mr. Knutson will plat the entire Outlot H as the Fourth Addition with Blocks 1-6, and he will provide the City with all the necessary plane, drawings, specifications, and documentation as originally required in the PUD. 3. The staging of construction within the Fourth Addition will be as follows. Stage I A. Street Construction The entire road bad for Meadow Lane will be graded to the west boundary of the plat. The area to the east of the intersection of Red Oak Lane will be paved with curb and gutter. The intersection of Red Oak Lane and the area to the west will be loft in subgrade condition somewhat below final grade but elevated above the surrounding low area so that no water will stand on the platted street right-of-way. Temporary blacktop spillways will be built from the and of the curb and gutter on both the north and south sides of Meadow Lane to direct the water to temporarily pond on Lot 1, Block d, amd Lot B, Block 1. B. Storm Sewer No storm sower will be completed with the first phase other than the temporary ponding as mentioned under the street construction portion. C. Sanitary Sewer The Sanitary sewer will be completed along Meadow Oak Lane to the intersection of Red Oak Lane. Construction will include the manhole for access at the intersection of Red Oak Lane and Meadow Lane. All services east of Red Oak Lane will be inetallad. 0 3 D. Water The water system shall be completed along Meadow Lane until it can be terminated West of the and of the paved street at a location acceptable to the City Engineer. Stage II Stage, 11 will consist of the remainder of construction within the Fourth Addition. It will include all of the grading, streets, water, sewer, pathways, and storm sewer system draining the Fourth Addition. Much of the storm sever work is located in Outlot I but will be constructed with the remaining portion of the Fourth Addition and will comply with the original grading and drainage plan. All the necessary documentation, plana and specifications as required in the original PUD will again be provided with the construction of the remaining lots in the Fourth Addition. Stage II construction in the Fourth Addition is expected to start when the inventory of buildable lots reaches less than ten. Mr. Knutson expects this to occur in late 1987 or early 1988. 4. It is understood that no other outlote currently under Mr. Knutson's control may be platted by him prior to completion of the Fourth Addition in its entirety and the storm saver system serving it as outlined above. CITY OF MDMTIC£LLO 9-h--�- imola Public Works Director Dickman Knutson 0 Council Agenda — 9/28/87 16. Consideration of Allowing the Granting of Gambling License Renewal. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The Knights of Colu:abus has submitted an application to the Charitable Gambling Board for a renewal of their Bingo License conducted at the VFW Club. As always, the State will act on these applications, including the renewals, unless they hear a statement of opposition from the local governing body. The City has 30 days from receipt of a copy of the application in which to pass a resolution specifically disallowing the activity. If there is no opposition to the Bingo License renewal, the Council should take no action; and the time limit will singly pass. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Take no action, which will allow the application to be reviewed and granted by the State. 2. Specifically oppose - There doesn't seem to be any grounds for disapproval. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Council take no action and the process of renewal will continue. D. SOTdFORTING DATA: Copy of the gambling application submitted to the State. —22- -''�"''`r..Jt"",.'"�,.j}I �_ ___'� i.•rr�'wF��'_'� !i>#�'•w°�.•'��•^•`,`�1 _^•r._+':'Ti: ':.^anq..4;.....� --�• _ _t-_ -- - :ec_ -_,Jk •ter. �'��-j �lwrY�� _ i< - - -��-q ...i _ �.:•:-`_::c�::�{^`" :^. _:.' .';.:. rue- ,_'. ;".. .�.; _...:. �.�::-�.,:. Charitable Gambling Control Board,�'+'•"'�`•>= - _1 `e Room N-475 Griggs -Midway Building`FOR BOARD USE ONLY 1821 University Avenue =•-• -- - �N1eii0ir ... ___. St. Paul, Minnesota 55104-3383 (6121642-0555 �ar+AMD .. CHECK# DATE GAMBLING LICENSE APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS: A. Type or print in ink. B. Take completed application to local governing body, obtain signature and date on all copies, and leave 1 copy. Applicant keeps 1 Copy and sends original t0 the above address with a check, C. Incomplete applications will be returned. Type of Application: 'Class A - Fee S 100.00 (Bingo, Raffles. Paddlewheels. Tipboards. Pull -tabs) C:Class B - Fee s 50.00(Raffles, Paddlewheels. Tipbosrds. Pull -tabs) slleme—•wvwem: ;(ClassC - Fee a 50.00 (Bingo onlvl %ar_eoenm,Uer a.mery emn,oi seine CClassD- Fees 25.00fRafffesonlyl XYes E: No 1. Is this application for a renewal? If ves, give comolete license number ©• - eo CYes CNo 2. If this is not an application for a renewal, has omanlzation been licensed by the Board before? If yea, give base y license number Imddle five digital I XYes CNo 3. Have Internal Controls been submitted previously? It no, please attach copy. 4. Applicant (Official, legal name of organization) 5. Business Atldress of Organization Yj11GHTt oscokuIaALU coulu(1I_ A6 8;S- 6091 eAs7 SROADVAY 6. Gity, State. Zip 7. County 18. Buatneas Phone Number /17QN>,CEsl.O 1Ly.�t�G� T (c I� 1 �9s-3/9/ 9. Type of organization: c F alpha[ r7ititarani L;Rafig,ous COther nonprofit• If Orpe7we40n is en "otnm nonproot" agarnnoon, sn.wer eueatgne 10 through 13. If not, ge to oui snon 14 ••Otho nonoroht•• organ -tions _ _must document us tax -a memos status . _Yss)r go 10. is O,ganuabon mco_rporatad on a nonprofit organization? If yes, give number assigned to Articles or page and book number, I Attach copy of certificate :Yea)SNo 11 Are_artiUH hlad_with the Secretary of State? Yea 9No 1 2 Are articles filed with the County? NofX No 13. faorgamntion a memos from Minnesota or Federal income to a iifyes, please attach let ter from IRS or Department of _ n _ Revanuedeclannge.empuonorcopvof990or990T _ YuxNo 14 Hes license ever boon tlamed, suspended or ravokad? If yea. check all that apply, _ Denied ; 'Suspands,.'Revoked _G_wa_dat_e. C_. _ _ _ I 15 Number of sows members T 1 B Number of yelrs inexistence Nota. It leas than four years, attach evldanCe of three years IV IF R 1 existence. 17 Name of (.heel Fxll utive OIh('er , Tl B. Name of treasurer or person who accounts for other revenues TO M E. 1✓Orr Lof the organization P, AOCN;F_" T.YE/SeN Lite Title - - GRAND KNIGHT //uA -JclAL $fGRATARY Business Phone Number - _ 4-- --,N - -- -- - - - - - Business Phone Number 1412 1 a9S-3348 ' ( 61.2 1 PIS -3)71 19 Name of establishment where gambling will be 20 Street address trial PO. b■ Number) - Conducted 11FW-P942_$73? L 21 City, Stale, Zia . -- -- 22 County (where pmbl,ng prerraess N Iecerael �ON7'1eg s.AX srif_k (.G 0001 -02 (91401 wM,.cMy•Be's canary ANkeam Mu1Mat 6esnnay Mer 0 s"aa'.;k'isxt Inotin LicenseA (cation 9 pts• } .- . •e of Application:-OClass Aless B : )(Class C r. �. G'Class O s 23. Is gambling premises located within city limns? ., m C:No 24. Are all gambling activities conducted at the premises•itated in 119 of Etas application? if not, complete a separate , application for each premises (except rallies) as a separate license is required for each premises, oXNO 25. Does organization Owners gambling premises? If no, anach copy of the lease with terms of at least one year. ' assXNo 26. Does the organization lease the entire premises? It no. attach a sketch of ( 27. Amount olMonthly Rent ' the premises indicatingwhat portion is being leased. A lease and sketch 5A E 0 f/J OS ionic is not required for Class D applications. d N ' va 4:No 28. Do you plan on conducing bingo with this license? If yet, give days and times of b,ngo oeeasmns: J'tJ Jf! jJtf )'a ' ss ZNo 29. Has the 510.000 hdeah bond reowred by Minnesota Statutes 349 20 been obtained Attach copy of bond. InsuranceCompanyNsme 31. SondNvmber jJES 7It: J? s1) q r'ry C 0 M PA AJ ( SLt"Ar ;002"117' ssor Name 33. Andress '34 City, State,2ip �1.F Ul pn17'x% 9 7_� 1 � L �0 CE YJA/1 .STRFET VIII T ,� ru.yt�9-S?6s Gambbng Manager Name 36. address 37. City. State. Lp �tab,psh7' S M tie 1.1 ;�64 </7L4e_RES7Qn- in6Vr JcActw IVA/. L_rJ:f7 Gambling Manager Business Phone 39, Date gambling manager became t memoer of organizationL pTA h y 1 ! - GAMBLING SITE AUTHORIZATION -my signature below. IpClI lew en prrCement officers or agents of the Board are hereby authorized to enter upon the site, anytime. gambling is being conducted, to observe the gambling ano to enforce the law for any unauthorized game or - Ictice. _ BANK RECORDS AUTHORIZATION mr nature below, the Board IshIauthorizedto inspect the bank records of the General Gambling Bank Account necessary ecessary to fulfill requirements of current gambling rules and law. OATH error declare that: I have read this application and all information submitted to the Board; Zinformation submitted is true, accurate and complete; other required information has been fully disclosed 1am the thief executive officer of the organization; I dssume full responsibility for Ute fait and Lawful Operation of all activities to be conducted; I will fatmd,arae myself with thelaws of the State of Minnesota respecting gambling and rules of the Board and agree, It I ret teed, to abide by those laws and rules, mciudm9 imarnOmants_ thereto._ _ 1 oiLt.ial, Legal Name of Organization A1. 1 59n a )must bs,irgrled 0v Irh.ef E,ecutive Ofhcar I J(AhfrX71 os, c :r.,imDY r-OVN'.# i ' x_ Uata//�r�' - - - �E'ecr;,,grtG96 Nil .D li%(AI , rr - l- • - y r t ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Of NOTICE SYLOCAL GOVERNING BODY terebv atAnowlenge ret eiw of a copy of this application By acsnowledging receipt. I admit having been served with 'lice that this aptllit anon will be reviewed by the Charitable Ciambling Control Board and it approved by the bnaro. will - fl.ome of feuive 30days from thedato of roar cot (noted below ), unless • resolution of the local governing body is pasted hick SOCLLcally disallows such activity and a Copy of that resolution is ratCeivad by the Charitable Gambling Control - oarn within 30 days of the below rioted data _ 2 Name bf C.tv of t owny (Local Goirarmrtg Body) If little located within a townahia. item 43muat batompistea, in setdaktn to the county signature fYjd Ju7t�FLtO 1TY P5 tnature of Person ralery,ng aophr�ation 43 Namo of Townshto •• - - --- , cffL a,tta f 'Date r*mvod tt3O day Dario •Signature of aarson rec Nving aapkcation begins i a G7X I-- —T -- -- - - - 01 iIme 'eron�LocaGOyeming Body Title A=LA ) . - - - - - - - - - - - — - - - - 0 aW' 02 lli86)WNI. Cast Basis Canary Apakcant fink Local Govar v t �� Council Agenda - 9/28/87 17. Consideration of Establishing Minimum Requirements on Food Service for Sunday Liquor Licenses. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Minnesota Statutes allow cities to issue Sunday liquor licenses to a restaurant, club, or hotel which has a seating capacity for at least 30 persons and who also have a regular on -sale liquor license. The City has granted Sunday liquor licenses to all of the on -sale establishments and to the VFW Club and American Legion Club. I have recently received a complaint from an individual resident who inquired as to why the City of Monticello allows liquor establishments to serve liquor on Sundays when food is not available. It should be noted that when all applications were made for Sunday liquor licenses, all establishments had indicated or were providing food service of some sort; but to my knowledge, the City has never actually verified that food was being served at each establishment that was granted a license. State Statutes are specific in that a restaurant, club, or hotel are the only establishments that can be granted a Sunday on -sale license in conjunction with the serving of food; but the State does not have a definition, nor does the State Liquor Control Division verify that each applicant is actually serving food. In my discussions with the Liquor Control Division, it is the municipality that must establish what is the definition of food service; and if the Council does not feel that there is a problem with any of our license holders, including the clubs, from serving liquor on Sunday, no action would be required. I feel as a general policy, the Council should establish what it considers a minimum food service level. If the Council is comfortable with the food definition being not by the serving of Stewart sandwiches or pizza, for example, a general policy statement to that effect would make all establishments aware of what is expected to get a Sunday liquor license. If it's felt that a broader range of menu items should be available to qualify for a Sunday liquor license, a policy directive should be indicated and then enforcement procedures to verify this could be implemented. The individual who questioned the City's policy regarding Sunday liquor licenses noted that the VFW Club, for example, does not provide any food service at all and is allowed to sell liquor on Sundays. There are certainly ways available to verify whether any of the establishments do serve food: but before a City definition of what constitutes food service is available, it would be hard to determine whether any violation exists. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Establish a definition of minimum food service expected to qualify for a Sunday liquor license. 2. Take no action and allow Sunday liquor licenses for any establishment that serves any type of food product. -23- Council Agenda - 9/28/81 C. STAFF REX29ENDATION: Although I have previously questioned whether some of our current license holders had actually served food similar to a restaurant on Sundays, checking on violations has never been instituted, as the City has never received any inquiries or complaints regarding Sunday liquor. Since it is up to the municipality to determine what minimum food service is required, I believe the Council should establish what it feels is acceptable to qualify for a license. The staff does not have a recommendation on whether a single food item is sufficient or whether a broader menu should be required, only that the policy be established so that all license holders and/or citizens are aware of the minimum requirements. D. SUPPORTING DATA: None. .24. Council Agenda - 9/28/87 18. Consideration and Review of the Proposed 1988 Budget of the SWC4. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Each year the Cable Commission adopts its own budget for the upcoming year. The primary revenue source for the Commission is the contribution from each of the member cities based upon the weighted vote for each city. As in the past, the City will submit its annual contribution along with an invoice to the Commission requesting reimbursement of franchise cable fees. This process is primarily a pay-out/pay-in. The City is always fully refunded for its cable contribution. Similarly, as cable use within the city grows, our share of the franchise fee will increase. The municipal budget for 1988 shows an expenditure of $6,425 and revenue of $6,425. As noted in Barb Guffey's letter, the Council need not take formal action since their membership in the Joint Powers has delegated the budgeting authority to the Commission. I believe it would be good for record keeping to have a motion ratifying the City's participation and the Commission budget for 1988. B. ALTERNAT'-VE ACTIONS: 1. Ratify budget. 2. Withdraw from the Commission. C. STAFF RECOM•IENDATION: I recommend that the Council ratify the budget for the upcoming year. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the Commission budget; Copy of the cover letter from Barb Guffey, Cable Administrator. -25- SHERBURNE/WRIGHT COUNTY CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mattceito Gry Mal, 250 East Broadway, Monticeso. Minnesota 55382 BARBARA GUFFEY Cable Mmm,atalcw MM40RANDUM DATE: August 21, 1987 TO: SWC4 City Administrators, City Clerks ////�� FROM: Barb Cuffey, SWC. Cable Adminiscrato(prol' RE: 1988 Commission Budget Phone (812) 295-2611 Metro (8121 333-5739 Enclosed you will find a copy of the Sherburne/Wright County Cable Communications Commission 1988 budget. The Commission approved the proposed budget at its regular meeting of August 19, 1987. This budget is sent to you in accordance with the provisions of the Joint Powers Agreement for the Commission in Article XI, Section G, which provides for a passive review of the Commission budget by the cities. Please have your City Council review the enclosed budget; however, no formal action need be taken to approve it. The budget will be deemed approved by your City unless the City gives notice in writing to the Commission prior to October 15 that it is withdrawing from the Commission. Any city withdrawing after October 15 will still be required to remit its contrib- ution to the 1988 budget. Also enclosed please find a listing of each City's 1988 contribution to the Commission. The Joint Powers Agreement provides that total contributions from the Cities will be assessed to each member proportionally according to the number of votes on the Commission. Thus, please have your City review its contribution requirements, and remit a theck, as -ell as an invoice for the amount of your check. payable to the Commission prior to January 10, 1988. If the check is not received prior to January 10, the Joint Powers Agree rentprovides that a director is ineligible to vote on behalf of the director's municipality during the time it is in default on any contribution or payment to the Commission. Your City will receive reimbursement for your 1988 contribution immediately following the receipt of the 1988 franchise fees from Jones Intercable (in early 1989). You will be receiving reimbursement for your 1987 contributions of lest year in early 1988, following receipt of the 1987 franchise fees. Please remit your City's contribution to the Sherburne/Wright County Cable Commun-' icacions Commission to Barbera Cuffey, Cable Administrator. 250 East Broadway, ,Monticello. HN 55362. Thank you for your cooperation, and please feel free to call if you have any questions. SWCb: ft take • 8uttab • Coksto • Oasaai • ODWW a Elk RWer Maple Was 0 Mont"Do + Rockford 9 Watertown 9) SHERBURNE/WRIGHT COUNTY CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 1988 BUDGET Administrator Salary S 25,000.00 PERA 1,062.50 F.I.C.A. 1,877.50 Health, Dental, Life, AD4D, D.Life, Disab. 3,208.92 Office b General Supplies 400.00 Equipment 300.00 Legal Services 5,500.00 Telephone 500.00 Postage 400.00 Travel, Conferences, 6 Schools 3.700.00 Printing, Publishing, b Advertising 300.00 Insurance 0 Office Rental 0 Dues b Memberships 500.00 Audit 500.00 System Performance Evaluation 2,000.00 Unallocated Contingency 1,800.00 S 47,000.00 I SWC4 DWELLING UNITS & COMMISSION VOTES '1988 BUDGET BJG 7/20/87 $ 2.137.00 per vote M 0 Dwelling Votes City City Units 1/800 D. U. Contribution Big Lake 1.113 2 $4,274.00 Buffalo 2.100 3 6,411.00 Cokato 825 2 4.274.00 Dassel 471 1 2, 137.00 De lano 977 2 4.274.00 Elk River 2.638 4 8,548.00 Maple Lake 490 1 2.137.00 Monticello 1,620 3 6.411.00 Rockford 1.010 2 4,274.00 Watertown 830 2 4,274.00 $ 2.137.00 per vote M 0 Council Agenda - 9/28/87 19. Consideration of a Simple Subdivision Request to Resubdivide Two Residential Lots. A Variance request to Allow the Placement of a House Within the Sideyard Setback of a Resubdivided Lot Line, and a Variance Request to Allow Two Residential Lots, When Subdivided, to be Less than the Minimum Lot Square Footage. Applicant, Dan Frie. (G.A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Mr. Dan Frie is proposing to resubdivide two existing residential lots with one of the resubdivided lots having a house on it, and it being placed within six feet of the resubdivided lot line. These two lots, when resubdivided, would be less than the minimum lot square footage allowed, which is 12,000 sq ft. If the lot line is resubdivided as presented, one could look at a greater sideyard setback requirement than the minimum 10 -foot sideyard setback requirement. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve the simple subdivision request to resubdivide two residential lots. Approve the variance request to allow the placement of a house within the sideyard setback of a resubdivided lot line. Approve the variance request to allow two residential lots, when subdivided, to be less than the minimum lot square footage. 2. Deny the simple subdivision request to resubdivide two residential lots. Deny the variance request to allow the placement of a house within the sideyard setback of a resubdivided lot line. Deny the variance request to allow two residential lots, when subdivided, to be less than the minimum lot square footage. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the simple subdivision request to subdivide two residential lots. City staff recommends the denial, along with the Planning Commission, on the variance request in that the newly created subdivided lot would be less than the original standard city platted lot, 66 x 165, or a total of 10,890 sq ft. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the location of the simple subdivision request; Copy of the Certificate of Survey; Copy of the site plan showing a house placed on this newly created lot. -26- k �\ yy. C •, \ � ` '�� 10 IiY 1 � t Fri �ti ' •� •" ;.y'a •• Sit '•' ` it a ARc G4 A Luta G and 7, plc �, da Co [h• r9curdud-41 •r<CYNr: thv OOuthk t. i' Clyht •7+ylr fecal'. rr QQ ; p s. •nA 7. .. t ��, .t •r •� PARCf.4 i!7 t r r,• The iouthvrat•rly LOWER 14014TICC�f.O ur:ght Cvudty, Mf " f rvm the ovut+lvof f/f1 � • j�l t •� r I �t . Council Agenda - 9/28/87 20. Consideration of Underground Sprinkler Installation at Monticello City Hall. (G.A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: As part of the budget, we budgeted this year for the installation of an underground sprinkling system at the Monticello City Hall. With the bids that have come in, we have gone over budget on the proposed amount that we had in the budget. Three firms were originally contacted to solicit proposed bids for the sprinkler installation. Schillewaert Landscaping said they are too busy to get anything in yet this fall but would be more than happy to work with the City this spring and put something in late spring or early summer of 1988. Fair's Garden Center designed the original plan which we used for bidding purposes. Their bid is enclosed with this supplement. we also solicited another firm which is out of the City of Monticello, Ak-Sar-Ben. They submitted the low bid which is also enclosed with this supplement. Basically what we are dealing with are two different brands of sprinkling equipment. Fair's Nursery is supplying the Rainbird sprinkling system, and Ak-Sar-Ben is supplying the Toro brand sprinkling system. The only noticeable differential that we can see within the bids is that Ak-Sar-Ben is taking everything from cutting a "T" into the water line in the basement near the water meter, extending it outside of the building, and hooking up the entire sprinkling system outside. Fair's Garden Center proposal takes everything from a pipe extended outside the building for their complete installation. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve the low bid submitted by Ak-Sar-Ben in the amount of $5,815.70. 2. Accept the second low bid from Fair's Garden Center for $5,860. 3. Do nothing and looking into an alternative for the next year. C. STAFF RECOMME14DATION: As both the bids are very close in price and comparison, we recommend that the City Council listen to presentations from both companies by representatives which will be present at Monday night's meeting. A decision can then be rendered at that time. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the site plan from Ak-Sar-Ben and Fair's Carden Center; Copy of both bid proposals. -27- --=AK•SARmBEN LANDSC APED ESIGNERS& CONTRACTORS .._ 10574 TOROSIRRIGATION CONTRACTORS .0 HIGHWAY 10. ELK RIVER. MN 65220 - 10121 4218]20 SOLD TO: SNIP TO: rNON E: IWF I•SLI! -� /� lo! �s DORES.T DD11! � DES�GMiM oT..( T.. -IP C... — �/1 ?� •Ir/T�c�.-'E'i • b T. ULL�+Lr•ro.� .u.nor O•Tl Jel Ort. pi. a.r1 WTl.I.L .0 R.I•L e.tN L .—ALLIED Dnolo 'OTA T.L ?i, 15P�lI-I I1 I Tn - r.��.� l I Vis-✓ R—c. lar ,�1<; �' �. J 1'7 S ��. -=/• � 4 _�"�-r7 Imo' c � 1 N L- s�� i1 -3 ��u � (�_ I p,v. r..p pD00l 'o.. ;.L.r, ,.L.rr r.13.�.Y •, L •recur rlLr r�.� � wvulLn `� I[ I.DDW rOtcrW Ltr 6011 IMW,.OULDr .s r.vr� r0!�IOjhrO r�wr��in orv. all,W.C. L.sor I[ ur.wD moi' . 4oD �l•or.L f �rD eormTl�rw rrl.w rp�•i��irr Eo`:`rrgc e 01 7 1 o' .Al ...OLLD..t tOQ lr�.ro rOMII•KO 1O, .IIr.rCE DM..p. P3�\Nr..W rr 11...rYWLMrLLMI.p! A.t.lr.lINCMA.®0r L.V.ID .CCdA3 r.OV.. rD..4 tA! lo1.l r.rn jj DOORIrIr.I LID I a 14 CO.t IrY rOT.F/AUPf.O ArO DIWYCt t0 CW.4ttIDr 04.rq) r Ar iipT.I fW. Nplpydr Y llrfYM.ri.r V II Ilpr ACC.Pr40 rw.,••,rvdC• . C.—.Prer1.. WtMIr SOA•'.. rr• Cu.lorlA 10}.L � (—,I atr I Block East of Stoplights 201 East Broadway - Monticello, Minnesota 55362 ?hone: (612) 295-2246 0 - QUOTATION_ - CUSTOM LANDSCAPING & DESIGN COMMERCIAL - RESIDENTIAL �J r / �Lli r G/ / %=�f"I TO RA//Y*B1.e0" S�YJ� . Underground Irrigation Systems �: ',el, OUANTITY SIZE VARIETY PRICE AMOUNT 1 l7/yicJi i��rY'/`1[`� 1/8 J I }`7 >G PJsr� E/rr�frrc ��a;lv2 / -PA"'. V'74 e x-17 !" LTrJrll? ifl;lJltl �G7[ ct' l Z vrl' l vz I ' .i3 5 . Dr'lLr 'RYh. i 0 I Black Ent of'St—ph 201 Ent Broadway — Monticello, Minnesota 55362 Phone: (612) 295-2244 CUSTOM LANDSCAPING & DESIGN COMMERCIAL — RESIDENTIAL RA/IY:*B/IPD® Underground Iffigation Systems . QUOTATION To /11aWir ellu OUANTiTY SIZE VARIETY iticktcleC %rMuw PRICE AMOUNT .•i '-•-�"�. ''/,�/.�!"•, {•'' .. tib_ -•: L;�•% ^ ' ' • � -"• r�=".,J,� . !��-•b .s*•�"• ,"�' �• ,,,•.:✓ ,,i` T.. :' Y` 34 • ��Ryy�•Z� ` +�J-: a,•' '`��`� :','V..'S�3�i-rff•J+� ��i�'^�'tt ,;,a:�Cr.��l.,'�j� i��:�y "f?- �' '.,,�-• -'' '` 'tis ':.+''t, ;... •1',!=', :1'Yii+t .�>'�4'�:�#�: st•1�+' '�. '}��; ' �': '�,ie}}'4'h!'.':+'t"�^;:��• ;1,►��,i�•�Y:�cC,::.�' ;'�•' �:.aL�+, �t�i;A:�!; Np1#� �.n,•�;� :1� �r. :1�::•'�'�y'L iY:Y.ni' lY '9aCo ��4,� 1}„�e. •.',v.� •l;, f , .'�."� Y"K• �.,X� 1 #+ �!: • 'a i� � ` 1 `� " ��?•�� C plU.�• 'ty: Td.�'t a :,r }...?:•,(• .. ; Y,v � • �:,T't. +n: ;,en''' `pry; ��' fz'•• - ;,� C tt T .y�4 wy, t.M,r �,, 1. t,• • Y 1��.:, ' t •�' . v h 1 i + T ":\ 'aw • : �', - \`, :ti5 r.�t t';• •+�a•�.4'; ;.:��.,st'�`•'';,M�!.Yi".`,.Jdr,.�,li�. ::1 • `$'+�'s,�:+.'.v'`.{i:hYii �i :1i�' •,„f x,5.;1 .. ;� ,�: �. .1 't•� •,yt•(•"�- t. '+ .��} ,`. ,S� .j•,•�.y,{",:gt%+'T:y:, ,y'1 r �, 40aia'� t. ;Y• ,.\, t.. ..'� ii3 • �' , ':s )�;'; 5yr. 4'A �•. "t�, S .+: >� •,.1!, ,;,tin. a %;,. C.' .�'• tf, *.•• ,� -�. •;f w ` L'. • ;,tt ft"ti''; K' Sa, i•. i ., r v !;..� fir• � J. •�� _ ,'? •r.a} '�';:(.".:4t.�1:: sir a ns,na t}qq.•#�tµ� �;1 ��tt't'�:t} � �.r.:a:'` >3i'';�. :ly� fI1'�3 1 b �~`s + �t �` i :'�h' 7•• 'If•r •, 't•^N". d'f7 ti+ ,t<� F r ` .t'A .,..•. I^n.�: y �!. �i•UI, C.. �` �:�'• ";:�: i' ��;.-4'�,,•ii �,�,,:'�; .,° .#� �.,h,.;``y�, ,:- .� �,\ wx. + .l... 4::,:: .; "'4 .• 4^ _ ".l`'#� _ i .+.yr�o"0•: ..�:iv. }1 °.S'R i 'L':' S,. •.�:•:t; �° ilw�^'� r-�;�•!`f.� jai/ :n ,'�' "4, •'z. _ �'� ,T�.. -, 1;.t„l•'a: `.;yn • !” �� }t" .µ;• :y, t•1,•. •a":� i:v'Y'•� �' _ - U�t, ::;�..�}.• - ' e� ,�� 'i+y.' °� ?•1�.�+,;.K.-•rl'jt��,.�. y�`{3. •fl.:3r2,,y.•:a,•:r.^".: t� .��• r y'e ,'i. `•.d• '�i T"�' ..p;,•.. ,,�• � p.+;. .�.a,tq y'R' '� l�4 "I��:�'u:,,+,. a.I .� •, T,` ;; ,�.��.. {..ti iM� �t .r' '. ` •',t'• .� .• :,�' �t:K, f�y � ��• 1. �, ,.:' >... •�:. T. .. :n' ,�� ;��tpf n`s''s' �. ,T.• ��i `-t•1� �v�. t �',3-i. 'rti, �` � :, .s.: ��. •. ,. Y.,.t �. + t 3'. .r`• V !'�'=. .:7CA^'�. ice::• b f,�.,,., �f 5. `N�„•��•,'. ,'1 +. <'t ��,r� \... .+. ..�.t.��ty.�,:�� +tf�',�µ.�.pCi��e;ll�''..y+ ;�'` ,t .`\.a• fi ..v.�'. :,��.�1'+i;t�';\... .•it t l' - � + •�' j,' .s ;":?,, Ti�'. ��•'1''"� va.�lr•"fr kt �. , if .ry RU. « .fT �v a •T :a,., , •��. S . i ,�'� trA4• ra• h a:. �... ,,._ . � i' ' �t � �`�r' ••a .. '• •+�. :;tr•��.,F{.. '•�'{f` K(7c...•'•c,k �'.�': � '•� ._ ,,. .,tea+•} •`�: • `•, - ,r;,• •.� ••'L<(' ''� ,('k,,i.. +„,.a..°;�4Y:4t �.'. ••`•t'�,,ti�.'a ,`�A iM�'',``•'-S�i;r" • a. Si 10h r." Q Si 'Sot; IAT,. -+yaS.jf.F:�.+, Ss...RM ..1� .u..t.r :ii:fi4,.•.,ri.. »..•�»....: w...�.a....i8,CJ2'J{!'1 Council Agenda - 9/28/87 21. Consideration for the City of Monticello to Pursue the Airport Project, (O.K.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKQtOM D: Rick Wolfsteller, City Administrator, received a letter dated September 2, 1987, from Bryon Read, Big Lake Administrative Assistant, stating the withdrawal of Big Lake from the Joint Airport Commission. Thereby, the Commission will most likely be dissolved and the City of Monticello must decide whether to pursue or not pursue with the airport project. Excerpts from the attorney's memo received September 23: In order for Monticello to have a basis for its decision to proceed, it will be necessary to enter into discussions with state officials so that budget estimates can be prepared. Therefore, I recommend that, upon approval by Monticello officials, a letter be prepared asking the state for its assistance in at least formulating a preliminary budget. in that way, Monticello can decide whether to continue with the project or not. Further, it would enhance Monticello's ability to make a judgement on the feasibility of this project if budget estimates can be made and sources of financing identified. Finally, the cost to Monticello of proceeding to the next step should be minimal. It should include no more than six hours more of your time and my time, including completing the preparations of the letter, preparing for and attending the meeting with MN/DOT officials. The attorney's office is submitting a bill for total unpaid expenditures incurred from June 15, 1987, and ending with the effective date of Big Lake's withdrawal. This is to be divided between the two municipalities. The statement is expected to arrive and be presented at the Council meting. The additional six hours of time as stated above would equal approximately $600 to $700. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Pursue with the airport project as recommended by the attorney for budget estimates and identification of sources of financing. 2. Drop the airport project. C. STAFF REODMMENDATION: Staff has no recommendation at this time. D. SUPPORS'ING DATA: Copy of Big fake's withdrawal letter: Copy of 9/22/87 memo from attorney: To be presented at council meeting will be a copy of current billing statement from the attorney. ..2B- w Y6\, CITY aF . Lako September 2. 1987 Rick 4olfsteller City Administrator City of Monticello 250 Easc Broadway Monticello, MN 55362 Dear Rick: Ac the Sepceotier 1, 1987 Big Lake City Council meeting, the Council voted to withdraw from the Joint Powers Airport Commission. This letter shall serve as notice that Big Lake is withdrawing from the Commission. If you have any questions• feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely. Bryan H. Read Adminibtrative Asi.istant City of Big Lake BHR/bs L• cc: 011ie Koropchak. City of Monticello Tom Creighton, Att--rney at Lav Sreve Boc.w,tr. C.cv of B,g Lake 0r.an Benben, :korturns .au❑cy Car: Auboi, Big L&W# Township PoSi OFFICE BOX 250, SIG LAKE, MINNESOTA 55309 LOCAL (612) 263.2107 METRO 3339 O'GONNOR & HANNAN MEMORANDUM DATE: September 11, 1487 TO: Tom Creighton FROM: Kathleen Lamb SUBJECT. Status of the Monticello-Big Lake Joint Airport Commission Project As you requested, this memo will discuss the status of the project of the Monticello—Big Lake Joint Airport Commission ("Commission") as well as assess the impact of Big Lake's recent decision to pull out of the project. First, I have spoken with both federal and state officials about this project. On the federal level, I have been talking with Bob Hubers and Oren Burkhardt of ff l_ the Federal Aviation Administration( "FAA"). Originally, we had been informed that only federal money would be available for this project. Therefore, we obtained all the necessary federal circulars and advisories describing the conditions by which a Request for Proposal ("RFP") must be written and approved so that federal funding could be obtained. The RFP is currently in a draft form but is substantially ready to be released. Upon subsequent discussions with Ron Lloyd of the Minnesota Department of Transportation ("MNOOT"), we were informed that the state also had funding available for municipalities, but only for preliminary planning studies. Apparently, the advantage to applying to the state for such a grant is that there are fewer conditions attached to it than are attached to federal funding, and that the t. funding may be obtained faster. However, the total amount the state would contribute would probably be less than the FAA would contribute. Further, Mr. Lloyd suggested that the appropriate manner in which to proceed would be for the Commission to request officially the assistance of the state. In this way, the state will act as the Commission's sponsor, assist the Commission in its deliberations and act as the liaison with the FAA. The method by which the Commission can announce its project and request assistance officially is by letter from the Commission to MNDOT. It is at this point in the process that the withdrawal by'Big Lake must be discussed. According to Mr. Lloyd, the state has the authority to deal with municipalities only. Since the Commission was created by a joint powers agreement of Monticello and Big Lake, the Commission is an authorized municipal entity through which the state can render its assistance. * * - The consequences of Big Lake's withdrawal are twofold. First, according to the Joint and Cooperation Agreement for the Creation of an Airport Commission, the "Commission shall continue for an indefinite term unless either Monticello or Big Lake withdraws from the Commission." Monticello and Big Lake Joint and Cooperation Agreement -2- 9 I r for the creation of an Airport Commission, SXI(1), page 11, October 20, 1986. Further, upon the event of dissolution by withdrawal of either city, .. . the Commission shall determine the measures necessary to affect the dissolution and shall provide for the taking of such measures as promptly as circumstances permit, subject to the provisions of this agreement. Upon dissolution of the Commission, all remaining assets of the Commission, after payment of obligations, shall be distributed equally among the then existing Members. The Commission shall continue to exist after dissolution for such period, no longer than six months, as is necessary to conclude its affairs but for no other purpose. Id. at SXI(3), pages 11-12. Therefore, upon Sig Lake's withdrawal, the Commission must begin dissolution proceedings. Second, since the Commission will most likely be dissolved, the city of Monticello must decide if it wants to pursue the airport project. If so, it would be appropriate for Monticello to send a letter to MNDOT, announcing its intentions. In order for Monticello to have a basis for its decision to proceed, it will be necessary to enter into discussions with state officials so that budget estimates can be prepared. Therefore, I recommend that, upon approval by Monticello officials, a letter be prepared asking the state for its assistance in at least formulating a preliminary budget. In that way, Monticello can decide whether to -3(.):Xo - continue with the project or not. Further, it -,would enhance �. Monticello's ability to make a judgment on the feasibility of this project if budget estimates can be made and sources of financing identified. Finally, the cost to Monticello of proceeding to the next step should be minimal. It should include no more than six hours more of your time and my time, including completing the preparation of the letter, preparing for and attending the meeting with MN DOT officials. A C 04P, GENERAL FUND l-- SEPTEMBER AMOUNT CHECK N0. Quality Lawn 6 thee. Co. - Brush removal 6 lawn service 793.00 24783 The Plumbery - Supplies 10.65 24784 F. A. Tenny Co. - Repairs at Sen. Cit. bldg. 800.00 24785 Olson 6 Sons Electric - Repairs at City Hall 6 Water Dept. 518.18 24786 Dino's Deli - Food for Tom Eidem's party 140.65 24787 Curt's Sales 6 Storage - Ford pickup purchase 7,950.00 24788 Federal Mtce. 6 Cleaning - Final payment for cleaning 272.95 24789 Corrow Sanitation - Garbage contract payment 6,783.30 24790 S 6 L Excavating - Payment 03 - 86-7 cont. payment -Laur. Lane 23,189.16 24791 Dept. of Nat. Res. - Dep. Reg. fees 65.00 24792 Dept. of Nat. Res. - Dep. Reg. fees 98.00 24793 Jerry Hermes - Janitorial at library 216.67 24794 David Stromberg - Animal control expense 287.50 24795 Mrs. Beverly Johnson - Animal control expense 275.00 24796 State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded. 123.04 24797 ICMA Retirement Corp. - Payroll ded. 759.34 24798 State Treasurer - PERA W/H 1,347.58 24799 Commissioner of Revenue - SWT - August 1,936.00 24800 Wright County State Bank - FICA 6 FWT 4,565.58 24801 YMCA of Mpls. - Monthly contract payment 583.33 24802 Mr. Arve Grimsmo - Mayor salary 175.00 24803 Mr. Dan Blonigen - Council salary 125.00 24804 Mrs. Fran Fair - Council salary 125.00 24805 Mr. William Fair - Council salary 125.00 24806 Mr. Warren Smith - Council salary 125.00 24807 Mr. Richard Carlson - Planning Comm. salary 49.27 24808 Mr. Richard Martie - Planning Comm. salary 49.27 24809 Mrs. Joyce Dowling - Planning Co®, salary 49.27 24810 Mrs. Barbara Koropchak - Planning Comm. salary 49.27 24811 James Preusse - Cleaning city hall and fire hall 300.00 24812 Wilma Hayes - Inf. Center salary 124.87 24813 Mrs. Janette Leerasen - Inf. Center salary 77.62 24814 Corrow Sanitation - Landfill charges 1,504.40 24815 Monticello Dep. Reg. 12 - Reg. fee for Ford pickup 5.00 24816 Dept. of Nat. Res. - Dep. Reg. fees 25.00 24817 Dept. of Nat. Res. - Dep. Reg. fees 36.00 24818 Condon 6 Skelly Antique Motorcar Ins. - Fire Dept. ins. 48.75 24819 Willard Farnick - Reimb. for tools purchased - Fire Dept. 194.17 24820 Bud Schrupp - Adj. on bldg. permit - changed windows 10.45 24821 VOID -0- 24822 Mrs. Janette Leerssen - Inf. Center salary 21.37 24823 Mrs. Wilma Hayes - Inf. Center salary 73.12 24824 Mrs. Irene Foster - Reimb. for Dutch elm replacement 30.00 24825 Dept. of Nat. Res. - Dep. Reg. fees 22.00 24826 Dept. of Nat. Res. - Dep. Reg. fees 44.00 24827 Dept. of Nat. Res. - Dep. Reg. fees 54.00 24828 North Central Public Service - Utilities 79.76 24829 PSGI - WWTP contract payment 22,081.15 24830 Norwest Investment Services - Computer payment - Sept. 2,407.61 24831 Buffalo Vacuum - Vacuum cleaner for library 400.00 24832 Bridgewater Telephone - Telephone 922.79 26833 Rick Wolfsteller - Mileage allowance - Sept. 300.00 24834 State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll dad. 123.04 24835 ICMA Retirement - Payroll ded. 759.34 24836 State Treasurer - Ins. premiums - reimb. 27.00 24837 Northern States Power - Utilities 6,644.77 24838 - ---- - ---7 - - - -- -- - - - - - - - - --- - GENERAL FUND AMOUNT CHECK NO. Al S Julie Nelson - Sub. renewal 13.72 24839 AT b T Inf. Systems - Fire phone charges 3.96 24840 American National Bank b Trust - 60 Imp. bonds 27,237.50 24841 Minneapolis Star 6 Trib. - Planning 6 Zoning Adm. adv. 190.96 24842 Local /49 - Union dues 115.00 24843 Unocal - Gas - Fire Dept. 6 Water Dept. 82.39 24844 Sorbus - Annual mtce. agreement for toshiba printers 1,104.00 24845 Harry's Auto Supply - Parts, etc. 28.99 24846 National Bushing - Parts, etc. 40.67 24847 American National Bank b Trust - Issuance fee for 1987A bonds 655.19 24848 Granite Electronics - Equipment repair - Fire Dept. 54.50 24849 General Industrial Supply - Circuit tester - Pub. Wks. 13.50 24850 Geyer Rental Service - Rental of dolly, blades and washer 107.18 24851 Jim Hatch Sales - Gloves, vests, tow chains - St. Dept. 186.63 24852 Coast to Coast - House paint, hose, etc. 743.12 24853 Monticello Office Products - Misc. office supplies 98.23 24854 Monticello Printing - Envelopes 101.65 24855 Sery 1 Star Hdwe. - Rope, paint, thinner, etc. 300.79 24856 Wright County Auditor - Police contract payment 10,645.21 24857 Yona k Landfill - Brush - dump 15.00 24858 Watertower Paint 6 Repair - Mtce. contract on water tower 1,355.00 24859 Maus Tire Service - Repairs 58.80 24860 Mads Foods - Misc. supplies 183.30 24861 Communication Auditors - 2 batteries for Fire Dept. 62.92 24862 Extension Training Services - Fire Dept. training course 117.90 24863 Moon Motors - Parts 59.30 24864 Monticello Times - Legal publications 749.87 24865 Northern Oxygen service - Fire Dept. supplies 243.94 24866 Automatic Systems - Repairs at reservoir 224.00 24867 Unitog Rental Services - Uniform rental 128.00 24868 Biff's, Inc. - Laterine rental - Montissippl Park 70.39 24869 Bergstrom's Lawn 5 Garden - Blades 115.04 24870 Big Lake Equipment - Parts for Park Dept. 187.58 24871 Buffalo Bituminous - Gravel 73.92 24872 AME Ready Mix - Katerfal 22.83 24873 Simonson Lumbar - Misc. supplies 32.45 24874 Huu ne Society of Wright County - Animal control expense 95.00 24875 Cruys, Johnson - Computer services for August 290.00 24876 St. Michael Vat Clinic - Animal control services 55.00 24877 1987 State Fire Chief's Conf. - Reg. fee for W. Farnick 95.00 24878 Gerald Barthel - Reimb. for sever service costa 650.00 24879 Doug Pitt - Reisb. for sever service costs 2,000.00 24880 Patty Cash - Ralmb. petty cash fund 60.83 24881 David Stromberg - Animal control services 287.50 24882 Jerry Hermes - Janitorial at library 216.67 24883 Monticello Ford, Inc. - Down psymt. for old Mont. Ford bldg. 26,500.00 24884 Wright County State Bank - FICA i FWT thru 9/15 4,613.94 26885 State Treasurer - PERA W/H 1,366.51 24886 Anoka County Social Services - Payroll dad. 204.00 24887 Date Mgmt. Design - Computer equipment 19,600.61 24888 The Plusbery - Soap dispenser 4 soap for City Hall 192.60 24869 Alb inson's - Labor performed at Public Works garage 26.50 24890 Audio Communications - Radio for new Ford pickup 222.70 24891 Curran Nielson Co. - Inv. roof leaks at Library 90.00 24892 Bre ntsson Const. - Demolition of Saxon house 6 smotor patrol 6,102.00 26893 -2- GENERAL FUND Fair's Garden Center - Replacement trees Simplex Time Recorder - Annual mtce. agreement on city clock American Management Assoc. - Membership dues - City Adm. Schmidt -Green Const. - 4th St. Perk labor Dept. of Nat. Res. - Dep. Reg. fees Dept. of Nat. Res. - Dep. Reg. fees U. S. Post Office - Postage Monticello Fire Dept. - Salaries VOID VOID League of MN. Cities Ins. Trust - Workmen's Comp. premium Marco Business Products - Paper, ribbons, etc. Principal Mutual Life Ina. - Group Ins. Voss Electric - Light bulbs Glass Hut - 2 rolls butyl Little Mountain Flowers - Plant Flicker's T. V. - 2 speakers for Fire Dept. Feedrite Controls - Supplies - Water Dept. Holmes 6 Graven - Ford bldg. expense - tax increment Sentry Systems - Alarm systems atce. Fyle's Excavating - Water line installed at Bland res. P 6 H Warehouse Sales - Sprinklers for softball fields Sweeney Brothers - Shafts, rivets and gaskets - Austen, West. Bowman Barnes Dist. - Wood creeper and drill - Public Wks. Dahlgren. Shardlow - Streetscape expense Braun Engineering - Lauring Lane testing Ben Franklin - Shades (Bland':), fila, frame Mobil 011 Credit Corp. - Gas - Walt's van Olson 6 Sons - Repro. at Bland's, lift stations, etc. MN. Govt. Finance Officer's Assoc. - Conf. reg. for R. Wolf. DYNA Systems - Screw extractor with drill - R. Mack Quality Lawn 6 Mtce. - Retaining wall Monticello American Legion - 2 flags Schiilewaert Landscaping - Tree removal fees State Treasurer - ?ERA W/H Safety Kleen Corp. - Maintenance of equipment - Public Wits. S 6 L Excavating Co. - Payment /4 - Lauring Lane project Trueman Welter* - Bolt and tube General Industrial Supply - Fire hose - Fire Dept. Olson 6 Sons Electric - Repairs at Sen. Cit. Bldg. Clarey's Equip. - Fire extinguishers and tape - Fir* Dept. 011ie Koropchak - Milesg* expense to seminar MN. Conway Fira 4 Safety - Fire Dept. supplies Dept. of Not. Res. - Dep. Rag. fees Dept. of Nat. Ras. - Dep. Rag. fees Dept. of Nat. Res. - bap. Reg. fees A-1 Security Locksmiths - Re -keyed locks AMOUNT 603.77 121.80 125.00 2,990.00 35.00 40.00 500.00 1,472.40 -0- -0- 31,402.00 252.85 4,876.59 173.88 17.00 60.80 59.90 1,575.04 108.00 90.00 650.00 397.79 3,276.49 61.45 420.69 221.05 136.75 17.38 316.57 85.00 88.81 1.743.56 129.00 1.400.00 461.22 40.00 27,234.35 140.20 288.00 488.19 169.30 60.00 69.00 47.00 40.00 22.00 34.00 Payroll for August 25.783.09 TOTAL GENERAL DISSURSDWNTS - SEPT. $302,102.53 CHECK NO. 24894 24895 24896 24897 24898 24899 24900 24901 24902 24903 24904 24905 24906 24907 24908 24909 24910 24911 24912 24913 24914 24915 24916 24917 24918 24919 24920 24921 24922 24923 24924 24925 24926 24927 24928 24929 24930 24431 24932 24933 24934 24935 24936 24937 24938 24939 24940 LIQUOR FUND LIQUOR DISBURSEMENTS -- SEPTEMBER AMOUNT CHECK NO. Commissioner of Revenue - Sales for July 9,852.95 13273 Ed Phillipe 6 Sons - Liquor 772.66 13274 City of Monticello - Reimb. by Liquor for audit fee 1,225.00 13275 Griggs, Cooper - Liquor 3,092.41 13276 The Plumbery - Air filters 12.49 13277 Olson b Sons Electric - Service on parking lot b air cond. 450.59 13278 City of Monticello - Postage reimburament 175.00 13279 Quality Wine - Liquor 648.69 13280 Griggs, Cooper - Liquor 1.941.13 13281 Johnson Bro. Liquor - Liquor 819.72 13282 Ed Phillips 5 Sons - Liquor 7,635.65 13283 Eagle Wine Co. - Liquor 368.92 13284 State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded. 170.00 13285 Wright County State Bank - FICA b FWT taxes 636.44 13286 Commissioner of Revenue - SWT 220.00 13287 State Treasurer - PERA W/H 194.68 13288 Johnson Bros. Liquor - Liquor 884.10 13289 Griggs, Cooper - Liquor 4.607.27 13290 North Central Public Service - Utilities 6.48 13291 Northern States Power - Utilities 848.60 13292 Rubald Beverage Co. - Wine purchase 135.60 13293 Thorpe Dist. Co. - Beer 8,673.40 13294 Maus Foods - Store expense 4.84 13295 Coast to Coast - Store expense 17.72 13296 Cloudy Town Dist. - Misc. mdae. 209.20 13297 Stromquist Dist. - beer 78.75 13298 Grosslein Beverage - Beer 17.290.14 13299 Bernick's Pepsi Cola - Misc, mdse. 407.25 13300 Seven -Up Bottling - Misc. aides. 215.30 13301 Monticello Times - Adv. 92.00 13302 Kolles Sanitation - Garbage contract 133.50 13303 Jude Candy 6 Tobacco - Misc. mdse. 738.25 13304 Monticello Office Products - Office supplies 33.99 13305 Granite City Jobbing Co. - Supplies 162.05 13306 Viking Coca Cola - Misc. aides. 411.50 13307 MN. Bar Supply - Supplies 157.20 13308 a Dick Beverage - Beer 1,737.50 13309 Day Dist. Co. - Beer, etc. 1,126.55 13310 Quality Wine - Wine purchase 1,383.19 13311 Ed Phillipa 6 Sons - Liquor 1.806.87 13312 NCR Corp. - Adding machine ribbons 176.72 13313 McDowall Co. - Repairs for air conditioner 140.60 13314 Simonson Lumber Co. - Store repair 11.73 13315 Viking Int . Products - Garbage can liners 12.74 13316 Wright Way, Inc. - Adv. 60.00 13317 P b H Warehouse Sales - Irrigation system supplies 530.21 13318 Morrell Transfer - Freight charges 39.00 13319 Coast to Coast - Misc. supplies 93.04 13320 Maus Foods - Store expense 7.32 13321 Liefert Trucking - Freight 375.18 13322 3ridgavater Telephone - Telephone expense 69.65 13323 Dahlheimer Dist. Co. - Beer 24.146.70 13324 Wright County State Bank - FICA 6 FWT 645.52 13325 State Capitcol Credit Union - Payroll dad. 170.00 13326 Payroll for August 3,704.35 TOTAL LIQUOR DISBURSEMENTS - SEPTEMBER $124,695.85 LIQUOR FV1ID AMOUNT CHECK NO. Griggs, Cooper b Co. - Liquor 1,348.90 13327 Eagle Wine Co. - Liquor 532.41 13328 Cragg Signs - 1/3 down payment on sign for Liquor Store 3,334.00 13329 State Treasurer - PERA 198.74 13330 Quality Wine - Liquor 551.88 13331 Olson d Sons Electric - Parking lot lights labor 1,063.80 13332 Gruys, Johnson - Computer services 110.00 13333 The Plumbery - Irrigation system parts 17.81 13334 Schmidt -Green Construction - Raise curb at Liquor Store 175.00 13335 Ron's Ice Co. - Ice purchase 806.35 13336 Ed Phillips b Sons - Liquor 2,033.75 13337 League of MN. Cities Ina. Trust - Workmen's Comp. premium 1,403.00 13338 Century Lab - Glass cleaner 76.78 13339 Principal Mutual Life - Group Ins. 404.50 13340 P 6 t1 Warehouse Sales - Irrigation system supplies 20.36 13341 State Treasurer - PERA 95.94 13342 Johnson Bros. - Liquor 2,031.28 13343 Service Master of Monticello - Clean carpet at Store 150.00 13344 Commissioner of Revenue - Sales tax for August 8,717.86 13345 Johnson Bros. Liquor - Liquor 2,070.15 13346 Payroll for August 3,704.35 TOTAL LIQUOR DISBURSEMENTS - SEPTEMBER $124,695.85 INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 1. Fire Hall Property Trade. Mr. Joe O'Connor, owner of the Monti Truck Repair adjacent to the former Monticello Ford Building on Broadway, contacted me asking if the City of Monticello would have any interest in trading his property for the old fire hall site. Mr. O'Connor felt the fire hall building would be ideally suited for his truck repair business and indicated a willingness to trade properties even up and he would also demolish his old building. I informed Mr. O'Connor that I didn't think his proposal would meet council approval; and as City Administrator, I feel there are a number of deficiencies in Mr. O'Connor's offer. First of all, the size of the building he currently owns is probably less than half of the size of the fire hall complex. Secondly, the City Hall building is in much better shape than his property, and this doesn't appear to be an equal trade. Regardless of the City's interest in acquiring Mr. O'Connor's property now that the Housing and Redevelopment Authority is in the process of completing the purchase of the Flake building adjacent to the truck repair facility, is that I don't feel the truck repair business Mr. O'Connor has would be an appropriate use in the downtown area at the old fire hall site. I can envision many problems with vehicles being parked outside, including semi -trailers. The City would be eliminating one problem from Broadway and diverting it to a side street still within the core business district, which seems inappropriate. Another problem with the proposed use of the old fire hall for a truck repair business would be possible violation of the Health Department regulations because of the use of diesel fuel, gas, and other solvents commonly used in a truck repair business. Health Department regulations control what type of possible contaminants can be stored and used adjacent to a city well, and I feel this would be a possible violation to allow such a use. Although I believe the entire Council and Housing and Redevelopment Authority representative would like to see the Monti Truck Repair relocated to the proper zoning district within Monticello, I am not in favor of this option as a way of acquiring property on Broadway for renovation. I don't believe in the long run the City would be solving any problems but just shifting them to a different location. If the City Council does not agree with my position and would like me to continue negotiations with Mr. O'Connor, I will do so, but if it is your consensus that this fire hall site would not be appropriate for a truck repair business, I will so inform Mr. O'Connor that the City is not interested in a trade at this time. American Legion Club Property Offer. Approximately a week ago, I sent each Council member a memo on the status of Karen Hanson's Human Rights Conplaint and also requested feedback from Council members if they were at all interested in discussions with the American Legion Club regarding possible purchase of their property for a Senior Citizen Center relocation. I had previously indicated to the Y.. Informational Items Page 2 Legion Club representatives that at this time the City has not indicated any desire in seeking another location for the Senior Citizen Center; and because of the present Senior Citizen Center Director's conflict, I didn't feel the Council would be looking at a new facility until the Director's position is resolved. Unless the Council members direct me otherwise, I will be informing the Legion Club representatives that the City at the present time does not have an interest in acquiring their property for the Senior Citizen Center or other purposes. PIDIVIDUAt PEC.MIT ACTIVITY REPORT . MONTH OF AUGUST . 1937 �tERMIT DESCRIPTION Pr NAME/LOCATION VALUAT i ON U T.BER 87.1090 Attached Garage 10 Barbar. Ruark/102 Marvin Clreod Rd. 5 3,000.00 87.7092 Building Addition iC Renzi Rotor./tOt Thomss Park Drive 6,000.00 87.1093 Nouse R Garage R6a2d.d 1D Nen Relandar/305 Prairla Rd. 7,000.00 87.1094Doak ,D Tom 6 Pam Lindguiat/120 Hillcrest Rd. 1,000.00 87.1095 Boos. and Garage IF Ron White Conatruetion/307 MIX 8t. 61,700.00 87.1096 Nou.• 4 Garage Root R.ahin93. .D alis Umgvits/618 vast River at. 2,000.00 87.1097 Nowa Raahingle 6 Reside ,D, Bruce kinggenborg/315 Cast 3rd St. 7,000.90 87.1098 Oeak 8 Corrine Christianson/222 Marvin 2.000.00 C1•ood Ad. 87.1099 House Peshingle .D Hie".I Oletel/106 Coat 4th at. 600.00 07.1100 Huua• Reshin9le M Ron Rett/510 El. at. 1,500.00 87.1101 Nou.e Res id. .D rei-ch rubart/1101 vest Rlvor at. 1,500.00 87-1102 House Neahin9le .D Gary' ft -y./204 Wright 8t. 1.000.00 67.1103 Bulldln9 Demolition 1U Bright County Statei aank/101 Z. Odry, .00 67.1104 Naua. P-II1.91e D .Liter bell/611 W. 4th 8t. TOTALS -1100,10 iB , PIAN Pry1ER 67.1093 NOua. 6 Garage ► Ron White Construction/307 RN 9t. $ 303.61 TOTAL PLAN REVIEW 5 303.64 TOTAL REVEWUL 1 1,313.64 J rrt , PERMIT SURCHARGE, PLUMBING SURCHARGr 0 30.00 3 1.50 _61.00 2.00 5 25.00 3 .50 90.00 3.50 30.00 .50 467.15 30.95 24.00 .50 20.00 .50 90.00 3.50 20.00 .50 15.00 .50 15.00 .50 15.00 .50 15.00 .60 10.00 .50 15.00 50 5913.15 8-4-6-87 5 49.00 31.00 OT lurrimuo It4,thly NtIldl% Dcportmrnt Rcport _ 1 ' H.,th of •r 1987 la.! '11,1• �.me-}Yr�1T'LaaL Tau' '7n.f. leer PDUIITS ISSUED 1470, th JULY Ilnth AUGUST I.a.L Tear To DaLo 1'o O.L. 1 • IIL910PI7T1 AL Number - B 10 11 69 67 • Valuation { 234,300.00 S 86,800.00 1 413,)60.00 11.21. .1180.00 1 3,913,700.00 fa. e' 2,750.07 1,075.79 ],311.40 25,676,06 32,98:.70 Surclnnrge. 115.90 42.35 2]1.15 2,626.93 1,955.04 ' OOIV07ICIAL llumber 3 1 3 12 IB , Vnluetlml 29,300.00 ,6,000.00 527,100.00 2,089,100.00 '- 693,130.00 • Feo. 33)•70' 81.00 2,656.01- • 9,718.71 . 5,177.77 ' Surcharge. 14.65 3.00 .` 263.55 ,• 1,014.45 350.80 LNWSTUTAL llumber 1 1 1 * ValY. Llan 100, Soj. 00 100,500.00 752;000.00 _ Fee. 710.57 71:,57 4,612.57 Ourchargee 50.25 50.25 776.00 PLUIMING 11-ber 5 2 6 52 44 • Fee. 140.00 49.00 209.00 1,716.00 1,523.00 _- Ourcharges 2.50 1.00 3.00 26.00 22.00 _ 01710t9 Number 4 3 1 5 11 VnluaLSo11 77,400.00 ),000.00 12,860.00 03,400.00 ' lase 60].50 60.00 10.00 129.10 742. SO Surcln.rge. 30.00 1.50 .50 7.40 41.50 -16 ...� .. ' .22 .. _ ..159 0 0 0 0 141 TOTAL N0. P17UIII5 20 5,442,230.00 ' TOTAL VAII)ATION 341.000.00 95.000 1,069,960.00 7 456 a4e-00 , TIT yrn 7.627.07 1.265.79 5,934.98 37.909.24 45.044.6L •,Oral 6UnCUAna" 171.05 47.89 536.45 3-7- 14 7 ^ ' ' CURPFIrr 11177711 _ . TFRI Num4er to jlptq rF)UUT IIAI1UII9 Number• V.lustld, PHL111 j_ SUIIL7Wll:g- Tera YCnr LRet 9001'_ 51Angla Family 1 1 770.79 1 30.65 1 61',700.00 26 35 Duple: 2 6 IA1ltt-family 3 S Co-rclal 7 2 111du atri a I I Ree; C -p. 1 30.00 1.50' 3,000.00 6 7 51 gna 00 rubric building, , 0 0 ALTIIIATIUII al RWAM Walling. 0 275.00 10.00 2, 100.001 30 3y4 ' comaercl el 1 01.00 3.00 6,000.00 16 •10 L,dU.trl al I• 0 � 0 , . 1'WI07 U10 1 All typo. 2 49.00 1.00 .00 44 52 ACCCSSORT 6TRUC1URCb ' • Ovlminp Pool. Oac.. 2 50.00 1.00 3.000.00 9 2 TLIU'OIU01 PI:NUT i l 0 0 D1710LIT1011 1 ' 10.00 .50 •' .0,0,E 1 7 1• TOTALS 16• '1,265.79 47155 95.000J00 141 199 1 1 I